Did Ron Paul Advocate an Armed Rebellion Against Our Government Over Obamacare?

ronpaulAnyone who follows me knows I can’t stand Libertarians.  Sure, some of them are great people who mean well, but their political philosophy is so completely flawed that I view the entire movement as similar to some kind of adolescent rebellion.  The thing I always laugh at when it comes to Libertarians is the fact that they can’t even define what it means to be a “real” Libertarian.  I can’t count the times I’ve cited something said by one Libertarian only to have another tell me that person isn’t a “real” Libertarian.

Even among themselves they can’t agree on what it means to be a Libertarian, yet they believe this ideology is what’s best for the United States and all humankind.

For many Libertarians, Ron Paul is their hero.  Personally, I think he’s a creepy old man who’s completely out of his mind.  But for many Libertarians (many known as “Paul-bots”) he’s the only hope for the salvation of the United States and true liberty.

But of course he is.

That is, when he’s not advocating for the violent overthrow of the United States and bashing several of our Constitutional Amendments.

Because that’s exactly what it seemed like he was doing a few days ago when he was in Virginia speaking at a rally for the newly failed Republican gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli.

During this rally, Paul said:

“Jefferson obviously was a clear leader on the principle of nullification.  I’ve been working on the assumption that nullification is going to come.  It’s going to be a de facto nullification.  It’s ugly, but pretty soon things are going to get so bad that we’re just going to ignore the feds and live our own lives in our own states.”

In other words, Ron Paul is currently living under the belief that the United States is headed for an all-out revolution.  Not that it could be headed that way—but that it is inevitable.

He also went after the Seventeenth Amendment (which allows for the direct election of our United States Senators) and our Sixteenth Amendment which allows the government to collect income tax.

In fact, when arguing against the Seventeenth Amendment he used the argument almost all racists used (and a primary argument of the Confederacy during the Civil War) — that it undermines “states rights.”  Isn’t that basically the calling card of ignorance in this country?  Be it in support of slavery,  advocating segregation, denying women or homosexuals their rights — “states rights” is almost always the argument used by these ignorant bigots.

And it just so happens to be the cornerstone argument made by almost every Libertarian.

But Paul went even further, pushing his belief that our Second Amendment wasn’t meant for hunting, but to give citizens the right for revolution against the tyranny.   Paul said, “The Second Amendment was not there so you could shoot rabbits.  Right now today, we have a great threat to our liberties internally.”

Let’s just look at those two sentences, shall we?  First, Paul believes the Second Amendment is meant to give Americans the right to rise up against a tyrannical government.  Then he follows that with the warning that we’re currently under a great threat to our liberties internally.

Who would have ever thought a health care law protecting Americans with pre-existing conditions, and requiring that they purchase comprehensive health insurance so that they don’t go bankrupt paying for medical expenses, would be something that would call for the overthrow of our government?

That’s how ridiculous these people are.

And let’s not pretend that Ron Paul is some freedom loving good person.  He’s been tied numerous times to racist organizations or individuals, has spoken out in opposition to gay rights and is against abortion.  At the end of the day he’s just a typical Republican who rallies against the federal government—until he wants that same government to restrict the rights given to Americans that he disagrees with.

Ron Paul is someone who claims Libertarian principles, but sold out to the Republican party to win elections.  How noble of him.

I would like to invite Ron Paul and all of his supporters to head off to live in any number of poor, developing countries with small centralized governments, low taxes and few regulations.  Considering human history has never yielded a single successful society built on Libertarian principles, those are about the only places they would be able to move to.

In fact, the closest examples we have are poor, disorganized nations.  But hey, I hear Somalia is gorgeous this time of year.  I’m sure Libertarians will love the freedom of no Federal Government, no Federal Reserve, little or no taxes and all of the guns they can possibly get their hands on.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Garibaldi

    The concept of nullification is alive and kicking in what used to be called the Old South. That we are still litigating a concept that was settled 150 years ago is a testimony to the inability to accept that fact.

    • Loubies

      They also like to ignore a little thing called “The Supremacy Clause” in the Constitution.

  • isabellags

    Maybe we should have some sort of exam that all people interested in running for public office must pass before they can get their name on any ballot. Basic understanding of Science, an understanding of what Public Service means and a very thorough Psychological testing segment that can tell us if that person is able to withstand the pressures required and not go bat shit crazy.

    • bpnjensen

      I absolutely agree. Make it objective, factual, nonpartisan, add in history and economics and civics. Maybe it does not need to be mandatory; but any candidate who chooses to take it agrees to have his score revealed – and if he refuses, he is not disqualified (that would be Unconstitutional) BUT that fact would be made known to the electorate. Anybody who wants to have the edge in an election that only an informed and intelligent person can claim would have to prove it.

      • Larry

        You forget that there is an entire culture that believes ” my ignorance is more than your science and facts.” ” My Jesus is the Lord, yours is an Imposter and fake.”

      • isabellags

        That is kind of in the bat shit crazy segment.

      • William Carr

        The Tenthers developed the perfect defense against the competency test you suggest.

        They just insist the Constitution means what they want it to mean.

        So the Tenthers insist that the Tenth Amendment means the Federal Government is supposed to be weak, and the States run their own affairs.

        Despite all factual evidence to the contrary. It’s as if they’ve decided to believe that black is white, red is green, and up is down.

        Thereafter, they just insist their opinion is correct and won’t listen to reason.

      • isabellags

        That is another one that falls in the bat shit crazy section.

    • Charles Vincent

      Neither party could field a candidate if that were the metric.

      • Garibaldi

        I suppose there are people so blinded by their dislike of President Obama that they fail to see that he could easily pass the first two items. I’d say he could pass the third, but I’ll admit that we wouldn’t know until the results came out.

      • Charles Vincent

        Firstly I dig the name. Secondly I dislike Obama because he is a liar and a charlatan.

      • Garibaldi

        Gotcha.

      • William Carr

        That is your opinion; it’s not based on facts of any kind, of course.

        Which pretty much makes you an idiot.

      • Charles Vincent

        You’re not to bright are you…. I can post ten videos showing him as candidate and senator saying one thing and then post ten videos of him as president saying the exact opposite of what he said as president.

  • Darrell West

    Like Father Like Son

  • chris

    “Who would have ever thought a health care law protecting Americans with
    pre-existing conditions, and requiring that they purchase comprehensive
    health insurance so that they don’t go bankrupt paying for medical
    expenses, would be something that would call for the overthrow of our
    government?”

    They believe that it’s like “Nazi Germany”, or something worse than our own Civil War. They sit, well-fed, in air conditioned comfort and bloviate on their well-connected computers (thanks to Arpanet)..

    • strayaway

      Who would have thought that (un)ACA bureaucrats would have effectively prevented Vermont from having its own truly affordable single payer health care system like those of Canadian provinces? Thats what happens when a corporatist federal government squashes states rights.

      • regressive rightwing trash

        so,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,U argue that the STAE “right” of usurping a federal law ( abortion for example) should be allowed? OK! Im with you!! the price? NO federal money to that state,,,,,,,,no federal interdiction with a federal military ( if needed) and that so-called STATE can TRY to run itself all on its white trash own. Government will keep foreign “invaders” away…… the STATE can garner its OWN money( hey: no taxes right?) and we will see how that F*CKING works

      • strayaway

        Getting beyond the incoherence of your post: No, I am not arguing that states should be able to usurp federal law. However, I support the 10th Amendment which speaks to what is a federal vs. a state power. States do have the power (right) to allow abortion. I support the right of women to kill their fetuses. Ron Paul, whom this thread is still about, also supports states regulating such things. My guess is that if the federal government didn’t intrude, that blue states would go beyond present federal laws in allowing abortion while some red state would forbid it all together.

      • SLAPPY

        Yes i believe in state rights and i also do not want to pay for your masters wars or the healthcare..If the Gov could be trusted we would not be haveing this debate.. Everything your masters touch turns bankrupt.. I feel sorry for you that you have been indoctrinated by the puppetmasters.. good luck when the dollar gets flipped upside down.. suckerrrrrr…

      • Charles Vincent

        Canada healthcare is failing as well;

        http://www DOT fraserinstitute DOT org/research-news/news/display.aspx?id=18136

      • strayaway

        That 19 week wait sounds horrible. Much of my extended family is in Canada and they all seem to generally like their system. What I’ve noticed is that if one has the time to wait or there is an emergency, the Canadian system works well. However, seeing a specialist for the first time or scheduling certain operations can dangerously long. Canadians have a longer life expectancy then we do as a whole in the US. Canadian total medical costs are also about 40% less because trial lawyers, insurance companies, and a lot of bureaucrats, they go together, have been largely eliminated in Canada.

      • Charles Vincent

        It seems to me that a lot of the Canadian problem is funding related to population growth and rising medical costs. the wait times are more of a side effect of government rationing of care. you see this in the Swedish and Japanese models of healthcare as well I believe.

      • nick

        Those longer waits you blather on about are for ELECTIVE procedures. Another article from a biased losertarian think tank. How nice.

      • Charles Vincent

        See my other post to you.

      • William Carr

        If you show up with Cancer, you’re in treatment within mere days.

        If you need a hip replacement, you go on the list to see the specialist.

        Of course, we do that in America too. The better the specialist, the longer the wait time.

      • William Carr

        Let me guess. Another Libertarian “opinion” piece represented as fact?

        Ahem.

        A FACT is an independently verifiable case; an opinion is just the independent conclusions of a person.

        In this case, a person with the judgement of a rabid squirrel.

        Did you hear the one about the Republican Senator that insisted HIS opinion about Global Warming was correct and then cited the RNC as proof?

        Gosh, that was funny.

        Some people think opinions are facts, and accusations are proof of guilt.

      • Charles Vincent

        Yes liberals often think that opinions are fact and you’re one of them. back under the bridge troll…

      • William Carr

        Vermont will implement it’s Single Payer as soon as the whistle blows… the ACA allows States to create their own system in 2017.

        Your comment is ridiculous.

      • strayaway

        Maybe it’s your reading comprehension that is ridiculous. This is what I wrote, “Who would have thought that (un)ACA bureaucrats would have effectively prevented Vermont from having its own truly affordable single payer health care system like those of Canadian provinces?” Keys words that you missed were “truly affordable”. The ruling was, as I understand it, that Vermont could not have its own plan unless it included the (un)ACA plan in its state plan. That means all the trial lawyers, the insurance company profits, the hospital wings of paper shufflers, IRS personnel, and other bureaucrats included in the (un)ACA which make it societally unaffordable. The last time I checked, Canadian medical personnel were almost exempt from lawsuits so they didn’t purchase liability insurance and pass that coast along and canadians didn’t need health insurance except to buy medicine. There are reasons provincial plans are 40% cheaper than what we pay and whatever Vermont was allowed to do will not have those cost saving features. The (un)ACA bureaucrats are not going to step down to allow Vermont to have a provincial like AFFORDABLE single payer plan.

  • Mike Williams

    The 2nd has nothing to do with hunting….
    Or allowing for the overthrow of the government.

    • William Carr

      Technically, it says “Well Regulated Militia”.

      The language has changed since then.

      “Privacy” used to mean “I need to use the Privy”.

      Well Regulated, then, could mean “well armed”.

      Or it could mean “well trained”.

      If it means “well trained”, then the 2nd Amendment is about private gun ownership, so people can practice with weapons… and hunt.

      When the Militia calls, you grab your musket and go.

      If it means “well armed”… well, then some would twist it to mean that private citizens wouldn’t keep their guns at home, but in the Armory.

      Personally, I see no justification for the second argument.

      I think the Second Amendment was based on the English law that required “Yoemen” to own Welsh Longbows, and practice for a set period per month.

      When Henry V attacked France, his forces won because they were trained with a superior weapon, the Welsh Longbow.

      And you can’t pick that up overnight. It requires training.

      Since our Founding Fathers didn’t believe in having a standing Army, they knew that Militia members had to know how to shoot walking in.

      And, in fact, the Militia Act of 1792, passed just after the Constitution, listed the weapons a citizen MUST purchase so he can serve in the Militia.

      • Mike Williams

        The 2nd Amendment

        “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

        For the sake of this discussion I include a provision of the English “Bill of Rights” of 1689.

        Which states:

        “No royal interference in the freedom of the people to have arms for their own defense as suitable to their class and as allowed by law ”

        I include this as I believe it inspired the wording of the US 2nd amendment.

        Simply my observations here.

        I assume “regulated” not to be interpreted as a mandate for regulations or laws. I assume you concur.

        Regulated as used in the Constitution means “manned”.
        Supported by the latter use of the word “people” which is synonymous with citizen.

        Other examples of regulated to describe a person is in the famed “regulators” of the old west. They basically were private defense contractors for large ranches located in territories.

        Had well armed been the intended use of regulated, there would be no need latter for use of the word “arms”.

        “Arms” does not necessarily mean guns. Arms are the technical term used for any weapon. Be that a sword, gun, slingshot, and so on. Knowing that weapons evolve I believe the authors use of “arms” is a measure future proof the amendment.
        IE: Jefferson had no reason to think weapons could ever be light based or that projectiles could be fired with magnetism. Yet they exist now and are considered arms and will be the weapon of choice 25 to 50 years from now.

        The term militia applies to non-military personnel who form up to be the first defense of a village or town or city, etc.

        A proper militia is trained and has a command structure, however that is not a requirement to establish a militia.
        The primary requirement is warm bodies with weapons.

        The use of an armory is precluded by the statement “the right of the people to keep” meaning the people get to keep their arms.

        To be honest I was not aware of the militia act and will study it further. Based on my initial perusal I draw the conclusion that this is the framework of the current “national guard”.
        I feel ,while it is important, for the purpose of this discussion the act be set aside due to the time constraints. Had the act predated the Constitution it could be held to bear against the meaning of the second.

        Personally I agree that everyone should be familiar with defense strategy and use of weapons.

        This is probably the best discussion I have ever seen regarding the 2nd. sad…but true.

  • Pipercat

    States have no rights; they have powers.

  • Ron Unger

    People are generally pissed at our system right now.

    Limitation for congress, and length of term in office.
    There salaries should have a limit as well.

    As an American I don’t mind paying my taxes. As long as it reflects back into my community.
    If you want to argue that our “Democracy” is thriving. Well obviously you haven’t been watching the news. Our diplomatic system is a F’ing joke to say the least. Our “taxes” are even a bigger slap in the American faces. Paying for these Narcissistic to make decision for “whats good for it’s people”. And they have no clue who the average American is.
    Both Parties are to blame.
    They act only in favor of Political Gain.
    Obama came out at the beginning of his term, apposing gay marriage.
    Now he’s all for it?? I myself support gay marriage.
    I support Universal Healthcare.
    Why couldn’t we model something around how Europe has it?
    Why do we spend so much in “Defense Spending” When we are always playing OFFENSE?
    Why do I feel like I should be putting my children in Private Schools over Public School to make sure they get the best education, because our State keeps cutting funding for our public schools.
    While the OLD FARTS ON CAPITAL HILL, buy the spouse, kids or favorite hooker a new jag.
    This isn’t the land of OPPORTUNITY anymore people.
    It’s the land of WHO HAS THE MOST MONEY. I sacrificed a lot everyday for my children to better themselves more than my Under achieving life.
    I had to pull my 529- Education fund.. keeps tanking.
    I work where half my children’s college education is paid for “FOR NOW” until that’s yanked. You have to build your empire, when you don’t inherit it.
    I don’t mind if I die poor. But my children better have the chance to sit financial better then me.
    As of right now, I would rather have our government Overthrown then let is sit idle as it stands now.
    If you sit in shit for too long… you start to stink.

  • Kien Tran

    Repeal of the 17th amendment is a disguised way of rebalancing the power from the urban areas to the rural. Instead of voting for Federal Senators at large they are chosen by the governing body. They say this gives us more “freedom” but don’t be fooled. You’re supplanting a vote of the people by a vote of the governing body. That’s hypocrisy at its finest. What they’re really trying to do is make up for the fact that Urban areas by and large vote democratic while the less populated rural areas are more numerous but get outvoted every time. Repealing the 17th amendment will just mean the rural areas select the Senator. It’s a travesty in the works, a short step to “Manorism”. We are a government by people not by land.

  • joecooling

    Let’s just stop all this nonsense and go straight to single payer.

    • bpnjensen

      Vermont is doing just that in the next couple. I wish others would join in – single payer will work best when a huge market of medical care is aggregated together, and Vermont is such a small state.

      • spiccillo

        It will happen. Actually, it has already happened, decades ago. It’s called Medicare, and one day, soon, it will be the health care program all Americans can choose.

    • Charles Vincent

      Single payer is a failure;

      http://www DOT nationalcenter DOT org/NPA555_Sweden_Health_Care DOT html

      • Nick

        Single payer is such a failure that there are many countries that provide healthcare to all of their citizens at a much lower cost than healthcare in the US and they have higher average life expectancies and lower infant mortality rates than does the US. (that’s sarcasm BTW). It’s nice of you to include a link to an “article” from some libertarian (losertarian) “think” tank though. Couldn’t possibly be any biased about an “article” from such a place, right?

      • Charles Vincent

        That’s a piss poor argument…ppffft libertarian think tank please there were plenty of articles by many researchers and they all say the same thing please get off the koolaid and they all as far as I see reference OEDC OR WHO or actual state government numbers on the country.

  • USMC9298

    Libertarians operate under the basis that if you have no government people will behave responsibly towards each other and gather together to make common sense rules. History has proven that any gathering of people will result in those with selfish motives subjugating those who do not unless there is a force of law in place to ensure this does not happen. Libertarians are essentially utopian anarchist believing that humans will do right by each other if only there was no government. I beg to differ, humans will treat one another like crap if they think they can get away with it.

    • Pipercat

      Governance by the honor system…

      • Charles Vincent

        I find it hard to believe either of you actually think that;

        1) Think that libertarians want no government and
        2) that Government doesn’t as USMC stated “will treat one another like crap if they think they can get away with it.”
        3) liberals don’t have a cockeyed notion of utopian socialism and that they are currently trying to force on people who don’t want nor agree with their ideas.

      • Angel Rivera

        How do libertarians guarantee freedom? I have heard a lot of libertarian ideas but nothing concrete that takes on real issues. Its just get rid of most of the rules and everything will be great.

      • Charles Vincent

        to me what they are getting at ids how people like John Locke and Fredrik Bastiat wrote on the topic Bastiat’s the law covers it well as does Lockes writings on the social contract.

      • Nick

        Nearly every “libertarian” I have ever talked to has flat out rejected the very notion of the social contract.

      • Matthew Reece

        That is because one can start with the premises of the social contract and work forward to a contradiction. Contradictions equal falsehood.

      • Charles Vincent

        how so?

      • Matthew Reece

        The social contract is the idea that everyone who lives in the geographical area controlled by a certain group of individuals who exercise a monopoly on the supposedly legitimate initiation of force must obey those individuals. (I say “supposedly” because there is no legitimate initiation of force; all initiatory force violates the non-aggression principle and is therefore immoral.) The individuals in the group with the violence monopoly (hereafter referred to as “government”) do not have such an obligation to obey the people. By remaining in the aforementioned geographical area (and, in cases of democratic government, participating in elections), one is said to be consenting to the social contract and therefore, to being governed. So we have a contract that is geographical, unilateral (the government imposes laws, taxes, and national service upon the citizen, not the other way around), and implicit (it is assumed, not proven by an explicit agreement).

        A government exercises a monopoly on the provision of justice, and does not tolerate competition in the realms of legislation and the judiciary. (Many civil matters are handled through private arbitration, but such rulings must conform to certain standards set and enforced by the government, so it is not an independent, competing system outside the government monopoly.) The government claims that its justification is the social contract. Thus, the legitimacy of the enforcement of all other contracts which are enforced by the government is dependent upon the social contract. This makes the social contract the highest and most moral contract of all.

        Now we apply some fundamental logic to get two useful statements in our attempt to show a contradiction. First, if the social contract is just and moral, then opposition to the social contract must be unjust and immoral. Second, a valid methodology must be internally consistent, meaning it must be subject to its own constraints. The social contract is the highest and most moral contract of all while being geographical, unilateral, and implicit. Thus, all contracts which are geographical, unilateral, and implicit must also be just and moral.

        To show the contradiction, we invent for the sake of argument a contract which is geographical, unilateral, and implicit. (The contract will also look suspiciously similar to a political system.) Suppose I send notice to every household within a city that I have purchased a tree for them. They may choose a cedar or a pine, and if they ask for something else, ask for no tree, or choose not to respond, they will be sent whatever is chosen by the majority of households in the city. The trees must be kept by the people who receive them, and a bill for $10,000 (or some other figure far exceeding the fair market value of the tree) is coming the following week. Anyone who does not love this situation is free to leave it by moving to another city. If I bring this contract to a government court and ask them to enforce it, they will throw me out of court and possibly levy fines against me for wasting the court’s time. If I try to enforce the contract myself by taking a gun and going to collect the $10,000 from each household, I will be thrown in jail. Yet I am perfectly fulfilling the requirements of the social contract: my actions are based on a geographical, unilateral, and implicit contract.

        The government claims the social contract as its justification, but will refuse to enforce as well as attack anyone else who attempts to enforce a contract with identical characteristics. This makes
        contracts which take the form of the social contract both a moral good and a moral evil simultaneously. This is a contradiction, therefore contracts which take the form of the social contract are invalid.

      • Matthew Reece

        You should read about dispute resolution organizations. Stefan Molyneux has done some excellent writing on the subject.

      • Charles Vincent

        I watched that video and he has really solid concepts

      • William Carr

        Essentially, they believe that an “armed society is a polite society”.

        In other words, anyone that gets in a dispute can shoot his neighbor. After all, laws like the one against murder are an infringement of individual rights.

      • Pipercat

        Charles, who’s the worst kind of non-smoker? Well, apply that to Libertarianism and you get me. I sat through all the meetings and listened to all the bullshit and only a small few would even consider reaching out to liberals and yet, they always fell towards the conservative side. The LP I joined, no longer exists and has been taken over by the Lew Rockwell types that see a conspiracy behind every empty diet coke can. All this shit over the NSA, I found out, about Total Information Awareness, back in 2002 and the group basically, pooh-pooh’d it as an, oh well. I took the civil libertarian stuff with me and left the “anarchy, but maybe a monarch” shit behind. My fab-fav was the privatize all roads notion that is so ridiculous, it boggles the mind.

        Honestly my friend, if you even consider any government, as a Libertarian, these days, the purists will cast you out and call you names like Statist!!!!!! So there!

      • Charles Vincent

        Have you read Bastiats the law? this is the way i see government and its proper roll in society

      • Charles Vincent

        I would like to hear more about your foray into the libertarian mind set I seem to have gotten a different exposure to the notion(more along the lines of its actual definition).

      • Pipercat

        Well, we started out as an antiwar, anti-prohibition, pro-environment, anti-single party rule (SE Texas) and mostly anti-property tax group. After a few years or so, it degraded into what is basically now a Tea Party Cell.

        The basic economic bent was basically around Rothbard’s notions. Hence, how Rockwell and his minions took over, basically, the entire Texas LP. That basically went against my old fashioned notions of what Capitalism was supposed to be about and not this Profiteering and speculation we see today.

      • Charles Vincent

        So essentially like what Austrian economist have been saying in terms of how the free market should work? and that government should behave much like Fredrick Bastiat and John Locke thought government should conduct itself?

      • Pipercat

        Capitalism, as I remember, is about investment. The word now has been perverted to mean greed and power. My old civics days postulated the old version of Capitalism as investment in community, country, employees, business and the future. The basic notion is to create wealth by making money percolate through the economy. None of this supply/demand side bullshit. What we have nowadays, is extraction and profiteering; that government now compensates for. Basically, a few entities at the top undermining the foundation at the bottom. Sooner or later, should this trend continue, things will go pop instead of just slowing down a bit. Then the era of nationalized economies begin and you better bone up on your Dutch. As for Locke and Bastiat, their notions are interesting reading, but, in my opinion, are an inadequate basis for a “turnkey” solution to today’s problems. Honestly, it’s going to take some new, very innovative, thinking to create the economies of the future. Stay tuned….

      • Charles Vincent

        They may not be turn key but their writings do have merit and we should take the good and discard the bad. Any future model will be a Frankenstein of sorts just like our own government was a Frankenstein in its day.

      • Charles Vincent

        Also I await with baited breath….

      • William Carr

        The old “Invest and Hold” philosophy began to decay the moment greedy sociopaths realized they could make money WITH money and without working for it.

      • William Carr

        What Libertarians simply refuse to recognize, is that in a Democracy the whacko ideas of the lunatic fringe don’t matter.

        Majority rules.

        When Bush and Cheney frightened America into reacting like a startled bear, we struck out and killed half a million innocent people.

        When we came to our senses we backed away, outlawed Torture again, and tried to mend the damage.

        You have the right to your opinions, and the right to vote. You don’t have the right to pick the laws you want to obey.

        Don’t give us that crap about “forcing” people to agree… you can obey the Law or leave in peace.

        Libertarians will always be the lunatic fringe. Get used to it.

      • joecooling

        We give people guns and tell them to defend themselves and all they can do is shoot little boys eating candy and threaten their pregnant gold digging girlfriends,

    • Matthew Reece

      This libertarian operates under the basis that people have evil tendencies and therefore, a monopoly on force is far too dangerous to be allowed to exist, as the most evil people will end up wielding it.

      • William Carr

        So then you abdicate any central authority to prevent the wicked from killing, raping, and enslaving others.

        If Government is “Force” (which is ridiculous and stupid), then you can’t have a government to protect the citizens from criminals.

        It’s really as ridiculous as Soviet-style Communism. Just rotated 180 degrees.

      • Matthew Reece

        The central authority will be used by the wicked to kill, rape, and enslave others. Sometimes it has different names, like war, genocide, and taxation.

        Ad lapidem admits defeat and ignorance.

  • strayaway

    Libertarianism is the opposite of authoritarianism. We all have to find our spot along this spectrum. Libertarianism has an economic and a social component. Democrats often are more libertarian socially e.g. gay marriage, abortion. Republicans tend to be more economically libertarian e.g. free markets, privatization. A 100% libertarian would be an anarchist ok with no borders or governments. Ron Paul is a constitutional libertarian meaning that his libertarian leanings are restricted by the powers given to government by the Constitution.

    Sorry, but the statement “pretty soon things are going to get so bad that we’re just going to ignore the feds and live our own lives in our own states” does not advocate revolution. As I read it, it is consistent with his belief that the way things are going, the dollar will collapse and our economy will collapse with it. Should that happen, we will all be Detroit and unable to keep up with local funding of federal mandates. States that have set up their own (un)ACA compliant systems might not be able to afford to fund them. Then what? Federal funding for these state programs isn’t guaranteed forever.

    The ignored 10th Amendment is much more aligned with state rights, than the 17th Amendment, as the 10th limits the powers of the federal government to those listed in the Constitution. Is it racist for Vermont to have wanted its own single payer health care system, for California to fund stem cell research, for Colorado to legalize pot, or Oregon to make planned suicides legal? I don’t think so.

    Somalia is not an example of libertarianism. It is a Country wrecked by civil and religious war. The flames of that war were fanned by outside powers including Clinton’s “Blackhawk Down” interlude. Islamists today control much of the Somali countryside and parts of that country are occupied by foreign troops. Local warlords fill in the gaps. Somalia is hardly an example of libertarian government. That is a just stupid liberal cliche.

    • Chris Muir

      Somalia is an example of what happens when a strong central government collapses completely. It doesn’t result in a “libertarian society”, it devolves into anarchy, which quickly results in the takeover by various criminal groups and local war-lords.
      So, you’re right that it isn’t an example of a “libertarian government”, it’s an example of the failure of libertarian philosophy.
      BTW, there isn’t and never has been a successful example of “libertarian government”.

      • strayaway

        You are half way there but how is Somalia an example of a failed libertarian philosophy since it was never libertarian to begin with?

        In relative terms, yes, more libertarian governments, which is the same as saying less authoritarian governments, have succeeded. The growth of the US was phenomenal after losing its fealty to the king. The Harding/Coolidge years were comparatively libertarian compared with the Wilson era. Taxes were slashed, government spending was reduced, the draft was ended, Wilson’s political prisoners including WB DuBois were freed, the military was reduced in size, workers wages soared. It was an era of peace and prosperity. More recently, China eased some of its authoritarian controls in letting peasants own their own land and granting private businesses more freedom. China is no where near being “libertarian” but it is more libertarian than it was.

  • estfar

    No matter how you slice it, bigots are scared that their days are numbered – when the U.S. will be more brown than white, and their outdated thinking will be erased forever. The biggest welfare states are in the South, and they are the loudest voices calling Blacks lazy. The sleeping, creepy, hood-wearing clansmen were awakened when what they thought would never happened, did happen – this country elected the first Black president. This Milestone should have been met with open arms – but fear is a strange elixir and the worst bigots, racists, who had been hiding in plain sight came out from under the sheets. I am happy because it is good to know who the enemy is. And it has not changed its stripes – still old or aging, half-baked White men afraid that their manhood is being challenged by women in control of their own bodies, Blacks who can vote and LGBTs with rights.

    • SLAPPY

      You have to read history to understand the Constitution..Conflicting rascism into the issue does not help your cause.. That is a simple tactic of Divide and Conqure produced by your HANDLER NICE TRY!!!

      • William Carr

        No, you’re reading your REVISIONIST history so you can re-word the Constitution to your preferences.

        If you were reading ACTUAL history, you would be disappointed that it doesn’t fit your bias.

    • SLAPPY

      Besides without caucasion people you would not be surounded by all this Technology..

      • geography

        Asians…

      • William Carr

        Someone should tell you who George Washington Carver was.

        Caucasians don’t have a lock on technology, bigot.

  • Carl

    i think you hit it on the head when you said most claim to be Libertarian but are only in name but not by words are or actions. I myself consider myself a moderate Libertarian and I think any extremist thought be it left, right or Libertarian is down right dangerous. Please do not lump all Libertarian’s in the crazy group though I know there are many claiming to be Libertarian and are anything but.

    • Angel Rivera

      what do you believe? I have read a lot and a lot of what i hear from the current visible libertarianism makes me cringe.

  • VALERIE MARTIN

    Charles Manson, Scientology, David Koresh, Jim Jones.
    Unfortunately I could go on, & on, & on.
    All examples of how people will follow anyone, even if
    that leader is completely Bat-Sh?t Crazy!
    They convince their followers it’s “us against them”.
    In the case of the Paul’s, I believe, they are an elitist group.
    They’ve got theirs, skrew everyone else. We saw a great

    example of that when Paul’s supporters chanted “Let him die,

    let him die!!”
    I think most People were appalled. Most of us are not elitists

    but I know we’re better than that!!

    • SLAPPY

      just ask any liberal that sacrafices there liberties for a little security PATHETIC HUMANS!!!!

      • research

        signed into law October 26, 2001

      • research

        patriot act

  • Tarutan21

    What the hell kind of philosophy do you need to run this country. Between dems and republicans it is always either a war on the rich or poor. You think that’s better for America? The plain and simple truth is we don’t need more taxes on either side, what we need is dissolution of 50% of our government. Do you have any idea how over reaching our government is and how much frivolous spending there is? We keep invading countries and giving other countries our borrowed money. What is our defense budget, 700billion a year? Please, we wouldn’t need it if we just strengthened our homeland security and stopped going outside of out borders. We don’t need more taxes, we simply need less government. How is that for a philosophy.

    • Tarutan

      We don’t need republicans and democrats and libertarians. When you don’t have money you can’t have that cheese and salami on your bread. Government can’t afford the luxury of parties and philosophies. What it needs now are accountants and intelligent human beings. If my mom was in charge she would whip this country into a surplus while keeping our schools open, our streets safe, the unfortunate fed, and the rich happy. It is possible. You just have to look out America and say, we can’t afford to give Zimbabwe 5million in aid. We can’t afford to run the UN. Etc etc.

    • regressive rightwing trash

      lets start with our congress being paid straight commision

    • Larry

      I remember reading this exact argument before WW11, This is Europe’s War , the US needs to stay out. Does anyone remember what happened to England? I’m in my seventies and I hate Wars, but Isolation is not the answer. Before some one calls me a hawk, I think that almost all wars are unnecessary,and I think we have a majorly bloated military. Wars are differant now, you can’t fight Terrorism with an Atom bomb or a B-2 Bomber or a bajillion Abrahms Tanks.

  • Robert Grimm

    The 17th amendment does hurt states rights. You know what else does? The original Constitution itself. The solution isn’t to get rid of the 17th. The solution is to either get rid of the states or the Senate. Both are relics of a past long gone.

  • Dan_ND

    But how will all the people injured in the armed rebellion against Obamacare get their injuries treated? If only the rebelling states had some sort of system in place that allowed casualties to receive medical treatments regardless of ability to pay at the time and have the costs spread out to other citizens of the state. Where can we find something like that?

  • Ivan

    Ron Paul has not lost it. He never had it. He has been trying to find it and this is evidence that his search for common sense is still ongoing.

  • Stephen Love

    A libertarian is an anarchist who demands police protection from his very own slaves.

    • SLAPPY

      GO ANARCHIST

  • Rita M Nicholson

    I call them Libratardians because their thought process is stunted; most of them are not currently functioning well in this society as it is and live in a fantasy land by refusing to see that no society can function as a libertarian society for long. How is it they think they are going to “fare” any better in a society that offers no security and evolves into an even bigger “dog eat dog” country?

  • suburbancuurmudgeon

    Whenever I ask someone “What liberties have been taken away from you?” there is dead silence.

    • bpnjensen

      I have had a few minor liberties taken away from me, but by the paranoid policies of the Right. They are not really important – yet.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        I usually ask that question of the right. The left is worried more about the NSA listening in on conversations.

      • SLAPPY

        NSA DUMMY

    • Jason Benninger

      The right to travel unmolested

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Who is molesting you? You must travel some pretty dangerous roads.

      • consequences

        perhaps that is a result of the decider and our foreign policy over the past few decades?

      • Jason Benninger

        I was merely answering the question, regardless of the reason for the infringement upon said “right”.

    • brownp51

      I travel all the time. Where can you not go?

      • Jason Benninger

        I, personally, have never had any experience with this. However it isn’t difficult to find clear evidence of this going on in our country. Just look at the stop and frisk law in New York. Or illegal traffic stops of hispanics to determine if they are illegal aliens. Regardless of the reasons for these activities they are still unconstitutional.

  • regressive rightwing trash

    another impotent old white trash fool who says what gets him noticed—and voted in: Now just drumming support for his useless anti American son. white trash is white trash

  • Robert R Nowicki

    the Second Amendment was placed in the Bill of Rights as a tool for southern states to enforce slavery…. hunting, intemediate and lynch slaves human beings. It has nothing to do with hunting…..the southern state militia was in place to keep slaves in their place

  • Mike Hiler

    I think you’re stretching it a bit in equating “nullification” with armed rebellion. Nullification is the theory where the states may choose to nullify any federal law they deem to be unconstitutional. That doesn’t mean take up arms against the government, but just the states will ignore any federal law the state deems unconstitutional.

    • Chris Muir

      The supremacy clause of the Constitution states that the Constitution is superior to other laws, and the Federal laws are superior to State laws. The Constitution gives the Judicial branch the right to resolve conflicts in the law, including State laws that may conflict with Federal law, or Federal laws that conflict with Constitutional law – but it does NOT grant States the right to resolve such conflicts, Therefore, “nullification” is Constitutionally invalid.
      BTW, “nullification” was one of the issues that started the Civil War, and the results of that war also proved that “nullification” was invalid.

      • Mike Hiler

        I don’t argue those points. I was just pointing out that someone supporting a nullification position isn’t automatically advocating armed rebellion.

  • Wakeuppeople

    This article is absolutely ridiculous, i wish people would bother looking into things more instead of being spoonfed misinformation, its very sad how much people really feed into lies. Ron Paul has been, an still is a hero to this country and true freedom loving Americans, people are so afraid of the truth apparently its easier to believe lies. Open your eyes people. Ron Paul is not a racist if anyone took the time to to listen to his speeches, and Obamacare is a fraud to the American people.

  • SLAPPY

    The corporate parties just hate seeing a Libertarian upriseing…. Go Libertarianssssssssss!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • detached

    Ernest Renan was right when he wrote over a century ago “Forgetting, and I would even say historical error, are an essential factor in the creation of a nation, and so it is that progress in historical studies is often a danger to nationality.” That is, I believe, a fine task for historians: to be a danger to national myths.
    -Eric Hobsbawn, Nations and Nationalism since 1780

  • Liberty or Death

    This is the worst written conclusion to an article I’ve ever seen. You seem to just hate for no apparent reason. Ron paul is a stand up guy and this is coming from a African American male! I’ve done my research and Ron Paul and son are more pro-American than Obama could ever dream of being. Enough said you are blind and I encourage you to open your eyes to see the mis-information you are spewing.

    • Angel Rivera

      Who are you to question Obama’s patriotism? Have you met him? This article is critique of what Ron Paul said. He is a libertarian and he makes certain comments that the writer doesn’t agree with. I did do my research on Ron Paul and after everything said and done, i think that he lives in a fantasy world. He is a Libertarian. After all the rhetoric, i have never heard how libertarianism will work in a real life situation. Until I get real life proof that all that Ron Paul said could work is nothing more than a pipe dream.

  • Bill

    Whatever happened to the Liberals of the 1960’s the didn’t want to have anything to do with “the man”? What, you all got old enough to finally be “the man” yourself and changed your mind?

    Are you aware that “libertarian” philosophy is called “liberal” philosophy everywhere else in the world?

    What sort of problem do you supposedly liberal people have with putting an end to the police state and the drug war, ending all of our foreign aggression, and restoring our constitutional rights?

    As one of the 30 million uninsured Americans, I can assure you that Obamacare is a nightmare and a failure.

    But my original question remains, since when did liberals want every aspect of their lives controlled by the man?

    • billisconfused

      your concept of the man would make sure my concept of the man would not poison our water, air, or land. my freedom to live healthy trumps your “freedom” to be lazy and look for the cheap way out. everything is a melodrama with you people…manufactured scandals….putting politics above country…..no wonder Congress has the approval rating it does.

  • Matthew Reece

    A real libertarian is someone who starts with bodily ownership and the three laws of thought (identity, non-contradiction, excluded middle), and proceeds from there. This leads to free market anarchism as a goal and agorism as a means.

  • Angel Rivera

    so how will libertarianism guarantees that the market will function in a fair manner? how will libertarianism will prevent the manipulation of the market if there are no regulations? How are they prevent monopolies from taking control of markets? How can they guarantee that individuals will be responsible? How do you guarantee that the business owners will pay fair wages? Who will ensure that workers grievances are addressed? How will you ensure that the costumers get quality products?
    The fact is that in the last thirty years have proven that we need more enforcement not less. The people that have proved are in Wall Street with their callous disregard of consequences as they do business. They do a lot of harm now with the current regulations, can you really expect to behave with no regulations?

  • Matthew Reece

    Fact check: The Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize the collection of income taxes. It exempted income taxes from the constitutional requirements regarding direct taxes, after income taxes on rents, dividends, and interest were ruled to be direct taxes in the court case of Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. (1895).