(originally launched into cyberspace on 06/20/2007)Dear Subscriber,
I'm going to do what almost nobody who values freedom is doing
these days: I'm going to suggest that you should NOT vote for Ron
Paul for President.
So who should you vote for? Nobody. Voting is an immoral act. (I
warned you before that what happens on this list is way outside the
realm of "acceptable" political discussion.)
Unlike everyone else running for President right now, Ron Paul
actually believes in something. There are actual principles
underlying his beliefs. He believes in the Constitution. By itself
that doesn't sound particularly noteworthy, except that NO ONE else
running for President, and no one else in either major party
believes in the Constitution. Not one. They give it occasional lip-
service, but in practice they ALL violate it on a daily basis.
Dr. Paul believes, as the Founders did, that the federal government
should do very little, dang near NOTHING affecting the lives of
most Americans. I disagree. The feds should not do ALMOST nothing;
they should do ABSOLUTELY nothing. All the control freaks who call
themselves "representatives," not to mention all the thugs who work
for them (IRS, CIA, DEA, ATF, FBI, FCC, FDA, DOJ, etc.), should go
home, look in the mirror, recognize that they are mere mortals with
no right to rule anyone else, and then they should leave everyone
else alone.
I have a habit of making pro-freedom people argue something they
hardly ever have to argue: that we need MORE government (more than
I advocate, that is--which is none). The difference between dang-
near-no government interference (as Dr. Paul advocates) and NO
"government" interference (as I do) may seem trivial, but it is
not. Yes, if the federal government only did what the Constitution
authorizes, we would all benefit enormously. The problem would
become so small that most of us wouldn't notice it at all. A tiny
little tyranny, affecting a tiny percentage of the people--who
would bother getting riled up about that? Nobody. And therein lies
the problem. Remember, the Constitution is what LED to where we are
now: that tiny little power grew, as the anti-federalists warned,
into a monstrous leviathan.
Let me just add here, if you intend to vote for anyone OTHER than
Dr. Paul, you might as well put yourself in shackles right now,
because you are volunteering yourself (and everyone else) into
absolutely slavery. Why? Because EVERY other politician in office
or running for office believes that THEY and they alone have
absolute discretion over how much they will rob you and how much
they will control you. They acknowledge no limits to their power.
They all view you as their slaves. If you vote for them, you are
AGREEING with them; you are endorsing your own enslavement, and all
that is left is the pathetic attempt to get a relatively benevolent
slave-master (which won't happen either).
If a Ron-Paul-style country would be such a vast improvement over
what we have now (and it certainly would), why am I suggesting that
people should NOT vote for him? Because you have no right to choose
a ruler for anyone else, no matter how benevolent and wise such a
ruler might be. You cannot delegate to anyone rights you don't
personally have, and you do NOT have the right to impose even
little "taxes," even minimal "regulations," even just about those
few matters listed in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. And
by voting, even for someone like Dr. Paul, you are ENDORSING the
idea that whomever gets the most votes has the RIGHT to forcibly
control everyone, even if only in a "limited" way.
Personally, I'd love to see nothing more than a Ron Paul Presidency
(although frankly, I think the powers that be would kill him before
they'd let him take office), just for the entertainment value if
nothing else. But as enticing as that thought is, I cannot and will
not play a game, the scam called "democracy," which implies that
the individual is the PROPERTY of the state, and that our only
choice is WHICH slave-master will own us. If I was the property of
someone else, I would love that someone else to be Dr. Paul. But
I'm not, and I will not act like I am by "voting."
Sincerely,
Larken Rose
www.larkenrose.comP.S. Notwithstanding the above, I love to hear Dr. Paul talk,
because it makes such a drastic contrast to the putrid tripe every
other candidate spews. Because of that, when I heard that "Iowans
for Tax Relief" had decided NOT to invite Dr. Paul to the debate
they were hosting, I decided to give them a little grief for it.
Below is what I just sent them, at "
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. ". Feel free
to pile on, if you're annoyed at the status quo parasites trying so
hard to keep Dr. Paul's ideas away from the general public.
- -----------------------------------------------------
Your Disguise is Slipping
Dear Frauds,
"Iowans for Tax Relief"? Nice joke. Any organization which would
hold a "debate," and exclude the ONLY candidate who has any
intention of seriously reducing taxation--and I'm sure you know I'm
speaking of Dr. Ron Paul--has no business pretending to be for
lower taxes. You are showing your true colors, and they aren't
pretty.
Sincerely,
