What About Voting For Less Government? What About Ron Paul?
Got some excellent questions and commentary on my latest video here on YouTube and on Steemit.com.
The questions surrounding anarchists voting, and Ron Paul, can be touchy, and are almost always avoided.
It is my hope that this video will make my position clear, and maybe help others to slice into the situation and topic, which certainly can be a nuanced, tricky, and daunting one.
~@Kafkanarchy84
Support Voluntary Japan!
Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/voluntaryjapan
Steem/SBD: @voluntaryjapan
BCH: qqvmdr3l0dlmjqdekkzgsdeg8hq2s9zt5ud3h004r7
BTC: 1MfENEp9tkJMHmrrj5rPKzohYNCw9S6qFw
ETH: 0x9199c3844fd8d3642b39175414c8ffcd403c7aaf
DSH: XpqAkZqHnE12pN9oKapd1Vmj91HSeb93K1
QTUM: 0x9199c3844fd8d3642b39175414c8ffcd403c7aaf
OK, Graham,
First, thank you for your comprehensive responses, both in writing and in this video...
Nevertheless, having now read once and listened once, I'm back to respectfully request that you re-read my piece on voting.
Not here trying to "defend" myself in any way. Thank you also for respectfully declining to judge me per-se. However, I would like to to now focus on one specific case, which does not seem to me to fit any of your arguments.
In California at least, we have a "proposition" process. It is effectively "populist legislation." Of course, special interests, etc. draft this crap, but the net effect is that "the people," by a popular vote, essentially pass laws that are then enforced by the state.
One of the specific kinds of "law" that gets passed is known as a bond measure. This means a law that authorizes the selling of bonds to fund some particular pork barrel project that somebody somewhere has had a wet dream about.
Of course, the bonds are sold, and then the state comes after the innocent and ignorant populace with guns and cages and extorts them to pay for all this largesse...
As I stated in my article about my voting algorithm, I vote against all bond measures.
And so, for now, I shall stop there:
How have I violated anyone by resisting the passing of a bond measure, which clearly and unequivocally extends and expands the power of the state to rob me and my fellow man?
Please address that specifically before I address the rest of your arguments, and I'll close by saying THANK YOU for your respectful and collegial discourse. Also bear in mind that you have a real opportunity to persuade me not to vote in the election on Tuesday November 6th... ;)
😄😇😄
Voting in and of itself is not violent, as far as the libertarian property ethic goes. It is always immoral however, as for things voted upon to be enforced the state must violate individuals.
The individuals who wish to pass this bond measure, as ill-informed as they may be, have “paid” into the government via extortion as you have. My question is, who are you to tell them how to use the government they are paying for? And who are they to tell you?
Perhaps some of those individuals want the government they are paying for to authorize the selling of bonds. You don’t want this. You are both using the same evil tool to try to force each other into complying by telling state agents who should have their money used the way they want it to be, and who should not be able to use their money in said fashion.
It’s a rigged game. A false dichotomy. Like saying we will play soccer together, but only if one team gets lead pipes to the shins, first.
I am sayin the lead pipes (the state) are the problem itself, and decision that needs to be made.
The only fair arbiter would be a universalizable private property norm.
EDIT: But then again, the state itself is illegitimate, so extra robbery would be the real issue, which is what I think you are getting at.
Even taking that into consideration, though, you are still legitimizing the state in telling those pro-bonders how they may freely organize and use their money, because such organization and activity outside of the state is illegal and violently punished. Private property is already violated on all sides.
That is how I see it at present. Plus, I don’t know all the other ramifications of voting against the bonds. Is the vote solely for that one, isolated issue?
you reminded me of this RP quote I came across awhile back:
✌
If he never had an illusion, I wonder why he went into Congress. That’s an interesting quote for sure.
to advance liberty either philosophically or politically in any way that he could, I suppose, which is probably why he was also adamant about working with both parties if and when possible, whenever he could find someone on either side of the trench to agree to some portion when it didn't include him compromising on liberty...
If he had the intention to try and advance the message of liberty, he did very well at succeeding. After all, how many came to liberty with him as their 'red pill' :)
I don’t know. As I say. Most anarchists I know already had the red pill inside. He was part of my path, but I would have made it without him, I’m pretty sure, too. My catalyst was hearing a successful argument that the whole state is bullshit and taxation is theft.
At any rate, he lives from stolen money, and as such, is a statist, no?
they might have had the red pill inside but reading about the views and research of Paul, Spooner, Higgs, Hayek, Block, Napolitano, Rose?...and others can help us to more fully understand why the support of freedom is the best choice to make, I think. For paul, since leaving his public position I think he's gone more voluntaryist, even used those exact words when saying that is what he thinks a free society is all about (voluntaryism). As well, he maintains that if the Constitution would've "worked" then we wouldn't be facing the current monster that is Washington (he made that statement after retiring). Sure, perhaps some still might have made it on their own, but his efforts and teachings no doubt def helped many... perhaps a great liberty starting point? and like yourself, while I and others had spent time working and campaigning to try and grow support for Paul that is when I and likely many others finally saw the extent of the corruption not only with delegates and voting, but with the media and the debates. Quite often during those debates he was the only voice of reason and I sure was glad to hear it,.. I first heard about RP from Judge Napolitano on Fox Business so you're right than an appeal to the message of liberty had already begun.
I think Paul was one to return the most unused funds to the senate as well wasn't he?
On the point of whether or not he's a statist simply for accepting funds from the state, does a thief have any right to their stolen loot? and if they don't have a right to that loot, then if you took from those funds is it the same as stealing? I'm not saying I agree with this, but you reminded me of a past discussion with Block where he defends taking money from the state and suggests that this doesn't automatically equate to someone being a statist,
I'll admit I was shocked when I first heard him causally describing how he had no qualms with taking and spending gov funds lol, so you're question just reminded me of that:)
And I don't think the guy who says "privatize everything" can be a statist at the same time? can he?
There’s a lot of nuance, for sure. But I couldn’t sit in a position of power and decide how people’s stolen money was used.
I definitely agree his voice and example in many senses has been a very real catalyst. No doubt. As I say in the video. I marched through Chicago for the dude back in 2008.
As he’s retired now, sure. Maybe that’s better. His position in the state amplified his anti-state voice. This I understand. However, his political actions—as he admits—really changed very little, if anything, about the state. Now, being past that whole sensation, my goal is spreading the philosophy and direct action. Things that really do change things, but involve risk. To spread the philosophy, and go one’s own way against the will of the state does involve much risk, but it is the only way to end the state, ultimately.
As for saying “privatize everything,” Kokesh has said the same.
Actions are must back up the words.
You can't really blame Ron Paul for going after someone for squatting on his name like that. There was a whole rash of "realname.com" domain names about 7 years ago that had legal recourse only when they were used in libel/slander or involved some other legal issues. In the mean time, those "realname.com" web sites would rank very high in the serps, and could be used effectively for on line character assassination.
I don't have an issue with Ron Paul trying to take control of his own online persona; I have a problem with it being legal to use someone else's name as a domain name. It is another gubmint bonehead mistake against it's own citizens, contributing another dirty tool for the endless barrage of on line extortion, blackmail, defamation and such.
If you are going into politics, or any other public thing, you should look into buying your domain name or someone else may buy it and try to monetize it one way or another. Greetings.
They weren’t just squatting, though. They were trying to give it to him (he was already aware and seemed to be supportive of the site) and let him use it, and he still went after them, if I recall correctly.
I don't know the details of the case, so I can't comment on that. I can only relate what I know. Generally it's a bad idea to let someone squat on your name for any reason; if something happens, it can take years to repair the damage. Better to be safe than sorry type of thing and once lawyers take over ...
This is what I was looking for. What do you think?
http://www.thelastbastille.com/2013/08/28/the-ronpaul-com-copyright-scandal/
I suggest you read the case which names Corporations with no individuals listed as having personal stake.
I would further suggest some research into anything coming out of Fortitude Valley, Australia, Panama and Fabulous. All those guys, and they remain unnamed in the article, have some history that can be dug up. A $250,000.00 price tag is not the same as giving a $15.00 domain name to someone, this I suspect, is about money.
Will do, thanks. Still, bringing the UN into it?
Yeah, I'm not defending Ron Paul here, but as I previously mentioned, the rash of incidents of name squatting that became apparent about 7 years ago, seems to lead to some of the same "things" I ran into immediately in this case. Almost a déjà vue from 2012 - 2013.
Bringing the U.N. into it is likely because of the multiple jurisdictions; U.S., Panama and Australia. The mere fact that foreign Corporations are involved would suggest that this is more than just a fan website. The combination of foreign Corp. ownership and attorney/client privilege is a good tool to dodge personal liability, so I will leave it there.
Congratulations @voluntaryjapan! You have completed the following achievement on the Steem blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click here to view your Board of Honor
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPDo not miss the last post from @steemitboard: