92 votes

Liberty Movement Is Returning Back To A Bunch Of Fiefdoms

What was and continues to be inspiring about Ron Paul is his ability to build bridges between extremely different groups in order to realize their common need: liberty. Sadly after the Randocolypse, these groups have been causing a whirlwind of strife. This strife has been on low heat, but now, has been brought to the surface in recent weeks. There is also power to be had within the movement causing further tension. Our mainstream interface (Jack Hunter and others) have chastized the 'conspiracy wing' of the Ron Paul coalition. Likewise Randian purist Adam Kokesh sees that it is his duty to kick out those who stray from the Party line. Both of these individuals are wrong for the same reason. No one owns the Revolution. From day one, our ideological father Ron Paul has laid no claim to egg he hatched. Like Erasmus with Luther, the Internet Reformation's founder distances his self from his own creation. If Ron Paul lays no claim to our movement, how can Hunter or Kokesh determine who is apart of it?

To simply be put, I realized the wrong of government regulation when I found out that G1 Megatron and Masterpiece Megatron could not be sold in the US. Though this realization is simple, this example allowed me to realize why drugs should not be illegal. I also had read Mises, Lew Rockwell and watched Alex Jones before coming to Ron Paul. With this background coming from a Republican family, am I not allowed to be in the Ron Paul Revolution? My father is a vet who supports Ron. Is he not allowed to be in the Revolution? Clearly, I am, however, those who wish to cut their own fiefdoms of liberty, returning us back to the old Libertarian Party, wish to kick out all who stray from their perfect vision.

I am Christian, Lutheran of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod to be exact. From the Lutheran Confessions comes my understanding of Christianity. Should I be intolerant of Catholics? Heavens no. They need liberty like me. Should I spout that the Vatican has Jesuit Ninjas everywhere? No, they do not exist. It is harmful having discourses with Catholics if they come on Ron Paul websites only to find their faith trashed. What of Christianity as a whole? Adam Kokesh maintains you cannot be in the Ron Paul Revolution and be Christian at the same time. He has not backed down from this stance. Should I be kicked out for being as one DPer put it a 'theoslave'? (note in Christian theology you are either a slave to God, thus liberating you from the world and its woes, or you are a slave to the world which case you are bound to its fate). Should Christians come across material that actively insults them, they should react in disgust and suspicion that you do not have their best interest at heart.

With good ole Jack Hunter while Intro to Liberty 101 should not have lessons on Bilderburg, later in Intermediate and Advanced Liberty, such cliches are expected by authors such as Murray Rothbard. These are the tropism of the monopoly of violence. So as Hunter tries to quell our discussions of the Power Elite, he shoots himself in the foot. Should we limit our discussions to what only Mark Levin talks about? Remember when the Fed was a dangerous and scary topic no one cared for? Hunter is trying to merge with evil. This is a fruitless mission. Rather than lash out with hate against him, we should pity him. He has seen the Ring of Power and has submitted rather than resisted. Jack and his Daily Caller buddies can go back to thinking that Chuck Norris attends Bilderburg while keeping their head deep in sand.

Ultimately, I am guided by Leviticus 19:18: Love your neighbor as yourself. This form of the NAP serves as my moral guide post on how to handle my social and civil discussions. The 'infighting' experienced is in spite of the movement's success. Because of the new found power we have, we are becoming the very things we hate. For sometime, I have seen no difference between the hate on the DP and the hate on Redstate. Where is the LOVE of the Revolution? The love returns when we come back to the table and realize our fight is not with ourselves and our petty egos, but against the power elite, the very ones who say we have to buy health insurance or go to jail.

Peace brothers.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

One Thing Is Certain

This will not happen overnight...nor within one or two election cycles.

Am I incorrect in sensing frustration on your part regarding:

Timely effect of Libertarian Principle recognized by the masses.
People who aren't aware of what is apparent to you.
Note:It's not my call to make regarding this.

I am still learning every day.
Riles' point about a seed planted is relevant, my seed was planted in the mid 60's by a friend of my older brother, and although the concept of a Libertarian Govt was intriguing, to say the least, I hadn't much opportunity to explore it more until two events:
(a) The Internet
(b) The Ron Paul Campaign
I just ask for patience...Give Time Time....very hard to practice this.
I learn more everyday, and so will others hopefully.
Step-by-step...one step at a time..a journey, from the French "jour" or "day"...journey: a day's travel.
Thank you for this most enlightening post.

"Beyond the blackened skyline, beyond the smoky rain, dreams never turned to ashes up until.........
...Everything CHANGED !!

Appreciate the Comments

No, my 'frustration' is not 'frustration', it is simply blunt, no-bullshit effort and advocacy. This particular facet of my efforts primarily revolves around the concept of 'inclusiveness'.

I've been at this for decades and my studied opinion is that relating to core-beliefs and no-compromise positions, 'inclusiveness' only dilutes them and dooms any 'movement' to failure. Yet, the clarion call for it continues by those who either have not assessed it against the bigger picture, or fail to grasp it.

As I have repeated...inclusiveness relating to elections and attempts at political-shifting are proper and necessary. I support and am assisting in my own way in the political efforts, because it is critical to exhaust all such avenues in this quest.

Inclusion of faux or flawed beliefs that do not continence or agree with no-compromise, or dare I say 'radical' positions and concepts related to core-issues, well, that is a whole other story.

What 'I' see here is a 'movement' primarily focused on the political with no real contemplation of what to do if and when those 'political' and 'election/party-related' efforts fail and when tyranny and government predations continue as a tidal-wave.

This is the area of the non-inclusive and the area where non-compromise and ethical/philosophical/ideological 'purity' is critical.

There is a distinct difference between to two aspects of the 'Liberty Movement'. I recognize that distinction and that division or purpose, effort and preparation...do you (generically asked)?

That is all.

Let everyone speak for themselves

Adam Kokesh and Jack Hunter don't speak for the liberty movement; they speak for themselves. The same applies for the author of this article - he speaks for himself - which is also the beauty of the liberty movement in that we can have varying opinions. Adam Kokesh says that you can't be in the liberty movement if you were once an Obama supporter? That is an irrational line of thinking. Isn't it possible for someone to change their mind or do a bit of research on their own and come to a conclusion that they were wrong in their first choice? When we start placing limitations on 'who can' and 'who cannot' be a part of the liberty movement we then are basically no different from those who are currently in the Democratic and Republican parties. Don't be too hard on Rand Paul. The fact that he has been closer to the Tea Party movement should come as no real big surprise since he wrote a book called, "The Tea Party Comes to Washington". This doesn't mean that he does not believe in the liberty movement it may just mean that he has chosen a different avenue to express his views. Freedom has to not only include freedom of speech but also the freedom to choose. Don't push away a potential ally just because you disagree on one or two line items.

First Choice?

WTF is that all about?

If one voted for and supported Collectivist-Obama, one is/was either leaning toward marxist-collectivist beliefs and governance and/or some socialist-collectivist redistributive governance and belief system.

Either way, the support went to a known and provable collectivist who advocated and acted diametrically opposite to the Constitution and to the principles of individual liberty.

Get a grip, please.

I have posted before that I cannot find it within me to believe that one can go from THAT to 'suddenly' embracing the Constitution and its strict limitations on government and also embracing the principles of individual liberty which preclude government largess, programs and welfare/assistance.

The only things I can reconcile that 'epiphany' with are cult-like follower traits, weak-reed beliefs, narrow-scope agreement with 'certain' liberty positions, ect...

Let the flaming begin, but along with the predictable attacks and negative ratings of this post, how about taking a stab at addressing the issue?

I really am waiting with bated-breath to hear some some sort of cogent and believable 'splainin', but I won't hold that bated-breath.

Amen Brother

I couldn't have been said any better!

Ron Paul - Intellectual hero

Knew it was coming just not this fast

I figured we'd make it till Tampa but yes, the spell is broken.

There were a lot of us who signed on just to support RP but were never in love with the GOP. There are the voluntarists that have been saying we're nuts all along for dealing in a corrupt system. The LP has been there insisting theirs is the only way to go from the get-go.

We came together briefly to make something happen. Everyone that doesn't like us has been using these issues to exacerbate the breakup.

But freedom, like energy itself, doesn't go away. It just changes form. Whatever form we're assuming.....well, we're assuming it right now.

Freedom is sloppy.

Be brave, be brave, the Myan pilot needs no aeroplane.

love it!

well said.

Ron Paul ... forever.

Did you ever notice?

The movement is not so cut and dry, and it shouldn't be. What's incredible about the whole thing is that the more diverse the supporters the stronger the movement becomes. That isn't true for the two parties it is up against, both of whom have very strict guidelines and regulatory dogmas about personal belief. The movement is still young and it's immune system has to build up a tolerance against the negativity of the political garbage dump. When someone starts hammering into stone what you must be or not be in order to be a Liberty supporter, their intent is to control the movement like the other parties control their own. We don't want that!

I'm a Catholic convert of 4 years (voluntary association), who studies Jewish Mysticism (some might consider heracy), who plays Rock and Roll (MAJOR SIN!), who is recovering from Repblicanism (he's dangerous), who is anti-war (he's a threat to National Security!!!!), who supports Ron Paul an the Liberty Movement (DELETE HIM NOW!!!). But I can have conversations atheist, leftist, humanitarian-govement-interventionist, folk singers, and convince them that individual liberty is not only the right political philosophy, but it is the greatest height of the natural order of the universe.

So in essence, the Liberty movement remains potent while the iron is hot. It is not a religion, a mere philosophy, or an emotional craze that is happening. It's an ideology who's strength is in it's fluidity and ability to transmute its practitioners and spectators. That's why it can't be stopped by obtuse and blunt opposition. When it encounters hard objects it either consumes them or surrounds them.


You hit the nail on the head here. The reason for the ineffectiveness of the Libertarian message is the messengers are so frequently guilty of sending the religiously impure proselytes to the guillotine before they've had a chance to embrace the doctrine of liberty fully. We need to allow people to be brought along at their pace. This is not an easy philosophy to embrace, because it's so easy to get tripped up by clever statists when challenged. As simple as the message of liberty can seem, it takes a seriously trained philosopher to elucidate how liberty works in specific cases such as healthcare, education, transportation, security, etc.

Let's all commit right now to seeking common ground with all we interact with to move the agenda of peace and liberty forward. The good Dr. has done it with socialists (Kucinich) and liberals (Frank) his entire career, and we could learn from his example.

"What do you pray for?"

"I pray for wisdom and grace. I want to be as wise as I can and to come across as non-confrontational." Ron Paul

Read more: http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Politics/2008/01/Ron-Pauls-Chr...

Ron Paul ... forever.

I guess thats suspended when Ron grills The Bernanke

: )

November 6th 2012 I voted for Dr.Ron Paul
"We must remember, elections are short-term efforts. Revolutions are long-term projects." ~ Ron Paul

Bernanke ... or Santorum...

(My recent comment elsewhere. Please tell me if I love RP too much:)

""I pray for wisdom and grace. I want to be as wise as I can and to come across as non-confrontational".

Read more: http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Politics/2008/01/Ron-Pauls-Chr...

I think this is the secret of Ron Paul's communicating, why we are always so uplifted after listening to his presentations. And because the truth is always there. Even that time when he answered Santorum: "-Because you are a fake" - which after all is an insult, it did not come as confrontational to me, the way it was said, because we will not be pushed either, and because that was the only true response to the question. It was said with dignity and without depriving Santorum of his dignity either."

And, very literally, Santorum asked for this answer.

Ron Paul ... forever.

Nice, thanks.

"Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves." (Matt. 10:16) - Jesus
That quote made me think of this verse.

just curious:

WHO would vote this down and why? Just tell. This is my favorite Ron Paul quote and interview from 2008.

Ron Paul ... forever.

We need to swell our numbers

The fact of the matter is we are to small as is to acomplish what we want therefore we need to reach out to like minded people of every party and build and start peacefully fighting against what is wrong with this country. If we don't get the numbers we need it may all be over soon, so get out there and start educating people on their rights the constitution and the implecations of the laws being passed right now. Use Obamacare as a rallying call most Tea partiers think like us we just need to nudge them back on track.

Remember this is not for ourselves but rather for the country we love.

yes, Solidarity!

we do need numbers and alliances. No one ought to be chastised here if they are potential allies. DP is not a Republican site, it is not Democratic site it is NO party site. It represents a current movement for liberty whose task of the moment is to have Ron Paul win in November. After that we can regroup. There is no common dogma here but a lot of common sense. This is how I understand it.

Ron Paul ... forever.

Before "educating" others

may be you have to think about your last sentence that negates what Libertarian movement stands for.

Re-visiting Ayn Rand will enrich Libertarian thought, especially since Hans-Hermann Hoppe (Austrian economist) had proved that Ayn Rand was right over Murray Rothbard regarding natural law.

I don't understand the

I don't understand the purpose of this post. I don't care what anybody believes as long as they vote for our guy. But I think we need to figure out who our guy is going to be in 2016 and after. I don't think it can be Rand because he aligns himself with the tea party, not the liberty movement. Every interview that I have seen, he always talks about the tea party, never mentions the liberty movement. I would like for Ron to come out and tell us if he has a plan going forward and what it is. For example, if Rand is part of the plan, I don't think people would have gotten as upset over the Romney endorsement if he would have let us know that Rand is the plan. It seems we are always on the loosing end of the stick. Who is running the movement other than the Ron Paul campaign. I would also like to know who the campaign for liberty is.

ytc's picture

Thanks for the thoughtful post, BurningS.

I actually like the idea of going back to Fiefdoms, where we originally came from, to re-examine what each of us believes in and to re-assess individually which paths to take from here & now.

As you pointed out, only with tolerance and shared LOVE for liberty towards our "neighboring Fiefdoms" we will succeed in VASTLY expanding the population within the RonPaulian rEVOLution.

This holds true for ideas & beliefs in minds & souls and for physical boundaries of countries, states and individual personal bodies. . .

Going back to Fiefdoms can take different forms, imo, like a small country reclaiming sovereignty (Iceland), minor islands gaining strength in the desire for equal treatment (Okinawa), US states finding ways to nullify & reject unreasonable federal demands, communities establishing coops for local organic food, families rediscovering the beauty of traditional customs / cultures / languages / rituals and such. All these can be accomplished most successfully when the golden rule of PEACE and LOVE is followed among Fiefdoms :-)

I like to consider

myself INDEPENDENT and listen to all, considering diverse perspectives. I really enjoyed reading your perspective and agree.

I have an egg that reads.

"Don't walk in front of me, I may not follow.

Don't walk behind me, I may not lead.

Walk beside me, and be my friend."

I am not looking for a leader, I am looking for truth and wisdom.

No one is perfect or has all the answers. It seems unwise to hitch our loyalty to any man, considering they can be compromised by outside forces and disinformation.

If we are headed in the right direction we don't need to be on the same road.

Good luck and best wishes to all on this journey that will likely get very bumpy.

"We can see with our eyes, hear with our ears and feel with our touch, but we understand with our hearts."

Loving your neighbor as

Loving your neighbor as yourself results in anarcho-capitalism.

It cannot be any other way.

I would never want to have a para-military assault team kidnap myself for not paying taxes.

agreed. any sane and rational


any sane and rational reading of Jesus reveals that he was an anarchist.

Jesus was not an anarchist.

Matthew 5:17-20 New King James Version (NKJV)

Christ Fulfills the Law

17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

Charles Jackson
http://MathIsChristian.wordpress.com Also, read Ron Paul's original staff economist Gary North at http://teapartyeconomist.com/

how does that quote show that

how does that quote show that jesus in any way authorized coercion or aggression?

"coercion or aggression"? I didn't say that.

I'm saying that this passage proves that Jesus was no anarchist; he taught that there were some laws to be followed. A fair reading of this passage should leave one with the understanding that Jesus was teaching that there were some laws to be followed.

Charles Jackson
http://MathIsChristian.wordpress.com Also, read Ron Paul's original staff economist Gary North at http://teapartyeconomist.com/

I agree with your subject, but not your explanation

I personally agree that Jesus was not an anarchist, but I disagree that Matthew 5:17-20 is a good proof text for that. In Matthew 5:17-20 Jesus is speaking of his fulfillment of *God's* laws, not man's laws.

Beyond that, I think that one treads dangerous ground to start pigenholing Jesus into a particular governmental philosophy. I don't mean to say that a Christian faith should not influence one's civic thinking, but that it's really easy to get into arguments about, "Jesus was an anarchist!", "No, he was a socialist!", "No he was a (fill in your favorite here)".

"*God's* laws, not man's laws"?

Have you read God's Law? I'm sure your have. It is God's Law *for men*.

v. 19: "Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

"Least in the kingdom of heaven." Think about that. *There* is your "treading dangerous ground", my Brother.

Charles Jackson
http://MathIsChristian.wordpress.com Also, read Ron Paul's original staff economist Gary North at http://teapartyeconomist.com/

reedr3v's picture

I am under the impression that Jesus

advocated free will in accepting the "Law of the Prophets." He is not saying the Law of Caesar, or even rendering unto Caesar what is properly the government's (what?)

So long as he advocated voluntary obedience or reverence or whatever, there is no conflict with anarchism.

One's obedience to God's Law is not voluntary.

See reply to silentquasar's post below on God's Law/man's law.

Charles Jackson
http://MathIsChristian.wordpress.com Also, read Ron Paul's original staff economist Gary North at http://teapartyeconomist.com/

reedr3v's picture

If it is not voluntary, why was Hell invented?

I thought it was intended as punishment for voluntarily making the "wrong" choice. Are the punished then tortured even though their choice was not voluntary?
Seems unfair and inexcusable to invent such inhumane punishment either way, but at least those who accept this concept might try for some logical consistency.