James Madison was 5'-4" so I assume the great unwashed today would not vote for him. I guess in 1808 there were no pictures or TV so he was elected. Imagine that newspapers without pictures.

Here is a thought .. If we hadn't been meddling around in the Middle East propping up dictators and kings, and bombing them, maybe just maybe they would not want to do us harm? You know the old golden rule thing that your Granny and Momma told you about!

@ theo-

That lame argument such as the wig-nut R Paul espouses? Please.

Read the archives here, then read the Quran.

Get educated.

Or just return to the Huffington Post and become a master of the inane sound bite.

Poor Theo. What cartoons have you been reading?

Read the Islamic texts. If the word "bomb" or its physical being had never been invented, Islamic-Fascists would still have been attempting to hang you by your intestines.

It is the nature of Evil to do so.

Burt, it's not "jobs that Americans won't do", so much as Americans who perfer to let the welfare state and social services safety net take care of them. Human nature being what it is and a culture that thinks being lazy is acceptable, people realize that they can work their butts off and only be slightly ahead of where they'd be if they don't work at all. We are activly subsidising inactivity!

Get the "L" out of BLT. That`s a classic if I ever heard one. Sure have missed you this past week Burt.

Richard Ryan

Lamar,Missouri - Birthplace of Harry S Truman

Thanks, mmcrindle and G Dub, for handling theo in my absence. A popular catchphrase in the past is that a brain is a terrible thing to waste. But it's obvious that theo hasn't wasted his; he hasn't even taken it out of the box.

Cap28: I can't disagree with you. But if it were up to me, America wouldn't be a welfare state. Welfare was intended to be a solution to a temporary problem. Instead, it's become a permanent problem with no solution in sight.

Burt

Welfare is charity. James Madison said, "Charity is not in the Constitution". So welfare even on a temporary basis is unconstitutional. That also includes unemployment insurance. How come the Republican Big Shots (you can't call them leaders) went along with the democraps on extending unemployment insurance?

Burt:

I sent you an email before I got around to reading your weekly diss of Ron Paul. Take a look at what I sent .. some of your other readers might like to hear what Ron Paul says about the topic you raised.

Israel's best friend may be RON PAUL - despite what the media says -RP's own words

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jcKIsBcEA-8

Burt:

You may have noticed that I bought your book last week and I read that you view yourself as a libertarian. It would seem that you and Paul have a number of things in common. Wikipedia has some interesting things to note regarding someone you consider to be your favorite nutcase.

Paul served as a flight surgeon in the United States Air Force from 1963 until 1968. Paul has been termed the "intellectual godfather" of the Tea Party movement.He has become well known for his libertarian ideas on many political issues, often differing from both Republican and Democratic Party stances.

The fact that he agrees with a biblical concept of how to treat others should not be a reason to subject him to these attacks.

I so enjoy your writings, Mr. Prelutsky! Your way of putting a spin on the obvious always keeps me entertained and chuckling. It also rings true for the most part. I am 100% against the way our country presently hands out "welfare"; how those in power seem determined to destroy our country through political correctness and amenesty; how far we are slipping from the original interpretation of our Constitution. I am also amazed at the people who seem to focus only on the New Testament of the Bible. If the Old Testament were read more, people would see what a warring people God's chosen were. There has always been and will always be enmity between the seed of Isaac and the seed of Ishmael. It would be wise (and quite surprising) to research America's Godly heritage. No wonder the Muslims hate us!!!!

THe best way to reduce the number of welfare recipients (those who could work, but won't) is to require them to perform "community service" in order to qualify for the unemployment, food stamps and other entitlements they now receive at our espense. The "99percenters" are good examples. They blame their situations on those of us who have worked all our lives and have attained some measure of success, but they don't want to have to follow that rule.

Shorty: In some ways I am a libertarian. For instance,I don't believe it is anyone's business what drugs people stick in their own bodies, just so long as they don't get away with labeling themselves victims if they commit crimes while stoned.

As I wrote back to you, I do not regard Ron Paul as a great friend of Israel's. He is so much an isolationist, I don't for a minute believe President Paul would rush to defend Israel if attacked by Iran, Syria and Egypt.

Morning Glory: It's nice to see that some people, unlike Ron Paul, understand why the Muslims hate us, and understand it has nothing to do with our presence in the Middle East. Most people would understand that our reason for being there has generally been to defend one group of Muslims from another group of Muslims, and has had nothing to do with oil or Israel. And we all, along with Shorty Feldbush, should keep in mind that Rep. Paul still believes that 9/11 was an inside job hatched by President Bush! President Ron Paul? Heaven help us.

Regards, Burt

It's been years, but at one time I was a California farm worker. I drove a tractor and irrigated, and weeded cotton, rather than harvest iceberg lettuce, but back in those days, I was one of only 3 or 4 non-hispanic farm workers who was not the son of a farmer. The hours were long (up to 100 hrs/week), and it was very hot, but the pay was quite good for non-skilled (but trainable) workers. Many of my co-workers worked harder than you can imagine for 8-9 months per year, then vacationed back in Mexico where they had servants. They tended to own their own homes (one in the US, one in Mexico), owned their own car, and contributed to society, and were grateful for the pay. It took me many weeks to gain respect from them, since so few non-hispanics were willing and able to work that hard. My pay covered my expenses for over 2 years of engineering school, al earned over 4 months. I don't feel sorry for them, I respect them! And I'd guess that "Americans" still won't take those jobs.

I'll trot out my usual disclaimer that I am a Libertarian and not a Republican. I will also trot out my usual, "I strongly disagree with Ron Paul about a few things," - but they are MOSTLY things where the power of the presidency is weak.

I do NOT think 9/11 was an inside job.

I will also take a back seat to no-one in my abhorrence of all things Muslim - and I know FAR more than is commonly known about the long-term operational and strategic aims of the jihadis. I am also a great supporter of Israel (I actually thought about moving there to join the IDF at one point.)

Having said that, and after creating the obligatory distance from some of Ron Paul's positions, I will close with a simple question and a single comment:

Which potential nominees in the Republican race actually act as if they believe that welfare is unconstitutional?

For the life of me, I can only think of one.

Richard Ryan: What do you mean you missed me last week? As usual, the Patriot Post ran three of my articles as usual? Were you in a coma? In any case, welcome back.

Army Officer: I agree that welfare is unconstitutional. But, what makes anyone think that Ron Paul is cut out to be president? Even if you give him a pass on foreign relations, how do you ignore the fact that in 23 years in the House, he has proposed 620 pieces of legislation and only had one of them passed, and that dealt, according to Fox News, with the sale of an old state building in Galveston to a Texas historical society. When he can't even get a Republican-controlled House to agree with him on 619 bills, how do you think he will fare in the Oval Office? Talk about a do-nothing Congress, this do-nothing congressman takes the cake. Waste in government? Over the past quarter century, we have paid Rep. Paul roughly $3.5 million in salary to sit on his duff.

Burt

Howard,

Maybe I'm nitpicking here, but welfare is not charity. Charity is an act of generosity, given by one who has to one who has not, of his own free will. Welfare is governmentally mandated redistribution, taken by threat of force from those who earn and used to buy the votes of those who do not. One is voluntary, one is required. One is noble, one is theft, a crime.

I see no similarity.

So proposing legislation and having it passed is a good thing? I wish all legislators had such a record in the last 23 years. We would all be much wealthier and healthier.

Norge - yes it is stealing, just like social security.

I'm gonna pass on the heavy stuff like Paul and the constitutionality of welfare and jihadists; I'll just comment on BLTs.

We long ago eliminated the L from BLTs by creating the BST: Bacon, Spinach, and Tomato. This probably makes absolutely no difference on the number of illegal aliens employed and may even be more harmful to the environment. Even though the BST may well be more nutritious than the BLT, we made the change because it simply tastes better.

Try it. You might like it.

Hi, Burt,

Longer name? That means that Bachmann and Santorum still have a chance!

The Digest was talking about the "Not Romney" candidate. I for one do not care who gets the Republican nomination, because I plan to vote for the "Not BO."

Connie: Longer names, but not taller, at least not in Rep. Bachmann's case.

Gary Hale: I'm not sure I disagree with you, but obviously Rep. Paul does. Or else he wouldn't have proposed, on average, one bill every two weeks for 23 years!

Burt

Burt,

You're making my point for me. Since the vast majority of things the government does is unconstitutional, a government that did - literally - nothing would actually be closer to doing it's proper job than the one we've had for decades. Of course nobody is advocating anarchy, but I WANT government to do a lot less than it's doing. If my choice is between bad legislation and worse legislation, I'll choose door #3: as little legislation as possible.

To quote Hypocrites, "First, do no harm."

The fact that the legislation Ron Paul puts forward doesn't get past his fellow Republicans just proves what people like me have been saying for years - Republicans have no more regard for the limits the Constitution places upon government than the Democrats do.

It's all academic anyway: the combined debt of the PIIGS is going to throw Europe under the financial bus, and we'll be pulled under with them because we've constrained ourselves to two major parties that compete for which can outspend and out-regulate the other. It won't matter if it's President Paul, President Obama, President Gingrich, etc. When you drive off a cliff it hardly matters who's holding the wheel.

My apologies Burt. Apparently I was asleep at the wheel. I sincerely thought I had looked for your editorials. They are one of the things I look for first. It may be that the holidays and the fact that I have been subjected to the non-stop shootings, arson, hit-and-run incidents, and on and on did have me in a coma. In any case, I sincerely enjoy and appreciate you.

Richard Ryan

Lamar,Missouri - Birthplace of Harry S Truman

Army Officer: I appreciate my loyal readers, but I can only wish they were as loyal as Rep. Paul's groupies. If he had managed to pass all 620 pieces of legislation, it would be regarded as a feather in the cap of a consummate politician; the fact that he only got one of the 620 passed is also regarded as a plus because he didn't add anything to the already overloaded system. Furthermore, when people tell me that they like everything about him except for his foreign policy, I'm reminded that everything about Louis Farrakhan is good (his insistence that his followers refrain from alcohol and drugs, dress well and marry the mothers of their children), except for his racial bigotry and anti-Semitism.

Richard--Thanks for the explanation. I knew one of us was dreaming, and I'm relieved to find it was you.

Burt

Burt - how about the following: For every proposed bill two existing bills are to be eliminated. We may get our rights and freedom back. A good place to start abolishing the Creature from Jeykl Island and Joe Stalin's best friend FDR's scheme (social security).

I see you know you have to use Ron Paul's name to get us to read your column and then you demonstrate your ignorance of his policies with every failed attempt at humor.

You might want to start reading the books he has written before your next turn at lower your britches in public.

@Theo - maybe you can explain to me why the Muslim states want to bomb and destroy Israel? The Israelis haven't propped up any Arab dictators and other than a nuclear plant in Iraq, haven't bombed any of their countries. Yet, the Muslim Brotherhood and Ahmidinejad want to wipe them off the map.

As for the suggestion of a guest worker program, "guest worker" is merely a euphemism for "apartheid". I saw first hand the condition of the guest workers in Germany when I lived there - they can't own property, vote, etc., then the Socialists in Europe are incredulous when the 2nd and 3rd generations erupt in violence, e.g. the Paris riots.

And as for jobs Americans won't do, I'd like to know what they are, since I've done most of them, from packing houses to ditch-digging, mucking out cattle and hog stalls, and like @Cheute, it paid for my college. What most Americans won't do is work their tails off for substandard wages, and yes, the welfare state mitigates against that as a disincentive.

To close, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with Ron Paul on policy, can the GOP afford to run another grumpy old man, a la Dole and McCain? I agree that the best way for government to contain costs is to get out of all the non-enumerated power business, that should slash a lot more than a trillion from the budget, but the media darling Ron Paul will be just another grumpy old man if he gets the nomination, just like they treated Sen. McCain 4 years ago. History teaches us that we learn nothing from history.

Howard: I'd be for any system that could do away with thousands of unnecessary laws and regulations, along with most of the bureaucratic departments in D.C., but I can't do it and neither can Ron Paul.

Major Stu: Thanks for your comments. It saves me the necessity of writing some of my own.

Burt

My Dad worked 6 days a week. He and his generation were ashamed to seek any form of welfare. Even when it was a real necessity, it was considered demeaning, and people looked down on you for accepting it. My generation was busy with that nasty piece of business called WWII. Then Johnson declared war on poverty, and the welfare state exploded with exponential growth even spawning the OWS culture that figures the world (read U.S. taxpayer) owes them a living. Now Burt’s frighteningly correct that “it’s become a permanent problem with no solution in sight”.

Burt,

Fair enough. I'm no Ron Paul groupie, myself. He's just the only Republican I would even consider voting for. Not because he's the best candidate (although he's the best Republican candidate), but because he's the only constitutionalist who has any chance of beating Obama.

It's simple from my perspective: the most important election in my lifetime took place when I was just out of the crib: Johnson beat Goldwater and the United States finally chose, once and for all, the easy road to serfdom over the hard road to liberty. The only difference between the Republicans and the Democrats ever since has been the speed at which we hurtle toward the abyss.

It's like flying an airplane: if you're a long way from an obstacle you can make a slight correction and miss it by miles. The longer you put it off the greater the control input required to avoid disaster. We are now officially about $15,000,000,000,000 in debt, and that doesn't include unfunded liabilities, which put us on the hook for more than $100,000,000,000,000.

In my airplane analogy, we are moments (historically) away from hitting the mountainside. It is probably already too late. But the only thing that has the slightest chance of preventing it (if it's even possible anymore), is a radical yank on the stick and the rudder petal to the floor. All the establishment candidates are basically saying, "This is the Captain speaking: we have to make a gentle turn to the right. You won't spill your drink, and we will resume our normal course in a few moments."

My view is that all the bickering over Ron Paul or any of the candidates is a moot point. Why? Obama will probably win in 2012. He's manipulating and managing much of the press, who happily plays along, as he is Congress. He's making the Republicans look like a bunch of amateurs, and they're numbly playing along, stumbling here or there.

Frankly, there's none of the Republican candidates that appeal to me. So, I'm going to urge everyone to vote for the Republicans running for Congress. Once the Congress is solidly Republican, Obama the president becomes more ineffective. His hands are tied. I think this is the best we can hope for with such weak Republican presidential candidates.

In 2012, our hope lies in Congress, not in the Presidency. God help us, either way.

Tex - we need a Conservative Congress, as Republican and Conservative are not synonyms in most cases. We have a republican House and they go along with the democraps on almost everything. Are Boehner and McConnell anything but RINOs? The best way to ensure we get a Conservative Congress is to get involved with the primaries for the house and Senate.

Ron Paul Fans

This will come as a relief or a shock.

You no longer have to defend Mr. Paul's eccentricities. You have to defend yourself.

Ron Paul has been outed by some of his closest supporters, on the site of his former congressional chief of staff. http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/25612/431256.aspx

He is a voluntaryist--and if you don't know what that is, its a branch of the anarchist community.

Limited Government? You betcha. What the Founders had in mind...hardly. Use the Constitution to further that end...yep. Here's the caption:

"In this video, using Ron Paul's own words from his books and interviews, it is shown that Ron Paul's goal is voluntaryism. He adopts limited-government positions and appeals to the U.S. Constitution as part of a long-term strategy for achieving a completely free society, absent any State."

So, your job now is to explain why you still support him, even though these folks make it plain that the "We the people types" are antithetical to Paul's vision, or how you didn't know, and you were one of the one's that got bombed by his anarchist revelation.

"If us anarchists spread the video around, it would functionally be the same thing as "outing" Ron Paul. So they are similar in that fashion. If he's asked in a televised debate whether or not he is an anarchist, my guess is that he'd answer no and say he thinks the society with the least amount of coercion would be the best society, but that he believes a Constitutional government would the best means to achieve those ends....Changing somebody into a voluntaryist is a gradual thing and it's something that's probably easier to glide into rather than jump into. So I think you're right. But there comes a point where you reach critical mass and Ron Paul has appealed to all of the people who are serious thinkers and at that point he can drop the anarchist bomb on his fans."

Good luck

Sapient: Well said. I don't think it's a mere coincidence that Paul's greatest appeal is to the very young, much as it was and is with Obama. These are not the most savvy, they are the least experienced and the easiest to con. They are the folks who were part of the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations.

Howard & Tex: It would be very nice to see the House and Senate filled with Tea Party office holders, but you do yourselves no favors when you insist on demeaning RINOs and moderates. In a great many states, those are the only Republicans who have any chance of winning an election. And without them, the Tea Party members of the House and Senate will always be out-numbered by the Democrats. There is no shame in occasionally recognizing reality for what it is and not what you'd like it to be.

Burt

Burt

Re: "These are not the most savvy, they are the least experienced and the easiest to con. They are the folks who were part of the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations."

I had opportunity to interact with MANY of the OWS folks after the UC Davis incident, and guess who I rant into? Foreign, "stateless communism" types.

They assured me that the goal was statelessness, just like Paul, and for them, the only way to get there was tear everything down and build again, ala Wm. Ayers.

I asked one where that "statelessness" idea had ever been tried, and his response was classic: "XYZ country, until the Stalinists ruined it."

Ya think?

God bless

Wizard of Oz: "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."

Sapient,

You have utterly misrepresented Ron Paul's position. I will refer you to the video you posted to refute your own point.

You wrote, "He is a voluntaryist--and if you don't know what that is, its a branch of the anarchist community."

But yet IN YOUR OWN VIDEO, Ron Paul defines voluntarism thus, "Voluntary means no coercion, so if you want to change people's habits or change the world you should do it by setting examples and trying to persuade people to do it. You can use force only when someone uses force against you, so voluntary use of information and persuading people I think is the best way to go, no matter what kind of problem you're looking at."

Oh the HORROR of it all!

The video you posted makes 11 other points. I will address then all. My comments are in < >s:

1) Ideas are more important than politicians.

2) It defines voluntarism as an absence of the state, but Mr. Paul rejects that definition on more than one occasion elsewhere in the video.

6) He said governments tend to encroach on liberty.

7) He says, "The constraints placed upon our government in the Constitution did not work."

8) He says, "In reality, the Constitution itself is not capable of what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

9) He explains his votes in terms of the Constitutional limitations on government power rather than on economic grounds.

PatPost,

The website's formatting made a hash of my post and deleted large chucks of it. Please remove it.

Generally, no one is safe when the legislature is in session. Here in Texas, the state legislature meets every other year for part of the year. The legislators make some money for their service, but they are part-time politicians, and primarily occupied by their regular jobs.

It is true that most of them are wealthy ranchers, lawyers, oil men, or such, but at least they are subject to the laws they write, unlike Congress that exempts themselves from meaningful ethics requirements, EEO, OSHA, and still try to live completely off some contributor's dime when they are not living off taxpayers.

Army Officer

Hope you had a great CHRISTmas and New Years.

First, thanks for watching and reading. BTW: that is not my video, but voluntaryists on the website of Ron Paul's former congressional chief of staff. Make sure and read the comments that follow the video.

Please continue to study voluntaryism and see what you find and also find where Ron said "I take voluntaryist positions."

Re: "Voluntary means no coercion, so if you want to change people's habits or change the world you should do it by setting examples and trying to persuade people to do it. You can use force only when someone uses force against you, so voluntary use of information and persuading people I think is the best way to go, no matter what kind of problem you're looking at."

The problem is that voluntaryists apply this to government and ultimately hold that the very conception of government is immoral because the government coerces people into obeying laws.

They believe obedience to laws should be, ready, VOLUNTARY. This is a prime voluntaryist position. Get rid of government and we will all live together just fine.

That is a far cry from Madison's "you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself" for they would vehemently disagree that government should be able to control the governed."

Or, with Jefferson for that matter, "That to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Who is government protecting our rights from? Each other.

Voluntaryists see government as some strange, independent, self existent, immoral entity.

Re: Ron Paul, End the Fed: "In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

Do you not find that an interesting statement? If the Constitution, no matter how well written, complied with, is incapable of establishing both government and limiting it, protecting liberty and still securing the rights of all, what pray tell is?

What is this NEW form of government or otherwise that he is advocating right in this quote? For he is saying nothing less.

God bless

PS: not to worry about what's missing.

Ed Shipley

Ditto Sir

BTW: are you the guy that has some great oil paintings from a local artist where you live? You and your barber helped him get started?

Had a guy like that in a Bible Study class.

If you are the same guy, look me up under my real name on Facebook. Would love to hear from you and P.

God bless

If America truly wanted to name their children after vampires then a revival of such names as "Nancy", 'Chuck", "Barney"," Michelle" and"Barry" should all begin to enjoy revivals.

Sapient,

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you as well.

I responded to the video at some length, but most of it was chopped off when I hit the "Submit" button.

Rather than reconstruct the whole thing I'll just respond to the point you brought up at 2:46:03. I think you're misinterpreting his statement, "In reality, the Constitution itself is not capable of what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

It seems to me that he's merely stating the obvious - the limits the Constitution places on the government are being ignored. If "We the People" are unwilling to restrict the government to it's proper roles, then the Constitution is just a piece of paper. In what ways do we refuse to limit government to its proper role? By voting for the "lesser of two evils" every single time, for one.

So I find nothing objectionable about that statement - it's simply an accurate observation of the situation. Combine that observation with the earlier one that "Ideas are more important that politicians," and it seems that he's saying that as long as Americans want goodies from the government more than we want good government, it doesn't matter what the Constitution says about the limits of its power.

As a long-term card-carrying member of the Libertarian Party, I can categorically state that the Republican accusation that we're all a bunch of anarchists is simply not true. Our position is much more nuanced than that. We're not all secretly pining for the disestablishment of the state - we just want the state to protect our rights and otherwise leave us alone. If I didn't believe the state had the right to use force to do so I would not have spend 20+ years in the military.

I'm out of time. Perhaps we'll continue this later.

Army Officer

All that is well and good until Ron Paul says "I take voluntaryist positions."

Such a statement is no less significant than some one saying "I take Socialist positions," or "I take Biblical positions," or "I take Nazi positions," or "I take racist positions."

They are meaningless if someone doesn't know socialism, the Bible, Naziism, or racism. But, if you do, it is very easy to spot. and understand what is being said consistently.

Now, I cannot speak for the GOP...I can tell you that what I reported are the words of Voluntaryists not mine or the GOP's.

If you have a desire to do so, check out discussions of voluntaryism and see if they match up with what Ron Paul says.

For example, check this discussion by "Economics Junkie" at http://www.economicsjunkie.com/anarchism-voluntaryism-faqs/

And particularly his 8 Step Cross Exam of Voluntaryism Ethics at http://www.economicsjunkie.com/the-ethics-of-voluntaryism-an-8-step-cross-examination/

Then compare what is described as "voluntaryism" with what Ron Paul is saying and see if they match up...if they do, well now we can call a duck a duck and go from there.

BTW: as a libertarian, how about this, from the producer of the video you watched, Graham Wright in his bio:

"I became a libertarian in 2007, after I came across Ron Paul and wanted to know more about his ideas. I took libertarianism to its logical conclusion in 2008 and became an anarchist. My main inspirations are Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Hans-Hermann Hoppe and David Friedman."

Now, HE is the one that said taking Libertarianism to its logical conclusion let do anarchy. That was his path and he said it was a logical one--for him the seeds of anarchy are in libertarianism.

For him, it started with Ron Paul.

God bless

"Democracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man's life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few." --John Adams, An Essay on Man's Lust for Power, August 29, 1763

My husband made a comment the other day that really hit home:

The far right conservative wants to tell you how to live your life; the far left liberals, how to spend your money.

Merry: I don't disagree with your husband. But I would point out that there's a large difference between wanting to do something and actually doing it. Those on the Left--Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Waxman--actually do what they set out to do and, as a result, wind up telling you how to live your life.

Burt

Merry

Two basic theories of penology are applicable here.

One says prisons are for punishment, the other for rehabilitation.

Now, take those to their logical ends.

The first, says there are precise prescribed penalties for crimes that are to act as deterrents the first or second time.

The other, rehab, says "Our purpose is to change YOU no matter how long it takes."

Wanna guess which is the conservative and liberal views?

Conservatives seek to follow the rule of law that protects the liberties of all "ie your right to swing your fist stops at someone's nose."

Liberals seek to use institutions to form your behavior so you don't want to swing your fist at all.

God bless

Sapient,

We're just going to have to agree to disagree. Graham Wright does not speak for me or the Libertarian Party. If he says that Ron Paul's ideas led him to libertarianism (small "l"), and libertarianism led him to anarchy, and he decided to equate voluntarism with anarchy, that's fine for him, but I am under no obligation to accept his definitions or follow the same path. Libertarianism (as defined by the Libertarian Party as opposed to Graham Wright) is NOT about creating anarchy - it is about maximizing liberty, which requires a society ordered by the Rule of Law, which Ron Paul makes abundantly clear in the video you posted.

Unfortunately the maximization of liberty is now a radical position among both Republicans and Democrats, as both major parties are largely statist (although the Democrats are more so). Sadly, maximum liberty looks a lot like anarchy to people who have drunk the statist Kool-Aid peddled by Republicans and Democrats for decades.

Frankly I found nothing that Ron Paul said in the video objectionable. (There are plenty of other things Ron Paul has said that I DO find objectionable, but none of them were in that particular video.) I DID find Mr Wright's statement that voluntarism and anarchy are synonymous objectionable, though. He is entitled to his opinion on the matter, but that's all it is - his opinion.

Mr Wright is an Anarchy-Voluntarist, as are the guys at the "ecomonicsjunkie.com" website you refered to. Ron Paul is a Rule-of-Law-Voluntarist, which is very different. Mr Wright quoted Ron Paul saying he was a voluntarist, than tried to make it look like Ron Paul was an anarchist. That is simply dishonest.

For what it's worth, I think the guys at "ecomonicsjunkie.com" are lunatics.

And if anyone thinks the United States is going to just throw more than two centuries of government out the window and embrace anarchy based on the election of a guy who believes the government needs to be a lot smaller than it is, I have a bridge for sale.

Having said that, I do not know who I'm going to vote for yet. I do not intend to vote for a statist though, no matter what party nominates him.

AO (ret)

Just so you know, I agree with you about the lunatic thing. And, just so we are clear,I never said you were one of those lunatics because you are a libertarian.

I have never heard you state you take voluntaryist positions. And, please believe me, you and I are on the same page re individual liberty and order, limited government, states rights, personal responsibility, etc.

That said, here is a real issue:

Re: he decided to equate voluntarism with anarchy...but I am under no obligation to accept his definitions or follow the same path.

The problem is that, just as you said about Libertarianism having a definition, Voluntaryism has a definition too far outside Graham Wright, etc. Voluntaryism is what it is.

Unfortunately, it is a a branch of anarchism, anarcho capitalism, etc. and seems to be associated with the philosophy of libertarians somehow. See wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism

Now, everyone who has been around the block more than once knows that Ron Paul has a long history of libertarianism. I lived in his district for over 20 years and was pretty active in politics.

It was no secret at all.He even ran as a Libertarian candidate.

But, Ron Paul does not just say "I am a libertarian" as he did this past Sunday on Fox. He also said "We endorse the idea of voluntarism." Note that is NOT volunteerism as in "we need more volunteers for United Way," but voluntarism, a specific political philosophy.

That is a pretty unusual term to be throwing about, especially for someone who would know what it meant.

For me at least, the issue is not whether libertarians are the door to anarchy, but whether Ron Paul is duping people by claiming to be one thing with something else in mind.

I assume neither of us would be OK with that.

God bless

Re: Ron Paul, End the Fed: "In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

I absolutely agree that this is true. It is, after all, a piece of paper, which contrary to liberal opinion, does not "live and breath". It is up to We, the People, to withdraw our consent - as government power unchecked as it is inevitably will become increasingly tyrannical. As it is, we see the CinC publicly stating that he will pick and choose which laws he will enforce, e.g. border enforcement. This Justice Department is actively filing suit against States for enforcing the provisions of border security, and disregards court orders after Obamacare has been determined to be voided by an Appeals Court, pending SCOTUS review.

Only a well-informed populace capable of thinking for themselves and imbued with a sense of virtue are suitable to the republican (small r) form of government. The alternatives are the gradual erosion of the barriers that constrain tyrannical government (Read Mark Levin's "Liberty and Tyranny", he's much more eloquent than I on this). We are rapidly approaching that tipping point, or in aviation terms, Point of no return or "Bingo Fuel". You can only fly so far away from the nearest refuel point before you wind up out of range. Another 4 years of Statist Congress, Executive, and Judicial Branches will push us beyond that point. As Army Officer (Ret) stated, the LBJ election in 1964 accelerated us greatly toward that end, and the election in 2012 could be equally monumental.

Major

If you are saying that we need a much more active civil society building the citizens of intelligence and virtue necessary to function as a Representative Republic, I agree with you 10000000%.

If on the other hand, when you say the Constitution will not get us to where we need to be, that you are suggesting we need a New form of government, I have questions...not the least of which, is what are you suggesting the Constitution be replaced with?

There is an amending process built into the one we have now. So, are you suggesting we need to amend it, or scrap it?

God bless

Hello America,

You have to love Mr. Prelutsky for being observant and RIGHT ON in his view of America. I seldom miss an article.

I remember the time when vampires were humanoid bats with huge canines, "I want to suck your blood" . . . 'Peggy Sue Got Married' that hung out in really creepy places waiting on their next beautiful well put together victims. I often wondered why they didn't attack the less attractive females among us . . . same blood.

As always Mr. Prelutsky is on the MONEY. I would ask the Ron Paul supporter what the attraction is. This far out libertarian has the most severe face in politics. The youths love affair with the 'Twilight' series is just another of the prophetic sign of the times. We have entered a dark time.

The Turban Torpedo

Hello America,

Bottom line is not to trust anyone sucking up to Muslims or any stripe. They all have single purpose . . . the imposing of the nightmare that is Dark Ages sh'aria law.

All Muslims are short wired at birth to believe in, promote by violence if necessary a god with no name who in reality is a pagan south Arabian moon god named Hubal, Sin, now Allah (Al-god/lah-the), a perfect disguise for Satan.

The yearly pilgrimage to Mecca that is a must at least once in the life of a Muslim is to march around a black polished rectangular chiseled stone paying homage to a glass encased meteorite that Muslims believe Allah threw down to earth, landing in Arabia from the moon.

I guess if you can believe in Allah's paradise based on a 13th century ruse by a very powerful Islamic assassin and trainer of assassin's as reported by Marco Polo on a return trip from China, and are willing, some not so willing to martyr yourself on that lusty faith then you can easily believe in a space rock thrown from the moon by a no name deity, one of many.

The Turban Torpedo

Howard Reed

Good comments.

I love to hear people say the Founders would never be involved in a war overseas, undeclared, etc.

Somehow they forget that Jefferson waged an undeclared war, by us anyway, against the Barbary Pirates, went inland capturing cities...the whole "shores of Tripoli" thing. He and congress concluded no declaration was needed as hostilities already existed. Remarkably like al Qaeda.

Washington paid tribute to them because he didn't have a navy, but he sure didn't like it much:

President, and former General, George Washington: "Would to Heaven we had a navy to reform those enemies to mankind, or crush them into non-existence."

God speed

"In the first place, it is to be remembered, that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws: its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any." --James Madison, Federalist No. 14, 1787

Howard & Sapient: I agree about the Islamists and I'm glad I'm not the only one who recalls Jefferson and the Barbary pirates.

Burt

Burt

Burt

Ditto the islamists and the other "enemies of mankind."

Once one kinda gets to know Washington and the others past the fact that they have pics on our money, you realize they took being forefathers of our nation seriously. They loved us truly and sacrificed much for people they would never know.

With that, its not hard to imagine how a loving father would handle some of the threats of today if they were around.

God bless

"I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain." --John Adams, letter to Abigail Adams, 1780

Sapient,

I won't presume to speak for Major, but I'm certainly not suggesting that we need a different kind of government than that created by the Constitution. What I, and Ron Paul, and most Rule-of-Law-Voluntarists want is for the government to obey the Constitution we already have.

The fact is that the Constitution cannot guarantee us good government if we ignore what it says. I don't want to either amend it (except to repeal some of the later stuff) or scrap it - I just want the government to OBEY it.

Here's the problem: we ignore what it says. And until Republicans and Democrats stop ignoring what it says, we'll keep having the same problems.

I explicitly used the term "Rule-of-Law-Voluntarist" because not all voluntarists are the same. The guys on the website you referred me to described themselves as "anarchist-voluntarists." If anarchy and voluntarism were the same thing, "anarchist-voluntarist" would be redundant. Since "voluntarist" is not synonymous with "anarchist," they knew they had to add the qualifier "anarchist" to it to differentiate themselves from voluntarists who are not also anarchists (like Ron Paul, who is a voluntarist but not an anarchist)- Wikipedia notwithstanding. (For the record, no reputable academic organization accepts Wikipedia as a legitimate source.)

You and I are probably pretty close to being on the same page on most issues. But I read Ron Paul's words in a Libertarian context rather than a Republican context, which is why they don't alarm me - I know he's talking about moving toward a radically free society, ordered by the Rule of Law. But Republicans and Democrats aren't interested in me being radically free.

I am.

AO (ret)

Thanks...then we are indeed very much on the same page on much.

God bless

Ron Paul: "You wanna get rid of drug crime in this country? Fine, let's just get rid of all the drug laws."

"Third-party content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Patriot Post."

Good thing they have this disclaimer, because the ramblings of the moron, really belong on MoveOn.org.

There will be a time, whether we are under the boot of Obama or the ass of Gingrich, that we will really wish that we took the time a thought about the message that Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are really providing.

Think for yourself, be responsible for yourself, get the heck out of my way and I will get the heck out of yours.

The social engineers are in blue and red; and it makes me sick.

Happy New Year.

B. Shephard

Army Officer

Re: "Rule-of-Law-Voluntarist"

I did some searching on that term and couldn't find a thing. So, let me ask a few questions, and I have to admit that the term itself, based on what I know of the two sides, seems contradictory enough to violate the 3 basic laws of logic: a thing is what it is, it cannot be both what it is and isn't, and there is no middle, so I am asking for that kind of clarification.

First, what you described, limited government--in bounds of the constitution, fed and states in proper rolls, etc already has a perfectly good name: Constitutionalism, original intent, natural law, etc. So, why the need to add "voluntaryism"?

Constitutionalism is based on the idea that Jefferson expounded in the Declaration that government is instituted to protect rights and acts justly with the consent of the governed, and explained all through the Federalist Papers, etc.

The ultimate statement is by George Washington in his Farewell Address, re the essence of self government balanced with order, etc:

" This Government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true Liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish Government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established Government.” —George Washington, Farewell Address.

Words like "sacredly obligatory" and "duty to obey" is the very antithesis of "voluntary."

So, help me out. Where does the voluntarism part come in? It seems there must be a departure somewhere or the word would not be necessary. And, please refer me to the sources you consider authoritative so I can look it up. I am looking for the sine qua non principle in play here, and some practical applications that are at the fore.

Founders or their sources are preferable examples unless of course, it departs from that. I would also like to know where this has been tried, is working,and again, the issues at the fore in your thinking, drugs, suicide, victimless crimes, etc or what?

God speed

Brian

Would you take the time to elaborate on what you are saying:

re: Statist. Could you define that as you mean it, especially as you are the "anti statist"?

Re: what do you consider the "message" of Ron Paul and Johnson that is being missed that is so vital?

Re: Who is in your way as you are using it?

Re: what are you speaking of as social engineering?

Thanks

Burt

Sorry--when the topic of Ron Paul and Voluntaryism comes up, somehow the conversation seems to dry up pretty fast.

What is always amazing to me is just how much Libertarians and Liberals have in common, outside the "Liber" in their name.

There is a STRONG common thread of elitism in both that the rest of us should be aware of, and be wary of.

God bless you and yours

Ron Paul supporter to producer of video "Ron Paul is a Voluntaryist:"

"Graham, I think it's highly likely that it would damage his campaign temporarily. But in all reality, he's got to "come out of the closet" sometime, or else all he's done is spawned a bunch of "We the People!" types, which is still antithetical to Paul's ideal society."

Sapient,

If you're still reading, I'm back after being off the net for a few days. I got the term Law and Order Voluntarist from the video you posted, so I'm not sure why you're having such a hard time finding it - since it comes from your own source.

In that video (again, the one that you posted), Ron Paul says he's a Voluntarist, and he also says he supports the Rule of Law and he clearly laments that the Constitution is being ignored.

Ron Paul is NOT an anarchist, although he IS a Voluntarist (philosophically opposed to the initiation of force - which does not prohibit self defense individually OR collectively). I don't know how much more clear I can make it.