WA was once a 3-party state (we had LT elected officials), but a 9th District Court decision, and heavy lobbying from the 2 political parties here, messed up our primaries and all but killed any chance of a Libertarian being elected here. (Gee, thanks, guys.) The fact that Ron Paul, once a Libertarian candidate, is now running on the GOP ticket, gives me a wild hope that he might actually have a shot, IF people come together from all sides of the political spectrum -D, R, L and G- and vote for him, party hardliners be damned.

Run, Ron, Run!

I’m an out-and-out anarchist; i.e. I don’t believe ANY form of coercive government is legitimate. That includes the constitution, which was no more than an abusive compromise between liberty and slavery for the sake of winning a revolution.

That being said though, I’ll take a constitutionally limited state over what we have now.

I think Ron Paul has a chance of restoring (at least temporarily) a constiutionally limited government.

If Ron Paul gets elected:

He will bring the U.S. military back from the hundreds of countries that it is currently in. That’s a good thing.

He will end our conflicts abroad, which will save Billions of dollars in REAL wealth (not just worthless dollars). It will also save lives. That is a good thing!

He would VETO the living daylights out of a huge percentage of spending bills. That’s a good thing.

He would NOT ENFORCE the income tax and would dismantle the IRS, which would actually be within his power as the executive. That’s a good thing!

He would once and for all make the international banking cartel a focal point of public discussion. That’s a good thing whether you’re for “elastic money” or a gold standard. International banks should not have a monopoly over money; money in it’s right form after all represents exchange, which is the embodiment of consensual community. Let’s not continually sell our right to determine our own means of exchange.

He would veto ANY and ALL bills that restrict gun ownership, which is a good thing.

He would veto any bill that restricts or prohibits substance farming, manufacturing, or trafficking. Effectively, he would end the ludicrous and evil drug war. This could save countless lives and billions of dollars of real wealth.

He would empower States over the Federal government, which is not IDEAL, but is better than empowering the centralized federal government. With state government’s empowered, our battle against coercive government is on a slightly more local level. That’s a good thing!

Lastly, if New Hampshire (or any other small community for that matter) attempted to secede, I have full confidence that Ron Paul would not take military action. THAT IS A GOOD THING FOR GOD SAKES!

I’m not an L or an R, and I have NEVER voted in my hole life for anyone; not on principle alone, but because I’ve never trusted that anyone would actually make ANYTHING better.

I’d rather just educate myself in the science of economics and try to convince people that coercive government is evil.

Again, I’m no Libertarian or Republican, and I don’t believe that the government has any legitimate power, except where unilateral consent of the ruled exists, which in my opinion is an impossibility.

I’m voting for Ron Paul nonetheless. I even gave him money, because if he wins I will likely have less of my money STOLEN from me. THAT’s A GOOD THING.

But let’s remember that even if Ron Paul loses, humans are SLOWLY (very slowly) learning that freedom is better than institutional slavery.

Even if Ron Paul loses, we are still slowly making headway toward what we all want: peaceful, noncoercive society.

If you don’t want to vote, I don’t blame you. But if you are going to vote, then you have three choices:

1. Vote for a mainstream candidate that you feel is BARELY less evil than the other mainstream candidate. I personally can’t pick one out.

2. Vote for someone who has actually NO chance, like Phillies, who I also happen to disagree with pretty significantly.

3. Vote for someone who has enough of a chance to get into the debates, even if he is a LONG shot, like Ron Paul. This way your principle compromise will be less than the mainstream candidate, but you’ll at least have a candidate who is guaranteed to get SOME national attention (GOP debates etc.)

I’m not telling anyone else to support Paul, but I do think it is one possible option that could possibly make some things better.

If I’m wrong, I still believe in the ultimate triumph of freedom over slavery, and therefore I am a hopeful person. We’ll get there some day, and in the meantime, I’m just trying to learn what I can and be a positive force in the world.

Whose with me? Just curious. I’m not trying to elected or anything.

-Bux

Personally, I love it when a well-spoken LP member also gives testimony. They are free to say things that are pretty far removed from the status quo, so I can come in and suggest something *slightly* less extreme, and pull the whole center of gravity in the liberty direction.

That said, 9 times out of 10 the LP folks who show up are terrible speakers, have done zero research on the issue, and succeed only in alienating the legislators. It’s the 1 in 10 that I’m thankful for.

Kris Overstreet | March 13, 2007 2:57 pm

I refuse to support Ron Paul for two reasons:

(1) He has endorsed race-based groups such as the League of the South, referring to the “right to cultural defense.” As such, I regard him as at best a closet racist.

(2) He has repeatedly taken advantage of invitations to Libertarian Party events to attempt to recruit Libertarians into the Republican Party and to destroy the Libertarian Party outright.

End Quote…

Addressing #1 – You’ve bought into the big lie of “racism”! I notice you didn’t use the NAACP as an “example of a racist group!?!

Addressing #2 – That’s just bizarre…are you an idiot? Since when do “labels” mean anything(except to the idiots and sheeple)!?!

We don’t have time to run a third party candidate in a system that is designed to favor the two major parties. For over 30 years we have not had time. The only hope is for a man like Paul who understands we need to reign in government. Badnarik understands we have a chance to send a message with Paul as a President.

Under Libertarian theory:
Since when does a group NOT have a right to defend its culture and traditions, provided they are not interferring in other’s same rights?

To Kris:
Please show me where Paul has erred. What has Paul said or done that violates anyone’s Rights?

No one can make a private bank go away, unless that private bank destroys itself. It’s the monopoly status that is the cancer.

Doing away with the monopoly status of the privately owned FRB would liberate everyone. The excuse for forming the FRB was a bank failure rate engineered by J.P. Morgan and His owners that resulted in failure of only 2.8 percent of banks.

Making government pay all its debts in gold or silver would institute self discipline. Something government does not have.

Private commercial banks can co-exist with banks that warehouse silver and gold for those who have assets that need protecting.

There need not be one system. But there must be a uniform system for governments to use that do not allow the government to inflate or crash economies or harm an individual government disfavors.

Insisting on gold and silver for government use is a good thing. The amount of metal out there is not a problem. If people want more gold, the earth can provide it if enough effort is expended.

Doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome is?

(1) He has endorsed race-based groups such as the League of the South, referring to the “right to cultural defense.” As such, I regard him as at best a closet racist.

(2) He has repeatedly taken advantage of invitations to Libertarian Party events to attempt to recruit Libertarians into the Republican Party and to destroy the Libertarian Party outright.

I absolutely cannot comprehend how any person who has been in the Libertarian Party longer than two years could ever support Ron Paul.

Finally, about money: since the creation of the Federal Reserve Note, the value of gold has been a rollercoaster ride with vast upward and downward sweeps- as evidenced by the doubling of its price in the past four years. Further, the amount of gold in the United States, publicly or privately owned, would only cover about one-tenth of the currency, tangible or electronic, currently in circulation here. Going back to a gold standard would not avert a depression, it would cause the utter collapse of our economy- and a return to periodic panics and life-destroying depressions as experienced in the 1800s.