Freedomain Radio

So, why don't we become optimistic and hope that Ron Paul would know how to get a hold of the wheel and steer the truck off of a cliff?

And, why can't we do both? That is: follow what Stef suggesting we can do in the cause of liberty AND elect Ron Paul...No one knows absolutely what's the best thing to do, so we might as well try a number of methods...

 
If Stef agrees to this, it would be nice if he suggest it to his listeners so that we don't lose supporters.

MK_Safi:

So, why don't we become optimistic and hope that Ron Paul would know how to get a hold of the wheel and steer the truck off of a cliff?

And, why can't we do both? That is: follow what Stef suggesting we can do in the cause of liberty AND elect Ron Paul...No one knows absolutely what's the best thing to do, so we might as well try a number of methods...

 
If Stef agrees to this, it would be nice if he suggest it to his listeners so that we don't lose supporters.

In your opinion, is the initiation of violence, sometimes called coercion or force:

-Never

-Sometimes

-Always

a good way to solve problems? 

I don't know where you're going with this. But I'm against initiation of force, except retaliatory or punishment. I'm more of a consequentialist than an absolutist, so you know I leave my options open.

 I'd appreciate a direct response to the point that I posed.
 

Stef used a truck as a metaphor for the government. I'm merely using the same metaphor. What I mean is: could it be possible that electing Ron Paul is one step in a possibly right direction? You can simply not do anything politically except dedicate two hours of your time to vote for Ron Paul then go do every thing else that Stef suggests you do in the pursuit of liberty...

I support Ron Paul and I think it may be a good thing for the world if he gets elected. At the very least, the world would get exposed to libertarianism on a wider scale, so I want him to get elected. "We" refers to the Ron Paul supporters. 

Sure, of course-- and I respect and appreciate your forthright response to my rather 'cut to the core of the matter' question.

Very few, in fact I think the number is zero, of the long-time participants & listeners of Freedomainradio advocate the initiation of force for any reason. You mention retaliation and punishment as two situations where the initiation of violence is morally good (e.g., justifiable). I don't feel the same way, and there's a lengthy number of reasons why I'm pretty sure morally I'm correct-- we can discuss that issue further if you'd like as it does seem to pertain to the topic at hand.

With regard to Ron Paul, to help you understand my perspective, it's not HIM per se, but the institution of government which is morally evil. Therefore, it doesn't matter 'who is at the helm' when the system itself is evil. As to why government is morally evil, it's for the very reasons I mentioned in my initial question to you-- the State claims the moral, legal, and ethical monopoly on the initiation of the use of force on everyone.

If anything I have asserted here doesn't make sense to you or seems to be in error, please let me know where and I'll try it explain more clearly (or stand corrected, of course).

Dave
 

would you still vote for RP if the system worked as follows:

-the voters on the winner of the elections, pay exclusively for all the goverment actions taken in the subsequent 4 years of the presidency by their president ?
 

bockman:

You mention retaliation and punishment as two situations where the initiation of violence is morally good (e.g., justifiable). I don't feel the same way, and there's a lengthy number of reasons why I'm pretty sure morally I'm correct-- we can discuss that issue further if you'd like as it does seem to pertain to the topic at hand.

interesting, I am still a bit in doubt. Would you consider any punishment for murder morally wrong ? I would like to hear your argumentation. If you don't want to hijack the thread, send me a PM or a link. 

@Dave

I despise the government as much as anyone. When I listened to Stef's first podcasts about a hypothetical stateless society, I could imagine a very beautiful world with an abundance of wealth where you are not likely to be harassed by false authorities. So, we probably concur on the ultimate goal, which is ending the immoral and evil government. Ron Paul is a libertarian to a good extent while Ronald Reagan wasn't, so it's not very helpful to compare the two. Ron Paul could be a step in a right direction.

Not everybody who's walking is going to the same place. Don't vote to endorse the government, vote to abuse its system and end it. Unless you're completely certain that voting for Ron Paul wouldn't help the cause of liberty one bit, you should vote for him or, at the very least, not speak against him.

 @pcrs

The scenario that you're describing is inevitable regardless of the outcome of all the elections in the (near?) future, so I might as well give Ron Paul a chance.

  

MK_Safi:

So, why don't we become optimistic and hope that Ron Paul would know how to get a hold of the wheel and steer the truck off of a cliff?

And, why can't we do both? That is: follow what Stef suggesting we can do in the cause of liberty AND elect Ron Paul...No one knows absolutely what's the best thing to do, so we might as well try a number of methods...

 
If Stef agrees to this, it would be nice if he suggest it to his listeners so that we don't lose supporters.

Thanks for the response -- I'm a little bit confused about your metaphor... Do you mean to say that, as president, Ron Paul will cause the state to self-destruct, and that's why we should vote him in?

I do not think that it is healthy to cross your fingers and put your chances for personal liberty in the hands of somebody who might turn out to be intelligent enough to do something about it.

When you want to marry, you ask around and start looking for a potential partner. You do not hand a gun and a pile of money to someone, and ask him to go and find you a wife - and hope that he chooses well, or even bothers to do it all. (Particularly if you are an atheist, and he is a Christian...)

My opposition to voting for Ron Paul is not the half hour it takes to vote -- who cares about that?

My opposition is fundamentally psychological, in so far as you are placing at least some portion of your hopes for freedom in the hands of the total stranger.

That has enormous impact on the decisions you make about your own personal freedom. 

When we believe that there is an alternative, we do not do the most difficult things. When the doctor tells you that a pill will kill your cancer, you will never go through chemotherapy. I have never once met Ron Paul supporter who is actively and doggedly working on liberating himself from corrupt and exploitative relationships, or who has completed that process.

Plus, I don't support giving avowed Christians - or anyone else - an army.

Does that make sense? 

If you want someone to steer the truck off the road (cause the state to self-destruct) vote for someone like Hillary.  I'm actually considering voting for Hillary for just that reason.  When the state inevitably fails, I want people to at least blame anything but the free market and liberty.  With Gulliani (sp?) they can blame fascism, with Hillary they can blame socialism.  Either way it's better than blaming libertarianism.

@Stef 

Yes, I'm saying that Ron Paul would agree with you, Stef, on more things than any other candidate would. No...in fact, Ron Paul would probably belong to the 1% of the total earth population that would agree or understand 90% of the things that you talk about. That's why there is a possibility that he also has learned from history that the state tends to grow back even when someone in power tries to limit it. That's why he may put-in measures to make sure that this doesn't happen again, like by devising a plan to eventually destroy the government. Ron Paul knows about anarchism. He even welcomes anarchists to his campaign. He's passionate about this stuff. He even named his son Rand! So...

I think we all agree that a Christian person with an army is going to fill-in for the president of the United States in this next election. Among all the individuals who are running for president in the next election, there is one person who a lot of people agree is a libertarian. If you vote him in, there is a good chance libertarianism will become more mainstream, and that's good.

 

@Nathan

That's such a gloomy vision. Anyhow, we can only speculate that the U.S. will fall. I personally don't think it will. The U.S. has a lot of intrinsic value stemming from its unique people. As bad as it is, it's got the best people in the world. Not that I have seen all the peoples in the world, but I've definitely looked around a little bit. 

MK_Safi:

So, why don't we become optimistic and hope that Ron Paul would know how to get a hold of the wheel and steer the truck off of a cliff?

And, why can't we do both? That is: follow what Stef suggesting we can do in the cause of liberty AND elect Ron Paul...No one knows absolutely what's the best thing to do, so we might as well try a number of methods...

 
If Stef agrees to this, it would be nice if he suggest it to his listeners so that we don't lose supporters.

This is kind of just restating ideas that I figure are present that I have deducted on my own why Ron Paul is morally corrupt but I am sure it has been stated. That it is still slavery if you get to choose between one master who is oppressive and cruel and another master who is less oppressive and cruel. If Ron Paul is elected all that will happen is that now a goldwater conservative/minarchist lite is stealing from me instead of a communist or fascist. Ron Paul is a politician therefore like all politicians he is putting the gun in your mouth. 

pcrs:

bockman:

You mention retaliation and punishment as two situations where the initiation of violence is morally good (e.g., justifiable). I don't feel the same way, and there's a lengthy number of reasons why I'm pretty sure morally I'm correct-- we can discuss that issue further if you'd like as it does seem to pertain to the topic at hand.

interesting, I am still a bit in doubt. Would you consider any punishment for murder morally wrong ? I would like to hear your argumentation. If you don't want to hijack the thread, send me a PM or a link.

UPB shreds the notion that the initiation of the use of violence is an objectively valid moral theory. So, for me, the debate in which any aspect of the initiation of the use of violence is argued as morally valid, or is a critical aspect of some larger moral theory (e.g., it is morally good to kill people who have murdered firsthand or caused the murders of others) is largely a waste of time-- if for no other reason, then because in killing someone who has killed someone else, you are engaging in the very actions for which you originally condemned that person to death.

If you say, "Ok, well, what about not killing someone who has committed murder, how about simply imprisoning them for life?" Unfortunately, the only means of exacting lesser punishments than death on someone who has committed murder is the threat of death if they don't comply. 

Dave
 

MK_Safi:

 

@Nathan

That's such a gloomy vision. Anyhow, we can only speculate that the U.S. will fall. I personally don't think it will. The U.S. has a lot of intrinsic value stemming from its unique people. As bad as it is, it's got the best people in the world. Not that I have seen all the peoples in the world, but I've definitely looked around a little bit. 

It is not the people outside of the government who can prevent or cause the fall of an empire. It is inherent in the power structure of violence that the growth of violence is not sustainable so the government will destroy itself, pretty soon considering the economy is going to exploded in march and the possibility of opening a new front in Iran. All thieves and conmen eventually run out of luck, it is the role of the rest to pick up the peices of society and pray we don't get fooled again.