7 votes

Help me argue the "every man for himself" myth

I find myself getting into arguments with people who think Ron Paul advocates an "every man for himself" platform that will never work.

I try to tell them that it's not like people will fend off in desperation...we need to learn when to step up in certain situations and not expect government to come to the rescue every time.

Comment viewing options

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

Don't turn the poor over to the mafia

We're not heartless bastards. We just think that the kind of people who work in the area of private charity will do a better job of caring for the down-and-out than a bunch of sociopaths who are just using them for votes.

The government has no compassion.

People have compassion. When governments get involved they pit people against each other. They assume responsibility for everyone and everything and with that responsibility they usurp your authority over your own decisions. They break up families, remove children from parents, stop children playing, stop you from eating and drinking what you want to eat and drink, arrest you for something you didn't do throw you in prison and throw away the key....

Ron Paul wants to stop the government assuming total control over your life and give it all back to you. What on Earth is wrong with that? Mind you it does mean that you will have to be a responsible mature adult to do that. Do you think you can handle all that freedom?

"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)

Tell them that this isn't a cage match,

or a reality show where they vote people off. We have evolved enough to realize greater prosperity can be obtained through cooperation. Ron Paul wants to keep the government from interfering with our ability to freely associate.

I believe

public agency is principally identified by endowment, which means to freely give.

Subsequently and despite a misconception where Libertarian ideology is often improperly associated with anarchy, volitional governance would endorse the maintenance of public agency through authentic choice (ex. the freedom to fund roads rather than wars, or no funding at all etc) within an ideal ethic of individual rights.

Taxation and other unethical impositions of anti-voluntary coercion (ex. insurance mandates) would therefore be abolished

volitional governance

volitional governance would endorse the maintenance of public agency through authentic choice

Volitional governance is anarchy. When you voluntarily choose someone to 'rule over' you, there is no coercion, therefore there are no rulers.

Roads can be built by the free market. See here - http://goo.gl/q7jRs

(Anarchy means without rulers)


1) "Volitional governance is anarchy"

Disagreement: I define volitional governance as free choice within a just body of ethical laws

2) "When you voluntarily choose someone to 'rule over' you"

Partial disagreement: there is no deference to the authority or 'rule' of man outside of personal respect within such a model. Volitional governance instead acknowledges virtual principles that transcend human judgment and function as ethical guidelines within the public sphere. This in turn further supports a republic by which we primarily represent ourselves, and/or through other elected officials

3) "Roads can be built by the free market"

Ideally in a volitional model, individuals can freely choose either public and/or private roads


Libertarians do not want to make it illegal for people to help others.

Instead, libertarians want to make it illegal for people who call themselves 'the government' to steal and use violence.

However, government wants to make it illegal for people to help others.

See here - http://goo.gl/Fqcu2

Everyman for himself

Just reply (softly), and let it sink in.

You imply that means every man would work against his fellow man. There are laws that take people who behave like that out of our society. The implication actually is everyman is responsible for himself.

It is proven that when people have more responsibility they behave more responsibly. More responsibility means a society with more virtue where each individual is cherished by the community and protected by the community, and if necessary the nation.

Implying in any way that society would disappear suddenly if Ron Paul was in power is silly. By removing laws that restrict peoples right to free speech, protect them against home invasion, legalize savings and end the wars...that doesn't sound like every man for himself.

It sounds like man is getting his rights back.

He does

It is every man for himself. The counter argument is all for one and one for all.

Every man for himself.. let's say that man is a diabetic. He goes to a birthday party where there is a cake.. does he eat the cake and get sick, or not eat the cake to retain his health?

Every man for himself understands that we are all individuals, which speperate needs and dreams. We are not gigerbread men put into one box. We enjoy our differences, appreciate our our own gifts and those we see in others. We respect ourselves, our needs our wants, and others having the same.

The way to approch those who think one for all.. is to ask,, how much money you got on you? when they tell you, tell them to give you have of it. When they say no way.. accuse them of being each man for himself.

The distinction to be made is

The distinction to be made is that RP doesn't advocate an every-man-for-himself policy, just that the federal government shouldn't try and legislate otherwise. The federal government should let individuals do what they want, only interfering to prevent the most extremes of human behaviour.

Moreover, Ron Paul has acknowledged that individuals states could benefit from more or less government; he's never so arrogant as to say otherwise.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Ask them

When they go to pick up their checks for the week, how much do they plan to give to their neighbor today?

Dr.Paul is compassionate but just doesn't believe in forcing people to give up their money.

In truth, if we're honest, we all know that every man is for himself, from the start. It's called taking responsibility for yourself and your life.. Being independent and not a sponge. Being a giver and contributor, not a taker or leach upon society. It's also about being responsible enough to recognize there is a need for helping those who can't help themselves. Not those who WON'T help themselves.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

That money pays interest on debt.

That money goes to the Banks.

We then borrow money from those banks to give to the neighbors.

Free includes debt-free!