Freedomain Radio

Stefan Molyneux:

I'm not going to debate Ron Paul any more, since I've now asked several times for evidence that he has reduced the size of government in his home district, where he has power, and all I get in response is that Ron has not voted to increase taxes.

Hey Stef, would your opinion of Ron Paul increase/decrease/stay the same if he abstained from every vote in Congress and still accomplished nothing?  How about if he had never run for Congress and still accomplished nothing? 

 Do you think people would be more/less/similarly interested in your political/economic/personal happiness theories if you had decided to not distribute your podcasts?

Stefan Molyneux:

no gun will ever set you free.

What if the gun were used to kill shooter?  Guns don't kill people...people kill people.

I am similarly uninterested in debating Ron Paul with you since you are equally unwilling to change your views on his potential effectiveness in fighting the government.  However, I felt an uncontrollable urge to confront your repeated assertions that he has not done anything to change something over which he has no power.  Your question of what he has done to decrease taxes in his district would be akin to me asking YOU what you have done to decrease taxes in his district, then plainly dismiss all of your logical arguments against government because you have also done nothing in that regard.

 I know it seems as if I have just joined your community to start a flame war or rehash old arguments, and if you feel that way, I will fade into the obscurity from whence I came, but I really do agree with some of the theories discussed in this forum.

Dan?  Is that you?!? 

Welcome to the boards, dude! 

wilheldp:

Stefan Molyneux:

I'm not going to debate Ron Paul any more, since I've now asked several times for evidence that he has reduced the size of government in his home district, where he has power, and all I get in response is that Ron has not voted to increase taxes.

Hey Stef, would your opinion of Ron Paul increase/decrease/stay the same if he abstained from every vote in Congress and still accomplished nothing?  How about if he had never run for Congress and still accomplished nothing? 

 Do you think people would be more/less/similarly interested in your political/economic/personal happiness theories if you had decided to not distribute your podcasts?

Stefan Molyneux:

no gun will ever set you free.

What if the gun were used to kill shooter?  Guns don't kill people...people kill people.

 

I am similarly uninterested in debating Ron Paul with you since you are equally unwilling to change your views on his potential effectiveness in fighting the government.  However, I felt an uncontrollable urge to confront your repeated assertions that he has not done anything to change something over which he has no power.  Your question of what he has done to decrease taxes in his district would be akin to me asking YOU what you have done to decrease taxes in his district, then plainly dismiss all of your logical arguments against government because you have also done nothing in that regard.

 I know it seems as if I have just joined your community to start a flame war or rehash old arguments, and if you feel that way, I will fade into the obscurity from whence I came, but I really do agree with some of the theories discussed in this forum.

My respect for Ron Paul would increase if he was not a superstitious mystic, not a hypocrite in his affirmation and denial of the non-aggression principle, and if his candidacy was not giving people false hope that violence can solve problems.

corporateschill:

Stefan you state that passing on your message of freedom is what you will do to end the slavery of the state.  I believe that Ron Paul also does the same.  He is honest and states his views of Libertarian thought applied to the machinery of the Fed on a constant and consistent basis. 

Your question regarding his cutting of the government spending within his district is not the correct question.  The correct question is to ask, "Has Ron Paul brought more pork programs to his district?"  The answer is no.  Another related question might be, "Does Ron Paul seek to limit or reduce the role and power of the Fed through his voting record?"  The answer is yes.

 

This whole thing is kind of funny, because my finance is from his district in Lake Jackson. There's a Ron Paul pool where all the rich kids are invited to swim, and there's a Ron Paul cooking book that's sent to everyone on Christmas.

I wonder if the cookbook is paid for with public money?  It makes sense that Ron Paul couldn't do much for his home district (in terms of freedom, not pork) because he's a federal representative and exercises his power over the country as a whole.  However if the cookbook was paid for by public funds, that is a serious problem, and it gives me some serious doubts.  Dr. Paul's corruptness is the only thing, so far, that would keep me from voting.  The fact that he refuses government money makes me think that he probably buys the cookbooks himself (although all that other business could just be a show)

Rodzilla!:

Dan?  Is that you?!? 

Welcome to the boards, dude! 

Yep, it's me, but don't get too excited.  I have some serious issues with the ideas and theories espoused by Stef.  You know better than anyone that I am not close minded about these issues (since you were instrumental in changing me from a devout Republican to a Libertarian), but I did feel compelled to join these message boards in order to confront and work through the issues with Stef.

Stefan Molyneux:

My respect for Ron Paul would increase if he was not a superstitious mystic, not a hypocrite in his affirmation and denial of the non-aggression principle, and if his candidacy was not giving people false hope that violence can solve problems.

Well, you successfully opened my eyes to what it is like to ask what seems to me to be a reasonable question and to get virtually no useful answer it return.  Thanks for that.  But do you have any answers to the questions that I actually asked?

Stefan Molyneux:

I don't debate with people who talk to me like that.

I'm, sorry you didn't appreciate my ironic sarcasm.  I was simply trying to gain a better understanding of your argument against incremental change in the government.  Surely you realize the infintessimally small chances of the current government imploding and anarcho-capitalism rising in it's place in your lifetime.  If so, then why wouldn't you want the government to take as many steps as possible in the right direction to make your life more tolerable? 

 I don't plan on voting for Ron Paul since I cannot vote in primary elections in my state unless I register as a Republican or Democrat (and I don't think that Paul will make it past the primary election stage).  I may or may not vote Libertarian when the times comes, depending on whether or not I feel like getting up early that day.  But you can bet your ass that I will vote Republican if Ron Paul makes it to the general election this year because he is the least evil candidate I have seen run in my lifetime.

 EDIT:  I know why you can seem so disconnected from this whole debate.  You live in Canada.  The American President only indirectly affects your life, while he does provide a wealth of material for your radio show.

You sound really angry, Dan.  What's up?

What FDR theories/ideas do you have problems with?

Rodzilla!:

You sound really angry, Dan.  What's up?

What FDR theories/ideas do you have problems with?

I do?  I'm not.

Well, the main problem I have while keeping this thread on topic is Stefan's repeated assertions that Ron Paul will be completely ineffective in a Presidential role because he has not reduced taxes or the size of government at the local level in his district.  Granted, he might be ineffective, but I do not agree with Stef's reasoning on this point.

 What you and Stef both probably took as anger or agression was my sarcasm in a previous post.  You know better than anybody that is just how I am.  I thought it was funny that I asked a couple questions that had multiple choice answers, and neither of them were answered, yet Stef's originally quoted text was him complaining that he wasn't getting an answer to a question that he has posed many times.

 Like I said, if my debating style is too confrontational, or if questioning Stef's reasoning on topics are taboo on this board, I will happily leave.  But I am not (and you didn't used to be) the type that blindly accepts the word of one person without significant thought and questioning.

But I am not (and you didn't used to be) the type that blindly accepts the word of one person without significant thought and questioning.

Is that not what Ron Paul expects of us? 

bockman:

But I am not (and you didn't used to be) the type that blindly accepts the word of one person without significant thought and questioning.

Is that not what Ron Paul expects of us? 

Whether or not your question, think about, or accept Ron Paul's political theories is an entirely personal decision.  When I look at and digest all of the current candidates running for President as well as the possiblity of not voting at all, the best choice seems to be to vote for Ron Paul.  I'm sure when general election time comes, it will be down to a choice between the Libertarian candidate or not voting at all.

I apologize for the double post.  Everything seemed to happen normally except it posted twice.

Dan, I've listened to almost 900 podcasts and read 2 books that Stef has written...  I'm hardly blindly accepting what he says without significant thought and questioning.  The trust I have for his judgment has been well and truly earned.

I'm feeling manipulated by your posts.  They give me a very uneasy feeling, and I don't like it.