Ron Paul approved newsletters personally, and BONUS!

[Akhlut]

Additionally, something I just thought up about Ron Paul: ol' Ronny boy is real big on the law, right? And thus he recognizes that treaties are second in power only to the Constitution, right?

Does this mean he'll actually honor the treaties signed with Indian tribes and give back huge swathes of land to the Indians and evict all the fucking illegal immigrants off of their land?

[General Brock]

It didn't take a whole lot of far-sighted braininess to figure out big government and fiat money was trouble. They didn't even have to think it up on their own; Thomas Jefferson of 1800 Rev fame spelled it out for them to verify for themselves:

Why should I trust a man who owned other men as chattel on matters of liberty and freedom? Especially since his ideas revolved solely around a nation made up almost solely of agrarian farmers while all industrialization went on in Europe? Now, tell me, how is a nation composed of rural farmers supposed to stop, say, the Wehrmacht or the People's Liberation Army or whatever moderately organized government can fit their troops onto a boat?

Face it, Jefferson was wrong about a shitload, but, hey, that's to be expected from a man who has been dead for a little under two centuries. No one uses the Code of Hammurabi anymore either.

Mesopotamians believed government leaders and officials received their authority from the Gods, Jefferson and Constitutionalists believe leaders and officials received their authority from the People for the People, so not using Hammurabi is a probably a good thing.

Jefferson lived in a society in which racism and slavery were normal and only just beginning to be questioned. The ideals and concepts of government he promoted and saw into being contributed to the answer to that question, over time, to being freedom, citizenship, and eventually the vote for all Americans. Using the failings of the man as an excuse to reject all his values and ideals, even those universally recognizable as positive, makes no sense.

No army of Jefferson's era, let alone a militia, could survive the onslaught of a late industrial age army.

No system of governance, however well designed and well-meaning, can survive the apathy of its constituents in any era.

[General Brock]

Additionally, something I just thought up about Ron Paul: ol' Ronny boy is real big on the law, right? And thus he recognizes that treaties are second in power only to the Constitution, right?

Does this mean he'll actually honor the treaties signed with Indian tribes and give back huge swathes of land to the Indians and evict all the fucking illegal immigrants off of their land?

Good question.

It wouldn't be hard to do better than the status quo as far as fair treatment of aboriginals goes, and Ron Paul is on record as rejecting amnesty for illegals.

I'm not sure what the other candidates been asked or have to say about aboriginal issues either.

[Akhlut]

Mesopotamians believed government leaders and officials received their authority from the Gods, Jefferson and Constitutionalists believe leaders and officials received their authority from the People for the People, so not using Hammurabi is a probably a good thing.

Unless those people happened to be black, Indian, women, or did not own property themselves.

Jefferson lived in a society in which racism and slavery were normal and only just beginning to be questioned.

The Quakers were always against slavery and were a not insignificant part of the early Republic. Plus, slavery and racism have always had opponents since each concept arose. So, no, Jefferson was just a giant hypocrite.

The ideals and concepts of government he promoted and saw into being contributed to the answer to that question, over time, to being freedom, citizenship, and eventually the vote for all Americans.

Uh, no, that's wrong. by cleaving to the very instrument he conceived, the nation tore itself asunder and had to forcibly reintegrate half of it after an unjust war was declared by the Slavocrats who were alternately trying to justify their slave-holding with the Constitution and throwing it away when it led to an inconvenient president being elected.

Using the failings of the man as an excuse to reject all his values and ideals, even those universally recognizable as positive, makes no sense.

If a man says he has a proven method of preventing people from going into debt, yet is bankrupt himself, should I trust him?

No army of Jefferson's era, let alone a militia, could survive the onslaught of a late industrial age army.

And if the US would have remained an agrarian republic, would it have been able to develop a modern army? Of course not. If we had held to Jefferson's ideal, there wouldn't be an industrial base to develop a modern army.

No system of governance, however well designed and well-meaning, can survive the apathy of its constituents in any era.

Dictatorships can most assuredly survive apathy quite well. Outright revolt, not so much, but apathy by their subjects, most definitely.

[Akhlut]

It wouldn't be hard to do better than the status quo as far as fair treatment of aboriginals goes, and Ron Paul is on record as rejecting amnesty for illegals.

Ah, so where are all the illegal Anglo-Saxon immigrants going to go after they're booted from American Indian lands?

[General Brock]

Unless those people happened to be black, Indian, women, or did not own property themselves.

And today whites can join them, equal in rights and as bereft of wealth and privilege if they aren't in the overwhelmingly multiracial and gender equal 1%.

The Quakers were always against slavery and were a not insignificant part of the early Republic. Plus, slavery and racism have always had opponents since each concept arose. So, no, Jefferson was just a giant hypocrite.

Well, shame on him for not living up to his lofty words. Does this then make the words mean less?

Uh, no, that's wrong. by cleaving to the very instrument he conceived, the nation tore itself asunder and had to forcibly reintegrate half of it after an unjust war was declared by the Slavocrats who were alternately trying to justify their slave-holding with the Constitution and throwing it away when it led to an inconvenient president being elected.

Which instrument was that? If you are referring to the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, they were meant to oppose the Alien and Sedition acts which compromised individual rights. State rights are race and gender neutral and only allow a State to reject Federal laws they consider unconstitutional.

If a man says he has a proven method of preventing people from going into debt, yet is bankrupt himself, should I trust him?

Well, what did this guy say? Borrow more, or live within your means, avoiding any temptation to debt? Besides, Jefferson's concern was that governments should not be able to get individuals in trouble, not that individuals couldn't do it to themselves.

And if the US would have remained an agrarian republic, would it have been able to develop a modern army? Of course not. If we had held to Jefferson's ideal, there wouldn't be an industrial base to develop a modern army.

Industrialization would have happened anyway. There was no way to stop it, even agriculture was becoming mechanized. Farm boys are reputed to make the best soldiers, as well.

Russia and Japan were both late to industrialize and modernize, but were able to field effective armies, switch their extant industrial bases from civilian to military purposes, and expand them.

While you could point to the Confederate South as an example of the weakness of an agrarian economy, its not the best example because the manufacturing industry they depended on was mostly built in the North.

Dictatorships can most assuredly survive apathy quite well. Outright revolt, not so much, but apathy by their subjects, most definitely.

Dictatorships create discontented people who are far from apathetic. That's why dictatorships are the way they are; they have to constantly be alert for and suppress dissent which in a more open society can result in necessary and peaceful constructive change.

[General Brock]

Ah, so where are all the illegal Anglo-Saxon immigrants going to go after they're booted from American Indian lands?

Why would any libertarian support arbitrary action that is illegal, immoral, or unfair, on either side of a dispute?

In any case, it appears Oglala Sioux activist Russell Means endorses Ron Paul. Mr. Means was a nominee for Libertarian Party Presidential candidate in 1987, finishing second to Ron Paul.

[Akhlut]

And today whites can join them, equal in rights and as bereft of wealth and privilege if they aren't in the overwhelmingly multiracial and gender equal 1%.

Uh, most of the top 1% is still overwhelming white and male.

Well, shame on him for not living up to his lofty words. Does this then make the words mean less?

They certainly make it harder to believe they are actually useful in guaranteeing liberty to people.

Which instrument was that?

The US Constitution.

Besides, Jefferson's concern was that governments should not be able to get individuals in trouble, not that individuals couldn't do it to themselves.

So, being enslaved or dispossessed of one's own land is trouble that one got oneself into?

Industrialization would have happened anyway. There was no way to stop it, even agriculture was becoming mechanized.

And that makes Jefferson's ideal government very difficult to adhere to, because it was based off of an agrarian nation without much industrialization. It's like trying to enact a feudal state in modern China.

Russia and Japan were both late to industrialize and modernize, but were able to field effective armies, switch their extant industrial bases from civilian to military purposes, and expand them.

So, you're using examples of highly centralized states (one of them with many Socialist apparatuses ingrained into it) to say that a Libertarian state could do the same?

While you could point to the Confederate South as an example of the weakness of an agrarian economy, its not the best example because the manufacturing industry they depended on was mostly built in the North.

Which they broke away from of their own volition.

Also, Jefferson argued for relying on Europe for manufacturing purposes.

Why would any libertarian support arbitrary action that is illegal, immoral, or unfair, on either side of a dispute?

So you support kicking out the illegal immigrants from Indian lands, then? All those Anglo-Saxons engaged in illegal, immoral, and unfair actions for centuries (continuing to the present day).

In any case, it appears Oglala Sioux activist Russell Means endorses Ron Paul. Mr. Means was a nominee for Libertarian Party Presidential candidate in 1987, finishing second to Ron Paul.

Most American Indians these days vote for Democrats; which makes sense, as the Democrats at least try to limit the damage done by huge multinationals that don't mind destroying sacred Indian lands for a dollar.