By Manila Ryce
Published Sunday, August 12th, 2007, 10:28 pm
Filed under: Videos: Political, Videos, US Politics

10 Responses to “Ron Paul is Your Father”

1. Speaking as a self-identified progressive and social democrat, I offer my explanations for supporting Dr. Ron Paul in his run for President of the United States. Ideologically speaking, Dr. Paul is not a social democrat. Quite to the contrary, many of his views are antithetical to the positions taken by most liberals during the last half century. Some immediate examples that come to mind are his staunch defense of protecting the rights of the unborn fetus (namely its right to life), his strong defense of the second amendment (the right to protect one’s self and one’s property), and his desire to repeal the sixteenth amendment and abolish the federal income tax. Yet I dare say that his philosophy is not antithetical to liberalism, and I will attempt to illustrate such, as well as why I believe progressives have lost touch with mainstream Americans.

   Before I make the above attempt however, I would like to state that I have been a prior supporter of Rep. Dennis Kucinich. Congressman Kucinich is for all intents and purposes a true blue, liberal. Although I still support his campaign, I doubt I will be voting for him in the primaries. I will likely be registering as a Republican in order to vote for Ron Paul. The reason why I would do such a thing is quite simple. I believe Ron Paul can win the Republican nomination. I do not believe Kucinich stands a chance of winning the Democratic nomination. Therefore, I believe our best hope for revolutionary change lies within the Republican Party. The Democratic Party remains so intent upon “winning” the next election, not to mention the fact they too are beholden to their corporate sponsors, that their “electable” candidates all fall woefully short of true progressive values. Outside of Gravel or Kucinich, the rest of the contenders on the Democratic side all support our continued occupation of Iraq, and other irresponsible foreign policy, and amazingly, a possible nuclear intervention in Iran! If we elect a Democrat in 2008, there is a likely chance we will be nuking Iran in 2009. Such a scenario, as far as I can see, is far more important than anything else. We must put an immediate end to our policies of foreign aggression.

   Dr. Ron Paul was once asked whom he would support if he, himself were not running. Dr. Paul mentioned Kucinich, and his fond admiration for the principled Congressman. Isn’t that interesting? Dr. Paul mentioned Kucinich also in light of his initial and continued anti-war stance. This says a lot to me about the character of Dr. Paul. Not only do I think he has the ability to win the Republican nomination; I also believe he will cross party lines and offer the type of leadership this country needs so desperately. Dr. Paul once was asked how he would balance budgets, and the first thing he mentioned was the military-industrial complex and how he would essentially dismantle it and funnel funds that had once been appropriated to it, into “social projects that he doesn’t care much about”. Keep in mind that no President wields supreme power. We have Congress and the Supreme Court to balance that power. Ron Paul would actually do a great deal to diminish the powers of the presidency, since he is a staunch Consitutionalist.

   Mr. Fleetwood is a very intelligent man, and I have the utmost respect for him, but I believe he is quite wrong to compare the Constitution to the Bible. The Bible is a compilation of various manuscripts written within 1400 years and culminating roughly 2000 years ago. The books of the Bible were all written in languages which are no longer in use and have been translated and retranslated many times. The books (or chapters, if you will) were written to various cultures and times, and have all but lost most of their original intent. To make such a flippant comment such as Mr. Fleetwood did; that “following the Bible would lead to Armageddon, and it’s okay if that’s what you want” is really an incredible distortion of the truth and a terrible disservice to the majority of Christian theologians. Yes, I can chuckle at his analogy and certainly understand his visceral dislike of fundamentalism of any stripe. Yet I think it is intellectually dishonest to paint Ron Paul supporters with such a wide swath. The U.S. Constitution was written a mere 220 years ago in a language that we all speak, during the age of enlightenment, by people who had nearly discarded adherence to religious and political institutions. And furthermore, they had the sense to know that such a document would require “interpretation” and occasional amendment. And lastly, the Constitution does not read like a rule book; it essentially establishes limitations of powers over people’s inherent, God-given rights.

   Now for the three “issues” that raise concern with my fellow progressives. Let us begin with the Abortion issue. I agree that a woman’s body is her body. However, a pregnant woman does harbor a human life as well. The argument that a woman has a right to choose life or death for her unborn child is a specious argument. I do not believe she does, unless it is a case of her own life or if she became pregnant due to rape or incest. This is truly an issue of the sanctity of human life, and it is a crucial one that ninety percent of women would agree with. Government should never fund abortions under the guise of family planning. We must respect all life, which is the fundamental right that we all share. Most progressives are dead wrong on this one. I am not a woman, as many would love to point out, but I also have not impregnated any of them. And if I did, I dare say the child would be my equal responsibility!

   Guns, guns guns! Onto the second amendment, guns ablaze! Truthfully, we all would love to live in a world where violence does not exist. Yet something tells me there will always be those among us who do not fit into such parameters. I do not own a gun nor do I care to. Yet I do not believe that by my mere possession of one, that I am bound to join the criminal ranks. I think of guns the way I think of bars on windows, locked gates and burglar alarms. I believe that people that live in that kind of fear manifest their own realities. Yet I do not think government should infringe upon anyone’s right to keep their own little arsenal, regardless of the fact that such is likely unwarranted. Ninety-nine percent of those gun aficionados will never pose a threat to anyone. Criminals will still be able to obtain guns. That’s just reality. As far as Dr. Paul’s ruminations on 9-11 go, I think he actually has a valid point. I’d rather fly with armed gun enthusiasts any day.

   Lastly, the repeal of the 16th amendment and abolition of the federal income tax is an excellent idea, and one that progressives should embrace. The IRS has the right to invade your privacy and liquidate your assets. Federal Income Tax does not pay for goods and services; it instead pays interest on the debt created by the Federal Reserve that prints our valueless currency. Even if you are pro big government, there are far more efficient means of raising revenue and doing so more equitably. Perhaps if we had access to our own money, and if that money held true value, we would not need nearly as much in government services. Mr. Fleetwood said that deep down, we all know that we deserve free health care. Really? Do we? And since when did we forget the old adage, “there is no free lunch”? Then what about free room and board while we’re at it. Where does that philosophy end? Might I be so bold to suggest that we all deserve to be treated like adults capable of managing our own affairs, and willing to accept responsibility for our actions? Allowing the citizenry access to their own wealth is a very good idea. Should the citizenry decide that they want nationally subsidized healthcare, then they can implement such.

   Just some food for thought.

   WillySF
   08/13/07 at 3:19 pm
   

2. wow. willysf hit the nail on the head. thanks for pointing out ryce’s customary narrow-mindedness.

   i think it is comical how these so-called “liberals” are so keen to dispose of unborn babies…then run off to their green/vegan/animal rights protests with a clear conscience.

   and remember, paul is a classical liberal, as were our revolutionary forefathers, who knew the implicit danger of entrusting social/civic services to government-run monopolies and formed a constitutional republic that would guard itself against such tendencies–of course, this word was hijacked by the so-called “progressive” movement to mean something almost contrary to its original meaning, as one can see most clearly in the “progressive” movement toward a national health care service (again, they will fall over themselves denouncing corporate monopolies, but when it comes to government monopolies–which, unlike a corporation, is able to promote its policies through the force of law, through looting deductions, even at the point of a gun–hey, that is quite alright).

   paul is targeting the real centers of power in our society–whether it be the federal reserve or the CIA–and while i respect candidates like kucinich for their position on the war and the WTO, among other things, they are pretty much doing what all the other politicians are doing at this point: promising to give “free” handouts to a few simple-minded voters who don’t understand that taxation is theft and re-arranging the deck chairs on the titanic, while the fed continues to bankrupt this country and merge it into the economic new world order of private central banks that run and own pretty much every major industrial country on the face of the earth.

   remember, if you guys were true marxists you would be cheering on paul’s free market ideals…wasn’t it marx himself who thought that it was the purest form of free market capitalism that would give birth, in the inevitable march of history, to the future socialist revolution? your keynesian/interventionist/new deal-type enterprises are only stalling your own utopia by, oddly enough, saving capitalism–or rather, by firmly installing state monopoly capitalism on a global scale, which pretty much means the end of history as we know it.

   great job guys! way to undermine your own ideals. (vomit).

   -b-

   Bon
   08/14/07 at 10:47 pm
   
3. 

   @WillySF

   Sorry it’s taken me awhile to reply. Though different definitions of the same words often hamper debate, I’ll simply state that social democracy has diverged from the classically liberal ideas of socialism. Classic liberalism has been profoundly anti-capitalist in essence since it’s beginnings. The word “liberal” has merely been hijacked by capitalists over time. While I respect your personal ideology, I wouldn’t consider it liberal in the classical sense. This is why you and I differ in opinion on whether Paul’s philosophy is antithetical to liberalism. You envision a coexistence with capitalism. I do not.

   As for progressives losing touch with Americans, I strongly disagree. Again, perhaps this is because we have different ideas of what a progressive is. For more than a decade, polls have shown that the American public is to the left of both the Republican AND Democratic Party. This does not mean that progressives are out of touch with America, but that America is even more liberal than the Democratic Party (a party which contains very few progressives). There’s no doubt that the top-tier Democratic candidates are out of touch, but it’s because they are not progressive. Had Gore or Kerry actually ran on liberal principles, they would have won in a landslide.

   I should also mention that I’ve said nothing negative about Paul in the post, other than the fact that he isn’t a liberal. I’m well aware of the fact that he and Kucinich vote similarly when it comes to foreign policy, and have said that I much prefer him to the majority of Democratic candidates. This does not mean the man is beyond criticism. It’s kids with too much time on their hands, like Bon in the post below you, who respond to any leftist critique of Paul with such hostility (and blatant self-promotion) that do harm to their own cause with a stunning combination of ignorance and arrogance. Some liberal bloggers are downright afraid of mentioning Paul because an onslaught of pseudo-libertarians hurling insults is bound to follow. Paul’s name now attracts more foreign hate traffic to liberal blogs than the Israeli/Palestinian issue. And much like the latter, it’s from zealot fanboys with no sense of history. From talks with fellow bloggers, I know that tolerance for Paul supporters has nearly run out. It’ll be a shame if the rational voices are silenced along with the idiots.

   As far as his stance on religion and abortion, I really couldn’t care less. The debate is not what constitutes a human, but at what point it is acceptable to terminate one. Some would argue that terminating a person with the mental facilities of Terry Schiavo is tantamount to terminating a pregnancy of a fetus with the same brain activity. Others would say the potential for development in the fetus makes its abortion immoral, while still others would say neither is acceptable. All in all, the abortion debate is a philosophical and theological one, not a political one. From a purely political view, I have no problem with his stance as long as they do remain available so as to not create a black market.

   As for the guns, I do not believe the government ought to have a monopoly on firearms. Still, there is much to be interpreted in the second amendment. With the threat of cabin pressure being compromised by bullet holes and nowhere to run when you’re caught in the crossfire, I can hardly think of a worse place for a gunfight.</p><br />

   As for taxes, I like Gravel’s plan.

   And as for health care, yes we do deserve it. It’s a basic human right. Universal not-for-profit health care is another issue the majority of Americans have long been in favor of, and Kucinich is the only one listening. How you can defend the “sanctity of human life” for the unborn but not the sick is beyond me. It’s also not free. As Kucinich says, “We’re already paying for it, we’re just not getting it.”

   Manila Ryce
   08/16/07 at 2:01 am
   

4. Manila Ryce,

   I believe you are misinformed regarding the definition of Classical Liberalism. Everything I have ever read on the subject supports my definition and not yours. This little snippet from Wikipedia sums it up nicely: “Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism[1] and laissez-faire liberalism[2]) is a doctrine stressing the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitations of government, free markets, and individual freedom from restraint as exemplified in the writings of Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill,[3] and others.”

   I commend this article to you which also is quite eloquent in its defense of classical liberalism: http://www.mises.org/resources/799d59c0-ee7e-4d67-940c-7b2b94ae1208

   The reason I would say progressives have lost touch with mainstream America; dare I say they never were “in touch”?; is quite simple really. There are plenty of single-issue voters out there. Abortion and guns are two big single issues that drive voters to the polls. For any progressive candidate to win in a general election, he would have to take the side of the majority of Americans. Indeed, all he really need do is uphold the Constitution. Therefore, I will reiterate my support for Dr. Paul, and my assertion that he does indeed hold classical liberal ideals. Yet aside from political philosophies and other labels (I am right with the Dali Lama on the graph, by the way), I also contend that a candidate like Dr. Paul actually stands a good chance at winning his party’s nomination, therefore he has the best opportunity of affecting real political change. I believe that he would do more to advance progressive political change than the other candidates, and he would reach across the aisle to do so.

   Politically and philosophically, you and I are quite similar. I love your blog, and I find myself agreeing with you quite often. I hope you do not feel that I responded with hostility to your post; I have yet to see where I did so. I agree that we are all paying too much for healthcare, and that it is bureaucratic, unwieldy and inefficient. And the way it stands, healthcare is indeed available to anyone, whether insured or not. Under our current economic model something does have to be done, yet my argument is actually opposed to the current model, which is essentially robbing us of our wealth. I believe smaller government is the way we ought to be headed, but I just as much believe the dissolution of monopolies and multi-national corporations is also required to ensure liberty and the democratic functions of society.

   WillySF
   08/16/07 at 12:47 pm
   
5. 

   @WillySF

   Don’t worry, it wasn’t you who was being hostile. I was referring to the other poster whom we’ve had previous problems with. You’ve always been respectful of other posters, even in disagreement.

   Anyway, I’m familiar with that wiki definition. Unfortunately, Wikipedia represents “mob rule” as some right-wing libertarians would say, rather than the full truth. That definition, though true for right-wing libertarianism, completely ignores the existence of left-wing libertarianism (aka anarchism). Both groups consider themselves to be the logical extension of classical liberalism. At least Wikipedia’s entry for libertarianism acknowledges that there is more than one type. As I’ve stated above, our disagreement on this term has to do with the fact that I’m a left-libertarian. I’ll try to explain why I think capitalism is contrary to the principles of liberalism.

   The basic idea behind classic liberalism is that institutions must keep intervention to a minimal so as to ensure the right of freedom to the individual. During its original conception, the state was public enemy number one to these ideals. However, I would argue that right-libertarians have not kept up with the times as capitalism has since taken over as the dominant threat to liberty. A simple exercise to show the importance of institutions throughout time is to examine the size of the buildings which symbolize them. The larger the building, the more important that institution for the time. For example, for most of history, cathedrals were the largest buildings, located at the center of every town. The Enlightenment gave way to government buildings and monuments becoming the dominant institutions, finally followed by the capitalist skyscrapers of today which tower over everything.

   Left-libertarians argue that the free market is inconsistent with the classically liberal principles of liberty as it establishes a system of wage slavery. For classic liberals on the left, emphasis is given to the worker, not simply the consumer. The test of whether an economic system is equal relies on the outcome, not the opportunity it theoretically presents.

   Names like Adam Smith are often dropped by right-wing libertarians who conveniently leave out his criticisms of the free market. Smith, for example, both praised and condemned the division of labor, which he said “will turn working people into objects as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to be.” Such a system is hardly a champion for freedom, even to a right-wing libertarian. The need for government intervention to steer the system into producing equality was quite obvious.

   However, before Adam Smith, there was an Aristotelian wordview in the west which is evident in the works of Kant, Hegel, Marx, and inevitably responsible for the concept of our republic. Much like everything worth a damn that’s come out of Western Europe, liberalism has its true origins in ancient Greece. Aristotle taught that a democratic and participatory state “is a community of equals” which provides “lasting prosperity to the poor by distribution of public revenues”. These principles are at the heart of classical liberalism, which rejects the exploitation and degradation of the human spirit caused by industrial capitalism.

   Left-libertarians argue that capitalism is a larger threat to liberalism than any posed by the government, as it puts the fate of liberty for many in the hands of a few. Government itself is potentially democratic, whereas business is purely tyrannical. We live in a capitalist state, where business controls the government. Leftist libertarians seek to dismantle the larger tyrannical power, not diminish the weaker democratic one. As John Dewey said, “talk of democracy has little content when big business rules the life of the country through its control of the means of production, exchange, the press and other means of publicity, propaganda and communication.” Both Dewey and James Madison have referred to politics as the shadow cast over society by business.

   Manila Ryce
   08/16/07 at 5:21 pm
   

6. M. Ryce,

   I’m glad you don’t think I’m trying to be hostile. In order for there to be true debate and interchange of ideas, foremost there must be respect. I have found in my lifetime, now going on 42 years, that regardless of political ideology, most people have similar goals. As much as I would love to discuss the fine points of classical liberalism and its logical extensions with you; and believe me, such a conversation would be truly riveting; I wonder if we aren’t missing the broader point. I too, am a left-libertarian according to every political test I’ve taken, with varying degrees of fluctuation – not that they are the most scientific polls. Nonetheless, I find we are not in complete agreement as to the means of achieving the goals we would like to see – namely, a more just and equitable society that ensures our personal liberties.

   Yet before I make my final point, as much as I can empathize with libertarian socialists such as yourself or Prof. Noam Chomsky, I believe you are making a fatal error. Keep in mind that socialism implies some type of totalitarian redistribution of wealth. That is hardly within the parameters defined by the Constitution. I disagree with your contention that capitalism is a threat to liberty. I would agree that globalism as defined by multi-national corporations in conjunction with monopoly holdings of various resources, and in collusion with government bureaucracies is certainly a major threat to democracy and liberty. But those are really different things. A free market abhors the latter. What you and many other left libertarians also fail to concede is the fact that our wealth and means of creating wealth is threatened by the central banking establishment’s ever-increasing circulation of fiat currency. I believe you mentioned Gravel’s tax plan as being something you agree with for creating revenue to ensure a large centralized federal government, as opposed to the current system with the IRS able to ride roughshod over the citizenry, in open defiance of our inherent rights to privacy and property. I would concur that such a fair tax would be a step in the right direction, yet I doubt it is necessary. I don’t think we need such a bloated federal government. To my knowledge, Dr. Paul is the only candidate that has promised to abolish the Federal Reserve. And that is the only way we can ever ensure a peaceful and prosperous future. We must have wealth that is based on tangible, legal tender, or in other words, silver and gold. The dollar may be headed for a real collapse, and it may be too late already. If that is the case, campaign topics on abortion, gay marriage and single-payer not-for-profit national healthcare, and whatever else will be forgotten in the wake of an economic depression and hyper-inflationary period that will make the USA look more like the Weimar Republic than the world’s best hope for liberty.

   And this leads me to my final point. Who’s gonna get the job done? I love Kucinich & Gravel. But you know what? Neither has a chance in hell at winning the Democratic nomination. Dr. Paul, on the other hand, has a pretty good chance at winning the Republican nomination. He will also continue to cross party lines and ideological bastions. Dr. Paul has the potential to be a true unifier. We need that right now in US politics. I suggest we stop our petty bickering and jump on the bandwagon. Let’s get out of Iraq, save our resources, ensure personal liberty and reduce the size and influence of government in our lives. We can do this. Now is the time.

   WillySF
   08/17/07 at 1:47 am
   
7. 

   @WillySF
   I must disagree with your assertion that “socialism implies some type of totalitarian redistribution of wealth.” Socialism merely states that the workers ought to have control. There is a difference between a libertarian socialist and a socialist who believes in statism. I am personally the former, but to this end believe that government intervention is necessary to roll back the damage corporatism has created before we start to lessen the influence of government itself.

   Additionally, we must realize that it’s not the size of government which makes it totalitarian, but the nature of that government. We ought to stay away from the falsehood that all government is bad by nature. As I’ve stated before, big government is infinitely more democratic than big business. The problem with our current government is not that it is big, but that it has been taken over by the private sector. 70 percent of the intelligence budget, for example, goes to private corporations. In such a scenario, the profit-motive of capitalism ensures that government will not serve the interests of the people.

   I personally don’t believe socialism is unconstitutional, but it’d be rather irrelevant if it was. The constitution is not perfect. Let’s not forget that some states-rights libertarians would consider the abolition of slavery and civil rights movement unconstitutional as well. I state in the “about” section that the importance of upholding human rights and the protection of the environment supersede politics and economics. I often cite Howard Zinn’s criticism of the Declaration of Independence when he asks, “How can you have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness if you don’t have the right to food, housing, and health care?” In that respect, I believe socialism is rather necessary in ensuring our constitutional rights are protected.

   The purpose of a democratic government is to serve the material interests of the majority. This is not achieved through capitalism. In fact, it is contrary to the very nature of capitalism, which seeks to exploit the many for the benefit of a few. Equality is impossible to achieve through capitalism, not just corporatism. Government’s role is to decide who gets what, when they get it, and how much of it they get. If you lessen government and turn that decision over to the private sector, it goes without saying that the majority will not be served. I will explain why free market economies fail to allocate goods successfully.

   The prevailing idea amongst capitalists is that the competing desires of the whole can not serve one coherent goal. Hence, the failings of political collectivism, and praise of the free market as being the only truly democratic system. However, capitalists who praise the free market fail tremendously in understanding human nature. Any anthropologist will tell you that our species is not simply driven by self-interest. Such a system which adheres to this economic model does not take human nature into account. The defect in a free market economy is human beings. Our species is dominated by cooperation, not competition. If you don’t understand this, you won’t understand why the natural progression within capitalism is towards monopolies and corporatism. It’s been well studied that the only two groups in society which do behave in a rational self-interested manner are economists and psychopaths. The market fails the rest of us. Chomsky makes a rather blunt argument as to why capitalist institutions are fascist and tyrannical. “Orders come from the top down. At the bottom you can sort of rent yourself out to it if you’re lucky. At middle level you take orders from above and hand them on down below.” In successful democratic systems, things work the opposite way. Capitalism, even in its most idealized form, is slavery. It is an immoral system. The goal should not be to simply reform or regulate it, but to abolish it outright.

   As far as the Federal Reserve goes, I know that this is one of those issues where Kucinich and Paul often team up and vote similarly. I’m unsure whether he’s stated he would abolish it, but I do know he’s been one of the few critics taking action. My views on civil rights and environmental protection also prevent me from supporting Paul over Kucinich. Which candidate liberals should support in 08 may be one of those issues which we’ll have to respectfully agree to disagree.

   Manila Ryce
   08/18/07 at 5:04 pm
   

8. Assuming for a moment that I accept your definition of socialism as “workers in control”; might I ask how that would work exactly? I can certainly understand the allure of such idealism. I’m a sort of Utopian dreamer myself. Yet I also have experienced the workforce directly for over two decades, and although it be anecdotal, I believe my experience tells me that such a philosophy is substantially flawed. I started my adult career as a bit of a socialist. I am currently, and I have always been pro labor. I currently belong to the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and I am a shop steward. I have also been involved in organizational efforts, and supported fellow unions in their struggle for a fair contract. I spent seven weeks out on the street in solidarity at a time that I could not financially support myself due to my convictions. I also like the concept of employee-owned companies. I believe that the current corporate plutocracy is not conducive to furthering liberty, democracy, personal responsibility or anything else that we as citizens deem of vital importance. Yet I also know that “workers in control” is not necessarily an efficient or viable means of running a business.

   That said, I also believe quite strongly that government should be kept as small and unobtrusive as possible. Whereas we are in essential agreement to the end result (a furtherance of liberty, equity and a healthy environment); I believe that by ensuring liberty first and foremost, the citizenry will be so empowered as to make the necessary changes in government in a democratic fashion. I believe that a review of corporate charters, a de-personifying legal code for corporations and a dissolution of corporate-controlled monopolies of essential resources would be a good step in returning to free market capitalism. Corporations would no longer be allowed to make campaign contributions, for example. This type of capitalism is not tyrannical by nature nor is it undemocratic. There has to be a balance in all things, and this is where collective bargaining fits in. Why, we could even repeal the Taft-Hartley Act, and allow white-collar workers the ability to organize and negotiate fair contracts. Yet in a truly open and free market, such contracts would not be as necessary.

   You state that capitalism is in essence “slavery” and that is is contrary to human nature due to its exploitation. I do not believe this is true. Capitalism makes no such assumptions. In a free market, one can decide to trade his labor, time or talents as well as his goods and services. In a free market there is no delineating line between ownership and trade. One could open up a shop or work for a shop owner. The government would hardly be involved, since it is a naturally self-regulating system. As far as we can tell based upon historical reasoning, every time the government attempts at regulating markets, it ultimately fails. Socialist systems are inherently inefficient and unreliable when it comes to providing goods and services. But socialism, even when it does work according to such economic markers is still totalitarian by nature. Should there be a right to food, housing and healthcare? What about a perfectly able-bodied man who refuses to work? Should the state then force everyone else to subsidize his sloth? I’m sure there are enough generous individuals out there to donate to this man’s cause; he could market himself as a fool, a holy man, or a prophet. Such has worked in the past, and there are still plenty of gullible people in the world. I don’t see yet where the welfare state has successfully combatted poverty. But as long as we’re going to have a government, then people should feel free to donate to their causes. Perhaps a voluntary tax would suffice?

   Socialism does indeed openly defy Constitution. The Constitution limits government powers, whereas Socialism greatly expands such powers. I agree that the Constitution is not a perfect document, but then again, it was designed to be amended. I think we ought to repeal a number of the amendments as a matter of fact. However, I would uphold the abolition of slavery! It might surprise you also, that a true Democracy is just as antithetical to Constitutional governance, since it is in effect, Mob Rule. If the majority have the right to infringe upon the rights of a minority, then you have effectively curtailed everybody’s rights, and you can forget about Liberty.

   Lastly, you state your support for a candidate that has no chance at winning his own party’s primary election. And even if he did win by some suspension of relativity; what would the result be in the general election? Dare I say it would be a crushing defeat? And if you again suspend the laws of physics, and Kucinich is sworn in as President in 2009; do you think he would be successful in crossing party lines? I could be completely wrong, but I do believe Dr. Ron Paul can win the Republican nomination, the general election and cross party lines to effect real change in U.S. politics. Such is my hope. And I love Dennis, by the way.

   WillySF
   08/22/07 at 12:04 pm
   

9. Bravo again, thanks for delivering David Fleetwood to my YouTube consciousness. I’m listening and taking action by linking and reposting your’s and David’s vidalidieos in my blogs. Spreading vidaliant opinion is my quest, thanks again for being part of the movement. Peace in all its dimensions.

   Vidaloon
   09/29/07 at 7:34 am
   

10. The Constitution does adapt over time…via Amendments. That it is difficult to accomplish was by design. If Amending the Constitution should be easier then we should pass an Amendment that changes the way Amendments are proposed and ratified.

    On Healthcare…are there a limitless capacity to perform services? Ok, so how are you going to ration services? Shouldn’t the fact that a person is 30 lbs overweight factor into the equation or is there not responsibility that one has to bear for not taking care of oneself?

    On religion…basically you are right.

    Maybe Ron Paul is Yoda and he is pointing the way to a US that can survive without being an empire, that is truly free, that prospers, and that doesn’t have a sick political system. I understand that the problems we face are massive but still “I find your lack of faith most disturbing.”

    Tom from MA

    Tom
    11/8/07 at 12:17 am
    

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Tired of filing this information out everytime you leave a comment at the Largest Minority? Why not register as a user? You also get full access to our forum!

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>