Ron Paul's Campaign For Liberty
edvedder3779
Posts: 65
I know he sparked some lively debate in these here parts:
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/
Our Mission
The mission of the Campaign for Liberty is to promote and defend the great American principles of individual liberty, constitutional government, sound money, free markets, and a noninterventionist foreign policy, by means of educational and political activity.
Strategy
The Campaign for Liberty will carry out its mission through the following activities:
1. Promoting candidates for public office who share our commitment to freedom.
2. Gaining a foothold in political life at every level of government by expanding our precinct leader program.
3. Educating the electorate and lobbying against harmful or unconstitutional legislation.
4. Encouraging the formation of discussion groups and book clubs at the local level to help people learn more about our ideas.
5. Establishing a speakers bureau to give presentations around the country about the great principles we champion.
6. Developing materials for homeschooling families, to help them educate their children in history, sound economics, and related fields.
7. Featuring written as well as video commentaries on the news and issues of the day.
8. Additional efforts as time and resources allow.
Over the next few months we will be developing our program, organizing a team, and announcing new and exciting projects. Join now to get all of the latest updates and news!
Statement of Principles
Americans inherit from their ancestors a glorious tradition of freedom and resistance to oppression. Our country has long been admired by the rest of the world for her great example of liberty and prosperity – a light shining in the darkness of tyranny.
But many Americans today are frustrated. The political choices they are offered give them no real choice at all. For all their talk of “change,” neither major political party as presently constituted challenges the status quo in any serious way. Neither treats the Constitution with anything but contempt. Neither offers any kind of change in monetary policy. Neither wants to make the reductions in government that our crushing debt burden demands. Neither talks about bringing American troops home not just from Iraq but from around the world. Our country is going bankrupt, and none of these sensible proposals are even on the table.
This destructive bipartisan consensus has suffocated American political life for many years. Anyone who tries to ask fundamental questions instead of cosmetic ones is ridiculed or ignored.
That is why the Campaign for Liberty was established: to highlight the neglected but common-sense principles we champion and reinsert them into the American political conversation.
The U.S. Constitution is at the heart of what the Campaign for Liberty stands for, since the very least we can demand of our government is fidelity to its own governing document. Claims that our Constitution was meant to be a “living document” that judges may interpret as they please are fraudulent, incompatible with republican government, and without foundation in the constitutional text or the thinking of the Framers. Thomas Jefferson spoke of binding our rulers down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution, and we are proud to follow in his distinguished lineage.
With our Founding Fathers, we also believe in a noninterventionist foreign policy. Inspired by the old Robert Taft wing of the Republican Party, we are convinced that the American people cannot remain free and prosperous with 700 military bases around the world, troops in 130 countries, and a steady diet of war propaganda. Our military overstretch is undermining our national defense and bankrupting our country.
We believe that the free market, reviled by people who do not understand it, is the most just and humane economic system and the greatest engine of prosperity the world has ever known.
We believe with Ludwig von Mises, Henry Hazlitt, and F.A. Hayek that central banking distorts economic decisionmaking and misleads entrepreneurs into making unsound investments. Hayek won the Nobel Prize for showing how central banks’ interference with interest rates sets the stage for economic downturns. And the central bank’s ability to create money out of thin air transfers wealth from the most vulnerable to those with political pull, since it is the latter who receive the new money before the price increases it brings in its wake have yet occurred. For economic and moral reasons, therefore, we join the great twentieth-century economists in opposing the Federal Reserve System, which has reduced the value of the dollar by 95 percent since it began in 1913.
We oppose the dehumanizing assumption that all issues that divide us must be settled at the federal level and forced on every American community, whether by activist judges, a power-hungry executive, or a meddling Congress. We believe in the humane alternative of local self-government, as called for in our Constitution.
We oppose the transfer of American sovereignty to supranational organizations in which the American people possess no elected representatives. Such compromises of our country’s independence run counter to the principles of the American Revolution, which was fought on behalf of self-government and local control. Most of these organizations have a terrible track record even on their own terms: how much poverty have the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund actually alleviated, for example? The peoples of the world can interact with each other just fine in the absence of bureaucratic intermediaries that undermine their sovereignty.
We believe that freedom is an indivisible whole, and that it includes not only economic liberty but civil liberties and privacy rights as well, all of which are historic rights that our civilization has cherished from time immemorial.
Our stances on other issues can be deduced from these general principles.
Our country is ailing. That is the bad news. The good news is that the remedy is so simple and attractive: a return to the principles our Founders taught us. Respect for the Constitution, the rule of law, individual liberty, sound money, and a noninterventionist foreign policy constitute the foundation of the Campaign for Liberty.
Will you join us?
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/
Our Mission
The mission of the Campaign for Liberty is to promote and defend the great American principles of individual liberty, constitutional government, sound money, free markets, and a noninterventionist foreign policy, by means of educational and political activity.
Strategy
The Campaign for Liberty will carry out its mission through the following activities:
1. Promoting candidates for public office who share our commitment to freedom.
2. Gaining a foothold in political life at every level of government by expanding our precinct leader program.
3. Educating the electorate and lobbying against harmful or unconstitutional legislation.
4. Encouraging the formation of discussion groups and book clubs at the local level to help people learn more about our ideas.
5. Establishing a speakers bureau to give presentations around the country about the great principles we champion.
6. Developing materials for homeschooling families, to help them educate their children in history, sound economics, and related fields.
7. Featuring written as well as video commentaries on the news and issues of the day.
8. Additional efforts as time and resources allow.
Over the next few months we will be developing our program, organizing a team, and announcing new and exciting projects. Join now to get all of the latest updates and news!
Statement of Principles
Americans inherit from their ancestors a glorious tradition of freedom and resistance to oppression. Our country has long been admired by the rest of the world for her great example of liberty and prosperity – a light shining in the darkness of tyranny.
But many Americans today are frustrated. The political choices they are offered give them no real choice at all. For all their talk of “change,” neither major political party as presently constituted challenges the status quo in any serious way. Neither treats the Constitution with anything but contempt. Neither offers any kind of change in monetary policy. Neither wants to make the reductions in government that our crushing debt burden demands. Neither talks about bringing American troops home not just from Iraq but from around the world. Our country is going bankrupt, and none of these sensible proposals are even on the table.
This destructive bipartisan consensus has suffocated American political life for many years. Anyone who tries to ask fundamental questions instead of cosmetic ones is ridiculed or ignored.
That is why the Campaign for Liberty was established: to highlight the neglected but common-sense principles we champion and reinsert them into the American political conversation.
The U.S. Constitution is at the heart of what the Campaign for Liberty stands for, since the very least we can demand of our government is fidelity to its own governing document. Claims that our Constitution was meant to be a “living document” that judges may interpret as they please are fraudulent, incompatible with republican government, and without foundation in the constitutional text or the thinking of the Framers. Thomas Jefferson spoke of binding our rulers down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution, and we are proud to follow in his distinguished lineage.
With our Founding Fathers, we also believe in a noninterventionist foreign policy. Inspired by the old Robert Taft wing of the Republican Party, we are convinced that the American people cannot remain free and prosperous with 700 military bases around the world, troops in 130 countries, and a steady diet of war propaganda. Our military overstretch is undermining our national defense and bankrupting our country.
We believe that the free market, reviled by people who do not understand it, is the most just and humane economic system and the greatest engine of prosperity the world has ever known.
We believe with Ludwig von Mises, Henry Hazlitt, and F.A. Hayek that central banking distorts economic decisionmaking and misleads entrepreneurs into making unsound investments. Hayek won the Nobel Prize for showing how central banks’ interference with interest rates sets the stage for economic downturns. And the central bank’s ability to create money out of thin air transfers wealth from the most vulnerable to those with political pull, since it is the latter who receive the new money before the price increases it brings in its wake have yet occurred. For economic and moral reasons, therefore, we join the great twentieth-century economists in opposing the Federal Reserve System, which has reduced the value of the dollar by 95 percent since it began in 1913.
We oppose the dehumanizing assumption that all issues that divide us must be settled at the federal level and forced on every American community, whether by activist judges, a power-hungry executive, or a meddling Congress. We believe in the humane alternative of local self-government, as called for in our Constitution.
We oppose the transfer of American sovereignty to supranational organizations in which the American people possess no elected representatives. Such compromises of our country’s independence run counter to the principles of the American Revolution, which was fought on behalf of self-government and local control. Most of these organizations have a terrible track record even on their own terms: how much poverty have the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund actually alleviated, for example? The peoples of the world can interact with each other just fine in the absence of bureaucratic intermediaries that undermine their sovereignty.
We believe that freedom is an indivisible whole, and that it includes not only economic liberty but civil liberties and privacy rights as well, all of which are historic rights that our civilization has cherished from time immemorial.
Our stances on other issues can be deduced from these general principles.
Our country is ailing. That is the bad news. The good news is that the remedy is so simple and attractive: a return to the principles our Founders taught us. Respect for the Constitution, the rule of law, individual liberty, sound money, and a noninterventionist foreign policy constitute the foundation of the Campaign for Liberty.
Will you join us?
"Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday."
-The Duke
-The Duke
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
I have joined and donated. I'm glad to see Paul's presidential campaign turning into something bigger and broader.
I love it.
I'm gonna check out Chuck Baldwin in the National Election. I bet he gets Ron's endorsement.
I had to read that a couple times before I understood what you were saying. That's pretty funny, though.
Basically if you don't lick AIPACS ass you don't get into the inner circle, and those that control peoples thoughts and minds daily aka the mainstream media....all sleep with the same group of toadies that own the airways anyways. Politics meets media meets politics meets lobbyists.
Can't really play the game if you don't take it in a bent over position.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I've certainly learned that there is no such thing as "public" ownership, and that if the state is in control of resources they will use them for the good of those in power at the expense of the "public" who suposedly "owns" the resources. There wasn't a lot of privatization in China or the Soviet Union, and the "haves" were doing a pretty good job of dominating the "have nots". But good luck with your utopia.
LOL...ironic thing to say on a "privatized" message board, using a "privatized" computer, sitting in a "privatized" building, on a "privatized" piece of land. Then again, maybe you posted this from Cuba or a state-run mental institution. What do I know?
Ha ha.....not nearly as ironic as those that think private property rights can spontaneously emerge from a common property system without existence and enforcement of a set of rules. In other words, 'rules' and 'rulers' are required to establish, monitor, and enforce a property system. Fan of force, are we?
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Well put. I joined as well and plan on donating. I really hope this movement continues to snowball...
Give it a fucking rest already. I don't know how many times you need to be shown that Nader doesn't just pop up every four years. This has moved beyond ignorance on the matter now and is slipping into pure denial. Nader is doing it as an independent instead of running Green or Reform because he wants to make an issue of just how hard it is to obtain ballot access in this country. It is a HUGE obstacle for anyone who might choose to use their right to run for office but then comes to find that even though they have the right to run you still have all this mess to go through, different rules and petitions for all 50 states and it makes it virtually impossible to even use your right to run in the first place. Jesse Ventura and Ron Paul have touched upon this issue and the complete ridiculousness of it, as well. I'm glad Nader's out there going through it all in order to shed light on our completely screwed up system....because no one else wants to bother with it. Everyone just shrugs and says 'well, that's just how the system is. oh well'
Ron Paul's not building a new party, either. But it's only useless when it's Nader?....how objective of you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I don't believe that property rights "spontaneously emerge from a common property system", nor do I believe that property rights are established at the point of a gun. "Common property systems" are the antithesis to personal property and property rights emerge from peace as opposed to violence.
So, yes, farfrom, I recognize that I am privileged to the point that I can own a private computer, that I can afford the astounding rates for high-speed internet, and afford to power my computer while paying for the ridiculous BGE bills, while the owners of these companies laugh all the way to the bank getting richer and richer while the people continue to get fucked.
To deny this as an inevitable fact of the rise of the free market is as ludicrous as thinking that China or the USSR shared power and privilege equally. The problem is that I can recognize this, Ron Paul fans and other libertarians, just say "look it's the politicians that are screwing us", forgetting the fact that it is the beneficiaries of the free market that are paying them off in the first place. You really think that would change? Please.
YOU give it a fucking rest already. Put me on ignore if you dont like what I write but dont tell me what the fuck to do. You go one week without posting anything in/on/around Obama and I'll never mention Nader again (like 99.9999% of this country).
at least she's not pushing falsehoods...what do you expect her to say when you keep bringing up nader does nothing except run for president when it has been proven time and again to be untrue?
why are ya so worked up about a message board?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
I'm not worked up. I honestly dont care about her opinions anymore. I just dont want someone to think they can stifle me because they dont like what I write. If you disagree then fine but dont tell me to not do something and expect no reply.
yeah, well if it makes ya feel any better i don't think she was actually expecting you to shut up, more like 'stop lying'
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Stop lying? What in my statement is a lie? What has Nader organized politically inbetween elections to grow into a viable alternative to the two party system? What is the lie or is he keeping it a big secret? I never said he doesnt do anything between his "runs" -- but fighting against corporate rule (why investing in them..huuum) is not organizing an alternative now is it???
Perhaps she can tell me what I lied about instead of channeling through you.
Oh jeez...I was not expecting to 'stifle' you. lol
I meant 'give it a rest' as in give this notion that Nader only pops up every 4 years to run for president' a rest because it has been proven wrong multiple times by multiple posters.
No need to lose your temper. I apologize for not being more clear with what I was trying to express earlier, though...which was frustration at a falsehood being spread around continuously after it has been proven to be not true.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Oh I thought you guys didn't like it when we posted at the same time...just trying to make it easier for ya.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=5541086&postcount=13
Nader does plenty like battle ballot access and actually sue the DNC for keeping him off the ballot in 04(a case which he won)....so yeah, he does plenty of activist work year in and year about to combat the problems we have in this country with our electoral process. I already mentioned this in my first reply to you in this thread and you decided to gloss right over that and flip out instead.
Not to mention all the other things Nader works hard on every year in an effort to make this country a better place. He may not do it exactly how you'd like it done but hell, at least he's out there making a damn difference and doing it the way he thinks is best. If you feel a strong third party needs to be built then why don't you take up the cause? You can't force people to do what you think is best for them or us. I don't even think Nader has a whole lot of faith in political parties, myself. Once they gain the majority and power, they always corrupt...name one that hasn't. I share this view with Nader and it's one of the biggest reasons I'm a registered independent. I was asked why I didn't register Green back in 04 and I said because I view that as being part of the problem not a solution to it. People like Nader believe in the individual power of citizens who can use their voice and their rights to change things long before a political party ever will. I feel we should do away with them altogether and that all starts with allowing ballot access to independents without having to go through such an impossible ordeal.
Ron Paul isn't building a viable third party, either...neither is Jesse Ventura. So
I don't get your praise in this thread for one and continued contempt for the other.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Take away the power from the politician and there is no reason to pay him off. A free market wouldn't have rent-seeking political entrepreneurs.
Once again though you blame politicians as if they are the only bad people out there. They are for sure, but it's your heroes that are funding them, that are telling them what to do, etc. Take away the politicians and rules, and now the very powerful have no one to stop them from being fucks. Call me back when this happens and your kids are sewing soccer balls for Nike...it's a real brilliant idea let me tell you.
Nothing wrong with a little racism while making a point...
You really think this is going to change if we move to a system that privileges the free market? You have to be kidding me if you actually think that moving to a system that is built in the vision of predominantly White people would benefit the many? What I mean is that if White people have a 380+ to 1 head start on owning EVERYTHING is this country how could that possibly be a good thing to do if we are looking for a better system for all?
Secondly, if you want to call counting numbers and putting it into context as racism then I think you vastly undervalue what that term means. Racism would be using a belief that we are genetically different because of the difference in melanin in our skin (which as ludicrous as arguing people with blue eyes are better at basketball and those with brown have the brains) to create an elaborate system of power and privilege....in other words if we actually implemented a system which privileges the free market (that, as I have demonstrated, white people predominantly benefit from) then THAT would be a form of racism.
The best part is libertarians would overlook the context from which their free market system would come from and blame the individual for not making it. It's one of the most vicious and ludicrous ideas in modern economic times, yet somehow it resonates with the people despite the fact that it's fucking a majority of us over...as Toby Miller once wrote "The American People Cannot be Trusted".
P.S. You also left out sexist, and sexualist as well since I pointed out that white, straight, men were the very rich. I could also demonstrate why those two arguments would be equally ludicrous but it would be redundant given my above argument.
These aren't my heroes these are the people who would fail in a free market because they wouldn't be able to rely on political favors.
The politicians don't stop them, the politicians empower them. You've just admitted as much.
HOWEVER, what you are conveniently leaving out is the fact that in a free market system none of this happens. Yes rich people will have to buy their own stadiums and so on, but poor people (oh my goodness there are tons more of these) will be going to schools that are put for sale on the free market. So they would be going to the University of Maryland - College Park, sponsored by Comcast. Do you really think that those schools would provide any valuable critique of how Comcast works if their very funding depends on Comcast giving them money? Do you really thing that public schools in urban centers would even get funded if they don't turn a profit for corporations? Would you be fine with the repercussions of a free market system that allows child prostitution (we have to let everything go on the market right)?
Like I said this is a vicious system that only benefits the privileged few which are overwhelmingly white, male, and heterosexual. If you are one of those people then I could understand why you think it's a good idea. If you aren't then you have been hijacked.
Since we have no untaxed free market system here, your example makes no sense. The system we have is far from free market thanks to the government enabling those large corporations and those large corporations owning the 2 major party politicians. Getting us away from the government toward a truely free market is what will keep us from collapsing. For some reason your trust in the nanny state isn't reassuring.
And how will you insure that we have more non-whites on that rich list? Will you use government coersion to put them on the list? Will you punish success and add token representation? It seems to be hard for you to leave people to their own devices, so you must have some mechanism of force to create your vision.