Ron Paul

So what is your solution? If a Republican or a Democratic candidate most closely represents what I value, should I not vote for him (or her)?

You're not a true partisan until you vote for a straight party ticket regardless of who is running or what the issues are. There are a lot of true partisans out there, on both sides of the aisle, btw.
 
Werbung:
You're not a true partisan until you vote for a straight party ticket regardless of who is running or what the issues are. There are a lot of true partisans out there, on both sides of the aisle, btw.

I am well aware of that and agree with you fully; however, Truth-Bringer stated that voting for a member of either party makes one a de facto member of that party.
 
I am well aware of that and agree with you fully; however, Truth-Bringer stated that voting for a member of either party makes one a de facto member of that party.

Exactly, and I was disagreeing with Truth-Bringer. Actually, you're not a member of a party unless you register to vote under that party's name. I'm a registered Republican, for example, which allows me to vote in the Republican primary. Some places have open primaries, so you don't have to be registered as a Republican or Democrat in order to vote in that party's primary, but here we don't have open primaries. If we did, I would be an independent, or perhaps a Libertarian.
 
I am well aware of that and agree with you fully; however, Truth-Bringer stated that voting for a member of either party makes one a de facto member of that party.

Let me rephrase that - if you vote Democrat or Republican - and they win the election - then you have de facto EMPOWERED that political party.

Forget the membership in the party rant. It's meaningless. The only thing that means anything is what happens after you've given them the guns of government and a monopoly on legalized force.
 
Let me rephrase that - if you vote Democrat or Republican - and they win the election - then you have de facto EMPOWERED that political party.

Forget the membership in the party rant. It's meaningless. The only thing that means anything is what happens after you've given them the guns of government and a monopoly on legalized force.

All right. I can get behind that. Well, the first paragraph anyway. Tell me - are you very, very intimidated by the government? I mean, taxes or no taxes, the government is going to have guns - for defense purposes - and as for this monopoly on legalized force...well, for one thing, self-defense is perfectly legal, so long as it is justifiable. Is there some other type of force you wish to have legal access to?
 
Werbung:
All right. I can get behind that. Well, the first paragraph anyway. Tell me - are you very, very intimidated by the government?

Anyone who understands true freedom realizes that this government is a threat to that freedom. Our government is a fascist/collectivist mix. It is not based on liberty under natural law.

I mean, taxes or no taxes, the government is going to have guns - for defense purposes -

And as long as its for defensive purposes, I'm perfectly ok with that.

and as for this monopoly on legalized force...well, for one thing, self-defense is perfectly legal, so long as it is justifiable. Is there some other type of force you wish to have legal access to?

No, self-defense is the only acceptable use of force.

People should have the freedom to engage in any peaceful, honest, voluntary activity that they choose. As long as you do not resort to using force, fraud or coercion against people who have not aggressed on you, you may act as you wish.

You do not have the freedom to use force, fraud or coercion against others unless they are directly threatening you with aggressive force. If you use force, fraud or coercion against peaceful, honest people, then, and only then, the government should step in to punish, prosecute, imprison the aggressor.
 
Back
Top