4um: Why Did Ron Paul Give Up on the LP?

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Ron Paul
See other Ron Paul Articles
Title: Why Did Ron Paul Give Up on the LP?
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://www.nolanchart.com/article384.html
Published: Dec 6, 2007
Author: Christine Smith
Post Date: 2008-03-12 15:55:21 by Peppa
Keywords: RonPaul, ChristineSmith
Views: 141
Comments: 14

Why Did Ron Paul Give Up on the LP?

Why did Ron Paul leave the LP as a means to advance liberty as a candidate? I'm asking this of myself over and over. Is the reason because he saw the LP as a futile path? A waste of his time and energy? No place for an individual who really wants to be part of achieving liberty in America now?
by Christine Smith (Libertarian)
Why Did Ron Paul Give Up on the LP?
A message from Christine Smith, December 6th, 2007

Why did Ron Paul leave the LP as a means to advance liberty as a candidate? I'm asking this of myself over and over. Is the reason because he saw the LP as a futile path? A waste of his time and energy? No place for an individual who really wants to be part of achieving liberty in America now? For myself, as someone who is devoted to advancing liberty and sharing libertarianism, I am having serious doubts as to whether the LP deserves individuals willing to give of themselves so selflessly. Perhaps Ron Paul's experiences brought him to such a point and decision. I know my experiences with the LP are pointing that way.
Every several days, it seems I learn of yet another individual I respect who has left the LP, and always for reasons I now more completely understand than ever before.
They are individuals who achieve progress in advocating liberty. They are the truest libertarians I have ever met. And they left the LP.
These are all individuals who tried to make a difference within the LP and finally made the decision that the LP was unworthy of their continued support and participation, that the LP did not deserve what they offered to give, that they could accomplish much more good work for liberty outside the LP rather than within it (and they've done it!).
I am at a point where I am seriously questioning whether the LP is a political party to take seriously at all or is it primarily a place for those who merely sit around and talk and argue but never actually do anything of substance? Is it a place where winners (those who actually work hard to achieve progress and success in advancing liberty in our nation) find themselves surrounded by losers (those whose priority is not liberty but who use the cause of liberty for other agendas)?
I have been reluctant to follow that line of thinking until now.
Because now, the more experiences I have, the more I wonder if all those who left the party are right.
I know it was the right choice for themselves because I see them joyfully doing good work which makes a difference, and now I also am thinking that maybe they are right about the utter failure of the LP as a means to make meaningful progress toward liberty...maybe it is a waste of one's time.
Since writing 'I Will Not Compromise - An Open Letter to libertarians,' I have obviously become even more discouraged, and even more disillusioned about the LP.
I am yet undecided, and though I yet am making a conscious choice to believe there is yet hope and yet a possibility that the LP may be a viable vehicle to advance liberty, I am uncertain. I am discouraged. I am wondering...and I am watching. Meanwhile, my appreciation goes to Ron Paul (and his supporters) for doing more to advance liberty in this nation than anyone has ever done in the political arena before.
Christine Smith Libertarian Candidate for President http://www.LibertarianForPresident.com Christine Smith for President 15400 W. 64th Ave., E9-105 Arvada, Colorado 80007 (303) 731-5879 PAID FOR BY CHRISTINE SMITH FOR PRESIDENT

Click for Full Text!

Click for Full Text!
Poster Comment:
Older but interesting. The comments at the link are truly worth a read as well.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 11.
#9. To: Peppa (#0)
There's no such thing as "paying dues." I've run for congress with the GOP team jacket and it's conformance, not dues that's wanted. It's not conformance to any ideology, mind you; it's conformance to the game as played. Of course, if you have an ideology of any kind, you'll have a much harder time playing the game. www.horningforgovernor.com

andrewhorning posted on 2008-03-13 13:05:23 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#11. To: andrewhorning (#9)
Unfortunately, what SJR 7 really does is formalize the thinking that marriage is between a man, a woman, and Caesar. Christians should define marriage as a Holy covenant between a man, a woman, and God - not as a state contract with all sorts of bennies. But with Social Security, bereavement pay, visitation rights, property rights, work rules, tax rules and more rules, rules rules from the Great Golden Calf of State, we’ve desecrated the Holy covenant, and have put self-acclaimed Christians in the preposterous role of advocating legal disparity in matters of simple justice.
If SJR 7 advocates get their way with this resolution, then politicians, not church officials, will have all authority in the matter of “marriage,” and a new crop of politicians may someday declare that marriage can be only between a man and a goat.
I say we should get the state out of marriage entirely. Take from Caesar what is God’s.

You might find this interesting. your comments on that subject caught my eye as I have recently been reading humanum genus by Pope Leo XIII, which is one of the many Papal encyclicals on freemasonry. He addresses that very issue of state control over the marriage contract. this is from April 1884. So the basis for no state involvement in marriage is indeed compatible with a Christian , (in this case Catholic Christian,) view :

21. What refers to domestic life in the teaching of the naturalists is almost all contained in the following declarations: that marriage belongs to the genus of commercial contracts, which can rightly be revoked by the will of those who made them, and that the civil rulers of the State have power over the matrimonial bond; that in the education of youth nothing is to be taught in the matter of religion as of certain and fixed opinion; and each one must be left at liberty to follow, when he comes of age, whatever he may prefer. To these things the Freemasons fully assent; and not only assent, but have long endeavored to make them into a law and institution. For in many countries, and those nominally Catholic, it is enacted that no marriages shall be considered lawful except those contracted by the civil rite; in other places the law permits divorce; and in others every effort is used to make it lawful as soon as may be. Thus, the time is quickly coming when marriages will be turned into another kind of contract—that is into changeable and uncertain unions which fancy may join together, and which the same when changed may disunite. With the greatest unanimity the sect of the Freemasons also endeavors to take to itself the education of youth. They think that they can easily mold to their opinions that soft and pliant age, and bend it whither they will; and that nothing can be more fitted than this to enable them to bring up the youth of the State after their own plan. Therefore, in the education and instruction of children they allow no share, either of teaching or of discipline, to the ministers of the Church; and in many places they have procured that the education of youth shall be exclusively in the hands of laymen, and that nothing which treats of the most important and most holy duties of men to God shall be introduced into the instructions on morals.

Artisan posted on 2008-03-13 13:51:00 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
Replies to Comment # 11.
#12. To: All, robin, burkeman1 (#11)
you might find #11 interesting

Artisan posted on 2008-03-13 13:53:48 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
End Trace Mode for Comment # 11.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

Freedom4um