Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Ron Paul and the Dark Heart of Libertarianism

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Ward's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Online
    6 Days Ago @ 09:58 PM
    Ethnicity
    Vinlandic
    Ancestry
    1/2 German, 1/4 Norwegian, 1/4 Irish
    Country
    Vinland Vinland
    Location
    The Wild Frontier
    Gender
    Posts
    703
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    48
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    66
    Thanked in
    42 Posts

    Ron Paul and the Dark Heart of Libertarianism

    Ron Paul, Tom Graves and Paul Brown: Only ones to vote against Animal Crush videos bill

    On a rare show of bipartisanship that included Michelle Bachmann and Nancy Pelosi, the house voted today to make it a crime for anyone to "knowingly and for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain sell or offer to sell, or distribute or offer to distribute, an animal crush video in interstate or foreign commerce". The final vote was 416 to 3, with 13 DNV's. The 3 members to vote against the bill were Republicans Ron Paul (TX), Tom Graves (GA) and Paul Brown (GA).

    We reached Congressman Paul's office, and they advised examiner.com that Rep Paul found the bill to be unconstitutional.

    Crush videos, are defined on the bill as "animal crush video" as any obscene photograph, motion-picture film, video recording, or electronic image that depicts actual conduct in which one or more living animals is intentionally crushed, burned, drowned, suffocated, or impaled in a manner that would violate a criminal prohibition on cruelty to animals under federal law or the law of the state in which the depiction is created, sold, distributed, or offered for sale or distribution." It should be noted that the bill excludes hunting videos and veterinary procedures.

    And yet, Paul, Graves and Brown could not vote for it? How far gone do they have to be to object to it? One has to wonder, what will animal lovers in the tea party, and who support these 3 Congressmen will think. Crush videos have nothing to do with expression. They are a evidence of a crime on video a perverted soul will watch to induce sexual gratification. If animal cruelty is a crime, then crush videos are a crime.
    Source

    I wonder, did the Founding Fathers really intend that the Constitution be worshiped like a God? Clearly, the torture of animals for sexual gratification goes against the ethos of our culture, yet Ron Paul can't see past the legalism of an over-200-year-old document.

    I hope people can extrapolate from Paul's stance on this issue to see the problems presented by this kind of Constitutional fanaticism from a preservationist standpoint.
    — Always outnumbered but never outclassed —

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Ægir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Friday, August 24th, 2012 @ 05:45 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Scottish
    Ancestry
    Scotland, Norway, England, Germany
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    Confederate States Confederate States
    Gender
    Family
    Married parent
    Occupation
    Historian
    Politics
    Agrarian
    Religion
    Heathen
    Posts
    317
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8
    Thanked in
    7 Posts
    You are doing exactly what the author of the article wants you to do…to equate against the bill as a vote for animal cruelty. This does not equate however. I am sure the founding fathers did not intend animal snuff videos to be protected speech. They would not have considered it not only for lack of technology…but they did not think that anyone would be sick enough that they would do something like that. The fact of the matter is 1) these are issues that the States can certainly take up and 2) in order to make the video they are committing crimes of which the video is evidence…in other words they are already going to jail if they get caught. This would create a redundancy in the law.
    This is the messy side of legislation though. As a legislature you may often disagree on a technicality…this may be the main reason that they voted against…and note that 13 others did not vote which also equates to a no vote. One must be careful when examining the vote because the devil is in the details.
    For the Ancestors who came before us, the Generations that flow form us, for the Blood that is in our veins.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Oxygen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    Saturday, August 4th, 2012 @ 06:10 PM
    Ethnicity
    Swedish
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    Sweden Sweden
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Religion
    Pagan
    Posts
    249
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts
    I suspect Pauls stance is that this is not an issue for the federal government to get involved in no matter how despicable the circumstances, this should be decided on state level as a principal thus moving as much of legislation as close to the people as possible. Paul are being consistent and true to principal on issues like this no matter how unpopular it is in the public eye just like he did when he voted against the Rosa Parks monument a few years back.This is an issue of local vs centralized power, Paul is not pro animal cruelty he is against centralized power.

    (Not defending the vote just putting things in perspective, the man is true to his principals witch in this day and age is a rare thing.)
    Defamation-What is anti-Semitism today?http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=131762

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Ward's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Online
    6 Days Ago @ 09:58 PM
    Ethnicity
    Vinlandic
    Ancestry
    1/2 German, 1/4 Norwegian, 1/4 Irish
    Country
    Vinland Vinland
    Location
    The Wild Frontier
    Gender
    Posts
    703
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    48
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    66
    Thanked in
    42 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Aegir View Post
    You are doing exactly what the author of the article wants you to do…to equate against the bill as a vote for animal cruelty.
    I'm not an idiot--I know it wasn't a vote for animal cruelty per se.

    I had hoped my post would help prod some people to actually start thinking outside of the box in regard to Libertarianism, but I guess I should have known better. Anyway, if you can ever think past the utterly mindless platitudes like "freedom," "liberty," "small government," and "lower taxes," maybe you'll be able to understand what I'm talking about.

    The people of a country can't stand together without a common adherence to certain basic moral and ethical principles. Ron Paul embraces a very Jewish interpretation of the constitution (and thus life in general) which reduces the nation to a collection of individuals who are bounded together not by spirit (let alone blood), but by legal contracts.

    So let me say again -- I hope people can extrapolate from Paul's stance on this issue to see the problems presented by this kind of Constitutional fanaticism from a preservationist standpoint.
    — Always outnumbered but never outclassed —

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Paradigm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Online
    Sunday, July 24th, 2011 @ 05:43 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    English/Irish/German
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Virginia Virginia
    Gender
    Politics
    Anarcho-Capitalist
    Posts
    297
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Regardless of the situation, he wants the federal government out of our lives, and that we can make our own decisions on a more decentralized level, whether be individual, local, or state.

    It's not holding the constitution as god, but he knows why the constitution was in place, and to uphold it against politicians invading our personal lives. No matter how ridiculous the law or how non-effective it could really be that it's not the federal government's decision on what individuals do across the country.

    On a rare show of bipartisanship that included Michelle Bachmann and Nancy Pelosi, the house voted today to make it a crime for anyone to "knowingly and for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain sell or offer to sell, or distribute or offer to distribute, an animal crush video in interstate or foreign commerce".
    The bill is to stop persons from involving themselves in any form of trade involving an animal crush video. Not the making of the videos themselves.

    If animal cruelty is a crime, then crush videos are a crime.
    If that's the case, why don't you stop it at the source, and actually have animal cruelty as a crime? People can go to jail for animal torture. Do animals have the same rights as people? You can get a lot of different answers from that. You can go on the internet and watch and buy videos of people literally beating the living hell out of each other, and they can be purchased, and the same with porn, but those participants are willing. With the animal videos the animals obviously can't speak out (they can only fight back). If anyone wishes to speak up for them they must go to the source and make it a crime to purposely abuse an animal with the only intention is that to abuse them. (This is somewhat rhetorical, since you can go to jail for animal abuse, but that itself is what should be enforced, and the rest will fall.)

    Now, are we to regulate how animals are treated? Again, this should come from the local levels, not the federal government. When you buy an animal you get a background check, and people should take notice if animals are being mistreated in their area.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Zogbot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Online
    Wednesday, November 23rd, 2011 @ 05:00 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Ancestry
    Swedish/Prussian
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Gender
    Politics
    Nationalsozialismus
    Religion
    Germania
    Posts
    235
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    3 Posts
    Doesn't really matter what your constitution says anymore. Hasn't for a long time. It says that a trial be overseen by a jury of your peers. They put a nigger in the jury of a White man, yet they clearly aren't a peer to White men, which is what the founders would have instinctively told anyone. Jefferson & others said that niggers and Whites can't coexist because the inferior will drive out the superior and therefore the races must be separate. The jews co-opted the U.S. constitution decades ago, they are the majority of law school graduates today as Alex Linder has proved.

    This sort of libertarian call for 'constitutional rights' is really asinine and naive in my opinion. It's a question of racial hegemony and racial self-determination. The niggers and spics & other mongrels will keep chip-chip-chipping away at the (still) White majority until the foundation disintegrates and the whole structure of White civilization comes crumbling down like the twin towers (in the PNAC sense: oy, ve need a new Pearl Harbor - oy it happen'd!). It's us or the jews and it has nothing to do with the constitution, no matter what admirable qualities it otherwise holds.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Thorodinssohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Online
    Thursday, August 23rd, 2012 @ 12:07 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    German / Irish
    Subrace
    Cromagno-Alpinoid, Mediterranoid
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    Midgard
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Student / Warehouse Worker
    Politics
    Ultra-Conservative Nationalism
    Religion
    Germanic Heathenry
    Posts
    101
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    I used to be a Libertarian, then I realized that their members are typically only interested in one issue on their platform: drug legalization. I am, however, a staunch supporter of constitutional literalism. Your implication that the constitution should mold itself to any issue which arises is ludicrous, but I'm sure there are numerous liberals and in fact "hippies" who support its changing for the times.

    The point is, the founders did anticipate things like this coming up (not necessarily animal snuff, but different situations they could not foresee). Hence, the tenth amendment (and before anyone misguidedly says that an amendment is a change, the first ten were post scripts required by some states before they would sign; see: bill of rights):

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    Thus, anything which the constitution does not allow to the federal government should be handled by the states. Unfortunately, the lobbies in Washington have managed to have numerous pieces of law considered under the interstate commerce clause and corrupted the spirit of the document. If we were to abide by the constitution's word as it is literally written rather than read to fit the times, there would never have been a nation wide civil rights act which exacerbated the race situation in the U.S., an affirmative action program which even further exacerbated the situation, an immigration policy which allows for anchor babies or obamacare. There would also be no issue with Arizona and other states regulating their own borders and immigration policy. It is irresponsible to blame those who want to preserve the foundation of our country. Blame those who use it to their own advantage and those who want to morph it to fit the current social climate.
    We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant descended population. -Enoch Powell

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Paradigm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Online
    Sunday, July 24th, 2011 @ 05:43 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    English/Irish/German
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Virginia Virginia
    Gender
    Politics
    Anarcho-Capitalist
    Posts
    297
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Thorodinssohn View Post
    I used to be a Libertarian, then I realized that their members are typically only interested in one issue on their platform: drug legalization.
    You weren't around the right libertarians.
    "If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?" - Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Thorodinssohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Online
    Thursday, August 23rd, 2012 @ 12:07 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    German / Irish
    Subrace
    Cromagno-Alpinoid, Mediterranoid
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    Midgard
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Student / Warehouse Worker
    Politics
    Ultra-Conservative Nationalism
    Religion
    Germanic Heathenry
    Posts
    101
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paradigm View Post
    You weren't around the right libertarians.
    Perhaps the ideological version of libertarianism works, but those representing the party are now nothing more than reactionaries who pick and choose when to agree with democrats or republicans. Party affiliations aside, a conservative stance is more important to me as an individual than any straight line agreement with a party or ideology.

    That said, I hope I can meet the right kind of libertarians in my everyday life soon.

    Cheers,
    Zach
    We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant descended population. -Enoch Powell

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Paradigm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Online
    Sunday, July 24th, 2011 @ 05:43 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    English/Irish/German
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Virginia Virginia
    Gender
    Politics
    Anarcho-Capitalist
    Posts
    297
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Thorodinssohn View Post
    Perhaps the ideological version of libertarianism works, but those representing the party are now nothing more than reactionaries who pick and choose when to agree with democrats or republicans. Party affiliations aside, a conservative stance is more important to me as an individual than any straight line agreement with a party or ideology.

    That said, I hope I can meet the right kind of libertarians in my everyday life soon.

    Cheers,
    Zach
    I have no affiliation with the party itself. I find it to be rather disconnected from libertarian theory at times. It's generally those who were probably voting Dems or Reps who had a little "enlightenment" and are now on the Libertarian Party. Sometimes I forget the party even exist.

    As far as theory goes it's probably the same. A few who went over, but probably didn't actually read into political and economic theory. I can find a difference in the type of libertarian who may have jumped on the bandwagon or who can't let go of their statist tendencies compared to someone who's actually reading Mises and Rothbard. Plus, most of the libertarian scholars are all anarcho-capitalist except a very few (about everyone at the Mises Institute and LRC seem to be an-cap).
    "If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?" - Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Similar Threads

  1. Can Ron Paul Be Trusted?
    By Wolf in the West in forum The United States
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: Friday, February 17th, 2012, 03:12 PM
  2. If Ron Paul Was President
    By Nachtengel in forum The United States
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Monday, January 23rd, 2012, 05:10 AM
  3. What is Your Opinion of Ron Paul?
    By Ægir in forum The United States
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: Friday, October 22nd, 2010, 03:17 PM
  4. Ron Paul’s "The Revolution" And Libertarianism’s Fatal Flaw
    By GroeneWolf in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Thursday, November 12th, 2009, 08:22 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •