75 votes

What We All Believe In

Since the end of the campaign and Ron Paul's exit from politics, it has become apparent that there are many things that we who supported him disagree on. Without Ron Paul center stage to galvanize us and turn our focus outward, to achieve the goals we all share in common, it has been easy and tempting to focus on our differences.

Our focus has become so inverted that we spend at least as much time honing and sharpening our disagreements as we do in unified efforts to shape the outside dialog in the direction we want. The worm of dissolution has burrowed in, and gnawed indeed, almost to the point that we overlook and forget the fundamentals we agree upon.

However few in number, they are powerful and central to how we relate to the outside world and engage with society.

We all agree on the primacy of the constitution as the law of the land, and the bill of rights as the spirit of that law, higher than all regulations, statutes, rulings, Acts, signing statements, executive orders, or pronouncements from on high of the cultural commissars in government, media and academia. They may be the high priests of our present political order, but we are the John Wycliffe's and Guy Fawkes' waging guerrilla warfare under their noses.

We all agree on the legitimacy of civil disobedience and non violent resistance to redress the deep moral and conscience grievances we have which cannot be immediately resolves through law or the vote.

We all agree on the sanctity of freedom of speech from legal abridgement, and we interpret this to mean the freedom to hold and express any and all beliefs without compromise, without legal obstruction, no matter the content, bar nothing.

We agree on the complete freedom of association, assembly, and voluntary interaction with others in every capacity. Economically, politically, socially, contractually.

We agree on the the principle that the conscience of the individual to form and follow beliefs is paramount, and trumps any social agenda, political agenda, or attempt to "form men's minds" in any direction whatsoever with the apparatus of state control, public education and propaganda, interference with the media, intimidation of intellectuals, political figures, churches, private organizations, media organs, blogs, published materials, books etc.

This extends to home schoolers and opt-outers of all stripes: the principle of secession holds all the way down to the smallest dissenting body, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others or the internal legal ordering of other communities.

We believe that the state should have no role whatsoever, even marginally, in trying to shape the direction of thought and belief in the citizens, but that this is reserved to the private, civic society and its free institutions, acting in pursuit of their happiness and freely following their consciences.

We believe in the full freedom of the internet as an inseparable part of the constitutional freedom of speech and the press and assembly, not subject to any control or legal abridgement, or snooping, tracking, and record keeping, and we extend the principle to all future possible technical iterations of media and speech, no matter what they may be, under that constitutional protection.

We believe the right of privacy as outlined in the constitution is binding on all law and holds regardless of the circumstances, whether war, hysteria, bird flu, Zombie apocalypse, global warming, divine retribution, or an invasion of Nazis from space. We will deal with those problems when we come to them, as free adults, through the constitutional and legal channels we received from our forebears, and which are the law. The letter of the law is clear, the spirit even clearer, and the words mean that no person, property, paper, effect, is to be violated except with the due process of law.

We oppose all torture, regardless of the circumstances, without exception.

We believe that war is always the last resort and should be resorted to only rarely, when there is an immediate threat to the liberty of our own citizens by a clearly defined enemy, and subject to all the constitutional requirements of declaration and definition. Many of us would go further and place a higher restriction on the ability to wage war, even if we need pass an amendment.

We oppose the practice of killing or harming of civilians even in a justly fought and legally declared war, and hold to the traditional rules of respect for the person and property of noncombatants, and do not make exceptions in the case of "terrorists."

We oppose all indefinite detention of Americans or non Americans, unless convicted of an actual crime through the normal criminal courts, with full constitutional rights to the detained.

Military combat, with or without uniforms, does not constitute a crime, and captured combatants should not be treated as criminals but as prisoners of war, and released to their home country unless they belong to the opposing force in a legally declared war with a specific state and with a definite END and goal that anyone can understand without interpreters.

We oppose all state espionage on American citizens of any kind, except within the strictures of legally court ordered wiretapping and subject to public oversight and Freedom of Information Act.

We call for the public discussion, repeal and replacement of all post Second World War acts concerning war, police actions, and state espionage internally and abroad, along with a public oversight and opening of all the internal records and books of all intelligence agencies, both both official snoops and black ops spooks.

We believe in subjecting the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department to complete transparency, without delay, including full external audits under the oversight of Congress and by a delegated third party, including all internal records and minutes of any kind; a full examination and investigation of their relationships with private financial institutions, a full review and public discussion of the appropriate role, if any, of the Fed over the monetary policy of the United States, its currency, banking industry, money supply, public debt market, and federal budget.

With due consideration of market stability and the necessity of a smooth transition, we believe in the reassertion of the legitimate public powers of Congress and the people over the financial and monetary actions of the government and any of its agencies, whether executive or "independent."

We believe philosophically in the preference and superiority of private and market solutions to the vast majority of problems and concerns that come before the bar of public consideration, including the provision of aid to the needy, here and abroad; of education, medicine, and the management and provision of most public services.

We believe in the preference and superiority of local and subsidiary bodies over centralized bureaucracies, federal initiatives, laws, regulations; the right of the smallest political body in making decisions of a mandatory nature, to best reflect the needs and wishes of the citizen; the principle of allowing a diversity of institutions and conditions to prevail throughout the country, within the bounds of constitutionality, and hold the principle of "vote with your feet" as the best, first resort for redressing and resolving disagreements, disputes and discord over particular local decisions on all issues.

I am surprised about how many things, both practical and philosophical, we genuinely all agree on, and could go on for many more, but I'll stop here for brevity's sake, although I'm afraid that train left the station a few paragraphs ago.

bonne lecture

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

agreed to the 14th power and also the right

To own a gun, which I do, regardless of being a felon, which I am.

Defeat the panda-industrial complex

I am dusk icon. anagram me.



allegory - ˈalɪg(ə)ri/ - noun - 1. a story, poem, or picture which can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one.

Activism is doing, not debating. And it starts with you.

Ron Paul woke us all up to the lies of our representatives, and their illegal wars. He woke us up to the federal reserve printing counterfeit money. He woke us up about the "acts" which destroy our Constitution, and our natural rights. We all put up with it. Yet, has anyone closed their bank accounts? Stopped buying gas? stocked up on gold and silver? I have. But mostly, we can tell one person about what we know, everyday. I do mine in film, maybe you have something you can do too. If not, please share some of my stuff. It's on my youtube channel. Here is my latest, and you can also find my Ron Paul documentary on the same channel.



When did common sense become a super power? –Patrick F. Holman

thank you

You have the right spirit.
I think WE ALL (or most of us)can agree in the general direction you are trying to move the ball. Thank you for your post.

My self though. I think the time to water the tree of liberty is long over due.

"You only live free if your willing to die free."

Bush was right....the Constitution is just a piece of paper

This was a difficult thing for me to say at one point and will ruffle some feathers. I shared your current ideology at one point in my learning and have had much worse ideology when I started out on this journey.

The constitution has no legitimacy. None of us were asked if we would agree to adhere to it. There is no contractual obligation to it only feigned legitimacy through the false notion of implied consent and no forthright path to opting out.

There is no such thing as freedom in an involuntary system.

The only true, honest and legitimate vote you have is with your OWN time and effort (money).

You do not have the right to vote in someone to represent your interests which may be at odds with your neighbor and then take his money through taxation to support them. This is theft and enslavement and you can't get around it. A system of government where you get to vote how to use your fellow man's money against his will is completely illegitimate.

The only legitimate system must be completely voluntary.

This CAN be accomplished through and honest system of money and banking where your ONLY vote is with your own time and effort (money).

If a banking system were created and owned by every participating individual, shares in the system being the currency itself, a percentage of interest created by the individual could be used for public works directed by that individual on his/her own behalf. Such would be an honest system.

A system of coercion is just a method of control. The constitution is a fine read and a nice start but not the answer to what the minority of people (us) want which can be summed up in a word: freedom.

You must also consider that 'we' want (freedom) and what the majority want are two different things.

The majority does NOT want to be free. As a matter of fact they will become angry with you if you try to push freedom on them.

You have all no doubt witnessed this first hand most likely to your own astonished bewilderment.

Have you ever seen an abused animal that has been caged? What does it do when you take it out of the cage? It will want to return to the cage and will not be happy with you for taking it out.

Freedom = personal responsibility. What are you offering them? The opposition promises to take care of them with other people's money and free them from personal responsibility. You offer is for them to fend for themselves. The majority would feel like a domesticated animal turned loose in the wild. While this appeals to you and I it doesn't appeal to them at all much to our misfortune as we generally realize that freedom isn't as scary and cold as it might seem to the majority.

Is the dream of a free society unreachable? I don't think so. A new system of money that rewarded those with the most to gain and the early adopter could theoretically completely turn the world on it's ear in relatively short order. Widespread freedom could come at the expense of the most wealthy and powerful in what would be a complete redistribution of wealth and power.

There may be a similar plan in the works by those envisioning a new world order.

If the majority were offered say a half million dollars each in a bank account of new money for which they wouldn't have to earn backed by a new central authority, how many do you think would jump on board? If the vast working class supports such adoption of new money what could the minority do about it?

Food for thought.

Thank you

can you bump a comment ?

Life is a sexually transmitted disease with a 100% fatality rate.
Don't Give me Liberty, I'll get up and get it myself!

grow up, i can post at work

. oops

Ron Paul 2016

To summarize what we all believe in:

Live and Let Live.


that's my name.


...we all believe in you ;-D !!!

If my need to be RIGHT is greater than my desire for TRUTH, then I will not recognize it when it arrives ~ Libertybelle

Please continue

That is great and well spoken except for that typo in paragraph 19. Please continue. I think you should number them. If you have more put them down and I will use this for liberty evangelism.

That said, I don't disagree with abolishing the fed and getting rid of the Constitution for something better.

Thank You.

On key and very well written

proverbs 20:15
There is gold, and an abundance of jewels;
But the lips of knowledge are a more precious thing.

King George Responds to Daily Paul (video)


A true flower can not blossom without sunlight and a true man can not live without love.

We have great unity of understanding, we are a great people

assembled, united by common bonds and hopes for a free future. We are a seamless fabric of liberty covering this land from sea to shining....


Be brave, be brave, the Myan pilot needs no aeroplane.

That's quacktastic.

ha ha ha

well said!

Who is "we"?

Who is this "we" you are talking about... from previous conversations with you, you don't seem to get the basic principles of liberty. You scoff at anarchy as a fad... anarchy IS liberty. Don't lump us all in with you.. I am me and you are you... there is no "we"...

Your thoughts are almost laughable if they weren't so naive and horrible .. for instance "We believe in subjecting the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department to complete transparency, without delay"

No, I don't believe in that... I believe in abolishing it completely, it is a CRIMINIAL ORGANZATION.. and so is government... any government.

I don't think there is any waking up for you Bill3, you are just too indoctrinated.

hey there so there's this

hey there

so there's this concept called "at least."

so everyone here at a minimum would like the Fed reserves actions exposed to the public. deny it if you dare. say 'i dont want the Feds relationships, actions, documents open to public review.'

some have already gone further and concluded it should be abolished, others haven't. but all if asked would agree its activity should be transparent.

let me know when you've mastered the concept of a minimum, or lower bound, or 'at least' and then get back to me. you'll perhaps be ready for more advanced concepts then.

ecorob's picture

Kinda what I was thinking, happygirl.

I have argued civil liberty vis a vis the "war on drugs" of which, bill3, seems to support.

I do give the OP an "E" for effort, however. I am hopeful he will change his views on the UNfed and the war on American's pursuit of happiness.

its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!
9/11 Truth.

can you quote where i

can you quote where i supported the drug war, thnx. or don't lie, either way.

we the people, we support Rand Paul

WE works when you want to restore abundance despite claims of scarcity polluting minds of the public... anarchy works when you don't need to restore abundance. Sometimes like minds band together to achieve a we for liberty, it's about damn time if you ask me.

A true flower can not blossom without sunlight and a true man can not live without love.

The OP has a desperate need

The OP has a desperate need for consensus (collectivism) as people who believe in fallacies often do. When I point this out to the OP in thread after thread he calls me "mean." LOL

If there's a murderous monster in your house you don't try to put a leash on it and keep it in your living room, YOU GET RID OF IT!

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed


Great write-up! I can tell that took alot of time and thought.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. - Alexander Fraser Tyler

The problem here is you are

The problem here is you are still stuck on the libertarian contradiction of Constitution Worship. At the end you talk about the right to freely associate, but then you worship a document that forces me into an association with a gov I never asked for nor wanted. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

The Constitution replacing the Articles Of Confederation was the greatest centralization of power in America's history and if you haven't figured out by now that is ALWAYS a bad thing, you haven't even begun to be a libertarian. I suggest returning to step one and reading as much as you can; Rothbard, Mises, Block etc. See my sig line, even Ron Paul agrees no piece of paper can restrain gov and indeed, history shows that to ALWAYS be the case.

This should come further into focus for any libertarian once you realize what precipitated the Constitutional Convention and who financed it. Bankers had the "inconvenience" of trying to control individual currencies in individual states. So bankers did what they have always done; the caused crises in those states and had the people begging for a more centralized authority. They then financed the Constitutional Convention and then all they had to do was bide their time. They are doing the exact same thing today, except the goal is to get all the individual countries under one world gov. It's simply the bankers long term plan and any libertarian arguing in favor of it hasn't done too much critical thinking or reading.

The idea we need an entity with a monopoly on force and that somehow we are better off with it than without it is simply something people have been brainwashed to believe. The OP presents a few false dilemmas arguing for this entity with a monopoly on force because he hasn't been exposed to alternatives or worse, refuses to see them out of indoctrination and blind devotion.

Take contracts. The OP says there has to be an entity with a monopoly on force or else they are "treatise." Has the OP never heard of escrow? Of third party insurers? But who will protect you from them? Well, either you believe in free-markets or you don't. Businesses don't grow by killing or screwing their customers. These companies will be validated by 4th party rating companies who also would want to keep their reputation and validity.

Then there's the problem of funding a gov with a monopoly on force and that means TAXES. Taxes mean a gun gets put to someone's head to pay for another's great ideas. So how does any libertarian support that and if they do, how does that make them any different than the normal Dems and Repubs who want tax money for their great ideas? Hint, it doesn't. It's just a charade.

There are tens of thousands of pages of material to read and I certainly don't have time here to spell it all out. Secondly, I can't really tell you what a truly free-market would produce in terms of self-governance. That would make me omnipotent and just as self-delusional as the central planners we have today.

Again, the difference between a minarchist and an anarchist? Six months. If you really care about liberty and don't have some hidden agenda like religion or militarism, voluntarism is the only true liberty. Everything else is tyranny-lite and doomed to failure.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

0 interest in being a

0 interest in being a delegate for rand or being a republican anymore. rand did this on his own. Will be looking outside of the failed gop from now on.

Ron Paul 2016

Better start hitting the street to protest not just the keyboard

I agree with your frustration with the GOP but complaining on this site and FB will get you nowhere. Time to grow up and be a man, work with integrity and be positive with all you do. Good luck Kenny!

grow up, i can post at work

grow up?? tell that to yourself, i can post at work or when i am going to bed, . not sure your problem but i can walk, chew gum,breath,post, activism outside of fb and my home on my terms not yours. when you sleep i am working. so keep your judgements to yourself don't worry about me good luck.

rand already lost me as a delegate i do not need the gop, they can die for all i care . I will work to remove republicans from office unless they are liberty oriented and i approve of them, that is all i can do is hold the failed gop accountable on election day and get as many folks to vote against the gop est as possible.

Ron Paul 2016

+1 I was thinking about this last night

how in the world could there be a movement not to vote at all when we can still put a Paul in the white house?

This Article is a Declaration of Independence and should show that we are unified just like Jefferson showed... what a great message for 2014.

For liberty!!

Cheers to the Paul Declaration!

A true flower can not blossom without sunlight and a true man can not live without love.

Michael Nystrom's picture

Bump Bill

Sorry it took me a little while to get around to reading this, but it is awesome. Thanks.

Talk about raising the bar. Wow. Excellent.

He's the man.

Thanks Mike, much

Thanks Mike, much appreciated.