27 votes

You nor I can solve the world's problems

Most of the people on here are very intelligent individuals with brains capable of much more than mine. You guys know so much information, and are so informed that you have a solution for everything that comes up. However, I disagree.

You cannot solve the problem because saying that you know what is best for other people is not freedom. It is wrong for the Government to govern areas where they are not given consent, and it would be wrong for you guys to command your ideas also. Dr. Paul has many great ideas for solutions that he has never pursued because he does not believe in forcing others to our position.

"I want to use all my strength, to resist the notion that I can run your lives, or run the economy, or run the world. I want to use that strength to repeal and reject that notion, and stand up and defend the principles of liberty."

Remember the good doctor's words before you go trying to impose your will on others.

Good day friends.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

I agree and disagree

I agree with your premise that we shouldn't force people to do what we think is best (via government or otherwise).

However, I vehemently disagree with your saying that we can't solve the world's problems. There are other ways and thinking that the government is even part of the solution is just closed minded thinking.

We can easily change things but we have to think about the problem from a different perspective. We have to look to ourselves to live by example and show how a life lived under genuine liberty and freedom will be the most prosperous one in every way. In other words, we do our own thing and do it right. We do this in complete avoidance of what the government wants or says.

When some government regulation gets in the way, we simply go around them. For example, if presented with a roadblock of being told we can't sell raw, natural food, we don't sell it. We simply make a device that allows each family to make their own. The result is the same; i.e. people get the good food and no one goes to jail for selling. When taxed by the government on some product, we make alternative products available (think home bio-diesel or solar) that sideskirt those taxes. Even when confronted with a treasonous monetary system, we have the choice to use our own system of lending, saving and transacting which avoids the pitfalls.

Each of our problems already has a free market, libertarian solution in existence RIGHT NOW. Bu as most here would expect, they just aren't getting any support or media. Many have been tossed around in these posts but many others are remaining under the radar due to their nature.

Our job is to foster those solutions to global fruition, giving people from all walks of life the equal opportunity to turn the fruits of their labor into lasting prosperity that's free from tyranny.

Sure, this won't be a quick and easy fix. Sure it will have bumps in the road. The difference is that it brings about change from the bottom up which cannot be shut down from the top. More importantly, however, it clearly shows how a people left alone by the government will steadily migrate toward more prosperity. What better message for liberty can there be?

Let's all try to imagine a world where each family works only the jobs their genuinely interested in and in doing so, quickly becomes as self sufficient as possible, debt free and with all their remaining fruits saved for their future.

For how I see our dilemma, this is the only problem we must tackle. It must be changed first because as to the Constitution being a problem (regardless of how you look at that issue), wouldn't it make sense that with a large and growing base of truly independent people, there would be much more accountability and much less corruption in our government?

No.7's picture

Awesome, Thanks for the comment

I believe we can solve our own town/state/county problems, but no, you nor I can solve the whole world's problems. We must simply allow the people of the world to solve their own problems. The main point is that our goal is to restore(or enforce) the U.S. Constitution, and not to enact a Libertarian slate of laws, because forcing others to our laws isn't Libertarian. Many people on here are forgetting that as Libertarians we oppose force, because I read so many solutions that while they sound awesome, they require force.

I really like what you're saying by setting an example, I've always believed that is the best way to be a leader.

The individual who refuses to defend his rights when called by his Government, deserves to be a slave, and must be punished as an enemy of his country and friend to her foe. - Andrew Jackson

If you want to restore the Constitution

Then just produce an environment where people will cry out for it. In doing so, they will restore it for you. It's that simple.

However, I'm not here solely to restore that document to it's full power. That's "one" goal, but if pressed hard enough, I see it as having a few flaws in it as well. Take, for example, the fact that it 'allowed' the chain of events to occur that eventually corrupted it's use in the first place. There are more but here are a few ways it could have prevented some of those.

It could have delineated a rock solid difference between free speech and bribery. Had it done that, or should it still be possible, it would settle a lot once and for all.

It could have enshrined more popular power in the legislative branch as coming straight from the people. Perhaps this means the power to quickly or easily recall representatives or to better gather the will of the people in fir making the laws (a feat much easier today than two centuries ago). Maybe this just means a better way to hold the SCOTUS to their oaths. I don't know but the point is that 'the people' do and a technical, non-emotional debate should be part of that decision.

It could have simply clarified better the two most misinterpreted phrases present in it: Those being the general welfare clause and monetary stance. Just think if those were kept pristine in meaning.

My point is that we should focus on the intent of this law of our land and not get distracted in arguing the derivative meanings that can be taken away from it. Personally, I think technology has advanced to the point where we could better benefit from a technological representation, rather than a human proxy. That's not to say we should tamper with it being operated on a rule of law system, but rather tweak the 'how' of how laws are created. If it is given that people do prosper with less government (as proven by our examples above) then that is what the people will ultimately call for.

Of course, to grasp that potential fully, one must envision another free market change. That being that we offered and adopted a genuine alternative media which became well known and trusted as providing us with unbiased news. That too, I believe is in existence in part. We just need to sort out some details and coalesce behind one.

It is this kind of direction by an enlightened few that get it which I feel should be the new focus for this site. I know of no other group (and I belong to a ton of 'em) with the broad and detailed understanding necessary to take it on.

Quite Right

It is not government's role to "solve problems." As Reagan said, government is not the solution to the problem; government is the problem.

Government's role is to protect the natural rights of the citizens and, otherwise, to stay out of the way.

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

" We'll know our

" We'll know our disinformation is complete when everything the American public believes is false." William Casey CIA Director,(1981) That couldn't be true today.Could it?

Bob Marshall

No.7's picture

Never say never

People already believe their Constitutional Rights still stand even though they vote for the people that are attacking those rights.

The individual who refuses to defend his rights when called by his Government, deserves to be a slave, and must be punished as an enemy of his country and friend to her foe. - Andrew Jackson


Let me get this straight. We say that we want to solve problems by getting people to think about what they are doing, take responsibility for themselves, and refuse to let others enslave them. In particular, they should not submit to any government that claims the right to confiscate their lives without their consent, i.e., no government which imposes non-voluntary taxation.

I mean, we have this system where people work, and they don't even know that they are enslaved because the value of what they store their labor in is inflated away.

And you say you disagree with this because we are saying we know what is best for others. No, we shouldn't tell them they are enslaved...God forbid.

On the other hand, you say that you don't want to run peoples' lives. You just want to impose on them the government resulting from a document which was specifically designed to legitimize the use of an army to go around collecting involuntary taxes.

What you are saying does not make any sense.

Please get this straight: I do not consent.

No.7's picture

You're missing my point.

Yes we have great ideas and I support many of the ideas I'm saying we can't solve. However, I feel like far too many of us try to "bring people in" or teach people over complicated ideas ans solutions. We must simply teach them history, and the beauty of the Constitution. I doubt Dr. Paul would pass many if any laws as POTUS. I think he would simply do his best to restore Constitutional Government. After all, isn't that the goal of this website?? If you don't believe in The Constitution of the United States and the rights protected in it then you are no friend to Dr. Paul or the movement. I understand you're point, and you're right the post is contradictory. Basically, I'm saying our only solution should be restoring the Constitution. Let's bring this thing back down to Earth where normal simple people like me can follow and understand.

The individual who refuses to defend his rights when called by his Government, deserves to be a slave, and must be punished as an enemy of his country and friend to her foe. - Andrew Jackson


Please listen carefully to Ron Paul:

1. The Constitution has been a "pretty good" contract between the people and government. It is not perfect.

2. Our Constitutional form of government has been a failure, and we were warned when it was adopted that things would end up exactly as they have. (See Ron Paul's farewell address.)

3. There are some aspects of the Constitution which need to be improved.

These are points that Ron Paul has made. In light of them, it is clear that he views the Constitution as a step in the right direction, but only because of the mess we are presently in.

The facts of the matter are these: The Constitution protects no rights. It was never designed to do so. The parts of the Constitution that even talk about rights are *amendments.* Do you know what an amendment is? In this case, it was an attempt to put a brake on the basic function of the document. An amendment is an addition to change what was viewed as a mistake.

The basic function of the Constitution was to legitimize the confiscation of wealth for the government at the end of the barrel of a gun. This was the very thing that the Revolutionary war was started over. And the Constitution put exactly the same tyranny back on the backs of the people who were left after fighting that war.

That's pretty simple. Don't you think.

I hope you can understand. What we have is the result of the Constitution.

Creating myths about the beauty of the Constitution is not down to Earth. It is living in denial.

Down to Earth and simple: Basing a society on the principles of slavery and violent domination has to end.

The only way to end it, is to get those principles out of the hearts and minds of the slaves. Yes, it's a royal pain in the neck to do so, and an overwhelming task. But we've got to do it. Yes, the Constitution can be a kind of stepping stone to get people to think about things. In particular, it can be pointed out that the amendments, and certain other procedural points, are ignored. And this is basically how Ron Paul uses the Constitution. Get someone to read the Constitution, and they can see that some things in it are not followed. All well and good. But then he (Ron Paul) moves on to talk about *liberty* which is an entirely different thing. And it's a much more important thing. But maybe I've lost you there.

No.7's picture

I have never heard Dr. Paul say anything negative

about the Constitution. However I have heard him say our Constitution was the greatest one ever written. I believe he despises what tyrants have done to the Constitution, but not the Constitution itself. I'm sorry but saying that the Constitution was meant to rob everyone is very hard for me to take seriously. A google search on that idea doesn't give me any trustworthy results. Mostly sites that tell me the illuminati and mossad are listening to my thoughts and planning to kill us all.

You're also not convincing anyone by insulting them. So until you have a better attitude I ask you to kindly go FCK yourself.

The individual who refuses to defend his rights when called by his Government, deserves to be a slave, and must be punished as an enemy of his country and friend to her foe. - Andrew Jackson

It may be hard...

I had no intention of insulting you. Perhaps you're a little sensitive. I can understand that. What I'm saying can be a little disturbing.

I just wrote for you three things Ron Paul has said that are negative about the Constitution. The fact that you haven't heard them, simply means you haven't been listening. One of them is specifically referenced. The transcript is available. You simply have to look it up and read it.

It may be that the U.S. Constitution was the greatest one ever written. That doesn't mean it was good enough. That doesn't mean it has not been a failure.

It is clear, that Ron Paul uses the Constitution to try to get people to start thinking. Now is your chance.

All you have to do to take what I'm saying seriously is read the Constitution. Don't "google search the idea." Read the document. Set the amendments aside, as they were added later. The other part explains quite clearly the purpose of the document. And it's simple. They wanted to be able to impose involuntary taxes and maintain an army to make sure their collection framework was enforceable. The rest is simply describing the procedures according to which they were going to do that. It's true that many of those procedures have been set aside, and some of them might have been an attempt to "limit" government. In that sense, it is reasonable to say that it would be good to get back to following the Constitution.

But in basic principle, the Articles of Confederation which proceeded the Constitution were fundamentally different. The difference was that taxes were voluntary. The central government could request funding, but they did not claim the right to take it by force. That is the basic point. The document itself is the proof. You need no google commentary.

As pointed out in the post below, the objective I have just described (and which is described in the document) is exactly what they did in regard to the so called whiskey rebellion.

The fact that the government would display all the tyrannical aspects that its principle suggested, was a matter of debate. There was enough feeling that things would turn out as they have that the first ten amendments (the "Bill of Rights") was added. At that time, it was not clear what the outcome would be, and many had hopes of "limited government." Now, the outcome should be clear.

No conspiracy theory. It was just a costly mistake. Jefferson was against it. Patrick Henry was against it.

Here is an idea which might be helpful for you: The "founders" were not some monolithic unified group. Different people had different ideas. If you read up on Washington, you'll find that he was not what you might think. I might not go as far as the poster below in my condemnation, but it's clear that he thought in terms of classes and that people in lower classes shouldn't have very much liberty. Liberty was for the ruling class, which he was in. And he also didn't really like to deal with lower class people. I don't know about you, but I don't view those as very sustainable or endearing characteristics. The book "Washington's Crossing" by David Hackett Fischer might be a good place to start.

In any case, after the war there were not enough people who thought that liberty was the best general course for society to stop the Constitution. We are all inheritors of the consequences of that lack and the resulting error. We have been born and raised in the resulting system. The best in the world? Maybe. But also (still) based on the principle of the few dominating the many and directing society via slave labor taken through violence or the threat of violence. (Don't pay your taxes, and we'll lock you in a cage. Resist being locked in a cage, and we'll kill you.)

The challenge is to recognize the situation into which we have been born and recognize its shortcomings...and to find a workable alternative. Ron Paul has also said many times, that the Constitutional government of the United States is nearing its end, and we must consider what is going to replace it.

This is an important point. As long as it persists, and in that context, Ron Paul advocates returning to the Constitution. But he has recognized that it is not going to last forever---though even very bad ideas can take a long time to completely collapse, just look at the Soviet Union---and Ron Paul has encouraged us to prepare to replace it with something better. He nor I will intentionally try to bring about the collapse, though both of us may engage in subsidiary causes that may hasten it (e.g., creating alternative economies, ending the Federal Reserve monopoly, taking control of our labor---not paying taxes if we can avoid the violence threatened for not doing so), but the collapse, it appears, will come. And we need to be ready for it. (Those are ideas, if not the words, of Ron Paul. We have all heard them, if we will listen.)

No.7's picture

Holy cow man, thanks

I read the link with the debates on it and you're totally right! I have read a lot of slimy things about Hamilton from studying Andrew Jackson but this is an eye opener. I'm getting started reading the rest of what you guys have shown me. I have read the Constitution more than once, I actually keep it in my back pocket all the time as a Carl Miller video told me.

I realize it was dumb to blindly trust our founders, but I figured if they saved us from British tyranny then they had to love freedom.

Thank you for commenting, and I thank you again for not shrinking from controversy.

The individual who refuses to defend his rights when called by his Government, deserves to be a slave, and must be punished as an enemy of his country and friend to her foe. - Andrew Jackson

Following up on positives

Consider reading this:


Personal Experience offered by me to anyone:

I went to Jury duty a few months ago. Both lawyers dismissed me. They both heard my answers to their questions and I spoke the truth.

I described the above Essay.

I said that we Jurors are here to accomplish the onerous task of avoiding abandonment of the victim, if we find a victim in this case, and at the same time we must avoid convicting an innocent person.

I told the truth, and I spoke morally, and accurately.

I was dismissed because there are plenty of people who they can find to lie for them.

Liberty is strictly voluntary, and fighting crime can be strictly voluntary, with few, and then fewer, exceptions to the rule. Confusing the two is a potentially fatal error - don't do it.

If you don't understand how government can be voluntary, it may be a good idea to begin finding out how government WAS voluntary.

There are examples, methods, not perfect, but working in the right direction.

Crime now pays very well, at your court house, in your town, city, county, State, Despotic Nation State, and most certainly exemplified in the World Court.

It get's worse going DOWN to the BOTTOM of crime, where crime has been made legal by people who call themselves "elite" and they are not "elite" so consider calling them what they are, exactly, and holding them to account, exactly for what they do, not what they say.


Dictators Dictate Lies

"I ask you to kindly go FCK yourself."

Twisted people confess their twist, with contradictions often written in one sentence.

A simple study of the facts, in just two sources, aught to clue a reasonable person in on those facts, but that assumes that a person will be reasonable.



The Declaration of Independence marks the point at which many people share a declaration of independence from criminal governments.

The Articles of Confederation marks the point at which many Constitutionally limited State Governments, all small measures of defensive POWER, Confederate their POWER into one defensive Power that was sufficient in size to drive off the largest criminal army of aggression for profit then on the planet Earth.

Then the Central Bankers, Monarchists, Monopolists, like Hamilton and the Despot Washington realized the opportunity to enslave the population of America slipping out of their grasp when Shasy's Rebellion proved the case whereby runaway slaves would not be forced out of one State and forced back into the State they ran from. Those Central Bankers, mercantilists, and Slave Traders, claimed to be holding a meeting in Philadelphia so as to discuss such things as paying those war profits to those war profiteers out of the National Debt Fund. Hamilton tried to sell National Debt as a good thing by calling National Debt the path to National Credit.

They closed the doors on the meeting, issued a gag order, and threw out The Confederated VOLUNTARY government, and put in place a Consolidated government so as to then have in place the means to enact such things as The Alien and Sedition Acts, and enforce them.

Even before the Alien and Sedition Acts there was the case of George Washington conscripting an aggressive National army the size of the one he was put in charge of, and abused, to defeat the British, and with that National Army, authorized by the new National Consolidated "Constitution", and despite the addition of The Bill of Rights, Washington invaded western Pennsylvanian to collect a tax on Whiskey and to crush that monetary competitor.

So those who resort to lies, threats, and violence are still around us today, and they often confess their true color in their own words, and from that same period of time, when the "Ratification" process was the current false advertizement campaign promises to be broken, are brilliant English words spoken in public, by true Patriots of Liberty, for any interested fellow to peruse and heed.

Or not.

Being stupid seems to be the order of the day, to be obeyed, without question.

“Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say 'what should be the reward of such sacrifices?' Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!”
Samuel Adams

"Mr. GEORGE MASON. Mr. Chairman, whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers that it is a national government, and no longer a Confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the general government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes does, of itself, entirely change the confederation of the states into one consolidated government. This power, being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of control, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly a confederation to a consolidated government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the state governments. Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harassed? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: the general government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than the state governments, the latter must give way to the former."


No.7's picture


Thanks for the history lesson, I wrote that in anger for unnecessary insults. Your insult however was much better. I will admit to being twisted if you admit to being a know-it-all.

You sound pretty intelligent, but the criticism of Washington made me raise an eyebrow. I've always thought nothing but good things about Washington and the founders. The other guy just sounds like Dale Gribble to me but you write in a way that I believe there is a lot of research and education in what you say.

Tell me more. What evidence do you have to support these claims that our founders and Constitution are bad???

The individual who refuses to defend his rights when called by his Government, deserves to be a slave, and must be punished as an enemy of his country and friend to her foe. - Andrew Jackson

Admissions and Confessions.

Admissions are honest, straight forward, accurate, willful, voluntary, and mutually beneficial communications made from one to another.

In my opinion, or I believe, or I think, or I know, all that above.

That is my confession to you.

I admit that I know those things to be competitively true.

I have a residual shadow of doubt sufficient in this case, to ask for either conformation, of the facts, or refutation, whichever the case may be in any case, and in this case, YOU can help me even more than you already help me.

About 20 odd years ago I met a person who helped me turn from what I was into a "know-it-all" (if I understand your use of the term) as my friend in liberty told me to speak authoritatively because speaking weakly was not as effective, in his opinion, and that friend of mine was the one person who actually helped me get on the Congressional Election Ballot in 1996, going door to door collecting signatures because neither of us could afford the fee to "get on the ballot".

If I do not "know-it-all" then please, anyone, not just you, please, please, please, point out exactly where I do not "know-it-all", and I can continue along this same path I've been on for nearly 3 decades, seeking to know better, and working to avoid knowing worse.

I received a whole lot more help in knowing better, or in being a "know-it-all" in books and in one book in particular I truly HOPE that every American picks up this book and reads it with sufficient care to then, on their own, learn from it.


If you do not, if anyone does not, read that book they they won't know as much as I know about that book, that person, and what can be done if someone takes it upon themselves to do their homework best.

I am in a horse race, you may not be in one, and I think it is my duty to do my homework better than anyone else in my shoes.

You may be able to do better, but if so, I'd like to know what you do better, not JUST being told that I am a "know-it-all".

"Tell me more. What evidence do you have to support these claims that our founders and Constitution are bad???"

I have 5 books, 1 Essay on Washington, and Washington's declaration to offer. I will offer the Essay first, get a quote from it, then Washington's declaration, then one book with Washington's confession, then 4 books that explain the context of Washington's involvement in the move from British RULE, to Liberty, and then back to British RULE.

British RULE, at the time was Money Monopoly Rule, or Central Banker Rule, even before the Communists copied the methodology which can be a methodology summed up as The Business Cycle.



"His primary aim was to crush the individualistic and democratic spirit of the American forces. For one thing, the officers of the militia were elected by their own men, and the discipline of repeated elections kept the officers from forming an aristocratic ruling caste typical of European armies of the period."

Book quoting a confession by Washington:



Pages 153 - 154

Writing to John Hancock earlier, Washington had offered a candid appraisal of Sullivan as "spirited and zealously attached to the Cause," but also a man touched with a "tincture of vanity" and too great a "desire of being popular." Then, generously and realistically, Washington conceded that everyone in command of the army suffered from a greater, more serious failing, himself included, "His wants," Washington said of Sullivan, "are common to us all; the want of experience to move upon a large scale."

5 books:






I can go into great detail, but I can say that the first Essay by Rothbard does the best job of placing in the reader a seed of doubt as to the monolithic concept of Washington the hero of Liberty.

Now the man's deed:


And whereas, it is in my judgment necessary under the circumstances of the case to take measures for calling forth the militia in order to suppress the combinations aforesaid, and to cause the laws to be duly executed; and I have accordingly determined so to do, feeling the deepest regret for the occasion, but withal the most solemn conviction that the essential interests of the Union demand it, that the very existence of government and the fundamental principles of social order are materially involved in the issue, and that the patriotism and firmness of all good citizens are seriously called upon, as occasions may require, to aid in the effectual suppression of so fatal a spirit;

Therefore, and in pursuance of the proviso above recited, I. George Washington, President of the United States, do hereby command all persons, being insurgents, as aforesaid, and all others whom it may concern, on or before the 1st day of September next to disperse and retire peaceably to their respective abodes. And I do moreover warn all persons whomsoever against aiding, abetting, or comforting the perpetrators of the aforesaid treasonable acts; and do require all officers and other citizens, according to their respective duties and the laws of the land, to exert their utmost endeavors to prevent and suppress such dangerous proceedings.

What is "so fatal a spirit"?

It was the same spirit announced to the world, to posterity, in The Declaration of Independence.

Now the Official:


To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

That was done by Washington to CRUSH people resisting a direct tax on Whiskey, payable in Gold, and the part that people need to understand is that there was no Gold, because the Central Bankers drove the Gold out of the Country (Gresham's Law), and Whiskey was a home grown competitive MONEY, so the abuse of the Conscripted Army to Crush a money competitor and enforce a TAX was a move to Monopolize a Central Bank or to begin The Business Cycle.

Then what happens?

Again the official record:



Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

Check Mate?


No.7's picture

I'm on it, thank you for the sources

And I think you for not shrinking from a controversial topic.

The individual who refuses to defend his rights when called by his Government, deserves to be a slave, and must be punished as an enemy of his country and friend to her foe. - Andrew Jackson

jrd3820's picture


Kudos for not being belligerent back. I saw that and my jaw dropped, you handled it quite nicely.

No.7's picture

Thanks friend

I know I should refrain from cursing as it is only a sign of ignorance but I had to say something. Like Tom Petty I won't back down lol. Thanks for the encouragement

The individual who refuses to defend his rights when called by his Government, deserves to be a slave, and must be punished as an enemy of his country and friend to her foe. - Andrew Jackson

The people on here that I tend to agree with the most

.. are people that believe most 'problems' are best solved on a de-centralized and local level, by people free to decide and implement their own solutions.

Removing distant, concentrated and centralized power is the key.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights are a blueprint - the best they could devise and agree on at the time - for a government that strikes a balance between a central government and free states.

I see some vocal anarchists on here, that I tend to not agree with as much. They take it too far imo. But they are not advocating specific solutions other than "No government works best". Which is about as far away as pushing solutions as you can get.

Honestly I don't see much what you're talking about on here. Maybe I'm reading different posts.

Do you have examples? Maybe I'm missing something

No.7's picture

You're right on

I'm talking about great Libertarian solutions out there like voucher schools, banning gun free zones...etc. I do agree with many of these solutions and think they would bring good. However, our goal isn't to pass our own laws. Our goal is to restore the Constitution, that is the goal of this website right???

The individual who refuses to defend his rights when called by his Government, deserves to be a slave, and must be punished as an enemy of his country and friend to her foe. - Andrew Jackson

Solving the world's problems

Solving the world's problems is not the issue.

The issue is that we have a Constitution, our nation' highest law, and it is not being adhered to.


Great point


LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

No.7's picture


the point I'm trying to make. Thanks for commenting John!

The individual who refuses to defend his rights when called by his Government, deserves to be a slave, and must be punished as an enemy of his country and friend to her foe. - Andrew Jackson

Hell... We may as well try. No one else seems to be doing...


No.7's picture

We are trying

to restore the Constitution. Not put together our own agenda of supposed Libertarian laws. The rEVOLution has grown because it's principles are somewhat simple and easy to understand. Dr. Paul has gained a bigger following in the recent years by keeping it simple and patiently educating those around them. He also doesn't jam his personal solutions to problems down everyone's throats all the time, He fights to restore the Constitution and votes accordingly.

The individual who refuses to defend his rights when called by his Government, deserves to be a slave, and must be punished as an enemy of his country and friend to her foe. - Andrew Jackson

Disagree: Only You or I Can Solve the Worlds Problems!

It really is up to us. Just because we come up with solutions does not mean we wish to impose our will on others. We must patient and continue to educate and disseminate the principles of freedom liberty and living peacefully together.

It took 20 years of education to foment the American revolution before enough people were on board to support it. The tide will turn one day as the pendulum swings back the other way.

End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!

Get Prepared!

No.7's picture

I do think Dr. Paul has the solution

I upvoted because I do believe it is mostly up to us to bring about the change, or revolution. However, I think the only real "solution" Dr. Paul has is simple, it's to restore the Constitution. All the other complicated super specific "solutions" that I read so often on here are not Libertarian at all and many(not saying you) do want their ideas imposed on others.

I personally don't think Dr. Paul would sign many if any laws as President. I think he would only get the Government out of the way.

So in a way it's not really him or us with the solutions to the actual problems. It will be the people solving their own problems, once we give them the freedom to do so.

The individual who refuses to defend his rights when called by his Government, deserves to be a slave, and must be punished as an enemy of his country and friend to her foe. - Andrew Jackson

The Constitution - the greatest poem ever written.

Once the Constitution is opened, read and adhered to, many problems will inherently work themselves out. There may be others, but those are best left to local/state, and Me the people.

Elections are important and we must not stop, but until we get others to understand and live Liberty, politicians are useless.

"once we give them the freedom to do so."

Once we act upon the freedom to do so.

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul


I agree with you, *some* people here (likely without realizing it) seem to get awful pushy when someone doesn't agree with them 100% on every issue. I'd hate to see this place turn into another objectivist movement; where individuality is espoused, yet any deviation from the official creed results in excommunication from the 'elite' group. (Not an insult to the Rand followers of today, who *mostly* aren't like that.)

Then again, maybe it's inevitable that the 'revolutionaries' are doomed to become the 'establishment' they so despise. You know, "he who fights monsters" and such.

A signature used to be here!