EMPEROR YOU NEVER HAD

Have you forgotten about him?

libertarians are smart enough to realize that socialism doesn't work but not smart enough to realize most people are dumber than them and that's why libertarianism doesn't work

RON PAUL STAND TALL

...

Oh god i just realized i've been here for five years

PRAISE BE

Neocons are furious with him for exposing their agenda during the 2008 and 2012 election cycles. It makes me so happy.

Rand 2024

you do realize that Ron Paul is now a shill for trump and supports the ban

Also smart enough to realize that they dont want their children to live in the equilavent of C17.

RON PAUL STAND TALL

...

He's still my favorite political candidate of my lifetime

I love him man, such a shame humanity doesn't agree

...

L2Read

...

>career politician
He's a man and a politician separately.

this motherfucker redpilled me hard on economic...
was a commie who envy everyone before i watch his vid

...

freedom is defined by safety

If I'm an amerifat and can't walk down the street or go to school without being shot, how am I free?

what a retard

...

I remember how Paul was treated in the primaries, that's partly why I supported Trump because almost the entire GOP establishment is crooked and needed to be smashed into dust.

He will never be forgotten.

...

I can't make out what it says

>Trump to bust open and clean out the corrupt neocon power structures
>Rand Paul afterwards to rebuild and rejuvenate Liberty

This must be our goal.

I can't either.

RON PAUL STAND TALL

RON PAUL STAND TALL

>Freedom
>surveillance and law enforcement.

There must be a balance so that nobodys rights are undermined by anyone else nor the government for that matter.

>getting shot at
>losing right to live

Rand Paul needs to learn from Trump about how to eviscerate his opponents and the media industrial complex.

The first reason to have a government is safety. I don't think that the scholars who followed Hobbes and his vision of the Leviathan even disagreed with that. The question is on how many other tasks should be added.

If you expect to be free to do literally whatever YOU want without government interference then you're not better than a Tatar and according to philosophers like Emer de Vattel you should be killed for being no better than an animal.

>emperor
Paul is Cato. Trump is Caesar.

THIS

What's C17, the cargo plane? What do you mean?
Libertarianism is a joke at this point, it makes no positive claims or plans to ensure the collective good or the preservation of culture and a people. Right Wing Collectivism with a heavy emphasis on traditional family and group values plus Nationalism and Cultural Preservation along with a powerful elite that can effectively enact these policies, basically NatSoc, is a much better alternative to the flourishing and happiness of a people.

no.

Statues will be built of this man.

amazing huge statues of this tiny man.

I think we both know that even liberty should have some obvious limits.

Assuming that libertarians want everything to be allowed is ridiculous.

Only things that dont harm others. May harm the user but its his own body.

>cigarettes
>weed
>alcohol
>not getting a job
>choosing career
The list goes on and on...

Its your decision.

There's IMO a stronger case to be made that society would benefit much more from heavily restricting or even outright banning many practices which on the individual, direct level, don't "harm anybody else".

When you factor into account the externalities and societally borned costs of a lot of behaviors, it makes a lot of sense to heavily discourage many activities.

> smoking cigarettes or using tobacco generally > drinking to the point of alcoholism
> unhealthy diets and eating habits
> low levels of exercise or access to exercise equipment or environments

the list goes on and on of things that incur massive societal costs which could better be allocated to programs which would make us healthier, happier, better educated, and better off in general.

Countries and the general concept of society are inherently collectivist and this is a good thing, it allows us to pool resources and achieve things which we individually could not. By that same token we should be pushing for a system which encourages individual activities which are healthy and good for both the individual and society, and heavily restrict personal decisions which are bad for its collective well-being.

My country handles these things pretty well I think.

Just slamp a heavy tax on the practises that cost society a lot.

Cigarettes for example.

Im paying 1000 euros in a year for this habit just in taxes.

Still choosing this habit because I enjoy it personally.

One day might need treatment but if this happens 30-40 years from now I have just about covered it.

Besides. I know I should stop. And I will. Dont need government intervention for this.

Taxation and preaching should be enough.

>not smart enough to realize most people are dumber than them
commie detected.

RON PAUL STAND TALL

No refunds.

The problem here, with the quote of Ron Paul, is assuming that "security" is a simple concept. You speak of "obvious limits" but are they?

Both of us do not assume that libertarians want so much liberty that you can become a warlord and enslave your neighbourhood. But isn't the concept of "security" broarder than that?

What about DUI? Should we do something against it? We know how dangerous it can be, so should we prohibit it (and enforce it) and consider that it's the basic, obvious security?

Then come the legislation regarding the quality of engines or perishable products like the food. Before speaking of the liberties should I expect the food sold in the supermarket to not kill me on the spot?

Libertarians hate regulation but build all their paradigm on a false premise of safety.

There is no such thing as safety without rules and means to enforce it. A huge chunk of the legislation aims to improve your safety. This means that, as a producer, there will be government interferences. Take those interferences out, and you end up in the warlord situation.

Therefore, safety is the real start, not the empty concept of "liberty".

Dui is something that may harm others.
Therefore a very obvious concern.

As to quality of food and engines, these I think are also pretty obvious. Atleast to the extent that the producer must inform that the product may harm you in x way and contain y ingredients. (this may cause people to not buy the product)

The problems that exist today are mostly freedom of speech issues(atleast in my country) and government interference on matters abroad. Ron paul was also right about other things, like the FIAT monetary system, war on drugs etc.

Ofc the government should have a role to play, ensuring the safety of citizens. Not all liberals want to go all the way with removing regulations and etc. Just ones that are considered useless.

When it comes to "what could harm you" one could also speak of age of consent or legal age to drink, buy cigarettes etc.

If we put all these things together, it tends to reduce the question to "should be legalize pot and other drugs for people older than X?". This also leads to more regulation (because then you have to check the quality of the drug, to enforce it etc.). At the end of the day, you end up with a mountain of regulation and interferences from the governement, so not free according to Ron Paul. Except if he considers that it's the "basic necessary regulation" but this makes his statement about liberty pretty incremental "free from government interference [save for the thousands of regulations that I consider obviously necessary]".

Regarding the freedom of speech, one could say that it's already pretts good in the USA, contrary to some european countries, I give you that. Still, Ron Paul being an american politician, not european, he is not really fighting for more freedom of speech (in America).

Regarding matters abroad, one could also point that a problem in a foreign country might end up being your problem if you don't act. Let's say you're dependant on oil and oil producers decide to fuck you up. Is it really in your best interest to say "welp so be it" and endure the consequences?

At the end of the day, Trump is either more realistic on the matter or more honest. He pretends to have no desire for foreign interference, except if it's in the interest of the USA.

Ross reporting in