President Ron Paul?

[Darren Dirt]

^ what THEY said.

HOWEVER.

The fact is that hundreds of millions so-called "American Citizens" *do* believe in the lie, and so will be willing to die/kill for the system into which any kind of "political support" is offered. So if Dr. No is before the cameras raising issues and giving simple illustrations etc. that get people thinking "hey why didn't Bush/Kerry bring these things up last time, I never though about that, and what's this con-stitution thing he keeps referring to?" then *because* he's a supposed "candidate" he will (sad, I know) be given more "credibility" in the eyes (and weak minds) of these lie-believers.

And perhaps a few thousand of them will Google "Ron Paul". And find at the top of the list his Lew Rockwell archives (#5 right now), and start reading... and find OTHER LR columnists who are even less statist-leaning. and then....

who knows what.

Better than Pat Robertson or similar being up there at the podium before the cameras saying infidels who don't hold to his morality should be put to death...

[NonEntity]

You may be right, Darren.

But... (you knew there I was gonna be a butt, didn't you?)

I really do think that all of it* hinges on the idea that it is okay for someone to have "authority" over others, and as long as that idea is not dealt with then nothing else, absolutely nothing else, matters.

* "it" being the general mess that we all reject on one level or another that results from someone or somegroup having or holding power over other peaceable people. "it" being the idea that there is some "True" way that people are supposed to think and live and behave, and they need to be held to that way even when they are minding their own business and interfering not at all in allowing others to go about their lives as they please.

- NonE

P.S. It's like the idea that we need government to have the sole ability to use force to provide justice. Government being nothing but men and women, how is it that they will not become the oppressors that they are expected to protect everyone else from. It is simply logically, rationally, realistically an insane proposition. 2 plus 2 will NEVER equal five!

P.P.S. Ron Paul is perhaps, now that I think of it, the very WORST person "we" could have running or even winning in that he might very well be the most convincing argument for the idea that government can be good. It's like pointing out all of the good things that the child molester has done for his community.

[eye2i2hear]

nonentity said:

You may be right, Darren.

^ what he said.

;D

( * )
My "butt" being that its theoretical whether or not zero State is doable in the first place; and so "limited" may be the only "practical" approach/human-practice* solution... *[sort of like a "medical practice"?]

That's not to say I support any individual being forced to violate his/her conscience. And I suppose its also part of the human solution/human practice that at some point of State growth (that is equally human-nature/inevitable) individuals in order to honor their conscience will be forced to curtail enforcement (quote Tommy Jefferson here).

I don't like/prefer this state/State of nature. But then I don't like a lot of other quite natural realities of "life". I dunno, but maybe "leaders" are as inevitable as parents-- neither of which is individual choice [unnatural]? (or at least until the abuse is "blatant")

[note: by the word "State" i mean collective Authority/"Government"]

[NonEntity]

Well, 2i2,

I keep coming back to what I know about the Somali Customary Law and how their culture seems to have a strong understanding and respect for individual voluntary choices. I'm sure I'm ignorant on much of all this, and I'm not claiming that they have honed human relations to mythical perfection, however it does seem to me that they HAVE worked out a system which works far better than the governmental concept does, and so I try to keep that idea alive and well, at least in MY mind, if nowhere else.

- NonE

[NonEntity]

2i2,

As to your question regarding whether or not it is "doable," I would suggest that circumnavigation of the earth is entirely impossible if one has the view that the earth is flat.

Until one grasps the roundness of it all, there is not the slightest chance of the proverbial snowball in hell that someone will even give it a try.

- NonE

[eye2i2hear]

nonentity said:

As to your question regarding whether or not it is "doable," I would suggest that circumnavigation of the earth is entirely impossible if one has the view that the earth is flat.

Until one grasps the roundness of it all, there is not the slightest chance of the proverbial snowball in hell that someone will even give it a try.

NonE,

I feel I grasp what you're swinging at and believe me, it is my hope that it can at least be given a try. Perhaps we could find a better analogy than the circumnavigation one tho, as that's an individual issue where no State is a collective one (getting more than one's self in one boat or others taking the next step towards the flat horizon until arriving back where one began, rather than blocking mine, saying it's "trespassing"... )...?

I'd hoped my analogy of parent/child as a natural "order" (mandate) would convey what discourages me in my no Parental State hopes. Parents are seldom up for perfection in child rearing, but its better than the alternative. I honestly do wonder if it's naturally possible/inherently impossible. [see again, inherent "defense" of property private for just one mountain between here and the flat horizon]

Either way, any if not all disheartenment is perhaps centered in a "my" generation consideration/perspective (see Thomas Paine's "The Age of Reason" authorship date and compare to this "age"). My deeper hope is for a "next" one at least. Where perhaps our labors of (in my case, grasping at) writing now will see the no State globe navigated then...

My apologies for when I let my focus slip show here (and there)~

[NonEntity]

eye2i2hear said:

Perhaps we could find a better analogy than the circumnavigation one tho, as that's an individual issue where no State is a collective one (getting more than one's self in one boat or others taking the next step towards the flat horizon until arriving back where one began, rather than blocking mine, saying it's "trespassing"... )...?

I think that that is exactly my point, rather than the problem with my point. Until each person is seen as an entity due respect, and not just one unit of a collective, there is no hope. For in the consciousness of the collective, individuals are always subject to abandonment for the good of the collective. I think that this is exactly backwards. Collective action is only good when it is voluntary, which means when it is secondary to the individual. I know that evolutionarily this may not be correct, and so it may be a hard won battle, but still, if we as humans are going to separate ourselves from pure animal instinct and use reason to give meaning to our lives, I see no other way.

And please don't misinterpret me as saying that an individual can do anything as long as it suits his or her needs and desires. That is most certainly not at all what I am saying.

- NonE

[eye2i2hear]

I understand that point. And honestly, something opposing it is not what I meant in my expression.

I see the individual, but I also "see" the individuals. I can reach an individual but can not reach individuals-- at least at a rate that's productive/relative to my life time. Regarding circumnavigation of the earth, for the most part that's wide open spaces (with variations according to where any individual is, and where individuals are). And so again, relative to the analogy, I individually can disprove-- to myself --the "flat" perception (given the individual time/resources, of course). However I individually can not "navigate" the no State, for of course it doesn't exist-- except as individuals standing collectively all around me waiting for me to try to it (" plead" as I may). Sadly, navigating the no State is a tiny horizontally circular task rather than an expansively globally round one. Where obviously these "flat earth" (State-think) individuals are not pondering our discussion here and for the most part are not in a "round" State of mind (tho many seem in a "global State" of mind) and so are preventing me from even trying it practically.

Its a bit of a catch 22 to me. Its both individuals and not individuals one has to see. Where ultimately, it takes changing (challenging?) each individuals position, of course. Where I'm individually not seeing much practical change about me.

[Darren Dirt]

Libertarian Greg "Fossilman" Raymer May Run for VP in US?

Dec 19 2006, 09:14

There have been poker playing presidents and vice presidents in the United States in the past, but none of the poker caliber of 2004 World Series of Poker champion Greg "The Fossilman" Raymer. Raymer, who has been vocal in his support of the poker playing community through his affiliation with the Poker Players Alliance, mentioned in an interview with PokerNews that his name has been mentioned by folks at the Libertarian Party in conjunction with a 2008 VP ticket.

Raymer is a Libertarian who, except for a few points, supports the platform of that party.

Q: Generally, I promise not to mention politics while interviewing someone outside that domain, but, since you gave me permission beforehand, allow me to ask you what your political inclinations are?

A: My mindset is very libertarian. I believe in individual freedom, and that you should be allowed to do anything you wish that does not directly harm another person. I also believe that you are responsible for yourself, and that the government has no DUTY to help you (except to protect you from others).

That does not mean I am against all government programs that help people, but such programs should not be undertaken merely because they help people, but only if they are economically beneficial to the majority.



Q: I too am a Libertarian, and am frankly surprised that more poker players are not. Isn't personal freedom the major benefit to becoming a professional poker player in the first place? One comes and goes as they please, and avoids statist bureaucracies altogether. Even better, you're free from having to deposit your brain into the self-mutilating, anti-intellectual cauldron of political correctness.

A: Every successful poker player is intelligent enough to succeed in almost any career, but many of them are much too independent in their attitude to do well in modern corporate America. In a team environment, it is sometimes more important to get along than it is to be right, but most of us poker players just want to be right.

Having said that, my experience with large corporations makes me believe that getting along and being inclusive and such ideas are taking over to the point that there is not enough focus on getting the job done right. To work as a team, you need to not be selfish, but you shouldn't take it so far that you favor the mediocrity of the group over getting the job done as intelligently and perfectly as possible.

Basically, in most modern American bureaucracies (and probably most of the rest of the world, though I wouldn't know first-hand) the balance is out of whack, and there is too much focus on the team, and not enough focus on the results.

... jeepers, a lot of Fossilman's views re. personal freedom *and* typical corporate careers are pretty darn familiar to yours truly ...

Too bad it can't be a "Dr. No/Fossilman" LP ticket

[NonEntity]

But note that he does believe in the "greatest good for the greatest number":

That does not mean I am against all government programs that help people, but such programs should not be undertaken merely because they help people, but only if they are economically beneficial to the majority.

Cognitive dissonance anyone?

- NonE

[Darren Dirt]

yes, yes, of course... hence my wording: "a lot of..."

famous people tend to not publicly say "the government shouldn't feed and educate poverty-stricken children!"

[eye2i2hear]

Social policy, i.e., government making and executing laws, is not something that happens over and above person-to-person, relational solutions like direct action and person-to-person mutual aid. Governments are made of people, no less than [organized parties] are. When governments make laws, there’s no magical zap or mystical assumption that elevates the policy beyond the limited, work-a-day efforts with which ordinary people muddle through. There is only one group of mortal human beings writing down general orders, another much larger group choosing whether to follow those orders or ignore them, and a third group that tries to make the second group follow the orders from the first, by force if necessary. The demands might be just or unjust; the enforcement may be appropriate or inappropriate. But whatever they are, they are just human words and human deeds like any others.

So the question isn’t, actually, whether ... revolutionaries should aim at person-to-person solutions or else advocating for social policy. Person-to-person solutions are the only solutions there are, and government-enforced social policy is just one more form of relational solution amongst many. The right question to ask is: what sort of personal relationships we should cultivate, between whom, with what structures and in what roles? Should our solutions to outstanding social problems come from person-to-person relationships between equals, based on spontaneous human concern and practiced with mutual consent? Or should they come from person-to-person relationships between government authorities and ordinary civilians, based on political lobbying and backed up by legal force? Should the people working to make a social change carry sandwiches and soup, or guns and handcuffs? [The President] has one answer; the Revolutionarys ... have another. And I happen to think that [The President] is wrong and they are right. Whatever short-run gains you might be able to extract by getting into governmental politics and enlisting State power on your behalf, it comes at the strategic cost of making your movement dependent on the good graces of a privileged political elite, and at the moral cost of staining a just cause with coercive means.

But that answer will remain incomprehensible until we have first asked the right question, and Exley and Wallis—like all too many people in the so-called Progressive wing of the Left—have failed to understand it, and so failed to understand those (like the ... revolutionaries that Exley intends to profile) who put it at the center of their concerns. It’s not about timidity or skittishness or the machinations of the Moral Majority; it’s about having a set of ideals about how you should deal with your fellow creatures and build a community with them.

excerpted from It’s made of people, 22 March 2007, Rad Geek People's Daily; article introduction: "Zack Exley’s "Preaching Revolution", which recently appeared in In These Times, is fascinating, and frustrating. The article’s about a diffuse set of Evangelical Christian mega-churches, which have begun to preach nonviolence, opposition to war and imperialism, solidarity with and aid to the poor, the need for radical societal change, and opposition to the theocratic power-grabs of the Religious Right."

[Darren Dirt]

"Presidential candidate Ron Paul has warned that the US is now at a crisis point because the people have been so neglectful of protecting their liberties and big government has been so effective in eroding them. He warned that the elite are prepared to concoct events to scare the American people and asserted that the 2008 Presidential election is a contest between the people who care about their freedoms and those who are willing to succumb to the temptations of dictatorship."

www.infowars.net/articles/april2007/110407Paul.htm


...can't wait to hear him in the "debates"! ;D

[Darren Dirt]

A couple of disturbing comments from politics.wikia.com:


Anonymous Debator #5
The game is fixed. Paul has absolutely no chance of ever being President.

At some point before much longer, one of two things will happen:

1. The "Perot" manuever will occur....the Men In Black will approach Paul and lay the facts on him....that he will never live to be President if he continues, and his family may join him in death. This will occur sometime this year, well before the election so not be quite as obvious as it was in 1992 when Perot scared the crap out of the good ole boy system, and they had to react last moment. Paul will fade away and live out his days in retirement......as part of the deal, you won't hear another peep out of him, just like Perot.

2. He will not believe the threats or try to ignore them, and they will be left with the final solution. It will be a plane, or auto "accident" or he will come up with a conveniently fatal medical condition.

- - -

Anonymous Debator #6
Strategically, it's best for TPTB to have Paul in the Republican party. He can cause people who are fed up with the same old (i. e., non-Hitlery voters) to change parties thus, boosting KKKlinton's chances. If he gets popular enough that it looks like he has a chance to win the Republican nomination, they can always Huey Long or Wellstone his ass.

[Darren Dirt]

Also, just as shocking...
Fox News Writes an Article About Ron Paul -- and it's not a slander article (they actually talk about facts!)

Ron Paul, the Real Republican?
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
By Radley Balko

...Paul recently announced his intentions to run for president in 2008. For the few of us who still care about limited government, individual rights, and a sensible foreign policy, Paul's candidacy is terrific news.

Not because he's likely to win. ...Paul's presence in the race is important because he'll put issues on the table that would otherwise be completely ignored. His presence in the primary debates alone will make them far more substantive and interesting than they've been in a generation. One example is the continuing disaster that is the drug war, which Paul rightly believes to be both immoral and unconstitutional. Paul also opposed the war in Iraq from its inception. Those two issues alone will differentiate him from every other candidate on the stage.

But Paul can then swing to the right of every other candidate on federal spending, regulation, the Nanny State, and the growth of government. On these issues, he can reliably and credibly serve as the party's conscience, and browbeat the sitting senators and congressmen running for president for their votes issues like the prescription drug benefit, the surge in federal spending, and the party's complicity in the corrupt earmarking process.

...While Paul probably can't win the GOP nomination, there's a chance he can survive deep enough into the primaries to foster a national debate on issues like drug prohibition, as well as force the Republican Party to do some soul-searching, and perhaps reconnect with its limited government, Barry Goldwater roots.

Ideally, Paul's bona fides on immigration, abortion, federalism, constitutionalism, and limited government will win him credibility with and respect from primary voters, giving him leverage to take principled stands and spur discussion on issues like the drug war, privacy, foreign policy, and civil liberties. He could at least win enough votes and support to last well into the spring, forcing the other candidates to adopt parts of his agenda, and the press to cover his platform.

Under the less optimistic scenario, Republican Party leaders, primary opponents, and the punditocracy punish Paul for his principles, and demagogue his position on Iraq, the drug war, and federal meddling in our personal lives. Talk radio, conservative leaders, and the party machinery dismiss him as an unserious candidate, and primary voters take their cue. Under this scenario, Paul bows out early, the remaining candidates press on with business as usual, and the Republican Party continues down its unfortunate recent trajectory.

Which scenario plays out probably depends on how much primary voters actually care about the GOP's recent embrace of big government.

In a way, some of us here and elsewhere in Voluntariopia seem to be hoping the "less optimistic" scenario occurs -- since "healing" the republicon party would actually slow down the spiralling decay of government legitimacy. :-\