Ron Paul conveyed his usual pro-liberty stance at a variety of public appearances in New Hampshire the weekend of February 25th, 2007. The Union Leader (a conservative paper) had some surprisingly proper things to say about him:

Paul - who had been in New Hampshire since Thursday - found himself treated like a rock star at yesterday’s event, and a couple of hundred people were on hand to hear him speak at the Free State Project’s New Hampshire Liberty Forum. About half the 350 people who attended the days-long conference, at the Holiday Inn on North Main Street, were from New Hampshire, organizers said.

They also covered his best quote to date in his career: “The worst thing that could happen to al-Qaeda is for that war to end.” This is so true. The police actions that the US federal government has supported in the Middle East have done more damage to that sector of the world than all the previous invasions combined. I have seen more hatred by common Middle Easterners — including Christians — now than ever before. Under Hussein’s leadership, Christian congregations were allowed to meet without conviction, but today those Christians have fled Iraq because of the U.S.-chosen government. It is a sad state of affairs when things get worse after a “tyrant” is ousted.

The article also covers Paul’s basic platform thoughts: Among other issues, Paul also voiced support for abandoning the war on drugs, allowing gold and silver to serve as legal tender, repealing the Seventeenth Amendment €” which lets voters directly elect U.S. Senators €” and ending the practice of withholding taxes from one’s pay. Instead, taxpayers would have to actually write checks to pay their taxes, a move Paul figured would soon end what he called the present tax-and-spend philosophy of government.

These are so pro-liberty that it still continues to shock me that it comes from a Federal Congressman, who are amongst the most guilty for destroying the values of liberty in the U.S. Liberty can never come from government, the military or force. I don’t support our troops that think they’re fighting for freedom — they just confused and lied to, and in my own group of friends and family in the military, I know that many of them are there because they love the power that their uniform gives them. It scares me to think of the psychos I know that shouldn’t be armed and badged.

Breaking down that short paragraph, we see the following platforms that I do support in terms of reduced government, even though I won’t vote for Ron Paul or any other listed candidate:

Abandoning the War on Drugs — The war on drugs is one of the worst police-state actions the U.S. has suffered under for decades. It has stolen the liberty to ingest or inject what one wants to, and refuses to allow the average citizen the power for self-responsibility and the consequences of not thinking-before-doing. In my opinion, the drug war is contra-Bible and contra-freedom from any vantage point, and I am shocked at how many people still continue to support it. In many prisons more than half the inmates are non-violent drug offenders who only attempted to ingest or inject drugs, not distribute or corrupt others to take drugs.

Allowing gold and silver to be legal tender — Note that Paul merely wants to de-criminalize non-dollar money as legal tender, he isn’t pushing for an only-gold or only-silver money standard. Paul believes that money should be chosen by the public, rather than by force or fiat. This is a great viewpoint, since we are mandated to accept US dollars for any public or private debt — it is illegal to not accept it for debts, even by contract (as I was informed by my lawyers when I wanted to start a gold/silver-only service).

Repealing the 17th Amendment — This is SO important to return “power” back to the local governments (states and villages). The 17th Amendment changed the U.S. from a Republic to a Democracy, and it has given the Federal government significant power over the states. The selection of U.S. Senators by the individual states rather than the majority meant that Senators were more concerned with protecting the individual states’ powers rather than wrangling for position within the Federal power structure.

End withholding taxes — This is my favorite platform position of Ron Paul’s, other than his desire to withdraw from Iraq. Most people ignore their paycheck stubs and really don’t focus on how much they pay to the federal government (which also includes their employer share that the employee actually pays in reduced income). If we get rid of withholding, the average citizen will get a HUGE portion of their paycheck back each week, but be forced to write a check regularly to the IRS. This would show them how terrible the U.S. tax system is. Instead of moving to a flat tax or a VAT tax, I fully support continuing all taxation as it is, but requiring taxpayers to pay them themselves. I’d even like to see ALL retail prices to be mandated to show the price BEFORE all taxes (including gas tax). When people realize how much is stolen from them, they may be more likely to support reductions in taxes rather than ignore the little bit extra that is stolen each year. The downside is that a taxpayer-paid income tax would likely mean that the Federal government would find new ways to hide taxes in regulatory fees and corporate fees rather than direct-from-the-citizen taxes.

Withdrawal from Iraq — I support this 100%. Ron Paul is right — Congress needs to actually declare war before troops should be sent ANYWHERE. There is not defensive posturing without a declaration of war. As Laurence Vance has shown us recently, the U.S. now has troops in 159 regions in the world. 144 countries and 15 territories out of 192 countries, which is 75% of the countries in the world, plus those 15 territories. Empire, indeed.

Again, I won’t vote for Ron Paul because I only vote for myself on every ballot (which is the only true vote for freedom), but I do support this guy fully for those who must vote for someone other than themselves. If he runs, and you won’t vote for true freedom, vote for Paul for less tyranny.

Discuss this article at the anarcho-capitalism forum

The same person who asked me some questions in my previous post titled Will anarcho-capitalism devolve into Feudalism? asked some more questions via e-mail today:

I’m trying to define self-defense and the defense of those unable to defend themselves as acceptable. It tends to be quite problematic because of how many loopholes etc there are.

Here’s a question for you, what do you think about the concept of intellectual property in general and what do you think of how it has been implemented in the United

Here are my thoughts on self-defense and intellectual property in a Stateless zone:

Defense

One of the most important things you would immediately have to learn to live by in a Stateless zone is the knowledge that the property owned and maintained by another is not yours to use or trespass on without approval. This means you stay off someone else’s land until you know exactly what their rules and regulations are. In a Stateless zone, you may get some people with some
“outrageous” opinions on how their land is to be used. Your neighbor Peter might have a rule that says any white male under the height of 6′2″ can be slayed if they come on the property. In this case, I would likely never venture onto Peter’s property since I am 5′7″. Without knowing the rules to someone’s land, you are best off not venturing on there without invitation and a mutual promise to abide by their rules. In reality, you likely won’t have people with prejudices such as these, but trespass is trespass, so traveling with caution is wise.

For me, I am an anarcho-pantelist, so I don’t believe that my property is mine or that my body is mine or that my possessions are mine — I give all ownership to what I consider my creator — God the Father. Since this is the case, I believe I only exist mortally to take care of what I have acquired over time using the skills that I was created with. My land is NOT mine, my body is NOT mine and my tools are NOT mine, I just earned them to make better in my mortal life. If someone wanted to come on “my” land and steal my tools or take over that land or kill me, I believe I have to be defenseless against their attack. The best thing that I can do for others is live in a positive light and use no coercion against others. If they come to attack, I can only hope to love them and serve them and hope that my positive actions give them reason for living positively. I can not judge their actions or “evils.” Note that much of my anarcho-pantelism beliefs are considered heresy to most Christians or those with faith of some kind, including most of my friends and family.

The use of force against an other is up to the land owner. Don’t go on the land of another person and you should be free from being concerned with self defense. You also can use self defense (as you define) it on your land. The definition of “land” and “property” is for another article.

Intellectual Property

I am against the idea of intellectual property of any kind. My father (who is a VERY neoliberal Democrat) once told me that if I discover some new process or invention, I should keep it a secret until I could figure out how to profit from it. The same should be true of any process. ALL intellectual property “rights” revolve around the thought that the State can use force to prevent another person from thinking or acting or using their hands in a particular way. A guitar riff that is under copyright says that no one else can manipulate their fingers on a guitar string in a certain way. Lyrics or spoken words that are under copyright says that no one else can manipulate their vocal chords, tongue and lips in a certain way. It is unrealistic to think that you can make those manipulations scarce by the threat of force by the State.

All my websites are free of copyright or patent, in fact I openly tell people to copy everything I write, publish it under their own name, never reference me and make as much money as they can from it. Why? Because if others read these words published on your website or book or magazine, even under your own words, eventually they will either learn from it (my entire point), or they will discover me. That is how it is. What you have done in the past has very little effect on your ability to earn in the future.

I like to say that if a plumber fixes your toilet, you don’t pay them for every flush from that point on — you pay them for the specific actions they did for you when they fixed your toilet. You pay bands to hear them play live, and you might even pay them for a CD of their music, because you want to support them playing in the future. Intellectual property is the idea that others can be forced to reimburse an inventor that may not be doing any additional labor in the future. It is a ridiculous idea when you think about it.

All of us can make money by continuing to be more efficient at a given task than others. You might be really efficient at mowing lawns, I am not. I pay you to mow my lawn because you are more efficient at it. You might be really excellent at entertaining others, so others will pay you for entertainment. Intellectual property rights have nothing to do with any of it — they are just there to protect work you have ALREADY DONE and don’t care to do again or get better at. I call all intellectual property laws “Laws to allow you to be lazy.”

Just because you might have 30 years of experience in IT services doesn’t mean you deserve to be paid more than a guy with 6 months experience. Why? Because your past experience has NO effect on your efficiency today. People hire you because you can handle their current and FUTURE tasks more efficiently than they can. No one cares how good you were 5 years ago or 10 years ago, they only care that you will be good at a task today. Your past history can be a positive for work because people may trust that you’ll work hard today, but it still has zero effect on your actual talents today, right now.

Discuss this article at the anarcho-capitalism forum.