-30 votes

What are the factions at the Daily Paul? Can you name them?

Some of the difficulty with getting a consensus on a site such as this one lies in the major differences between the various factions that call the DP their home.

Can you name them?

For instance:

Some believe the only way toward peace is to brutally dominate. Others believe having understanding and respect for what belongs to someone else fosters peace.

Some think what they've been told to believe in the name of religion is the highest authority. "God told me to kill the enemies of my leaders without question." Others recognize this has been exploited throughout history for reasons of plunder and conquest.

Some believe in a god that hovers exclusively over one country. Others believe infinity cannot be contained.

Some believe unquestionably what they see on TV. Others question everything, no matter the source.

Some are willing to send their children to die in wars to spread "democracy" while others recognize we were warned by our founding fathers of the dangers to a republic from democracy, or "tyranny of the majority."

Some lack the strength to consider they may have been duped by powerful people they trust, because this possibility is just too painful to consider. Others have more of a stomach for it and want the truth no matter how many sacred idols must be thrown in the fire.

Some believe a certain Country That Cannot Be Named is the only place on earth that God Has Chosen, and the rest of the world is damned to eternal hellfire. Others suspect a hidden motive to this "religious" meme.

Some feel the Daily Paul cannot be corrupted or neutralized, while others are more savvy to the games of destroying a particular freedom community through colored revolution tactics.

Some believe personal property rights and the keeping of the fruits of one's own labor is a fallacy, to be surrendered to the state on demand. Others see this as theft by force.

Some believe the way to safety is to surrender all liberty to a protecting state. Others recognize this as the world's oldest struggle against economic slavery.

Some in the DP like to lay blame on one party (Obama, the Fed, Zionists, neocons, bankers, Satan) while others hold all psychopaths and sociopaths equally responsible.

Democratic party = Use force to redistribute the wealth of others.
Republican party = Make war to keep the economy going.
Libertarian party = Pressure valve to harmlessly bleed off America's discontent.
Anarchists = Remove all obstacles to warlords and armed gangs taking over.

Problem is, we've got all these groups under the same tent sometimes. You see many of these present at the DP. Originally, the glue that held all this together was support of Ron Paul as a candidate. That's long gone, and his name is no longer featured on the masthead. Because we no longer have a steady, common touchstone, we drift apart, to be left to attacking each other according to the above differences.

Without a common war cry, I wonder where this is going.

Did I miss any DP factions that deserve recognition?

Please remember to speak with respect while discussing our differences.

While we're at it, let's have fun to see what this diverse group might actually agree on. What would you say on the DP if you just wanted upvotes?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Michael Nystrom's picture

Don't forget the Merry Pranksters

They know who they are. And they are the ones who are sustaining me at this point.

Darn those merry pranksters...

always up to their tricks.

9-11 was a panda job.

Yo

How did you get the power to turn a whole thread sarcastic?

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

I'm not allowed to say.

I took a solemn oath.

9-11 was a panda job.

Dude.

Your purpleness is making me purple.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

Ah, yes ... the good 'ol days of carry-over formatting :-)

Somebody really should turn the purple off on this node ... I'm feeling a bit lazy myself.

=]

lol =]

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

Woof

The Diamond Dog is a real cool cat. | Reporting on the world from an altitude of 420.

I guess there are three kinds of people in this world...

Those who can count and those who can't.

9-11 was a panda job.

Factions? We don't need no stinking factions!

I only see two factions:

1) those who label others

and ...

2) others

Labels divide us.

Ha ha that's lol funny!

those who label others, and others.

HA!

9-11 was a panda job.

Logical vs 9/11 "Truthers"

The only two worthy of note, in my not-so-humble opinion, are the people who think logically and those who believe in the 9/11 conspiracy garbage. The logic group doesn't always come to the same answer but they are using their brains and I appreciate that.

To name a few...

Pro-Randers & Anti-Randers

Anarcho-Capitalists & Minarchists

Conspiracy Theorists & Skeptics

Purists & Pragmatists

Activists & Quietists

(L)ibertarians, Independents, & Republicans

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

I'm my own faction

I was born a Bamobo, and I shall die a Bamobo. Yet the Bamobo name shall live on in the hearts and cheeto dusted neckbeards of internet freedom fighters throughout the multiverse.

What is a Bamobo? It is you, it is I, it simply...'is'.

...Or a nonsensical anagram of my last username, but nevermind that.

A signature used to be here!

There's the Greasers, the shankers, the anti-antifederalists,

the goofballs, the Randers, the hempers, the anti-unionists, the anti-onionists, and the dinks.

9-11 was a panda job.

LOL

The anti-antifederalists?

Help build the world's best encyclopedia of Liberty - the RonPaulWikiProject
-
“The final test of a leader is that he leaves behind him in other men the conviction and will to carry on.”
-- Walter Lippmann

Oops - forgot to mention the tweekers, the burnouts, & the studs

Sorry stud. :)

9-11 was a panda job.

SteveMT's picture

The "common touchstone" is not Ron Paul, it's the Constitution.

The more all of these different groups overlap with it the better. The Liberty tent is large, and it can hold all of them. If they put their various agendas aside and focused on the Constitution, they would realize that most of their concerns have already been addressed.

What's interesting

is that we didn't originally flock to a constitution forum, but to a Ron Paul forum.

Maybe we were more comfortable having a scholar to explain the constitution from his experience, than coming here and battling out what it means to each of us.

We also wanted him to be president, and solve all our problems by himself.

There's probably a good liberty lesson in there somewhere.

We gathered around this amazing magnifying glass, and not the document it was hovering over.

Still, I agree it was the document and the meaning behind it that provides our common ground.

Help build the world's best encyclopedia of Liberty - the RonPaulWikiProject
-
“The final test of a leader is that he leaves behind him in other men the conviction and will to carry on.”
-- Walter Lippmann

We all agree we have a problem in DC

We don't need a war cry.

When you start a topic like this I wish you would make clear your intent. Honestly this seems a bit divisive.

We are all on the freedom train.

Some of us would like to ride to the end.

Some would like to get off if we can just restore the Constitution.

Some of us don't even want to ride to the Constitution, they want to get back to the Constitution, except for the social programs already in place, like social security, because despite being un-Consitutional, people depended on them their whole lives.

Some of us are on the train because their religious principles demand people be free as they can be. Perhaps because liberty is good per se, or because people need to be free to choose to be saved.

Some of us are on the train because we think liberty itself is the moral principle to aspire to.

I see nothing wrong with any of those motivations.

I think we can all share the train for so long as we wish to ride it. For example I don't personally believe something like social security is moral, but I do see the argument. I don't think anyone is evil for thinking they paid in and should get paid in return. I think the system is evil, but not the people suckered into it.

But if you are on the train because you love any race or religion more than all the others or hate any or race or religion more than all the others and think liberty is an ally of convenience.. you are definitely on the wrong train.

In my opinion we don't need racists or any other sort of collectivist who separates people on the basis of groups, and should have no truck with them.

I believe before we can unite

we must acknowledge and learn to respect our differences.

Without doing that, we'll spend so much wasted energy stepping on landmines within our own group.

From the initial replies, it seems the good sentiment is here, to band together despite the contrary beliefs. But it also shows how many landmines are laying about if we're not careful. I think we need to be more careful, while still dealing with necessary discussions, not to let the fractures develop into chasms.

I'm also wondering how some groups have velcroed themselves to our backside? Why is our philosophy often described as libertarianism/anarchism? Since when does a group that wants to destroy and prevent any form of government become an ally to those seeking smaller and constitutionally limited government?

Some detailed assessment of the camels within our tent would be in order before expecting any real progress.

That was more my intent.

Help build the world's best encyclopedia of Liberty - the RonPaulWikiProject
-
“The final test of a leader is that he leaves behind him in other men the conviction and will to carry on.”
-- Walter Lippmann

I agree understanding is

I agree understanding is needed.

I just see sooo many you can't be a true libertarian unless you're Consitutionalist,minarchist,anarchist,etc.

Or true libertarians are only motivated by their belief in God, or true libertarians believe in freedom, not God, etc.

I don't think it's helpful.

I certainly don't mind engaging in debate. But I don't much want to do it with liberty folk unless they understand while I may disagree, I do respect their opinion and their person.

Now some statist like the 3$BILL's I have no problem btich slapping

Ron Paul is the only politician I've ever trusted.

Just to see if we all agree, I'd like to say,

"Ron Paul is one of the greatest statesmen who's ever lived, and I support him wholeheartedly!"

I wish there were many more of his calibre.

Help build the world's best encyclopedia of Liberty - the RonPaulWikiProject
-
“The final test of a leader is that he leaves behind him in other men the conviction and will to carry on.”
-- Walter Lippmann

I find it interesting

that this topic gets some attention (not just on this post) yet the clear solution never gets any.

Despite those who advocate for more division, many promote a unified front to tackle our common foes. Obviously, that would require finding a common ground to unify around. In the past, my posts that attempted to identify a single common problem and present a solution that stepped on no toes got very little attention. In fact, they mostly got more debate on how to classify those sects that were specifically avoided.

I'm thinking that the problem isn't that common problem (unsound monetary debt). I'm thinking it's that not enough people can stay focused on trying to solve it.

I too, would like to assess the problem,

make an inventory of our assets, friends and opponents, and work toward at least one well chosen solution.

Help build the world's best encyclopedia of Liberty - the RonPaulWikiProject
-
“The final test of a leader is that he leaves behind him in other men the conviction and will to carry on.”
-- Walter Lippmann

Evidently, together we make two

I've focused over 5 years worth of posts on potential solutions with maybe 5-10% off that topic, yet I still can't get even the smallest actions to motivate.

There are only two primary flavors

of RP supporters:

1. Those who have indicated a preference to live in a society where the non-aggression principle ought to be extended and applied as consistently as possible always leaning towards voluntaryism or consent when application of the NAP is controversial.

2. Those who have indicated something ought to be overtly excluded from the non-aggression principle such as maintaining a common defense fence, community protection racket, or the administration of injustice aka. just-us.

Also

There are different types of Anarchism as well. Not just one philosophy. Just like Democrats have progressives, communists and socialists, and how republicans have conservatives, neo-cons or fascists.

I haven't seen many communists here, but I have seen the rest of those once or twice. From what I can tell lately it's mostly just been the usual conservative/neo-con and voluntaryist/agorist crowd.

I'd like to know more about the types of anarchists

Can you elaborate?

Help build the world's best encyclopedia of Liberty - the RonPaulWikiProject
-
“The final test of a leader is that he leaves behind him in other men the conviction and will to carry on.”
-- Walter Lippmann

Well, you have your two main

Well, you have your two main groups in either an individualist anarchism or a social anarchism. From the social branch you have anarcho-collectivism, anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism or libertarian socialism. From the individualist branch you have your anarcho-capitalism, voluntaryism, private property anarchism or right-anarchist.

Agorism is basically the philosophy of anarcho-capitalism in action, like a person that doesn't vote, pay taxes or only deals in/with black markets and uses or promotes counter-economics.

Oh and can't forget anarcho-pacifism and christian anarchism lol... Pretty self explanatory there.