17 votes

Ron Paul's Legislative Flowchart

I just put together a single-page site showing the simplicity and obviousness of the way Ron Paul looks at legislation:

http://ronpaulflowchart.com

Feedback welcome! I want to share this far and wide (feel free to do so if you want to), but if you think there ought to be any changes regarding the wording, title, colors, layout, links, or background image, please let me know.

===== UPDATE 1/24/2012 =====

After this was submitted to Reddit in six different categories:

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/duplicates/otu4g/ron_paul_f...

...I added a list to the bottom of the page with some bullet-point achievements or specific positions held by Dr. Paul. Some comments on Reddit were weakly positive, but asked for some evidence. I figured that would help, at least a little.

Comment viewing options

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

Legislative Flowchart getting some love

Somebody submitted this page again to Reddit last night during the debate, and then it got re-posted to six different political categories. I've had a good 5k people come by since then! Not bad at all, considering the last couple of weeks has had almost zero traffic.

I added some new content to the bottom of the page, too, if you want to check it out and offer any additions/changes/critiques.

Here's the parent Reddit page if you want to see the comments and/or upvote:

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/duplicates/otu4g/ron_paul_f...

...and Reddit strikes

Somebody else submitted the site, and all of a sudden I'm seeing a bunch of traffic from there. Any Redditors in a debating mood? There are some baseless claims in the comments. The page is at about 50% up/down right now.

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/ob309/ron_pauls_le...

Mr. Paul Goes to Washington

Every time I think about the simple purity and integrity of this approach, I'm reminded of that fantastic Jimmy Stewart film, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Obstructionists are vital when corruption abounds.

http://didyouseethatone.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/post-5-p...

Rand Paul has already had some good Mr. Smith moments. Dr. Paul would have as well, if the House were more like the Senate. It's exciting to see the slow but inevitable shift in the direction of Constitutional appreciation. We are the next generation of politicians, and the philosophy of liberty has passed the tipping point. Finally!

Your graph explains what I thought

when I heard them say for the first time he didn't get anything done in congress.. Well duh..Congress is corrupt and the people think they are shit.

Nice work.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

We don't need Congress to do more...

We need more obstructionist Congresscritters to keep the progressive wing from legislating us into utter disaster.

I'm withya

I'm all for closing down the fed almost entirely, except for what the Constitution allows and sending the congressmen and women home to work locally as much as possible. I'm also for putting people in office that would strictly follow the Constitution and as you say obstruct what didn't fit.

Let them have an ear full.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

And I guess you could...

Make another for what he would veto ;)

I tried to pick suitable language

...so that it could apply to his past performance as a congressman or his future performance as President ("Approve" and "Reject" as opposed to "Vote For" and "Vote Against").

I totally agree that it's a great selling point for Dr. Paul, especially for people who think he wouldn't be able to get anything done. Veto power is AMAZINGLY important while so much junk comes out of Congress. SOPA, NDAA, ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, Sarbanes-Oxley, NCLB...so much bad stuff could be avoided if the President just said "no" more often.

very nicely done

Can you make one small modification and put a "No" at the exit for both choices? I'm nit-picky and it's wrong the way it is.

Regardless, it's a nice, clean chart and gets the point across well! Good work! I like the commentary on the right side too.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
What is begun in anger, ends in shame.

Done!

Those Last Two Sentences

are extremely powerful. It should be the campaign's slogan. Seriously. Someone needs to get it to the campaign.

"Our founding fathers were willing to die for liberty. Are you willing to vote for it?"

Get it to the campaign.

___________________________________________________________________________
"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

I'd like to take credit for them

But I can't. I saw them somewhere on this site, referenced from a video created by somebody else. But they are indeed very, very powerful.

So Get Them To The Campaign Anyway

That's the campaign slogan. You can acknowledge you didn't write them and sort out the credit later (unless you remember where you read them, in which case contact the author immediately). You think whoever wrote it is going to sue Dr. Paul?

He or she would probably donate the copy to the campaign.

Maybe get them the flow chart too. Maybe it could be a print ad or something. Maybe it could go on the website.

___________________________________________________________________________
"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

I meant that I can't take credit for them

...but I'd still be more than happy to send everything to the campaign. That kind of generic and very short quote would likely only require legal protection if it were trademarked, which it definitely isn't.

I was just being superficially selfish and tongue-in-cheek, since you said you liked the last two lines. :-p

Even simpler

Does it increase or decrease individual liberty?

  • Increases individual liberty --> approve
  • Decreases individual liberty --> reject

Note that the constitutionality question is just a heuristic; the real principle is liberty.

That is, if something in the Constitution contradicted liberty, Paul would support changing that.


"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."

Minarchism
track

I agree, but then people worry about anarchy

Dr. Paul is certainly pro-liberty to the point of amending the Constitution if necessary, but I haven't ever heard him make noises for an anarchist society entirely devoid of a state (or even a minarchy as opposed to the basic constitutional republic we started with). Whether or not he actually would, that idea would freak out a lot of people who might otherwise feel positive about a constitutionalist.

Liberty without a state is practically impossible

Paul is minarchist libertarian, not an anarchist libertarian. That means he believes the state is required to protect individual liberty, and just enough state increases individual liberty over no state/anarchy. This is why he supports a national defense, border patrol, police, courts, and other basic Constitutional functions of government that protect individual liberty.

After all, if someone steals from you or shoots you, he is violating your liberty - so a society which has a state that effectively inhibits liberty-violating behavior has more liberty than a society which has no such protections.


"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."

Minarchism
track

well done

"Is it constitutional? Well we can ask our Constitutionalist (points to Ron Paul)" - Flip Romney

Thanks!

That moment was so great.

I've added a YouTube clip link.