Home » Forums » Daily Paul Liberty Forum

Vote Ron Paul for the "Milton Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty"

Submitted by Orwell1984 on Wed, 12/30/2009 - 21:20
in
0 votes

Let's all vote for RON PAUL for the "Milton Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty"

Click here:
http://www.cato.org/speci...

The Milton Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty, named in honor of perhaps the greatest champion of liberty in the 20th century, is presented every other year to an individual who has made a significant contribution to advance human freedom.

the rest is here:
http://www.cato.org/speci...

Nominations for the 2010 Friedman Prize are now being accepted. To place a nomination, click here: http://www.cato.org/speci...


UPDATE: First, I would like to thank Michael Nystrom for posting this on the main page.

I posted a blog on Campaign for Liberty. Hopefully, an administrator or someone will catch wind of it and start promoting the Milton Friedman award on their main page.

I would like to build a page promoting Ron Paul for "The Milton Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty." However, I'm not very "web savvy" and have little or no knowledge about web design, graphic design, or video creation and editing for YouTube. But there are obviously a lot of Ron Paul supporters out there who are. Please email me at friedmanprize@googlemail.com if you have any technical knowledge and experience in web design, graphic design, or video creating/editing.

This award is from the most prestigious libertarian policy think tank in America, probably even the world. The prize is also $500,000. Ron Paul could use that money toward Campaign for Liberty or something else. Also, he would get media attention for receiving the award and make media appearances on national TV discussing why he got the award.

Ron Paul might not have received "Person of the Year" by TIME Magazine. But he has a really good shot at getting "The Milton Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty" from the CATO Institute.

»

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Put in my 2cts for

Submitted by madgunchemist on Thu, 12/31/2009 - 13:30.

Dr Paul. He must be a shoe in.

Ron Paul is MY President

Submitted by LiveFreeOrDieNow on Thu, 12/31/2009 - 12:35.

and MY hero! What a legend! Let's take our government back from the criminals and banksters that hijacked it.

End the Fed
End the IRS
End Homeland Security
End Obama and Bush
End the Corruption
End the Bribery
End the Fraud
End the Welfare Nanny State
End the Tyranny!

Restore our Freedom.
Restore our Privacy.
Restore our Money.
Restore our Lives!

Libertarian FTW.

—

RonPaulIsMyPresident.com

voted

Submitted by TomJefferson on Thu, 12/31/2009 - 10:26.

let's get those numbers in everyone!

—

R3VOLution

My submitted nomination for the good doctor!

Submitted by Canada4RonPaul on Thu, 12/31/2009 - 10:21.

As an active citizen engaged in the pursuit of liberty, now as a life long mission, I reflect upon my humble beginnings to recognize the individual who initiated and energized my soul to advance freedom and who I am honored to say is Congressman Ron Paul. Many often wonder why I,a Canadian, would be so adamant in sharing the many books, articles, legislation, video and radio interviews with friends, family, neighbors, and general members of the public who don't directly engage in American politics. The answer is simple, the liberty minded principles of Doctor Paul are consistently shared with his words and congressional record as the proof. Some nicknames Doctor Paul has received over the years include 'the tax payers best friend' and 'the champion of the constitution' which millions of people from around the world would most likely agree with. The list of accomplishments for Doctor Ron Paul would be a long task to summarize, so at this time I will only share my love, appreciation and respect for such a courageous individual in the pursuit of liberty.

—

_____________________________________________

Watch this dry yet astonishing Dr. Robert Beck cancer treatment lecture on Google Video - search "Suppressed Medical Discovery" - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3383948315844437935

bump

Submitted by legalizeliberty on Thu, 12/31/2009 - 09:50.

Peace patriot*))

—

Website:
http://www.libertypoet.com/
Twitter:
http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
"How can we justify to the unemployed and underemployed in the United States the incredible cost of maintaining a global empire?" - Dr. Ron Paul

just nominated

Submitted by trapfive on Wed, 12/30/2009 - 22:45.

In a nation that continues to slide into the grasp of collectivism, Dr. Ron Paul leads the march to proclaim individual liberty paramount for the future prosperity and well being of our nation and the world's nations.

To most United States citizens liberty is a word uttered during the Pledge of Allegiance; to Congressmen Paul it is the foundation on which he conducts his life. A life of sacrifice to the cause of liberty that can best be witnessed by his three decades of service in the body politic.

His tenacious determination to abide by the principle of individual liberty has placed Dr. Paul at odds and out of step with the machinations of our ever increasingly oppressive federal government. But determined he has remained. Foregoing the lucrative path of grabbing for power and prestige, Ron Paul has quietly worked to keep a flicker of liberty burning in the halls of congress.

While the job of a politician has been reduced to the idea of moving an agenda; Dr. Ron Paul has been moving a nation, awakening citizens like myself who for too long have been idle.

Liberty is not found in the rhetoric and platitudes of our countries leaders, although they speak of it often. It is found in the example of Dr. Ron Paul who exhibits liberty in his life. His actions, his words and his votes in congress leave no doubt that he, like few other politicians, understand liberty and the principles on which this once great nation was founded.

A lifetime spent in public service may seem contrary to the notion of a liberty fighter but congressmen Paul has performed the most difficult task of all. He has, in spite of being surrounded by tyranny on all sides, lived his life as an example of liberty.

Due to this fact, Ron Paul has been able to bring the idea of individual liberty to the fore in public debate and advanced the cause of liberty and freedom.

Dr. Ron Paul is the most deserving person for the 2010 Milton Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty.

—

Miamisburg, Montgomery County, Ohio

I did too...

Submitted by Tumbleweed Steve on Wed, 12/30/2009 - 22:36.

I nominated the good Dr. Ron Paul.
And then forwarded this information around the nation.
That prize fiat would be a good base for a run in 2012.
Let's keep sending this around the block good people.
We know who "should" win.
But it is up to all of us, me and yunz to make it happen.
Together...we are a force to be reckoned with.
~TW

—

RON PAUL or NOT AT ALL

Milton Friedman wasn't all that great...

Submitted by pawnstorm12 on Wed, 12/30/2009 - 21:30.

Believe me, he was no Murray Rothbard or Ludwig Mises, the 2 greatest economists of all time.

Friedman was correct about half the time.

But he had some socialist tendencies.

He was NOT of the Austian School of Economics (the most moral of them all).

—

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

CATO promoted Fred Thompson over Ron Paul

Submitted by 1440 minutes on Wed, 12/30/2009 - 20:27.

CATO Institute supported Fred Thompson as the Republican Party's small-government conservative candidate.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8696

When I asked the author why he didn't give that label to Ron Paul as opposed to Fred T., he told me that Ron Paul was not a viable candidate, but Fred was. The final results of these two candidates proved otherwise.

—

In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.
-- Thomas Jefferson

CATO doesn't deserve to be associated with Dr. Paul

Submitted by oldhickory on Wed, 12/30/2009 - 21:04.

after reading that... I went to the site and nominated RP anyway.

Mine was short & sweet...

Submitted by Franco on Wed, 12/30/2009 - 18:25.

Dr. Paul has been a steadfast proponent of Liberty, even going against the powerful political tide of his own party.
He has never wavered from fighting the tyranny of big government over the personal lives of all Americans. His decades long consistent message of Freedom and Liberty is unrivaled.

Bump

Submitted by ch4d on Wed, 12/30/2009 - 16:34.

Voted and put my word in, we should all take a minute or two and do this.

But I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Obama wins this, you know he is a constitutionalists and peace candidate right? ;)

—

"One man with courage is a majority." ~ Andrew Jackson

Ron Paul stars in "In Liberty We Trust" -- TV program

Submitted by Treg on Wed, 12/30/2009 - 12:26.

Modeled after the Free to Choose program... help me get this going... read more here:

http://dailypaul.com/node/119153

In peace & liberty,
Treg

Liberty, huh?

Submitted by none on Wed, 12/30/2009 - 11:18.

Most of you have no idea what actual liberty is. You think liberty is the ability to pick the people YOU want to be in control of government, imposing the rules YOU approve of on everyone else.

That's not liberty.

Hmmm...

Submitted by Orwell1984 on Wed, 12/30/2009 - 12:31.

I would be real interested in hearing about your definition of liberty.

That's easy

Submitted by none on Thu, 12/31/2009 - 08:39.

Liberty is freedom.

Freedom. F-R-E-E-D-O-M!!

Submitted by MikeLawson on Thu, 12/31/2009 - 08:43.

So few get it.

—

Explore Orthodox Christianity

Political Philosophy 101 Class....

Submitted by Orwell1984 on Thu, 12/31/2009 - 12:07.

Dear None and MikeLawson,

First of all, I get it, better than either one of you realize. But I think both of your understandings is too simplistic.

Freedom and liberty aren't exactly synonymous in all political ideologies. It's important to know that because most of political debates stem from this philosophical difference. Click here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/

Ron Paul, Judge Napolitano, Mises Institute, most libertarians including the CATO institute, and MYSELF believe in "negative liberty". Some libertarians would just differ in degrees of "negative liberty".

Opinions on what constitute liberty can vary widely, but can be generally classified as positive liberty and negative liberty. Positive liberty asserts that freedom is the ability of society to achieve an end. For example, Puritans such as Cotton Mather often referred to liberty in their writings, but focused on the liberty from sin (e.g. sexual urges) even at the expense of liberty from the government. In the negative sense, one is considered free to the extent to which no person interferes with his or her activity. According to Thomas Hobbes, for example, "a free man is he that... is not hindered to do what he hath the will to do."

John Stuart Mill, in his work, On Liberty, was the first to recognize the difference between liberty as the freedom to act and liberty as the absence of coercion.[1] In his book, Two Concepts of Liberty, Isaiah Berlin formally framed the differences between these two perspectives as the distinction between two opposite concepts of liberty: positive liberty and negative liberty. The latter designates a negative condition in which an individual is protected from tyranny and the arbitrary exercise of authority, while the former refers to having the means or opportunity, rather than the lack of restraint, to do things.

Mill offered insight into the notions of soft tyranny and mutual liberty with his harm principle.[2] It can be seen as important to understand these concepts when discussing liberty since they all represent little pieces of the greater puzzle known as freedom. In a philosophical sense, it can be said that morality must supersede tyranny in any legitimate form of government. Otherwise, people are left with a societal system rooted in backwardness, disorder, and regression.

The concept of negative liberty has several noteworthy aspects. First, negative liberty defines a realm or "zone" of freedom (in the "silence of law"). In Berlin's words, "liberty in the negative sense involves an answer to the question 'What is the area within which the subject -- a person or group of persons -- is or should be left to do or be what he is able to do or be, without interference by other persons." Some philosophers have disagreed on the extent of this realm while accepting the main point that liberty defines that realm in which one may act unobstructed by others. Second, the restriction (on the freedom to act) implicit in negative liberty is imposed by a person or persons and not due to causes such as nature, lack, or incapacity. Helvetius expresses this point clearly: "The free man is the man who is not in irons, nor imprisoned in a gaol (jail), nor terrorized like a slave by the fear of punishment... it is not lack of freedom not to fly like an eagle or swim like a whale."

The dichotomy of positive and negative liberty is considered specious by political philosophers in traditions such as socialism, social democracy, libertarian socialism, and Marxism. Some of them argue that positive and negative liberty are indistinguishable in practice, while others claim that one kind of liberty cannot exist independently of the other. A common argument is that the preservation of negative liberty requires positive action on the part of the government or society to prevent some individuals from taking away the liberty of others.

A socialist defines liberty as being connected to the reasonably equitable distribution of wealth, arguing that the unrestrained concentration of wealth (the means of production) into only a few hands negates liberty. In other words, without relatively equal ownership, the subsequent concentration of power and influence into a small portion of the population inevitably results in the domination of the wealthy and the subjugation of the poor. Thus, freedom and material equality are seen as intrinsically connected. On the other hand, the classical liberal argues that wealth cannot be evenly distributed without force being used against individuals which reduces individual liberty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty#Philosophy

The quote above explains the general difference between negative and positive liberty.

Click here to learn about philosophical issues about the two:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty

Are you trying to convince me that liberty is to be had by...

Submitted by none on Thu, 12/31/2009 - 12:21.

Are you trying to convince me that liberty isn't freedom?

I'm curious.

My main point was to give a

Submitted by Orwell1984 on Thu, 12/31/2009 - 13:29.

My main point was to give a definition of liberty. Since that is what started our conversation.

About freedom and liberty being the same... Philosophy in general is a study of meaning. It is a discussion of "what the meaning of the word "is"...IS". Sorry, hate to pull a Bill Clinton. So in political philosophy, the meaning of liberty and freedom is not only debated, but has taken different meanings in different places in different points in time, and CAN be different. I'm not saying that I believe they are different. I'm just saying that it is fundamental discussion and debate among political philosophers.

Here is an excerpt from "Liberty and Freedom: A Visual History of America's Founding Ideas", by David Hackett Fischer:


The Western world is unique not only in its invention of words such as liberty and freedom but also in having invented so many of them. These words have distinct origins and different shades of meaning. Consider the two leading terms in English usage: liberty and freedom. In early uses, both words implied a power of choice, an ability to exercise one's will, and a condition that was distinct from slavery. In all of those ways, liberty and freedom meant the same thing.

But in other ways their original meanings were different. Our English word liberty comes from the Latin libertas which meant unbounded, unrestricted, and released from restraint.

Freedom has another origin. It derives from a large family of ancient languages in northern Europe. The English word free is related to the Norse fri, the Greman frei, the Dutch vrij. These words share a common root. They descend from the Indo-European priya or friya, which meant dear or beloved. The English words freedom and free have the same root as friend. Free meant someone who was joined to a tribe of free people by ties of kinship and rights of belonging.

In that respect, the original meanings of freedom and liberty were not merely different but opposed. Liberty meant separated, Freedom implied connection.

In the analytic passages throughout this book we shall use the two words liberty and freedom in the original and literal meanings. Liberty will refer to ideas of independence, separation, and autonomy for individuals or groups. Freedom will mean rights of belonging and full membership in a community of free people (whether a tribe, a nation, or humanity itself).

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/spiegelman/2...

Again, I personally am not saying that the two are not the same. I'm only stating that it is debated by academics and philosophers. I think that understand the philosophical debate is a key to reaching out the Ron Paul message to people who hold different political worldviews.

The blogger who quoted the author above made an interesting point later:

I find this distinction to provide a useful framework to examine many, if not most, political and cultural issues in the United States.

For instance, Obama considers health care a freedom issue: everyone should walk as equals under the same insurance umbrella. That people are left out in the rain is contrary to the American ethos.

Conversely, Republicans see it as a liberty issue. Obama's reform mucks about with the individual's power of choice. In large part, this choice is the choice of how to spend one's money, but there is no small amount of philosophical objection to government telling you what to do -- that's also contrary to the American ethos.

The best issues, the ones most easily championed, are the ones where liberty and freedom are on the same side. American independence, abolition, universal suffrage, for example. But often we do not get to enjoy this luxury, and the two halves of the American dogma have to duke it out for supremacy.

May the best precept win. Or, to be more specific, may the precept that best reflects what America needs to maintain a proper balance between ideologies that are both noble and opposed win.

I am not saying that I agree with the blogger. I'm just saying that it is "interesting".

Thomas Sowell, a free-market economist, wrote a classic book that helped change my life. The book is called "A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles."
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465002056/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp...

Right? But that won't stop them from running around crying...

Submitted by none on Thu, 12/31/2009 - 11:56.

Right? But that won't stop them from running around crying...'If only ______ were in office and if only _____ laws were enforced, then WE'd have LIBERTY!!!'

It's like trying to describe a painting to the blind for the most part.

If only the horrible monster was ours (insert collective here)

Submitted by MikeLawson on Thu, 12/31/2009 - 12:02.

Then it would be controllable. It's because we live in a communist nation and all the little commies just want their own version.

—

Explore Orthodox Christianity

Mike, doesn't the realization of the truth suck?

Submitted by none on Thu, 12/31/2009 - 12:26.

I've seen your posts change over the last few months. Really seeing the truth for the first time sucked, didn't it?

Dr. Paul is the Man of the Year in my book

Submitted by tedez on Wed, 12/30/2009 - 10:40.

I nominated him in CATO.

I'm sure they'll select someone "other than" Ron Paul

Submitted by alaney on Wed, 12/30/2009 - 10:22.

It's a crying shame these so called "think tanks" get the credibility they do. Last year's "prize" went to a Venezualan law student (good grief!) Why? Because he opposed, and I quote, "The Chavez regime". That's really reaching out for a winner, wouldn't you say? I'll bet this years prize will go to Michelle Obama for her spectacular role as the first, black first lady. Whoopie.

—

alan laney

That's a safe bet.

Submitted by DC on Wed, 12/30/2009 - 10:50.

Cato's too busy defending the surveillance state and applauding the decision to grant telecommunications companies special legal treatment (i.e., immunity) to reward someone actually promoting freedom.

Maybe they'll give it to Ben Stein.

—

_____________________________
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels

Good idea, thanks for

Submitted by Boru on Wed, 12/30/2009 - 09:13.

Good idea, thanks for posting, done.

Thanks for posting this!

Submitted by realedreform on Wed, 12/30/2009 - 10:00.

Here's what I submitted:

I first “met” Dr. Ron Paul, Congressman, some 12 years ago after learning of the power of fiat money to destroy civilization, along with the reassuring fact that the men who had created my nation of laws and not men had included in those laws a provision that would disallow fiat money ever accomplishing its tragic and inevitable feat. At the time I remember asking my mentors “does anyone in Congress know about this?” and the reply, which was, “yes, one, Ron Paul.” Contribution to the cause of Liberty? Ron Paul's tireless efforts to restore our nation to sound money, with the Law of Liberty on his side.

Since that time, I have come to appreciate Ron Paul's other Liberty-minded qualities which issue from his understanding of the history of our nation, founded as it was upon a set of facts about mankind. Governments may come and go, but these facts remain, that all men are born free and equal and have certain unalienable rights. It was in recognition of these facts that the Founders established our governments, so that men might live free, as promised, upon this earth. At every turn Ron Paul has worked exclusively in support of these facts of Liberty. And his understanding of the American system has naturally caused him to lead by an example in which all Americans delight. By Americans, I mean all people who aspire to live free, which explains Ron Paul's world-wide support. And so it is with the greatest pleasure that I submit his name to the selection committee of The Milton Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty. Thank you.

That's flattery to

Submitted by mudslinger on Tue, 12/29/2009 - 22:28.

That's flattery to Milton...not to RP.

A snap! - from cyndezu

Submitted by sunny on Tue, 12/29/2009 - 13:09.

A snap!

cyndezu, i moved your comment to this thread and putting this thread on the homepage instead of mine. i guess this one beat me to it.

and my pleasure, of course ;)

Thank you for your nomination of Ron Paul for the Milton Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty.

The 2010 winner will be announced on the Cato Institute website next spring, shortly before the Milton Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty's Biennial Dinner, May 13, 2010, at the Washington Hilton in Washington, D.C.

—

The DP is proof that the grassroots support for Ron Paul and his peaceful message of individual liberty is large, real, and not going away!

—

Ron Paul is My President