Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

That would be pretty gullible to think could/would happen, methinks.

 

I know he won't win the nomination but actually being on the ballot for the GOP would mean he could be able to have air-time and would actually debate with romney. That in itself is enough for my hope

 

How can he be on the ballot if Romney is?

 

Talking about the GOP convention in Tampa

 

out3,

Or one where unions and union money equals speech?

Would you say we would be better served if candidates were only allowed to be known on election day?

 

Your lack of integrity is comming through with that one.

Oh no, the current system is far superior. (sarcasm noted)

 

Indie

LOL – another old trick of yours – again if my criticisms are so irrational and unreasonable then shouldn’t they be easy to address?

So why all the evasion?

Again we’ve been through this many times – I don’t care if you or others agree with me or not - I’m just pointing out you seem totally incapable of defending your ideas from criticism.

This is just misdirection.

I’ve made it plain many times that I support representative government a ‘'Government of the people’ I don’t think that it would be possible to have direct popular control of government ‘'Government by the people' because many have not the time inclination or information for that to work as good governance.

So I’ll ask again what do you mean when you have argued against democracy and even suggested that wealth should have extra voting power so it can block or veto the vote of the majority?

Ok you seem to want a system where the amount people give in tax is given with consent – in other words what they are willing to give – which can only mean it would be a voluntary contribution.

You don’t seem to want a system where if there is any dispute over what is to be paid it still has to be paid – in other words if people are not willing to pay they shouldn’t have to pay – again that would make ‘tax’ a voluntary contribution.

LOL – but what you find ‘acceptable’ you seem to be incapable of defending from criticism in any rational or reasonable way – that is why I keep asking you why you hold on to these ideas?

 

Kind of leaves me wondering how you define integrity.

No need to to state the obvious.

 

Obviously anything I say will be seen as another trick or evasion, but I accept democracy as the means by which our representatives are selected, and for government to be one 'by the people' doesn't require constant time and attention of the people 'if' government abides by the constraints upon its powers to nothing more than what the people have consented to.

When government employs the taking from one group in order to give to another group, you might extol it as how democracy works, or is supposed to work, but that is why our country was not founded as a democracy in which the majority rules the minority.

On taxes, the Federal government should not be given responsibilities that the States can better tend to, but only those which the States cannot take upon themselves. Taxes should be collected as originally defined in the Constitution, based strictly on population, leaving the States to collect their proportionate share from their citizens by whatever means they find most reasonable, and the two houses of Congress would then be held responsible to their constituents or their State in assuring the Federal spending would not impose undue hardship on their States or constituents, rather than their political party or campaign contributors. The Federal government should remain debt free, except in the case of a genuine crisis, such as war or natural disaster.

Most people would likely consent to being taxed in order to provide some means of protection from criminal elements, warring nations, etc., and if taxes were applied in a way that they could be collected simply on the basis of spending, the rich more than likely do spend much more than the poor, each dollar spent would produce x% of tax revenue. Extravagant Government spending, Federal, State, and Local, would be much more controlled by all the people if it were imposed upon all equally.

I don't find imposed socialism or ANY form of government imposed upon the governed acceptable, nor do I find an emotional ploy a reasonable or rational tool to be employed politically to bring about social changes.

 

I wonder who his successor would be. I don't think he'll run again 2016 and that would leave a huge void in the movement.

 

Is anyone else voting for Gary Johnson? Ron Paul is losing momentum and it's going to Johnson...

 

Death

Many criticisms of right wing libertarianism have been raised in this thread that no right wing libertrian seems able to address in any rational or reasonable way - can you address any of them?

 

Ron Paul was interesting until Gary Johnson entered the race. I've been watching Ron Paul for a long time and I consider Johnson to be the better candidate. So no, I'm not voting for Paul.

 

I don't know if Balbus is talking to me, but I don't consider myself a right wing Libertarian. I would like to raise another issue, why do 3rd parties get more scrutiny and criticism, while the main parties can commit crimes against America and nobody wants to talk about it?

 

Then why would you vote for Gary Johnson? He is the 2012 libertarian party presidential candidate.

US politics is a two party system that has been designed to stay that way.

 

I am a Libertarian. That is all anyone need know about me. I don't subscribe to the two party system, so why would I lean either way?

 

I haven't said or suggested you should lean either way. I also am not democrat or republican because I believe the two party system is corrupted.

 

Death

To repeat

Many criticisms of right wing libertarianism have been raised in this thread that no right wing libertrian seems able to address in any rational or reasonable way - can you address any of them?

Why do you think you are not a right wing libertarian?

 

Hey Balbus. I have not read all the 100+ pages in this thread, nor do I care to. You assume I want to chat with you. You'd be wrong. You assume my opinions are your business - again, you'd be wrong.

 

Death

I’m not interested in chat but this forum is for debate if you are not willing to debate your views then why are you here?

It seems to me you are just incapable of actually defending from criticisms ideas that you are pushing and that begs the question why are you pushing them if you can’t defend them?