73 votes

Can Friends of Liberty Agree to Disagree & Be Agreeable While Doing So?

I am relatively new to the Daily Paul and only found Ron Paul late last year. I really enjoy keeping up with Liberty News here at the DP and appreciate the opportunity to be a part of a Liberty Loving community.

One thing I have noticed, there are a lot of people here with differing political, social, religious, philosophical preferences. From time to time it seems people attack each other. Are there any of us that are real threats to liberty that need to be treated as threats? I am pretty sure I heard Ron Paul say that the cause of Liberty is supposed to bring us together. How can we be together if we wound one another just because we disagree on certain things?

Ron Paul advocates the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have done unto you."

King Solomon said, "A soft answer turns away wrath."

Jesus said, "A house divided against itself will not stand."

I heard an anarchist say, "Do no harm."

My husband said, “People want to blow out other people’s candles to make their own candle brighter.

I am asking, "Is it possible for Friends of Liberty to agree to disagree and be agreeable while doing so?"

Can we have open discussion on topics without targeting each other? Is it wrong to learn how different ones of us think? I am a Born-Again, Baptist Christian. I have been a straight ticket Republican all my voting life. Our country is in trouble. I think that is something we all know and we have rallied around Liberty and Ron Paul. I realize there are individuals like me out there, but there are also Atheists, Deists, Anarchists, Minarchists, Voluntaryists, Democrats, Libertarians, Capitalists, Austrians, etc. etc.

I want to know what people think so I can decide what I want to think…of course I am not changing my thoughts on Jesus, but my political and economic philosophies are open. Is that wrong? I’d like open, kind, polite, rational discussion here in this post.

If you would like to contribute, I think it would be nice to share ideas. It would also be nice to see us, Friends of Liberty, treat each other kindly as Friends IN Liberty in other posts, just sayin. Do you think it is possible? Do you have something to contribute?

Comment viewing options

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

Ok. I think you get it. The

Ok. I think you get it. The Founding Fathers were aristocrats and mistrusted the common man and most just wanted power for themselves (like Hamilton and even Madison). They needed to inspire people though to fight for independence so they engaged in the rhetoric of liberty to motivate the rebellion against the Crown. Keep in mind, most Colonists were ambivalent toward the Crown at best. So, the FF's took Plato's republic and repackaged it as a system for liberty (a brilliant piece of propaganda really). They had the intention all along of taking power for themselves once the Crown was out of the way. Only a few of the FF (like Jefferson) were truly concerned about the plight of the common man. That's why the BoR was tacked on to the Constitution as amendments. Jefferson wanted a much more expansive BoR... but it wouldn't have mattered in the end.

IMO the reason democracy was later conflated with representative government is that deep in the recesses of our western traditions (from ancient Athens), we remember that democracy really meant "the people rule" and the aristocrats can't have that. They want the power so they had to reinvent democracy with regular people holding real power erased from the definition. They succeeded in spades. This has been by far the greatest ruse perpetrated on western peoples. Far more so than the Federal Reserve.

Getting half of it?

In the effort to fill in some of the missing parts it may help to offer words spoken by someone who got it at the time?


What exactly was wrong with The Articles of Confederation or any one of the State Constitutions?

Can I also ask, please, for your considered angle of view on the following link, and if the following is an example of direct democracy and if not why not (assuming that it could gain currency):



Maybe this YouTube will shed

Maybe this YouTube will shed some light...


Chouard is behind a movement in France to form a constitutional democracy. I don't advocate for democracy per se but in this vid he walks through Athenian democracy. Democracy is *not* what we've been taught in our public indoctrination centers (public skools). The vid is in French with English subtitles. Enjoy.

Cases of triage

I may return to finish watching the link, in French, with subtitles, on the productive form of democracy which is the opposite of the destructive form (my words).

I got to the point where all blame appeared to be taken away from the individuals who are those few who govern and blame was transferred to the "system" - in so many words.

Here is the direct quote:

"And it hasn't happened by chance, or due to corrupt or vicious players. Not at all."

Setting that argument aside and in the spirit of Bear's motive, as I understand it (or misunderstand it as the case may be) I am going to seek remedy, actionable remedy on this competition of viewpoints.

In a Democratic Federated Republic, as the working example between 1776 and 1778 existed, there is room for any number of people who prefer a democracy of the productive type.

Imagine a map of U.S.A. and place in the middle of that map a new area the exact size and shape of Switzerland and suppose that all the democrats flock or migrate to that location and they decide to first secede from the Democratic Federated Republic and then rejoin it as a new Sovereign Democratic State of the productive type, or as many democrats decide to be their own democracy in places scattered around this imaginary Democratic Federated Republic whereby the boarders of their jurisdiction follow them as they move here and there.

There are then two examples of hypothetical democracies of the productive type setup for scrutiny as to their viability within a hypothetical Democratic Federated Republic such as the one that existed between 1776 and 1788, and furthermore it can be a hypothetical exercise to imagine people doing things for the past 200 plus years since 1788 within the Democratic Federated Republic, keeping the original design features of lawful competition, Trial by Jury complete with sortition, no direct taxation by the Federal employees, and no enforced Federal money monopoly power. Perhaps no standing army unless attacked, and then a volunteer army not a conscripted one, for 200 plus years, which is plenty of time to gather up all the democrats and make a democracy among their number in one place, or in many places.

If you don't have a working democracy right now, how about working to get one somewhere, and what better place to migrate, voting with your feet, to a place that allows such things, such as a Democratic Federated Republic, so named?

If that cannot be followed through hypothetically then how can it possibly be followed through in reality?


Too much for me to read now,

Too much for me to read now, but I'll take a look.

All I can say though is that democracy is about *sortition* and not elections. The FF's didn't consider this most important distinction because even making it a point of debate would have been a can of worms. It was simply too dangerous to consider openly. They knew that Athenian democracy was based on choosing rulers by lot... these were not ignorant men.

Direct democracy is a red herring used to discredit true democracy... of regular people holding the reigns of power and not the aristocracy. Direct democracy was a part of democracy but secondary to sortition. If you understand the importance of sortition, you can then understand how it results in a more honest, transparent, and accountable government... which the aristocrats don't want. Sortition eliminates political parties and generally factions as well.

And to be clear, I'm not defending democracy. Rather I'm defending the historical accuracy of true democracy... not the propagandized version.

In the spirit of discussion

Sortition is a very curious word by it's absence in current currency.

I looked it up and thanks again.

The link on Patrick Henry begins to open the can of worms that inform the opener of that can about a division between the Unified Being known as FF (Founding Fathers).

They were not unified, so the Unified Being, the one and only, those Fore Fathers of like mind, is a form of falsehood.

Patrick Henry blew the whistle on the Frauds like Hamilton or the dupes like Madison (Madison later changed his coat from Red to Blue during the course of his story).

Trial by Jury was being threatened by the Nationalists who hid behind the thin veil of a False Federalism, or so said Patrick Henry in so many words.

Trial by Jury at the start (Magna Carte or earlier in Germany) was done by lot or if I have the term understood it was an example of Sortition.

This is very odd, and again I thank Bear for making this connection, speaking to someone who knows anything about the productive version (not the counterfeit destructive version) of democracy so named is as common as sense these days.

This pulls the balance, it seems to me, in favor of democracy and away from any counterfeit form, such as False Republicanism, or even a true Republic (run by true Republicans who are merely Criminals who make their crimes legal).

Again, or however, there may be a hidden version of a Republic that does not resort to deceit, threats of violence, and acts of violence upon the innocent by those republicans so named.

If so, then what is it, and are there examples that can be contrasted under scrutiny with the opposite examples of a Republic?

Democracy A versus Democracy B is obvious.

Is it possible that there is a Republic A versus a Republic B?

The second link is titled Assassination Politics which was a essay written by someone who may not have realized that his work would earn him a trip to the American Gulag.

I think that it, Assassination Politics, is the bogey man lurking, and it actually is working here and there, put options, selling short, right now, and it is the Direct Democracy of the very Destructive kind.

Clarification, with productive words like Sortition, is very good news.

Thanks again.

Assassination Politics is not Sortition so named, so it isn't democracy of the productive type as exemplified by the examples already provided by history.

There may be many counterfeit versions, which may be the rule not the exception.


If we define republic as

If we define republic as "representative government" there is no hope for it. That's because elections are controlled events. It's because the ruling class (the people of vast wealth) will control that event. Thus the representatives will always be of their choosing. That the only people who want power run for office and those are the people you want to have power the least. Any method of choosing rulers that involves election is doomed to descend into oligarchy (the Polybius sequence).

What makes sortition so important then is that we then only have "reluctant" rulers. We then get rulers who are not aligned with factions (not in a meaningful conniving way). We get rulers who are not lusting for power. We get more honest rulers.

But the key to a sustainable free state is to have *no* rulers at all... this is what I call a free isonomy. That the law rules and not men and that people rule themselves and not each other.

Accurate Accountability

"Polybius sequence"

Accurate Accountability can be a goal which can result in a sequence of predictable events, just as false accountability does result in obvious sequences of events.

I do not see the point in blaming systems, guns, governments, legal fictions, corporations, States, processes, or things for the actual thoughts and the actual actions perpetrated by actual people.

Trial by Jury worked as it did when it was working and it originally began with the feature of sortition, if I understand the concept correctly.

If a representative, chosen by lot, or chosen by other means, or even a counterfeit representative usurping the position of suggestive authority and turning it into dictatorship, is undesired, then oligarchy may be preferred by enough people in that area, to sustain it, within a Democratic Federated Republic, such as the one that existed between 1776 and 1788, meanwhile people vote with their feet to less despotic areas, which may or may not be as despotic, the idea here is to learn from the example, and see that people did move from a more despotic state, Massachusetts, into a less despotic state, Vermont, in at least one case.

The Polybius sequence leading to Oligarchy is nullified by those who prefer not to provide the means by which they suffer, and all the sadomasochists or Oligarchy Lovers can have their cake until it is all eaten up, and then having depopulated that space, weed wackers can be brought into the now desolate area, and they can start using the land productively - those people who left when it was an Oligarchy, having preferred Liberty over Despotism (Legalized Crime) and after all the rats, and anti-rats eat each other, the Friends of Liberty return.

"What makes sortition so important then is that we then only have "reluctant" rulers. We then get rulers who are not aligned with factions (not in a meaningful conniving way). We get rulers who are not lusting for power. We get more honest rulers."

I had previously thought that the genius behind using a random process of electing jurors was done similar to how the scientific method uses random selection in statics and dynamics study; whereby a true random process by which a sample of the whole is taken to represent the whole works in surprisingly small numbers.

We may not get more honest rulers so much as we get a more accurate sampling of the whole perhaps?

Out of 12 people randomly selected how many are sadomasochist lovers of being content to be victims all their lives and happy to allow their children to be similarly used and beaten to death slowly?

"But the key to a sustainable free state is to have *no* rulers at all... this is what I call a free isonomy. That the law rules and not men and that people rule themselves and not each other."

My viewpoint of what might be the same thing is to say that the free society is where crime is no longer made legal by the criminals, and then crime doesn't pay so well.


In one paragraph you mention law

In the other you attempt to discredit it. A republic is rule of law.

So is the definition of a

So is the definition of a republic the rule of law?


Republic is from the Latin, res publica, which means "public matter" or rule of law.

"Public matter" or "public

"Public matter" or "public interest" but not rule of law. All republic really refers to is rule by representation (it refers to aristocrats who chose to serve in government as in Roman republic). Democracy has rule of law. Monarchy has rule of law. The form of government refers to power distribution and not the law.

Rule of Law though is best expressed in Greek, ἰσονομία or isonomia. Isonomy means "equality of law." That the law is applied to everyone equally which then means that the law is not arbitrary or selective. So in isonomy, the law rules; not men.

reedr3v's picture

Sorry to see downvotes stuck to your most

enlightening and interesting posts. Please don't be discouraged by those with minds closed to radical revisionist information.

You're pretty confused

Or trying to confuse.

Since you're at Daily Paul, which is "dedicated to restoring constitutional government to the united states of America," have you ever tried listening to Dr. Paul, reading the American Constitution, or reading the writings of the founders of the American Constitution?

Or are you simply here to disagree with them?

In one reply you say democracy is rule of the people, minutes later you claim it has rule of law. If the law is being democratically made up by the people, it's still rule of people.

No, I'm not confused. I'm

No, I'm not confused. I'm trying to raise awareness. And I don't agree that Dr. Paul is "trying to restore the Constitution"... he's trying to restore liberty! It just so happens that he has chosen the Constitution as his means.

But what do you want... liberty or the Constitution? Paul advocates liberty first and the Constitution second. If the Constitution worked so well, we wouldn't be where we are now. Even if you could put 535 Dr. Pauls in Congress today, in 10 years the Constitution would be in shreds again. Because republic *doesn't* work if you want freedom... Do you want freedom?

I like all the down voting.

I like all the down voting. One thing I can count on is the number of children that frequent the threads at DP. Maybe we don't deserve freedom... freedom is for grown ups.

Voting is democracy

I thought you liked it?

Ron Paul is trying to restore the Constitution

And has repeatedly said so. Apparently you don't listen to him. And the reason is, because the Constitution protects liberty from anarchy, democracy, and all other forms of tyranny.

In order to have liberty it must be protected and that can only happen through the rule of law, or a republic.

That's fine and restoring the

That's fine and restoring the Constitution would be good. But the Constitution doesn't protect liberty. It's main purpose was to limit the federal government while allowing the states to do whatever. BTW have you ever noticed that the 1st amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law..." So I guess that means the states *can* make laws respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting free speech and restricting the press, right? Maybe the Constitution doesn't create as much freedom as it could?? Jefferson lamented that the Bill of Rights was "better than nothing." But we want to restore it... ok.

States cannot violate the supreme law!

The states of the union cannot violate the supreme law of the union. For example, a state can not pass a law that violates Amendment I, or freedom of speech.

Quite simply and specifically;

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

And the Constitution does in fact protect liberty. What do you think Amendment I is? It's obviously a protection of liberty

So, where in the Constitution

So, where in the Constitution do you find that states are not allowed to pass laws restricting religion, speech, or the press? Where? I see that Congress is restricted which means by definition the states are *not* restricted. Right?

I just quoted it for you

"nor prohibited by it to the States"

States cannot violate the supreme law, they can only make law which is is in accordance with the supreme law, or not already a part of the supreme law.

Uh, no. What powers that are

Uh, no. What powers that are not *expressly* delegated to the Fed gov, the states have. So, I don't know what you're talking about. As Dr. Paul said, "Just read it!"

Full text for your enlightenment,

"Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

"CONGRESS (not the states) shall make no law..." which means that the states CAN make those laws. That's the text like it or not. No "supreme law" gobbledygook.

Laws of the states cannot conflict with the supreme law

Article IV, Section 2;

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Article VI, Para. 2;

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Yet again, you respond with

Yet again, you respond with non sequitors. What you are citing has *nothing* to do with what we're talking about. Where in the 1st amendment does it say, "The states shall pass no law..."? Does the 1st amendment read the same as the *other* amendments which clearly apply to *both* Congress and the states? You respond like a politician who cherry-picks what you want out of the text. The 1st amendment is the *only* one in the BoR that specifically refers to Congress.

Maybe you're not aware Amendment I is part of Constitution?

And so is the entire Bill of Rights.

Therefore I repeat for you again;

Article VI, Para. 2;

This Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

If the supreme law protects freedom of speech, even specifically against Congress, the states cannot violate it either.

The supreme law as written.

The supreme law as written. Get it? As written. The 1st amendment *only* applies to Congress *as written.* The Constitution shall be the supreme law *as written*... And it is written that in Amendment 1, "Congress shall make no law..." As written, it only applies to Congress. Which means it *doesn't* apply to the states. Again, show me where in the 1st amendment it specifically includes the states... If it was like the other amendments, the word "Congress" would not be included which means the authors specifically exempted the states from the 1st amendment.

You clearly don't understand anything I'm writing

You're beyond my help.

Finally, something we can

Finally, something we can agree on. ;)

You agree you don't understand anything I'm writing

Good that you admit it, at least.