-23 votes

Is Ron Paul an anarchist? I don't think so, but...

Is Ron Paul an anarchist? I don't think so, but anarchists have provided evidence in their comments to try prove otherwise. And until now, anarchists at DP were hiding behind Ron Paul's belief in capitalism within the moral framework of limited government. Most of the evidence that anarchists use to claim Ron Paul as one of their own can be found on the first two pages. I'm opposed to the anarchist ideology and in spite of what anarchists say about Ron Paul, he's convinced more citizens of the merits of limited Constitutional government than any other politician in my lifetime. I'm not bringing up this topic to condemn anarchists, but to have an honest discussion about the merits of limited government vs. anarchy.

I recently posted a topic at the DP Liberty Forum titled "Can unalienable rights exist in a free market?" By free market, I meant a market operating in a stateless society, a.k.a. anarchy. Even though unalienable rights exist in anarchist societies, there's no agreement on what those rights would be and no mechanism to protect the free exercise of those rights. But I had mistakenly associated the lawlessness of the Fed, Wall Street and Obama with anarchy, and they are not anarchists, they are fascists. So I changed the name of the post to "Obama, Wall Street, and the Federal Reserve, a Fascist Regime" and pointed out how fascism severely restricts our ability to exercise unalienable rights. Fascism occurs when powerful business interests partner with a dictatorial central government and impose severe economic and social repression.

Many of the replies to my post argued that the definition of a free market doesn't mean a stateless society (anarchy), and for the most part they were right. But many advocated for an idealized form of free markets, i.e., no government intervention, taxation, or subsidies of any kind. I argued that this idealized form of a free market can only exist in a stateless society, and the resulting anarchy would eliminate the ability to exercise unalienable rights. Below are a couple quotes from someone promoting the idealized version of free markets. This link is the comment with the quotes. http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2969576

"Mark, do you believe that taxation is theft, and thus morally wrong? I do, and that is an important part of what makes me a free market capitalist..."

"A true free market capitalist would see taxation as theft of an individuals means of production by use of force, and thus, it is morally indefensible."

In my initial reply, I challenged him/her to admit they're an anarchist. Later I responded with the following argument: Ron Paul advocates for capitalism within the moral framework of limited government, and that requires some taxation. And being you oppose all taxes, how can you support this country's founding documents, which created a limited gov't with the power to tax? You obviously want to eliminate our country as founded because it has the power to tax, and that would mean eliminating the second amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights. So why don't you admit you're an anarchist who opposes the founding principles of this country? The links below are the reply to my position stated above, followed by my reply.

http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2976341
http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2976503

The person I quoted above also wrote a post titled "The Constitution supports drones and so do I". In the post he said "Our job as liberty loving citizens is not to repress the development and use of these technologies [drones], rather it is to work within the parameters of a free market in order to use these technologies to enhance freedom and personl liberty." I replied saying the Constitution defines the use of drones, particularly within U.S. borders, not the free market. Here's the link to the post on drones. http://www.dailypaul.com/273257

There were many replies to my post that supported a market completely free from government while saying they supported limited government. This seems to be a contradiction, so I thought it important to talk about the merits of capitalism within the moral framework of limited gov't vs. a completely free market that operates outside of government. If interested, you can read some of the comments yourself, here's the link.
http://www.dailypaul.com/275602

The first reply to this post said the Bill of Rights protects our unalienable rights from government, not people. But governments are created and run by people, so without people government wouldn't exist. And history recognizes King George III as the tyrant that made the Revolution, Constitution and Bill of Rights necessary. Also, the Declaration of Independence specifically mentions the king and lists his crimes against the colonies. So the Bill of Rights protects our unalienable rights from people who run government.

I've read all the comments thus far, and while I support the anarchists idealized vision, i.e., a world where law enforcement by government is virtually obsolete because people are educated to voluntarily make moral choices, there is not one comment that offers practical solutions to get from the current immoral, chaotic state of the world, to a world so voluntarily moral, we no longer need government.

On the contrary, the general consensus among anarchists is that it's hopeless to even try restore a legitimate representative government, so we should all sit back and wait for the global system to collapse and start over. But of course, that's exactly what the tyrants they claim to oppose want us to do. Why? The fascist crony CRAPitalists who control the corrupt system are prepared for a global systemic collapse, at which point, they will control a fragmented neo-fuedalistic totalitarian nightmare. I've spent a lot of time over the years conversing with anarchists, and the plan of INACTION espoused here is a common thread. So I've concluded that the anarchist movement is a front for the very tyrants they claim to oppose.

But to all those who support the practice of capitalism within the moral framework of limited government, don't give up the fight. We can look back on history, from the barbarians to ancient Greek democracy, the Roman Republic before the Roman Empire, the Enlightenment, the Magna Carta, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, and know there are tried and true methods to improve the human condition. Check out this post titled "Morals, Ethics and the Role of Gov't in a Capitalist Economy"
http://www.standupforyourrights.me/?p=917

After reading hundreds of comments, most of them from anarchists, there's an important point I need to make. There's compelling evidence demonstrating Wall Street crimes that have not been prosecuted, I'll provide some links below. The one thing that makes me doubt the anarchist claim that their ideology is based on morals that oppose crimes like fraud, is they never call for the law to be enforced. They never point out specific crimes that could be prosecuted. They never express moral outrage over the actions of private sector criminals. It's always the big bad gubbermint victimizing the poor private sector. While they condemn all government as evil, they never call for prosecution of criminals in government either.

So think about this, if anarchists have zero interest in holding criminals accountable now, why would they want a moral standard applied in a privatized world with no government? They argue that having laws against crime is the only reason crime exists, so if we just get rid of government law enforcement, no crime would exist. They use this same "logic" to defend Mexican drug cartels and mafia organizations while condemning government laws that criminalize their viscious business practices. Bottom line, we need to take down criminals in the public and private sectors if we're going to be a just, moral society.

Th first link is Neil Barofsky, Special Inspector General for TARP, saying "fraud" by the nine largest banks caused the financial crisis. The second link is William Black. He's former Deputy Director of the Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation. After the 1980's S&L meltdown, he helped obtain 1000 felony convictions of "elite" bankers. In this radio interview, he lays out compelling evidence that could result in criminal convictions of top Wall Street bankers. If millions of citizens emailed these links to local attorneys, Sheriffs, county prosecutors, State Attorneys General, and U.S. Attorneys, it would make a difference. R.I.C.O.(Racketeering, Influence, and Corrupt Organizations) and "honest services" statutes, would corral Wall Street criminals and their bipartisan co-conspirators.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/3343248
http://onpoint.wbur.org/2011/10/18/prosecuting-wall-street/p...

For more info check out this post titled "Crime of the Century"
http://www.standupforyourrights.me/?p=697

Comment viewing options

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

OK

I'll give it a shot (though it's probably spitting in the wind).

The assertion that it is the *objective* of the institution of government to secure rights is not an assertion of the effectiveness of that course of action, nor an indication of advocacy. When Jefferson wrote that governments are instituted by men to secure their unalienable rights, he did not say that course of action would work. That very well may be why they do it. It doesn't seem to work so well, so far.

Second, Jefferson did not support the creation of a limited government with the power to tax. Jefferson was among the anti-federalists. He opposed the ratification of the Constitution and would have no part in that ratification. But it is not entirely clear to me if you're still viewing the Constitution as among the founding documents. Nor is it clear what moral principles you have in mind. Jefferson was nominally supportive of the Articles of Confederation which could be said to create a government. However, the government created by the Articles of Confederation did not permit taxation or the supposed enforcement of moral principles.

In fact, the Constitution has nothing to do with enforcement of moral principles. That is just something you seem to be projecting on it due to later amendments---which were not intended to enforce moral principles, except they be enforced on the tyranny created by the document itself.

The Declaration can be said to contain moral principles, but that is not the same thing as the Constitution.

Perhaps it could be said that Jefferson supported limited government, but only if it was limited to not collect taxes by force. The Constitution has this as its only real aim and, thereby, fails Jefferson's notion of adequate limitation.

Anyway, I've answered your first question. This is why Jefferson was called an anarchist at the time. This is why I think he can be called an anarchist now. Of course, he was a rational anarchist and with the system in place became something of a tyrant as president under it. We may never know how Ron Paul would have done. Better I'll guess. And there's still 2016. :)

Your suggestion that moral principles led to the abolition of slavery, the evil of voting and such things is somewhat laughable. Slavery is not over. The evil of voting to feel like a master in the system of slavery (for women or anyone else) is not moral. The Civil Rights movement was mostly a movement. (It might as well be flushed.)

I had already given you one

I had already given you one example of anarchism working, how many do you require? However, you should know that whatever number you should suggest, I may also ask in return for you to show me that same number of instances where government has worked. As far as I can tell, my one instance of anarchism working is a greater number than you can ever show of government working.

"For 99.8 percent of human

"For 99.8 percent of human history people lived exclusively in autonomous bands and villages. At the beginning of the Paleolithic [i.e. the stone age], the number of these autonomous political units must have been small, but by 1000 B.C. it had increased to some 600,000. Then supra-village aggregation began in earnest, and in barely three millennia the autonomous political units of the world dropped from 600,000 to 157. In the light of this trend, the continued decrease from 157 to 1 seems not only inescapable but close at hand"
~ Anthropologist Robert L. Carneiro
~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_society

Humans have been around for a long time. The 0.2 percent he does not refer to are humans since the Paleolithic age, Mesopotamia onward, civilization. Look what has happened in a short few thousand years - slavery, democide, homicide, war, holodomor, and genocide are all accepted human institutions. So for the rest of the 4-8 million years humans were...wait for it....anarchists. I think that is a pretty good record for anarchy.

According to Gwen Dyer, anthropologist and historian humans lived in relative egalitarian small bands in prehistoric times. All the adults would basically have pow wows around campfires to decide what to do next. They would sit there for days until everyone was convinced. Civilization has been really ugly for humans according to Gwen.

It would be hard to compare or imagine what it would actually look like now that we have so much knowledge at our fingertips. But it would have to be really beautiful in my mind. But utopia is not why I am an anarchist. I do not believe in force. Easy peasy.

I've read all the comments and....

while I support the idealized vision of the anarchist's, i.e., a world where law enforcement by government is virtually obsolete because people are educated to voluntarily make moral choices, there is not one comment that offers practical solutions to get from the current immoral, chaotic state of the world to a world so voluntarily moral, we no longer need government.

On the contrary, the general consensus among anarchists is that it's hopeless to even try restore a legitimate representative gov't, so we should all sit back and wait for the global system to collapse and start over. But of course, that's exactly what the tyrants they claim to oppose want us to do. Why? The crony CRAPitalist cockroaches who control the corrupt system are prepared for a global systemic collapse, at which point, they will control a fragmented neo-fuedalistic totalitarian nightmare. I've spent a lot of time conversing with anarchists over the years and the plan of INACTION espoused here is a common thread. So I've concluded that the anarchist movement is a front for the very tyrants they claim to oppose.

http://www.standupforyourrights.me

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

trust me

The puppet masters do not want a collapse. That would destroy much of what they have been working towards, which is a power structure they can control. Decentralization is good for liberty.

Also, anarchists are not in favor of INACTION. Rather, anarchists are opposed to POLITICAL ACTION. There is plenty of VOLUNTARY ACTION that we support: building local communities, educating others about the moral superiority of liberty, researching market-based police services and private law, growing healthy food and sharing it with your friends, promoting technologies that weaken the state (BitCoin, 3D printers, DYI drones, BitTorrent, off-grid power, etc.), and so on and so forth!

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus

Ron Paul is a Voluntarist.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

not so fast...

"I meant a market operating in a stateless society, a.k.a. anarchy. In an anarchist society, there are no unalienable rights because there's no agreement on what those rights would be, and no mechanism to protect rights."

why is there no agreement?
are you saying that you couldn't agree, to not take someone else's stuff without asking them permission, without "the state"? and why do weapons and self defense magically disappear with "the state"?

what is "the state"? a border?
anarchy means "without rulers". that is all it means, it doesn't mean "Without representative consentual government". what is a "ruler"? look that up. it is someone who subjects other people to their authority through force and RULES over them. well i, for one, am all for a world "without rulers".

also... the taxation of people's income, property and "estate" is theft. taking money from someone without their consent is, in fact, a literal definition of theft. like it or not... it is the truth.

sales taxes, however, can be avoided by not buying the items that cost too much...

Free the Market and Legalize Liberty.

I use Blue Wave, but don't expect one of THEIR silly taglines.

In an anarchist society there is agreement...

until there is no agreement. In other words, rules, rights, codes of behavior are all subjective and dependent upon each individuals interpetation. And even if a few individuals agree on some basic rights, there is no mechanism to protect or enforce rights. Everyone is free to make up their own rules whenever they want to. There is no such thing as standard contract because standardization is antithetical to anarchism. None of these things would be a problem in a perfect world, but take a look around, we've got a ways to go before we achieve perfection.

And you say anarchy "doesn't mean without representative consensual government". So you're saying a stateless society has a government, but it's different because it's consensual? The Declaration of Independence says the just powers of government are "derived from the consent of the governed". Sounds a lot like what you're describing but the Declaration is not describing a stateless society.

And regarding no rulers. Do parents who are anarchists allow their children to eat what they want, when they want, not do school work, fight with siblings, etc., or do they make rules and enforce them, like a ruler?

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

you will never "get it", friend.

"And regarding no rulers. Do parents who are anarchists allow their children to eat what they want, when they want, not do school work, fight with siblings, etc., or do they make rules and enforce them, like a ruler?"

so the government is now my parent? they are my blood\genes and know me completely? LOL... "parenting" is your reason why we need "Government"? you are serious aren't you? LOL

do adults need "parented" too?... so noone is ever an "adult"? meaning they need no parenting... what about the people who do the parenting? (the elite) how do they get to not have parents above them? it's foolish... the game you play. parenting has nothing to do with government and therein lies your problem.

I use Blue Wave, but don't expect one of THEIR silly taglines.

Some parents...

Some parents *do* allow their children to *not* do school work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwIyy1Fi-4Q

And in my opinion, the outcome can be quite beautiful

You're splitting hairs

I think parents who don't make their children do school work, and whose children turn out beautiful, are still educating their kids and enforcing rules that require their kids to participate in the educational process.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

Nope.

I am not splitting hairs. Please, please watch the video and listen carefully. She does not realize it, but she is presenting the most cutting edge thought there is on politics and the state. Just listen and translate what she says into the context of your question. Your answer is there.

Listen around 28 minutes:

But I confess there was a certain pleasure. I found a certain pleasure in *handing over my agency.* In shifting from the ambiguity of un-schooling (read self-government) where there are no clear metrics for success to the authoritarian structure of school where I knew that I was doing well *by the system's own strange logic.*

Parenthetical translation and emphasis mine. I can't do better for you than this, my friend. You just need ears to hear.

Great comment, but...

sales taxes are also theft.

If a friend decides to sell you a ham sandwich for $4.00, do I have the right to arbitrarily intervene and demand that you owe me 10% of the cost of the sandwich, and threaten the use of force if you do not pay me?

If I did this wouldn't I be committing theft?

If I am wearing a shiny badge, do I magically gain the right to do this?

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

It's important to distinguish between....

a legitimate representative government whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed and an illegitimate gov't that engages in the arbitrary use of force. In many cases, there is no clear line but at some point oppression becomes obvious. There has always been tension between those governing and those governed, and striking the right balance is never easy. That's why we say freedom isn't free.

The key is to have an informed and engaged electorate who can hold leaders to account. The public airwaves, by law, must be used to serve the public interest. But currently, they're used to defraud the public. Citizens should organize and document what they consider fraudulent use of the airwaves, then petition the FCC to revoke the broadcast licenses of offenders. Taking back our airwaves would go a long way towards creating an informed engaged electorate.

http://www.standupforyourrights.me

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

I dont think you understand.

I dont think you understand. No government can be legitimate. Not everyone votes, not everyone has access to voting, some are too busy and some just do not care. Are you saying we need a government to force people to care about how others are living and to tell people how to live. The alien and sedition acts were years after the Bill of Rights... go find a different subject to attack. Anarchist seem to be exceptionally smart economist and philosophers. All principles overlap and make a web that can not be broken. In fact, that is what libertarianism is. You are simply a socialist. Yes. Any government is socialism

Citizens should organize and

Citizens should organize and document what they consider fraudulent use of the airwaves, then petition the FCC to revoke the broadcast licenses of offenders. Taking back our airwaves would go a long way towards creating an informed engaged electorate.

In your estimation, at what point in the FCC rationing out the privileged use of public airwaves did the so called "govt" go from being "legitimate representative government whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed" to "illegitimate gov't that engages in the arbitrary use of force"?

Asked another way, in a free society, why did the airwaves need to be regulated by the FCC?

It doesn't matter...

If you steal it yourself or you vote for someone to steal it for you.

It is still theft.

If you take something from me without my consent you are stealing.

If you don't have the right to steal from me, how can you give that right to someone else to do it for you?

Please attempt to answer my question this time, instead of posting another long winded deflection.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

Bad example

The sale of a sandwich to a friend is not taxable......
Neither sales tax nor income tax apply to this.

Sales tax is collected by the business, the consumer is not penalized if it is not charged......corporations are not people.

Now the scheme by which the government coerces the business to collect its tax, both sales and income, is a classic case of government force.

I am aware...

I also wouldn't approach someone and demand they pay me sales tax.

It's an absurd story to demonstrate the principle.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

Ron Paul is definitely a

Ron Paul is definitely a closet anarchist. He chooses his words carefully because being labeled an anarchist would be even easier for the Establishment to dismiss him. When he asks, "What should the role of govt be?" Logically, it follows that there may be no role for govt in a civil society.

I'm sure Ron Paul is familiar with The Market for Liberty, the works of Murray Rothbard, and Karl Hess.

Another good resource to one of your points: Libertarian Anticapitalism, Definitions and Distinctions

+1

"It is not incumbent on the libertarian to always proclaim his full “anarchist” position in whatever he writes; but it is incumbent upon him in no way to praise taxation or condone it; he should simply leave this perhaps glaring vacuum, and wait for the eager reader to begin to question and perhaps come to you for further enlightenment". - Murray Rothbard

This is how I was introduced to Voluntarism, I kept hearing Ron say "Taxation is Theft" and I heard him talk about the Non-Aggression Principle, and I followed these ideas to their logical conclusions.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

At one time...

Ron Paul was advocating for a carbon tax, one the worst and most controlling taxes ever devised by the global control freaks. I would say this disqualifies him as an anarchist, unless anarchism is just a front for a fascist global government, which I suspect it is.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

What a load of bullshit...

Ron Paul has never advocated a carbon tax.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

Are you sure, I've never

Are you sure, I've never heard that before. Could you produce it; or do you know that approximate year which he was saying such things, so I can look it up myself.

If in fact Ron Paul is an anarchist...

he should've been upfront and honest with people who've supported his presidential campaigns (including myself). If he has been misleading people, this illustrates a flaw in human nature that demonstrates the need for limited government and the rule of law, i.e., human beings have a tendency to not be honest and that leads to fraud and other problems.

If RP is a closet anarchist, the reason he can't be honest about his beliefs is anarchy does not resonate with the people, and I don't believe it ever will. In purely rational terms, it cannot compete with the concept of the rule of law because anyone who has raised children knows that rules need to be enforced.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

If RP is a closet anarchist,

If RP is a closet anarchist, the reason he can't be honest about his beliefs is anarchy does not resonate with the people, and I don't believe it ever will. In purely rational terms, it cannot compete with the concept of the rule of law because anyone who has raised children knows that rules need to be enforced.

Anarchists question whether a "state" is necessary to enforce rules?

http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2950885

Markets not Capitalism, Ch 10, Karl Hess:
"An anarchist, the only kind, as defined by the long tradition and literature of the position itself, is a person in opposition to authority imposed through the hierarchical power of the state. The only expansion of this that seems to me reasonable is to say that an anarchist stands in opposition to any imposed authority. An anarchist is a voluntarist. Now, beyond that, anarchists also are people and, as such, contain the billion-faceted varieties of human reference.. They spring from a single seed, no matter the flowering of their ideas. The seed is liberty. And that is all it is. It is not a socialist seed. It is not a capitalist seed. It is not a mystical seed. It is not a determinist seed. It is simply a statement. We can be free. After that it’s all choice and chance. Anarchism, liberty, does not tell you a thing about how free people will behave or what arrangements they will make. It simply says the people have the capacity to make the arrangements. Anarchism is not normative. It does not say how to be free. It says only that freedom, liberty, can exist."

Must like a lot of other things you've posted about, your understanding of "anarchy" is rather limited. To paraphrase Jeff Foxworthy... if you've every questioned the role of the state, you may be an anarchist.

Thomas Jefferson Was a Punk: Anarchism in the USA

Was Jefferson an anarchist?

People are bad...

so we need a government made of people are bad so we need a government made of people are bad so we need a government made of people...

"If he has been misleading people, this illustrates a flaw in human nature that demonstrates the need for limited government and the rule of law, i.e., human beings have a tendency to not be honest and that leads to fraud and other problems."

If Ron Paul was misleading people, it would prove we needed government?

And because "human beings have a tendency to not be honest and that leads to fraud and other problems." we need to put human beings in positions of power over other human beings?

"In purely rational terms, it cannot compete with the concept of the rule of law because anyone who has raised children knows that rules need to be enforced."

Once again, you demonstrate that you have no idea what Anarcho-capitalists actually believe.

They believe absolutely in the rule of law, the natural law, and they are against the state as a coercive monopoly provider of law and a violator of law.

They are not against law, their entire philosophy is grounded on natural law.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

It must be frustrating...

to be ancaped (disabled by anarcho delusions) because those who aren't ancaped have the ability to learn from history. We can look at human progress from barbarians to ancient Greek democracy, to the Roman Republic before the Roman Empirium, to the Enlightenment, the Magna Carta, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, and we can know that there are tried and true methods to improve the human condition. But all the ancaps have are delusions of grandeur that have little appeal.

http://www.standupforyourrights.me/?p=1047

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

You don't even grasp what Anarcho-Capitalism is...

So, I'm not very concerned about your flimsy critique.

Come back when you've read Rothbard.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

Reading about theories that...

can create a better world is great. The catch is coming up with practical ways to apply those theories, and none of the comments supporting anarchy have done that. To the contrary, most them say nothing can be done so sit back and wait for the global system to collapse, and this is just what the tyrants you claim to oppose want us to do. Hmmm? Check out this post on gun control.

http://www.standupforyourrights.me/?p=1264

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)