Paul calling for march on Washington

[penguins4me]

Caleb, if you are non par person, would you be OK with riding the coat-tails of the folks that marched and died for freedom?   

There seems to be near to a world of differene between those two activities you tried to link together.

[Kat Kanning]

If Ron Paul comes up with some freedom oriented goal of this, I think it'd be a good idea.  The real audience of these sorts of things is not really the gov...it's 'the people'.

[kola]

It *IS* working within the system. It is asking the government to reconsider their actions. "Please, don't do this. It isn't humane." You are hoping that they do what you ask. The unstated belief of someone marching is that things would be better for them if the government was less evil, and that hopefully the government will choose to behave in a more benevolent way if we appeal to the decency of the people who run the government. But government by its nature is evil, and human decency cannot ultimately prevail under the reigning philosophy that some people ought to enforce their wills on the rest. Marching says, "please don't enforce your will on us" to a body whose very nature is to enforce its will. So it is counterproductive at best. And when apparently successful, it actually reinforces the belief that people have in its legitimacy. How many times have you heard people say, "See, the system works" when they believe justice has been served? How many times have you heard people who fervently disagree with the government beg people to work within the system to change things? How many times have you heard them fret about low voter turnout? The government wants people to invest in it, believe in it, feel that their voice is heard, because the one thing they can't suffer is you turning your back on it and giving up in it.

I am not free because anyone marched on Washington. I am not free because anybody joined some silly army and "fought" for my freedom. I am not free because some pretentious politician deigned to not completely shackle me. I am not free because I was born in the richest, most exploitative country in the world. I am free because I chose to be free.

I have to disagree with your definitons and explanations. I guess we could get into symantics here..working within, working against etc.,,in the system, otta the system...just saying no..etc.  

Whats YOUR defintion of "FREE" Caleb? This might be  great question for everyone. One can be "free" in his mind but  not "free" to do as he chooses. Is one really free? I am talking in more details of freedom to live as one sees fit without intrusion from others. Lauren was "free" in her mindset but was not free to leave jail.

I am talking about restoring FREEdom IN ALL ASPECTS. (mind body soul etc)..whether its with a march, a protest, handing out flyers, or defending myself).

Kola

[kola]

Caleb, if you are non par person, would you be OK with riding the coat-tails of the folks that marched and died for freedom?   

There seems to be near to a world of differene between those two activities you tried to link together.

OK  ie Ron Paul March in July turns into a bloody riot as copgoons attack first killing many commonfolk The commomers fight back and win. Yeah! It even brings the sheeple to rally with Ron Paul, he gets elected, takes office and cleans house.

There is no doubt Ron Paul will give every american more freedom. How would YOU feel if you did not participate in that bloody battle/march? Would you still take your newly found freedom that others died for while you sat and watched it unfold on the news in your comfy chair, beer in hand? Are you OK with that? I am sure you would be grateful towards those who died for your freedom but is that REALLY how it should be??

Kola

[J’raxis 270145]

srqrebel:—

I agree with most of what you say, and certainly your end goal. And I don't dispute that completely withdrawing one's support from the authoritarian model of government is one way to obtain freedom. However,—

Let them fill their jails with innocent.  It can only serve to expose their evil core -- and hasten the spread of the new paradigm.

this is where you lose me. I believe in following a path to freedom that doesn't allow for the government to commit increasing amounts of harm against people as we move along. Protesting and working to repeal bad laws moves us toward freedom and minimizes the harm that the government causes in the process. Yes, it also makes people think the system "works," but I'm not worried about this.

Why?

Because it also has the effect of getting our people closer to, and eventually into, the system. And with enough people inside the system, we simply begin dismantling it. We start repealing all the laws, winding the government down, until the final Act the Legislature passes is to dissolve itself.

Power corrupts? Sure, it corrupts some: people who secretly sought power to begin with, or people who are insecure and believe that power over others is a legitimate form of self-defense. I doubt this will be a problem with us liberty activists who have already pledged our lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor to the goal of achieving liberty in our lifetime.

I trust that while we system activists are doing this, people like you will be busy working outside the system to ease the transition to statelessness and to build the private institutions necessary to replace the functions of the State.

All we need for such a strategy to work is 283 activists in the Legislature.

Activities such as supporting Ron Paul, supporting "mainstream" Republicans against the Democrats, &c., &c., are utterly strategic in nature. One, politicians such as these will move us in the right direction until such time that we ourselves are actually inside the system. Our more extreme messages (e.g., "privatize everything!") will become a lot more palatable to people. And two, using their campaigns to get the message out is important: We bring people into the liberty fold via Constitutionalism or conservatism, and only after they've woken up do we try to bring such newcomers all the way to anarchism. One has to get up, and step out the door, before one can cross the street.



So—

Can you tell me how such a strategy is incompatible with your methods or goals?

Do you believe it simply won't work for some reason I'm not seeing?

[Caleb]

I want to say this differently, but every time I say it, it always comes out the same:

You cannot have external (socio/political) change without effecting internal change in the minds and hearts of people. You cannot trick and deceive your way to freedom.

If people liked your ideas, Ron Paul would be winning his primaries. The irony here is that if Ron Paul were capable of winning, it would be unnecessary that he run, because the people would naturally be demanding what he offers, and it wouldn't matter who was "in charge".

Strike the root. The root of our problems are IDEAS. Very bad ideas.

Or how 'bout this way of explaining it:  You don't destroy the Ring of power by using it.

[kola]

ya really didnt answer my questions tho'   

Kola

[Caleb]

yeah, my answer was directed at jraxis.

I don't have an answer to your question, because I suspect it isn't possible to answer. Every word has both a dictionary definition, as well as emotional and spiritual connotations that are individual. I don't have a way to convey to you what "freedom" means to me, because there is so much nonverbal symbology attached to it. I can't put you in my mind. If you gave me a little while to analyze it and try to see what symbols my mind is using, I might be able to convey that to you, but even then it would be void of the emotional impact.

Lauren wasn't able to go where she wished, but her spirit was (and is) hers. No man can wield her thoughts where they will. She is her own master. Since our thoughts are who we really are, she is free, no matter what happens to her body. You are focusing too much on the external realities of who can "bear you where you do not wish" and failing to understand true freedom.

[kola]

I ask it because it becomes a difficult question to answer.

I hope more people respond to it as well.

That IS what this forum is about isn't it?  freedom?

Kola 

[J’raxis 270145]

You cannot have external (socio/political) change without effecting internal change in the minds and hearts of people. You cannot trick and deceive your way to freedom.

Who said anything about trickery or deceit? And affecting internal change in the minds and hearts of people is what I'm talking about. Remember the "Ron Paul cured my apathy" signs? Have you seen how many people have subsequently been turned onto the freestate movement by the Ron Paul campaign? Now we need to get these people all the way to anarchism.

If people liked your ideas, Ron Paul would be winning his primaries. The irony here is that if Ron Paul were capable of winning, it would be unnecessary that he run, because the people would naturally be demanding what he offers, and it wouldn't matter who was "in charge".

Winning the primary is completely unnecessary in order to get the message out to more people, which is one of the reasons that I clearly stated that I supported Ron Paul. Dr. Paul got several hundred thousand votes across the country. Plenty of people seem to like his ideas.

Hey, we still seem to have a government. Does this mean people don't like your ideas?

You don't destroy the Ring of power by using it.

Someone at AIYH had this to say about that:—

Ron Paul **IS** Frodo. He's the one bearing the burden of taking the ring to be destroyed.

I would also contend that the strategy I outlined above—getting inside the power system in order to destroy it—would fit the Frodo analogy.

[Caleb]

Hey, we still seem to have a government. Does this mean people don't like your ideas?

Yes.

I am too weary to prolong another in vs out of the system debate. I will say this, though: as long as people keep looking to someone else for *the solution* we will not have freedom. When people take it on their own shoulders, then we will have the basis for true freedom to begin. I'm amused by all the Ron Paul is Savior themes that I see. He's a modern day Luke Skywalker/Frodo/Harry Potter/Jesus all in one kindly grandfatherly face.

You'll start to know freedom when you can honestly say,  "I am Frodo"

[J’raxis 270145]

Hey, we still seem to have a government. Does this mean people don't like your ideas?

Yes.

Interesting that you answered the one piece that was meant to be rhetorical in that comment. I was trying to express how silly your gross generalization was, that Ron Paul's failures mean that "people" don't like the ideas.

I am too weary to prolong another in vs out of the system debate. I will say this, though: as long as people keep looking to someone else for *the solution* we will not have freedom. When people take it on their own shoulders, then we will have the basis for true freedom to begin. I'm amused by all the Ron Paul is Savior themes that I see. He's a modern day Luke Skywalker/Frodo/Harry Potter/Jesus all in one kindly grandfatherly face.

You'll start to know freedom when you can honestly say,  "I am Frodo"

I don't see where we disagree here—I've said twice now, and I'll say a third time, I do not consider Ron Paul—or any other elected official—the solution. I see the campaign as, at most, an opportunity for bringing people the freedom message. (During the campaign I was hopeful he'd win, or at least take second or third, in New Hampshire, but I didn't expect much more than that in terms of "wins.") As for other politicians who actually do have a chance at winning an election (e.g., state and local office candidates I've supported or plan to support), getting them into office isn't the solution either: what they'll do while in office is simply a small step in the right direction.

Yeah, we who are trying to dismantle the system from within, and not be corrupted in the process—we're Frodo.

[kola]

Caleb quote

When people take it on their own shoulders, then we will have the basis for true freedom to begin.

I am puzzled as you often use the word freedom but have yet to define it.

What is "true freedom"?

How can you talk about something that is non-defined?

Kola

[Lloyd Danforth]

I don't see where we disagree here—I've said twice now, and I'll say a third time, I do not consider Ron Paul—or any other elected official—the solution. I see the campaign as, at most, an opportunity for bringing people the freedom message. (During the campaign I was hopeful he'd win, or at least take second or third, in New Hampshire, but I didn't expect much more than that in terms of "wins.") As for other politicians who actually do have a chance at winning an election (e.g., state and local office candidates I've supported or plan to support), getting them into office isn't the solution either: what they'll do while in office is simply a small step in the right direction.

Yeah, we who are trying to dismantle the system from within, and not be corrupted in the process—we're Frodo.

Yeah, there are a lot of people who have not been as lucky(?) as we have, to have been exposed to libertarian philosophy of any kind and had the opportunity to weigh, then, accept or reject  it.  Ron Paul has a limited, national,  microphone for the time being. Many people are hearing about sound money, non-intervention and non-nanny government for the first time because of the RP campaign.

[Caleb]

I tried to tell you, I cannot explain it, because it is more than a word, it is a symbol, and you can't be in my mind.  You are obsessing about this definition thing.

I don't know how to define it. All I know is that if you give me a word, any word, and I show you that the root of that word is a Greek.