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




Comment viewing options

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

Oh, OK, I'll do it.

We have a little over two years for everybody to learn to write Richard McCally Grise in that little write-in box on the ballot.

Liberty is for everyone, even idiots and fools. The only rule there needs to be is "don't hurt anybody."

That's IT!

Imagine if the whole Federal Government ceased to exist overnight. How much would your life change?

Freedom is my Worship Word!

Back-up a step...

What about a government that's kept within their constitutional limits, recognizing state's rights, how much would your life change?

We're not all anarchist. Most of recognize the Founding Fathers role for government when they wrote the Constitution.

And yes, liberty is for idiots and fools, even those that don't understand the constitution.

Back-up a step ...

What government on earth has ever been constrained to constitutional limits? I am not interested in fairy tales but real world examples. History is replete with examples of failed republics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_republics

Nor is a constitution (people acting in a judicial capacity via representation) a uniquely American concept.

"Again, what the Emperor determines has the force of a statute, the people having conferred on him all their authority and power by the 'lex regia,' which was passed concerning his office and authority. Consequently, whatever the Emperor settles by rescript, or decides in his judicial capacity, or ordains by edicts, is clearly a statute: and these are what are called constitutions." -Institutes of Justinian, Title II, Section 6.

Also, where does the notion "Founding Fathers" wrote the Constitution come from? Who are the "Founding Fathers" exactly?

Of the following list which documents did Thomas Jefferson, who is often quoted as a founding father on DP, contribute to?

Declaration of Independence
Articles of Confederation
Constitution

How many individuals contributed to the Declaration of Independence?
How many individuals contributed to the Articles of Confederation?
How many contributors to the Declaration of Independence and Articles of Confederation contributed to the Constitution?
How many individuals who neither contributed to the Declaration of Independence or Articles of Confederation contributed to the Constitution?
How many individuals contributed to the Constitution in total?

Which document listed below established the first American government in America?

Declaration of Independence
Peace Treaty of Paris
Articles of Confederation
Constitution
Other: ____________________

"What government on earth has ever been constrained...

to constitutional limits?"

Well, if it involved humans, probably none, but you have to have a compass to follow, otherwise, we'll just all form gangs and the biggest guns with the least heart wins. That's not a good alternative.

As far as who wrote the constitution? Yeah, Thomas Jefferson, but others that represented states signed-on to it. They were our Founding Fathers since we really didn't have a solid, unified government and all wanted to break-free from King George.

What's your point exactly?

RE: "otherwise, we'll just all form gangs and the biggest guns

with the least heart wins."

Isn't that already the case?

World Map

"What's your point exactly?"

One of my points is the whole "Founding Father" thing is conflated. Some who proselytize the Constitution like to use the phrase "Founding Fathers" to make some conflated point when the reality is the revolutionaries of 1776 did not necessarily have a lot or anything at all to do with the Constitution of 1789 because the founding fathers established a Confederation of States and a federal system of congressional requisition and voluntary state compliance enforced by reason. That is why I posed the numbers questions ... let us get into the nitty gritty of who contributed to what among all these "Founding Fathers."

I think some like to associate the term "Founding Fathers" with the Constitution because they would like to erase the 13 years from 1776 to 1789 from American history. They are uncomfortable with the fact the founding fathers established a more voluntary federal system and the Constitution represents one of the greatest consolidations of federal power in American history.

It becomes even more ironic when individuals who proselytize the Constitution advocate something like state nullification which was built right into the system of confederation. Which is it? Do people want a strong central government with power to coerce and compel or voluntary compliance of states? If you say well ... the federal government ought to compel or coerce states some of the time ... what are those times? If it is ok for the federal government to compel or coerce some of the time then what is all this non-sense about nullification or succession?

Succession and nullification becomes even more absurd when one considers the theory behind how the Constitution supplanted the Articles of Confederation to begin with. If the only object of the Articles of Confederation was states, the objects of the Constitution are states and individuals, and "We The People" over ruled the agreement of states (ie. AoC) by popular conventions because "We The People" are ultimately sovereign ... what authority does any state have to over rule people using nullification or succession? It seems to me if the Constitution was ordained by people in popular conventions and only ratified by states ... a state can only logically ratify nullification or succession.

As I said, it seems some people would prefer to simply erase 13 years of American history than eliminating any of their own hypocrisy. People like to praise Ron Paul for his predictions ... what about the predictions of Anti-Federalists? Do any of the threats argued or fear mongered to adopt the Constitution exist today? Are there hostile tribes of Indians on the western plains that need conquered? Is there a Spanish threat to the south in Florida? Is there a lingering British threat in Canada? Does there exist some problem with states issuing their own currencies now that there is a central bank and Federal Reserve system? Are there any naturalization inconsistency problems now that a strong central government has centralized and asserts all authority for rules of naturalization? Now that a strong central government has unlimited power to tax have all of the problems running government deficits been permanently solved? Has a strong central government with power to make commerce uniform not insured any non-GMO farm contaminated with GMO seed is liable for the trespass, raw milk is equally banned in all states, or that no one in any state is competent to prescribe their own medicine? Etc.

Finally ... WTF:

"As far as who wrote the constitution? Yeah, Thomas Jefferson ..."

http://www.cato.org/blog/jefferson-was-great-man-he-didnt-wr...

We believe that political parties and blind loyalty to them...

...has ruined our country.

George Washington warned us about political parties.

They should go away forever.

Candidates should run on their own individual merits and ideals. But NO affiliation with any party.

Consider what political parties have done around the rest of the world: Communist Party, Nazi Party, Socialist Party etc...

We need to get back to seeing people as INDIVIDUALS - Not associated with any party, group, ethnicity, religion, gender, tribe, club or any other enemy of individual sovereignty.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

system-wide complete independent audit of all government

. . . day one of a Ventura 2016 presidency : top-to-bottom house-cleaning via truly independent audit backed by oathkeepers

• abolish secret budgets
• abolish secret law
• the Manhatten Project of accounting
• open results in real time

Linda Cross's picture

It's why I like it here

People I AGREE with. Tx

If you see something, say something, the government is listening.
Silence isn't golden, it's yellow.

Just a little to add

Thank you for pointing out the good things . I tend to get a little negative now and then
Thank you BILL 3

contradiction

You said we all believe in voluntary interaction with others economically.

You also said we all believe in the Constitution as the law of the land, which says "Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes," i.e., a few psychopaths claim the power to steal from us.

One of those obviously has to go.

Hint: The spirit of the Constitution is not the bill of rights, which was added much later to get enough people to support it. The spirit of the constitution is the ligitimization of taxation. The spirit of the Constitution is the repudiation of the Declaration of Independence.

Contract has no meaning

Contract has no meaning without a third party enforcer not bound or biased to either party. A two party contract enforced by the two parties would be called a Treaty. Either side could break it depending on the balance of power.

A contract rests on the ability of a third party to physically enforce its terms on either of the two contracting parties. A publicly funded referee is the most common form of third party contract enforcer. It is not without it's flaws, as any enforcement arrangement would be. We could argue about why this is the most common type, but that it is at present is a fact.

The legitimacy of the contract enforcer does not depend on the consent of every living member in the jurisdiction of the contract enforcer. If it did, that would mean children coming of age in a territory would not be subject to the enforcement of its laws, since they were not original contracting parties. Taking such a principle seriously would dissolve every legal order, including ones which were 100% voluntary when founded.

Nature always sticks her ugly head in these kinds of utopian schemes with inconveniences like the existence of children.

Master Pretzel Twister
https://twitter.com/MenckensGhost

We agree on all this! BRAVO! As Ben Franklin quipped

at the signing of the Declaration of Independence:

"We must all hang together, or most assuredly, we will all hang separately!"

But that man should play the tyrant over God, and find Him a better man than himself, is astonishing drama indeed!~~D. Sayers
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

www.dailypaul.com/280083/jesus-christ-vic

Nice Manifesto!

Bravo BILL3! My compliments to the chef!

Ed Rombach

great post, BILL3

This may be the best thing you have written on the Daily Paul.

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

Thanks!

Thanks!

Master Pretzel Twister
https://twitter.com/MenckensGhost

.

Does hostility unify?

Good Job Bill,

and quite eloquent, to boot. Quite surprising, really as I always had you pegged as a shallow, obnoxious jerk. My bad. I will have to quit jumping to unwarranted conclusions.

One correction, which I think people touched on below. We all support the Constitution as an absolute upper limit on federal government power, however, many of us, myself included, could see a much lower amount of government power as desirable.

Way to go, BILL3!

I appreciate and applaud the length you went to to write this post!

Well thought through.

While there were some errors in verbiage, I will, out of respect for the whole of what you said, forbear to point them out.

I hope you don't mind that I copied and pasted those agreements so I can compare them with points I have made in articles I have written in other venues to see if I left anything out.

Thank you!

Freedom is the ability to do what you want to do.
Liberty is the ability to do what you ought to do.
"Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." 2 Corinthians 3:17

I don't mind. Thanks for not

I don't mind. Thanks for not pointing out my errors!

Master Pretzel Twister
https://twitter.com/MenckensGhost

You've describe what I've always believed to be...

the Libertarian philosophy.

Where I have a hard time is how some people on this site believe it's a new Republican philosophy.

Yes, Ron Paul basically introduced it within the Republican party but it's not changed.

The conundrum is how do we get back to the roots of our constitution as divided as we are on, not what we believe, rather the best way to move it forward (back).

For some, it's convert the Republican party, others believe a better path is to grow the Libertarian party, some want it done in one fell swoop, no compromise, others believe it can only happen incrementally, some want it all but refuse to contribute anything, other than their opinion.

Oh well, I guess time will tell.

This is the American Philosophy

and it is the Law...

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

Not sure what you mean by your comment.

sorry

Not surprising

This philosophy is not limited 'Libertarian'.

Just another political label for TPTB to divide us into the biased groups we put ourselves into.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

So you would vote for a Libertarian that supports those...

principles over a Republican that doesn't? You're one of the few. Many of the newly converted won't.

I don't vote

I won't legitimize a voting system or 'representative' system that is not legitimate and does not re-present what has been presented.

I have already taken the revolution to the courts. I want these tyrannical bastards in prison or given the death penalty. I let them enter my life and make their fraudulent claims and then challenge their jurisdiction in ways that they can't handle and ways where they give me a valid cause of action to seek justice and remedy for their crimes against me. I then use their obstructions of justice to conduct wider scale criminal investigations that are targeted for Grand Jury indictments for every criminal in government I identify. I have a process that is proving to be very effective. Not only am I winning in all 'cases' they bring against me but I have been able to collect mountains of criminal evidence against whole swaths of criminals inside the courts and law enforcement.

Voting is less than useless. Isn't that obvious at this point?

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

That's great. Have you started a website that documents...

cases you've won against the government?

You could help a lot of people if you would be kind enough to share what court cases you've taken to the government and how you won them.

I agree that voting may be useless when voting for president and many senate seats. There's a good chance it's all rigged but on the state and local level, I doubt it.

Marijuana wouldn't be legal in some states if people hadn't vote.

The cases I have won

are cases they brought against me. They have been obstructing justice for the charges I have been bringing against them. Once I have obtained absolute proof of the crimes they have committed I have then attempted numerous arrests inside the courts only to document obstructions of justice by those criminal men. I also have documented numerous obstructions by them when I try to bring the evidence to a Grand Jury. Their obstructions were expected and has already been accounted for in a much larger plan I have for bringing justice. They don't realize that their obstructions only plays deeper into my hand for long term.

These criminal investigations and evidence collection are on-going so no I do not have the info posted on a website.

See these posts to understand what the longer term goal is here:
http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/3298434
http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/3298454

This should put things into a better perspective and why I am strategically holding back here at this time. I just want people to be aware that there are much better ways to uphold the law than just politics although these tools will eventually be great for the political process as well.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

I hope you're successful...

and keep us posted.

Thanks.

Ron Paul has set the example for us.

Look how long he travailed for liberty without any recognition! He didn't quit at any point in the last 30 YEARS. We've been at it, what - four years? And we want to throw in the towel???

The character of Ron Paul must be duplicated, replicated, copied, emulated and instilled in ourselves and others.

Remember, "an idea whose time has come cannot be stopped" unless the people QUIT.

Freedom is the ability to do what you want to do.
Liberty is the ability to do what you ought to do.
"Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." 2 Corinthians 3:17

I never suggested we throw in the towel...

but if we don't get on the same page with a smart strategy on how to move forward, in affect, we're dropping the towel.