The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may contain adult language and adult concepts. If you are offended by such content, or feel you may be offended by such content, point your browser to a different site immediately. For more, read the Full Disclaimer
© 2007 - 2013 by The Daily Paul. Not paid for by, nor officially affiliated in any way with Ron Paul.
General Site Disclaimer | DMCA Disclaimer | Advertise here


Comment: Interesting videos
Interesting videos
By nature, we have needs, wants and desires that may be considered "selfish" by some. If we don't take care of ourselves, who will take care of us? Who will take care of us better than we can take care of ourselves? Will I have more in life by being lazy, collecting food stamps and other government aid, or by producing for my own benefit?
The question though, I think in all this, is whether we are allowed to "volunteer" ourselves for the benefit of others, or are we "forced" to help others? I am all for voluntarism. But, let's say I am a little greedy. I need some money. I have an idea that will put Ron Paul in the White House. But I want to be paid for my brilliant idea. I have a decision to make: do I give my idea away for free to save the collective, or do I hold out till I get compensation for my brilliance?
If I hold out for money, and yet no one agrees to pay me for my brilliant idea, and I refuse to give away for free my brilliant idea, and Ron loses the election, am I morally wrong if mankind suffers because of my selfish decision?
"I support the Declaration of Independence and I interpret the Constitution."
Replies to this comment: