Ron Paul supporters be aware that you need to review the candidates Ron endorses closely to ensure they are not neo-con trash.
I give Ron Paul credit for this though, no other politician on the planet would openly admit to making a deal to support incumbents that they disagreed with. So I have to give him a token point for being openly honest about his actions.
That said, liberty minded individuals need to closely review his endorsements and not take for granted that they support freedom and limited government.
I consider it (in an Orwellian sort of way) a favor that he’s letting us know up front not to take his support for candidates seriously. However people need to be made aware of this fact lest they be duped into voting for a neo-con.
non action only serves the ends of those whom use the government to subjugate the people. dont vote is a blueprint for totalitarianism
This in no way means I think you should vote, but if you want to do “something” you should not vote, or make use of the services, nor pay taxes… basically instead of free-riding on the system and not even taking action to direct its course try: “seceed yourself”
Should or shouldnt you vote is entirely up to you. Im merely stating that not voting by itself will only give power to those who would use the system against you. Not voting (by itself, with no other action taken) will not tear off the shackles that bind you, it will only keep you in them longer
not really. not voting is an action that denotes use of power. I am at liberty to not vote still. And voting is simply a mechanism of power like working. It does stuff. And me not voting is doing something and therefore is about power. My power not to vote and do something else with my time.
The vast majority of people abhor absolute tyranny. If this statement is true it eventually leads to, if most people vote a society will be least likely to experience absolute tyrants. Conversely, the less people that are voting, the more absolute the tyranny will be. (change voting to participate in its governance for non-democratic societies)
As the dao would say, you can only be ruled by those you let rule you.
No, it doesn’t necessarily lead to that. Who’s to say voting isn’t the absolute tyranny? Because when somebody votes away their ability to be responsible unto him or her own self and thereby consent to give up their ultimate just decision-making actions, then nobody within the voting system can complain as it’s the system that binds tyranny upon their actions, not all the little details of which party is the best and who’s speaking for me best, etc…
Not really. the less voting, then the less consent for a monopoly dictating how any one just person is to act.
obviously I’m not letting anybody rule over me cause I don’t vote. obviously somebody that votes is letting others rule, ie. have absolute tyranny, over him or her self.
In which scenario would there be more of a sense of legitimacy for Obama? Election win with 80% turnout, or a win with 10% turnout?
Consent of the people is always required for every form of government. Democracy gives the fallacious illusion that there is widespread approval for the people in charge. The greater the turnout, the more effective the illusion. Every dictatorial decree is now considered to be done on behalf of the people.
Or it may be that playing the game itself is what keeps the shackles secured.
Not really. the less voting, if it means consent, then the less consent for a monopoly dictating how any one just person is to act.
Forgive me, but we are arguing the same point. You just havnt realized it yet. Notice I said “not voting (as the only action taken)” does not cast off the shackles. If all you do is not vote, you have shown your consent to let things proceed as they will. That IS consent. There must be other actions taken to show that you WILL NOT consent, neither materially, nor electorally.
In other words; a protest is just loud group whining if noone gets in the way of the problem.
oh. good we agree. And what I do is be creative and I’m on the path of innovation. I’ve been working on focusing on what’s important in life, not what is extortive of life. To know the law is to understand when a line has been crossed between what is just to unjust. But that’s merely the shield. The actual slaying happens in maintaining with work what I have and what production leading to capital gains that are sustainable can bring. I’ve turn my focus on what I can do and help rachet my family along such a path. It’s building not only from my household but to the rest of my extended family in time and soon to be with the rest of the community, God willing. That’s how business ventures begin. This isn’t an analogy but an actual development that I’ve been working on for over a year now and have applied to a small degree that this past year became bigger than it was the year before. I know it may not sound like Thor slaying the Worm, but to focus on what is productive, is well for me, productive.
Consent by voting means consent for either person A or person B. But what about consent for the monopoly itself? I don’t approve of it and I would like to vote against that. I am not given that option in the voting booth.
On the contrary, you are already providing your consent to whomever wins even before the winning party is declared. If you play the game, you essentially approve of the rules, which means you must accept the outcome. If your man looses and you complain, then you’re just a sore loser (copied this one from LS).
Alright guys, let’s shift back to the topic at hand now.
I don’t necessarily care for who he is “endorsing”, but I think Rep. Paul is right on this one. Let’s not forget after all he is a member of the Republican party and you could only go so far right?
I disagree with him on one or two things, but after all he’s an elected member in the House of Representatives.
The greatest trick the “state” (which is a myth) plays, is to get the people to shackle themselves to heroes and Constitutions, while the ruling class have no use for either unless it furthers their own power.
Before you can secede economically, you must secede politically. You cannot be free if you continue to accept masters.