420 Magazine Background

Another reason to vote for Ron Paul in 2012


New Member
Because legalizing cannabis is not the only factor I take into consideration for voting for somebody. I don't want legalized cannabis whilst getting ass raped as a blue collar worker. Ron Paul has some great ideas, sadly he also has some whacked ideas that far outweigh the plus of legal cannabis.



New Member
Go read up on his opinions/ views and decide for yourself. I have the view from a blue collar / pro union , pro middle class and made in the USA perspective. If, after you read up on many of his economic positions and do not recognize the implications, I do not know what to say. Some of his positions in this area are awesome, some will kill the middle class as we know it. As far as personal freedoms I am in *almost total agreement with him.


* There are 2 positions I totally disagree with him, but alas, nobody is perfect..**

** Hmmm... did I make that statement towards me or him???? lol


New Member
Without specifics there can be no debate, no discussion. Obviously your views are not important enough for you to air on-line.

I've been following Ron Paul for years, and the only subject I am in some disagreement with is his views on a Woman's right to choose (the abortion topic). But, he also believes those decisions should be debated and dealt with at the State level, that I am in agreement with.

In fact there are very few areas that he believes should be dealt with at the federal level, other than those specifically outlined in the constitution.

Dr. Paul has proven to be accurate in just about every prediction he has made in the last decade about where our economy was heading, so I think his knowledge level, and his remedies about how to solve the problems are probably more feasible than ANY other candidate in the running at this time. Besides, Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate NOT speaking from both sides of his mouth!

Those in disagreement with his sound money positions typically have something to gain by our current and corrupt federal reserve fiat money practices...


New Member
Lol, it is not my place to tell you what to think but, abortion, social security and a few more are out there. Believe it or not there are people that no matter what they do they are not gifted or smart enough to set up their own retirement, are we to let them starve , go without meds... if so get rid of SS and try and have a clear conscious, I can't. If you want somebody who's predictions are true try Ross Perot he predicted most of this crap 20 years ago. If you follow libertarian practices you end up with privately owned and run police, fire and schools. You end up with toll roads... in other words the "Commons" are gone. some Libertarians suggest keep the police etc only under government regs, in practice this does not happen.

I do not want to get into the full blown political debate because I am tired of typing 2 and 3 pages of fact that many people ignore because it doesn't fit with their views of a candidate. I only use what the person of interest actually says, not the spun lies spewed by faux news or msn.

With no federal regulation you end up with even larger monopolies, CEO's making more and more $$ at the expense of firing people and shipping jobs out of country. Kind of like the republicans on steroids.

Yes, personal freedoms need much less regulation, but only the uninformed (or wealthy that want more) in economics want no regulation.

Show me a libertarian government that has worked anywhere in the world, successfully, without destroying it or going into full blown anarchy..... ex. Somalia.

I am as far away from being a christian as you can get, I am not superstitious but, the bible does have one quote from Jesus that at least Christians seem to forget.. " Give to Caesar that which is his"....
I do not have any problem whatsoever paying taxes. Yes, in many cases they could be put to much better use. I do not expect to not pay taxes and still get fire, police, underfunded schools (schools have sucked at the same rate as taxes to support them have dropped) roads worthy of travel..... o wait, I guess with no taxes I could just pay tolls everywhere to the private companies that now own them because the states sold them off due to no revenue to keep them up.........

The 2 biggest issues I agree with Ron Paul on is legal cannabis and that the illegal privately owned FED must go. FIAT money sucks but there is not enough Gold anymore to back currency,....

Do not get me wrong, the dems and repubs are both screwing it up, but it doesn't need to get worse. I suggest you look at Germany and the way they run trade agreements, economic policies etc.

Hopefully you are satisfied with your self getting a reply to your "Obviously your views are not important enough for you to air on-line." line. .... lol.

If you want specifics I have pages, unfortunately they are not important enough for me to air online................that is all, too burnt out on politics.

The USA was founded on personal freedoms AND "WE THE PEOPLE" and "FOR THE COMMON GOOD"
Not do whatever you please and fuck everybody else.

WillyB ........


New Member
Let's see if we can simplify the general position of Ron Paul, you determine whether he makes sense or not, and determine what type of freedom YOU want.

In order to understand Ron Paul’s platform, there are two conclusions one must reach. The first is that libertarians are correct that violence is only justified in response or reaction to a prior violation of private property rights. Ron Paul does not limit the definition of “private property” to land ownership or even physical property in general. Instead, property includes all of one’s life, liberty, and justly acquired possessions. So, any murder, assault, theft, fraud, or coercion would be violation of a private property right. Based upon that understanding, ask anyone if they agree that violence should never be initiated, but instead only used in defense, and you will almost always get agreement. So far, so good.

The second thing that one must conclude in order to understand Ron Paul is that all government action is violent action. This is where it gets difficult for conservatives and liberals (and idiots) alike. While it is easy to see the government’s use of its military as an act of violence, it is harder for people to see that other government activities represent violence. How could providing health-care, ensuring workplace safety, or licensing barbers be violent acts?

This is the great truth that hides in plain site under every human being’s nose. In order to recognize it, one must disengage the deep, emotional attachments that almost everyone has developed to some or all government activity. Once you get someone to that point and they are truly ready to reason, they will come to the libertarian conclusion every time. To the genuinely interested and rational person, only one question is necessary:

“What if you do not cooperate?”

I cannot count how many times I have asked this question and received in response a stare - not a blank stare, but a thoughtful one. You can see the wheels turning. Sometimes they will begin to speak, then stop themselves while they think some more. They are looking for a hole in the theory. They are unable to find one. They are genuinely interested in either proving or disproving your argument. By that time, you have won.

For those who do not immediately “see the light,” you can pick any government action and walk them through that reasoning process:

You: Suppose that I do not wish to participate in Medicare and withhold only that percentage of my payroll taxes that would otherwise go to fund it. In return, I agree not to make use of any of the Medicare benefits. What will happen to me?

Him/Her: You will be charged with income tax evasion.

You: What if I don’t answer the charge?

Him/Her: You will be arrested.

You: What if I do not agree to submit to the arrest?

Him/Her: You will be physically forced to submit.

You: And if I resist further?

Him/Her: (reluctantly) You will be killed.

You: So, you now agree that we are forced to participate in Medicare under the threat of violence, correct?

Him/Her: (Even more reluctantly) Yes.

You: Is there any government tax, law, or regulation that we are not similarly forced to participate in under the threat of violence? Are not all of these answers the same in relation to even the least significant government regulation, like a parking ticket?

Once a reasonable person hears the libertarian message, it is inevitable that they will not only agree, but agree completely and without exception. This is the antithesis of fanaticism. It is reason. It is recognizing the real world for what it truly is and applying logic to those observations. It is the consistent application to separate political issues of one undeniable principle, which can only lead to libertarian conclusions. It is actually illogical and fanatical to come to any others.

The challenge is helping others overcome their emotional attachments to their ideologies.

Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee


New Member
Pure Libertarian doctrine is severely flawed when it comes to "We the People" and "The Common Good" .Yes, personal freedoms such as smoking cannabis, right to bear arms, right to choose and on and on do fall under Libertarian ideas that I support. Deregulated monopolies that cause prices to go up and the social network to collapse that keeps disabled, mentally handicapped, unskilled people, and more are not wanted.

If you wish to live in a civilized society you have no choice but to accept the fact that the majority will in fact have to carry the burden for a small percentage of people. Unless of course you prefer the Russian and German fix of the 1930's and 40's to the situation and just kill people that are skill-less, mentally challenged and / or physically handicapped.

Libertarians promise the following:

Legalize Cannabis = good
Pay no taxes = Good*
no foreign wars = good
etc etc...

They leave out the part about banks, wall street and corporations will have zero regulations and rape you harder than the crash of 2008-now. They leave out the part that without *taxes/ revenue schools, police and fire will be privately owned charging you much more than taxes cost now. They leave out the part about wanting "free trade" and forget that about 400 people have their finger on the scale of justice when it comes to free trade... there is no such thing as true free trade.

When somebody wants and expects every last thing they can think of to be theirs in thought or action with no regard to others what do you really think happens?

A non regulated market that will balance itself out according to Libertarians forgets to take into account greedy, evil people. No regulations means monopolies, monopolies means no choice, no choice means that the market will not balance itself out because there is no competitor to go to because Joe Water owner has no competition. No competition means you have no choice but to get your water from Joe, so Joe charges you whatever he wants...........

In a fictional world where everybody "does the right thing" Pure Libertarian" ideas would in fact work......... Just like on paper Communism works........ lol Add REAL people and neither work except for the few, raping the many.

Again, what country has successfully run a Libertarian government and worked? Since you didn't answer I will. NONE

Where, in the Pure Libertarian ideology, do the words from the United States Constitution, that Libertarians so rightfully love, are the words "WE THE PEOPLE" and "FOR THE COMMON GOOD" ?

Good stuff from your Ron Paul.......:bravo: (sarcasm)

In an interview with Chris Matthews, Paul said he would not have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it infringed on personal rights of property owners. Many Libertarians believe that if a property owner or business wants to deny service to anyone based on race, it is their right because it is their business.

It is not just individual liberty that defines libertarians. They believe that taxes to fund schools, roads, and other infrastructure are unconstitutional and that individuals are responsible for building roads, schools and hospitals for personal use. America with libertarians in control would be the Koch Brothers’ vision of America where there is no central government and in its place is a conglomeration of industrialists who use taxpayer money to support a business-model government where roads, schools, hospitals, bridges, and the military is privatized for the purpose of generating profit for the owners. If Ron Paul were president, he would like the Federal Government to be mostly eliminated and individual rights and freedoms would be reserved for those wealthy enough to own the government.

The United States Constitution gives Congress the power to allocate tax payer money as needed*, current laws suggest schools, fire departments, police and military are needed........ not all are used as they should be in my opinion but I would rather everybody pay(taxes) and recieve services than just those that can afford it or are the "right" color.

*Yes a few points in this area can be argued.
*Side note , read section 3 part 2 of the Constitution and tell me if the US Supreme court has the power to rule a law "Unconstitutional"?

I don't know about you but I do not want to legally smoke my pot at the cost of being raped elsewhere.

Once again, individual liberties the Libertarians want, for the most part are good,however, the economical model/ and where social interactivity is needed, it is terrible for the average citizen.

WillyB ...... Whew........ I feel much better now.


New Member
This is my final post on this as I'm weary of your limiting beliefs.

Your obviously unaware of the fact that we're on the precipice of a failed currency system, as well as WWIII due to the same bullshit propaganda and corrupted entitlement and welfare "we the people" and "common good" system you subscribe to.
You've twisted the intentions of the founding fathers to fit your argument and it's simply flawed.

It's nothing more than stealing from one party to give to another, if the government wasn't doing it, it would be considered illegal.

And the notion that people cant prepare for their own retirement is bullshit, people make CHOICES and if they make poor choices we shouldn't have to bail them out! Think TARP!!!

If you fuck up your retirement by investing in the stock market and wallstreet crashes...it's GAMBLING not SAVING!

AND - for someone who's "too burnt out on politics" you seem to be pretty well motivated to cut-down the core components of individual liberties we're fighting for.

You also have a complete disregard for the fact that the general public is smarter than you give them credit for...in a free society corporate success or failure can be controlled by consumer spending if the government gets out of the way.

If people get "raped" (inflammatory and confrontational lead-in) by corporate pigs, it's because they have let themselves become victims by either their lack of education, lack of self confidence or lack of self control, therefore I have very little sympathy for them; I am not their keeper and the government shouldn't be either!

In addition your concern for being "raped" by corporate America is telling of your lack of self confidence, and your lack of faith in others to decide when their being fed a line of shit by slick marketing and slimy sales tactics. I'm not even going into the obviousness of that scenario.

America is young, and freedom and liberty are still being explored and evolving.

If you chose to opt-out of the movement by your limiting ideology, knock yourself out, get out of the way so that we can get it done!

If you choose to believe something cant be accomplished only because it hasn't been successful in the past, then you know zilch about being an entrepreneur, and will remain a slave to your beliefs.

You can stay in the middle of the socialist 2-party paradigm, which you obviously are more passionate about then the alternatives.

I choose to find the light elsewhere, outside the pessimism of those with little faith in people or their ability to shine the spot-light on tyranny.

Freedom is not a concept that can be pieced like a pie, it's an all or nothing proposition, and obviously a bit much for you to embrace in your current state of mind.

So to you and your limiting beliefs, good luck, because a wave of change is building, and when the head of steam has hit sufficient load, it's gonna blow!

All the B.S. posturing and jawboning will be forgotten and a new age will begin...ready or not.

There will be two choices at that point; embrace it, or fight against it.

I cannot believe that anyone other than the two of us has anything to contribute to this thread...:thanks: and good bye


New Member
Ill contribute to this thread, voting for Ron Paul may be partially effective but either way decriminalizing will not help the economy. This nation is in a crucial economic recession which could lead to another great depression as we know it. This nation needs to legalize bud if they want to help the economy since theres clearly are limited options. We should embrace it so im going to agree with closetmadness. Weed is illegal for a bullshit reason anyway, its far less harmful than any tobacco product, cigarettes, cigars, hookah, dip you name it, weed is less bad for you and im sure all of you know it doesnt make you an idiot!!!!! I know all of you are pro legalization but besides the fact that everybody does it and everybody loves it, its the right thing to do at this point. In the dictionary, the definition of a drug has the frase "a chemical substance". Well hemp is a fucking plant so how about we as a nation realize that weed is not bad and stop bitching including the police who at least in new jersey arresst you and make you look like a criminal for smoking a fucking joint. Weed shouldnt just be decriminalized, it shoud be legalized!!! :cheer:


New Member
I am not a fan of the 2 party system, I am not a Democrat or a Republican.

We do need a change of some sort from the current system.

I do not think you have processed my posts correctly, when it comes to personal freedoms that do not fuck over others I am about as Libertarian as you can get, there is a place in society where individual freedoms interact with others personal freedoms....... are you saying your freedoms are greater than mine? I guess in a true Libertarian place we could just fight it out to see whose freedoms are greater.....o wait, that's anarchy.


New Member
I dislike that MadnessCloseted is using terms like "limited belief". We do not need condescending remarks.

Quite honestly, PantryIrritation, Willy's personal thoughts differing from your own do not make him "limited" in anyway.
By the way...
Didn't you say?..
The challenge is helping others overcome their emotional attachments to their ideologies.
It seems you have a little emotional baggage with your ideology, HutchedInsanity. If we cannot explore the flaws in your philosophy, wouldn't that be a "limited" viewpoint?

I apologize to you, ReceptacalEnraged.. I came on strong there.

I know its frustrating that we all haven't seen the light as you have, Cuddy'dMania, but be patient with us! If Libertarianism is as wonderful as you say it is, there is no reason to be irritated. We will see the light once you show it.

Anywho I was wondering, RepositoryAngered, why you seem to think that once the "violence" is taken out of the Gov't.. Why it would be gone? Wouldn't it just be transferred to the private sector?

And how can you say that idiots/ uneducated folk deserve what comes to them? Its not always their fault they cannot read!

But seriously.. To think that they do not effect us? That is an interesting thought.. Take this poorly constructed example (by yours truly! :))
If the confused masses support an industry that you, in your wisdom, saw for its evils and did not support... Once said company eliminates its competitors and creates a monopoly.. You are now aboard the rape-train they all bought early tickets to... Right? This is of course in the idea that the industry provides a service or product you just could not live without. (end of bad example!)

To me... Libertarianism seems like it would work great... but only if we removed all the people. Unfortunately if we remove that we also remove the need for libertarianism or government in the first place.

I'll be looking for your response. Hopefully I am not so limited that understanding eludes me! ;)

EDIT: wanted to add, ClosetMadness, I absolutely love your handle.


New Member
PS. Thank you for making this thread ClosetedMadness. It has let me take a look at Ron Paul, something I had been meaning to do for a while. It has not convinced me to vote for him, but the ground you and Willy have covered gave me area's to really read into him.

I still feel like he is dubious in some respects, so he has not yet won my vote. I'm also in that "not gonna just vote for someone because they are okay with me having my pot" boat... But it is tempting. I hate being a criminal for wanting to keep my GI tract.


Well-Known Member
Picture this..

I am on my way to California on a long road trip. We stop to pee and my white son and black (adopted) son head to the restroom when the owner stops me and tells me that my black son is not allowed to use the toilets. I almost go to prison for killing said owner, because Ron and his son think that it is perfectly fine for a private business to do what they want. But Karma is with me, and I get away.

Then we buy a candy bar and some snacks. We end up almost dead because nobody has made the corporations put expiration dates on the food they sell, or inspects the candy company for rodent infestation. Then we go to the hospital, where doogie houser injects my kids and I with some third world drug that was not tested or validated as being what the label actually said it was, and we all die.

I guess I should have been an expert in avoiding racist gas stations, been a trained food safety inspector, an expert doctor, and a pharmacist.

Although I agree with many of the things in the libertarian ideology, I enjoy civilization. If you want tribalism, they still practice that in the middle east. Not sure, but I don't think that is going so well.


New Member
For me the vote is simple. With the current candidates, the way I see it, we either stick with the status quo (big government and a fascist/police state) or personal liberties and freedoms.

I see no other viable candidate (with the exception of Gary Johnson) that's willing to stand up for personal liberties like Ron Paul is willing to do, nor tell the truth like he does. The rest of them are liars, crooks and thieves, only beholding to the banking, corporate, energy and pharmaceutical companies. Follow the money and you'll see where things are heading.

When you look at the bills being introduced every week (not to mention the executive orders being rammed down our throats), who's introducing and signing them, and who they truly benefit, it creates a clear picture of where our tax dollars are being wasted and pocketed.

We all make decisions based on the information and research we perform, and the more research I perform, the more I prefer personal liberties over the regulatory state.

I understand there are benefits to some regulation, but for me the principal of liberty outweighs the alternatives. Sorry if I seem like a black-and-white sort of person, but that's way I roll the bones.

If we don't get our liberties returned, were going to have bigger problems then no expiration dates on our damn chemical-laced, sugar loaded, fat producing candy bars!

Another shining example of where we are heading...if we don't get serious about our liberty.

YouTube - ‪Police Brutality Cops Beat Old Woman When will We The People Fight Back for our Freedom?‬‏


New Member
Hey! You didn't answer my question about where the violence would go!

What would keep Corporations from assaulting us? Wouldn't it then be like having to deal with multiple governments?.. Without a government to stop them?

I understand you are for personal liberties.. That's not really in question.. Everyone is if you state it that way! It's like people who hate abortions calling themselves "Pro Life".. Who the heck isn't pro life? With the exception of manic depressed peoples (murderers) most everyone is fond of being alive..

If we don't get our liberties returned, were going to have bigger problems then no expiration dates on our damn chemical-laced, sugar loaded, fat producing candy bars!
I kind of beg to differ on this.. Nutrition is very, very important. Can't explore your liberties if you're very ill or dead. To many people discount nutrition.. As someone with a strange and severe allergy.. Knowing what is in my food is the difference in enjoying a meal or going to the hospital. At the very least, food contents do need standards. I do not feel like I am being wronged by our gov't because of ingredient lists..

I am getting the vibe that you feel more repressed than you are... We all agree on the cannabis issue.. But why is deregulating corporations a good idea to you? I don't really see any good in it. Many don't even keep up quality to meet regulation anyway! So... Why is corporation deregulation important to you? What are the benefits? Why is it linked and inseparable from other personal liberties?

I'm also getting the vibe that you are far to attached to this ideal to really look at it neutrally and be objective. So I am not trying to convince you of jack, I really want to know your thoughts on this. Maybe I'm missing some crucial piece of the Libertarian pie that would make it work. So help me out! I don't want to be a ig'nit yokel forever!


New Member
Hello Everyone, Sorry to jump in midstream....But I am going to do it anyway.
This post primarily @THsea
I was drawn in by another case of Libertarian knows it all vs. the uninformed sheeple, which is ridiculous everyone has valid experiences that create their beliefs, libertarian conversion doesn't make you holier than other political opinions. I do enjoy many of the liberty based arguments and hover somewhere between libertarian and yes...ANARCHIST. Why the hovering... oh probably because everytime you hint at anarchy someone throws feces at you, to prove that anarchy is bad I suppose.

Anyhow to respond to THsea's relevant question, where does the violence go if you break the government's monopoly on violence. Well obviously it vaporizes! Or not...I am nearly certain that no one person even in the deepest darkest computer filled basements of the libertarian shire world have figured that one out completely. There are several theories in play and I can elaborate on them as much as I am able, but first a lucky catch. Even if Ron Paul is elected in 2012 there will not be Libertopia, likely there will not even be an end to the federal reserve within his term. I hope, I wish, but not all that likely. Congress will be swung in the opposite direction because the people or at least that slim minority of people who vote will be terrified of Ron's economic liberalism (classical, free markets and such). At least I think thats what will happen since when Bush was elected later a democratic congress was installed, then Obama was elected and a bunch of elephants were sent to congress to argue and do silly things.

So on to the theories, First if all government, POOF, vanished well we're screwed no one has any idea how to live without a government. Many would do fine but large cities would fight like crazy until the coolest or strongest people got installed as temporary new senators and presidents. I think everyone agrees that idea, sucks.

Second, Ron Paul gets elected and the libertarian theme takes old over the next decade. The already failing entitlements are slashed to the bone, but whatever is in the handy dandy constitution gets to stay. Why... well because the slave owning forefathers are apparently the brightest white dudes the politicians can come up with. Anyhow the theory here is that the violence would be mightily reduced but remain with a tiny government. This ideal liberty government would provide only violence in response to murder, theft, rape, and other assaults on a victim. Thereby all victimless crimes like our favorite green plant would be happy and featured on strange remakes of the Andy Griffith show.

Third, we phased out slowly over decades and got to the anarchist idea of starting competition against government by enacting some crazy (and potentially great) law allowing private security or law enforcement. An outgrowth of insurance companies or a new industry of Dispute Resolution Organizations would be allowed to try to get customers. So in this idea, the violence would slowly siphon away from the government to private security firms that were funded by those disgusted with government services. Majority of people would likely want to keep the traditional fire and police already established and much would not change initially as again in this hypothetical the government exists, but doesn't get automatic monopoly. So in the free market theorists wet dream the government would plunder along doing a terrible job and Dispute Free Inc. would offer dirt cheap theft insurance and fire prevention and insurance. Dispute Free Inc. could offer incentives and lower prices for people who are willing to get firefighting training and equip their homes or neighborhoods, much like the volunteer firefighting brigades that already exist. Overall the primary reason for interest in such a DRO system is that the current Government has no obligation to protect any of its citizens. In fact even the nobel peace prize winning current president answered that execution of a US citizen was ...legal without any courts involved.

Stefan Molyneux article on private crime prevention

A great article on why Ron Paul is a great lever to improve the Obama Administration, if your a democrat and want to keep the prez.
Top Bottom