It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ron Paul The Anarchist

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   
I love this video showing the statements by Ron Paul that demonstrate his commitment to voluntary government.

Beautifully done.

All Austrian economists who believe in their work are anarcho-capitalists.

Voluntarism, Anarcho-capitalism, and Agorism, all mean roughly the same thing. I like to use the term Anarchism because it is such a volatile reaction provoking word. No rulers. It's much more powerful than voluntarism.



Here are a few great videos that define voluntarism:







edit on 18-8-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Having trouble viewing the video but I just want to say that Anarchy is wrong and will never work
Here's an example
There's mass anarchy in govt. and it's not in your favor



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Having trouble viewing the video but I just want to say that Anarchy is wrong and will never work
Here's an example
There's mass anarchy in govt. and it's not in your favor


I take it you believe democracy and constitutionally limited government "work".

Regardless of how many wars, regulations, and victimless crimes they create.



edit on 18-8-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Ron Paul will never win because of his comments about Medicare/Medicare/Social Security.

It's a pipe dream to think that'll play outside of a very small minority.

He only looks sane in a field that chooses Bachmann... put him against Obama, who will say, "Ron Paul says the program millions use to afford medicine is illegal".

He won't win.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
Ron Paul will never win because of his comments about Medicare/Medicare/Social Security.

It's a pipe dream to think that'll play outside of a very small minority.

He only looks sane in a field that chooses Bachmann... put him against Obama, who will say, "Ron Paul says the program millions use to afford medicine is illegal".

He won't win.



Ron Paul could not single handedly abolish medicare and social security as president. I think most rational people realize this. So his stance on those programs is pretty much irrelevant. What is relevant is that he would be able to end the wars immediately.



edit on 18-8-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Having trouble viewing the video but I just want to say that Anarchy is wrong and will never work
Here's an example
There's mass anarchy in govt. and it's not in your favor


I take it you believe (Dont you mean Republic?democracy and constitutionally limited government "work".(It did before, that's how we became a superpower, ooh and the invention of the Blast furnace thanks to Bessemer...

Regardless of how many wars, regulations, and victimless crimes they create.



I wanted to add that Things worked really good after Jackson kiled the banks a long time ago, after 1913 things have been going to hell for alot of people.. Today we see no middle class anymore, its either rich or ghetto.. People who make 40 50g used to be living pretty good, now they are as bad as the people on welfare because they cant pay for thier house and their Porsche or something.. But you get my jist.. Out money was better then and its garbage now... what can we do.. Limit government and that will fix alot of things..

I also wanted to help with this post by adding this video.. its a morons guild to how everyone's being screwed..


edit on 8/18/2011 by ThichHeaded because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
Ron Paul will never win because of his comments about Medicare/Medicare/Social Security.

It's a pipe dream to think that'll play outside of a very small minority.

He only looks sane in a field that chooses Bachmann... put him against Obama, who will say, "Ron Paul says the program millions use to afford medicine is illegal".

He won't win.



Ron Paul could not single handedly abolish medicare and social security as president. I think most rational people realize this. So his stance on those programs is pretty much irrelevant. What is relevant is that he would be able to end the wars immediately.



edit on 18-8-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)


Obama couldn't single-handedly save/destroy the economy or kill Osama; people invest a lot of hope into Presidents and faith... anyone who wants to destroy those programs, or thinks and says publicly that they are anti-American won't win. And won't be nominated.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


see, the thing is at you wouldnt need medicaid because you SS checks would come and they wouldnt lose it all on taxes, all kinds of beurocratic garbage. you dont need medicaid if you lose that giant burden. thats just not how things work now, so it seems inconcievabe that people will actually get to spend their money rather than send it to a government we arent convinced even cares about us. sales tax alone is enough to fund us (when we arent spending like the ship is sinking) and people actually have money to spend. you know, the money they pick out of your check every week etc.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
I take it you believe democracy and constitutionally limited government "work".
Regardless of how many wars, regulations, and victimless crimes they create.

Ummm...
How many wars did constitutionally limited Govt. create?



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenerationXisMarching
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


see, the thing is at you wouldnt need medicaid because you SS checks would come and they wouldnt lose it all on taxes, all kinds of beurocratic garbage. you dont need medicaid if you lose that giant burden. thats just not how things work now, so it seems inconceivable that people will actually get to spend their money rather than send it to a government we arent convinced even cares about us. sales tax alone is enough to fund us (when we arent spending like the ship is sinking) and people actually have money to spend. you know, the money they pick out of your check every week etc.


sigh, that's not even vaguely true... there's sooooooo many disabled people that wouldn't get SS and even if they somehow did it wouldn't cover insurance on hugely expensive meds...

I have lived and worked and paid taxes in three countries and I can tell you that the amount of taxes Americans pay isn't absurd, it's what they get for them... cutting programs that help poor and retired and disabled people isn't a great plan... though I do think Paul is right about Iran, at least he knew the history...

But there again, the Right is DEEPLY in the pockets of the military contractors and won't let that be threatened... Ron Paul is an ideologue in a political game.... it won't work out for him or his supporters...



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by mnemeth1
I take it you believe democracy and constitutionally limited government "work".
Regardless of how many wars, regulations, and victimless crimes they create.

Ummm...
How many wars did constitutionally limited Govt. create?

Many.

The U.S currently has a constitutionally limited government. U.S government ignores the constitution but the constitution still limits it from doing these things. The constitution simply can't enforce itself. It was a great idea, but it doesn't work in practice.
edit on 18-8-2011 by Rockdisjoint because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ThichHeaded
 


Read some history by Murray Rothbard or Tom Woods.

You'll change your tune about things "working well" after Jackson killed the banks.

Consider the Civil War for starters.

Slavery was an entirely State created and State imposed institution.

In fact, the war started because the North refused to enforce fugitive slave laws.



edit on 18-8-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Every generation will be faced with the challenge of holding together America and keeping the freedom's instilled which make her the greatest nation in the history of man kind or the Universe for all I #ing care...

It is not a God Damned video game people....This is real life and it is up to all of us no matter how rich or poor to at least ensure that man is free on these shores from an oppressive government that which does not serve the people by which the people see adequately charged with.

I really dislike this class warfare bs...Who cares who is wealthy and who is not...Is your main goal in life not to make sure you have food on the table, clothing, shelter, and an education? My Jesus what could be more simple than this...99% of the reason people are in the situations they find themselves in is because of their own actions they have made in the past. It is not governments job to feel sorry for you... It is your Duty as a citizen to take care of yourself with an environment in which government has allowed you to do so.

Ron Paul is not an Anarchist he is for a free society with reasonable taxation that is representative and not criminally endowed. If you want to know why Canada is doing good...Its because the government has become reduced in size and the corp tax rate is at 16.8 percent going down to 15 vs our 35%... Is it that hard to wonder why no one wants to be doing business here? Come on people its not personal its business and its the natural manure of things.

There will aways be some form of government...Its our job to make sure its always doing as the people call for...thats the bottom line.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Old77
 


I disagree.

I think he is an anarchist.

The vast majority of Austrian economists are anarchists.

It is the only logical position to have.

If Ron Paul could push a button and eliminate the coercively funded State tomorrow, I am certain he would push it.



edit on 18-8-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
The U.S currently has a constitutionally limited government. U.S government ignores the constitution but the constitution still limits it from doing these things. The constitution simply can't enforce itself. It was a great idea, but it doesn't work in practice.

The U.S. currently does NOT have a constitutionally limited Govt.
Look at all the wars and how big Govt. is becoming

Oh that's not what you meant?

Hey look at that mother across the street, her son just robbed a bank
But she screams he's a good boy, she said it so it must be true
But being a good boy just doesn't work in practice

edit on 18-8-2011 by ModernAcademia because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


Its silly to think that because a guy who calls himself president "wants", believes in, or reads something.. it will automatically become so.

Newsflash.. Dr. Paul wants to end the fed.. but he wont be able to, unless maybe he gets the DC mafia to fear the millions of unwashed masses backing his cause.. more than they fear the so called "TPTB" / shadowy overlords / illuminati / 4th reich / gop & dnc leadership / church.. whichever moniker you attribute to the hidden-hands who manipulate world stage actors... the directors of this global horror show.

Part of me believes Dr. Paul, along with alex jones, beck, limbaugh, hannity.. all those people on TV/radio are placed in the media, to a certain extent, for the sole purpose of articulating "our" relative rage.

Gee look, that guy on TV articulates my rage!!.. the (my) message is getting out there!! the (my relative) truth will appeal to like minded patriots / Americans who will rally in large numbers to beat this tyranny!! (as I/we see it!!) ... only thing is, change.. always promised, never happens.
edit on 18-8-2011 by GovtFlu because: spelling



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by GovtFlu
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


Part of me believes Dr. Paul, along with alex jones, beck, limbaugh, hannity.. all those people on TV/radio are placed in the media, to a certain extent, for the sole purpose of articulating "our" relative rage.



Except Ron Paul has a 30* year track record of doing exactly what he says and never flip flopping on his views in all that time unlike the other hacks mentioned....



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
I love this video showing the statements by Ron Paul that demonstrate his commitment to voluntary government.

Beautifully done.


While being a career politician sucking at your teat, paid in taxes he has stolen from you, without which he could not invest so heavily in federally-subsidized mining which grants him a further tax break?


All Austrian economists who believe in their work are anarcho-capitalists.


History has shown them to be flat-out fascists, actually. With a dash of theocracy.


Voluntarism, Anarcho-capitalism, and Agorism, all mean roughly the same thing. I like to use the term Anarchism because it is such a volatile reaction provoking word. No rulers. It's much more powerful than voluntarism.


And when I eat grapes, I like to call them kittens because it gets a reaction.
These concepts are not actually anarchism. They're simply replacing elected government with oligarchical rule.
edit on 19/8/2011 by TheWalkingFox because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 02:10 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


What a load of penguin POOP!!!

Ron Paul is NOT an anarchist. Do you even know the definition of the word?

an·ar·chist   /ˈænərkɪst/ Show Spelled[an-er-kist] Show IPA
noun
1. a person who advocates or believes in anarchy or anarchism.
2. a person who seeks to overturn by violence all constituted forms and institutions of society and government, with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in the place of that destroyed.
3. a person who promotes disorder or excites revolt against any established rule, law, or custom.
dictionary.reference.com...

There's a HUGE difference between limited government and NO government. How could a man who stands firmly and has done so for over 39 yrs in the House, in defense of our Constitution be accused by you of being an anarchist based on preference for an economic theory?

Ridiculous. Next I'll see a thread "Ron Paul Eats Innocent, Cudly Kittens".

The HOAX forum might be a good place for this thread.

edit on 19-8-2011 by robyn because: grammar



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by robyn
 


Hilarious thing is, Mnemeth meant it as a compliment.

Oh well



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join