Libertarianism is NOT about smoking dope or porn, it’s about freedom and liberty.

Ron Paul is not in favor of drugs etc, but he understands that it is not the federal government’s role to regulate what an individual does. All the WoD has done is increase drug use- just like prohibition increased drinking. These are issues that belong to the states, not to the fed gov.

Ron Paul is the only candidate that actually believes in Agency and liberty- and he’s not LDS.

I will give you my perspective as to why I will not vote for Ron Paul even though I don’t hate the guy. Just two points. I believe in prophecy and modern revelation. I believe that one day the Savior will come again. I believe that part of that prophecy deals with the idea that every country will turn against Israel. I believe that you can also be against someone one by not lending aid. I believe that the United States will not come to the aid of Israel when she is surrounded by her enemies. The attitude of people like Ron Paul, however well intended, only fosters to grow this spirit. This is a very strongly held belief by others that will be difficult for Ron Paul to overcome. If he can’t then he cannot win.

Second, I understand that Ron Paul supports the Constitution, but many of his statements lead me to conclude that he would rather support the Articles of Confederation. I personally would not vote for someone who I believe would rather support something other than the Constitution.

I am not Mormon but have Mormon friends and find it interesting to watch what they and their church do and discuss. I have read enough of this blog to see clearly that Mr. Boyack’s political philosophy is motivated in large part by his Mormon religious beliefs. If he and his supporting commenters typify American Mormon thinking, then it appears the Mormons have confined themselves to an unrealistic, insular echo chamber that will ensure Utah’s continuing status as a political backwater, virtually irrelevant to the broad national picture.

No matter how much heat is produced here or in op-ed pieces or in guest appearances on rural Utah radio stations, such effort will generate no light outside the Mormon heartland unless and until you all become more practical and realistic about what you can actually achieve. No matter what principles they advocate, uncompromising zealots usually end up one of two ways: either they never achieve anything, or their achievements are temporary and then overthrown as balance and compromise are restored and human nature reasserts itself.

I recall other lawyers condemning men because they spoke plainly in favor of The Law and against evil policy. In fact those lawyers used a similar tactic you’re trying here- twist someone’s warnings to mean they don’t believe their country is great. Many of the Book of Mormon prophets underwent this treatment. Nephi, son of Heleman, warned the people that they would suffer destruction unless they repented of their wickedness and the corruptness of their laws/government.

For behold, Nephi had spoken unto them concerning the corruptness of their law…And those judges were angry with him because he spake plainly unto them concerning their secret works of darkness…Therefore they did cry unto the people, saying: Why do you suffer this man to revile against us? For behold he doth condemn all this people, even unto destruction; yea, and also that these our great cities shall be taken from us, that we shall have no place in them. And now we know that this is impossible, for behold, we are powerful, and our cities great, therefore our enemies can have no power over us. (Heleman 8:3-6)

Similarly, some lawyers tried this tactic against Amulek. They tried twisting his words around to insinuate that he was unpatriotic by saying that he “testified against (the) law”. Amulek’s reply is appropriate to any person accusing a Constitutionalist of hating their country:

For behold, have I testified against your law? Ye do not understand; ye say that I have spoken against your law; but I have not, but I have spoken in favor of your law, to your condemnation. (Alma 10:26)

The “American exceptionalism” you claim the Book of Mormon outlines does not teach that the country is great no matter what. This is a choice land but our greatness is conditional.

And thus the Lord did pour out his blessings upon this land, which was choice above all other lands; and he commanded that whoso should possess the land should possess it unto the Lord, or they should be destroyed when they were ripened in iniquity; for upon such, saith the Lord: I will pour out the fulness of my wrath. (Ether 9:20)

America has great potential, a potential which can’t be reached by merely “believing” it to be so. Speaking plainly for truth and against bad laws/policy is not only justified but necessary if we are serious about being a great country.

“I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator.”

“I am running for president to restore the rule of law and to stand up for our divinely inspired Constitution.”

“Many have given up on America as an exemplar for the world, as a model of freedom, self-government, and self-control. I have not. There is hope for America. I ask you to join me, and to be a part of it.”

http://www.covenantnews.com/ronpaul070721.htm

That aside, you are completely erroneous in your assertion that Rep. Paul does not feel America is “exceptional” and has an important mission to fulfill. If anything, he is one of very few who are trying to bring government back down to its moral and proper size such that that exceptionalism can really shine through. It’s the stuff that John Quincy Adams talked about in his famous address, 50 years after the nation had been formed, and only Rep. Paul has consistently advocated a return to that noble standard.

I don’t have a whole lot of respect for congressional reps per se. ESPECIALLY those who are there for almost a quarter of a century, if that number is correct! I think that should not be permitted. I’m not sure anyone can stay in Washington that long and not be compromised, warped, and/or corrupted. Bennett started out a nice man.

That was my biggest beef with McCain. Decades in Congress, and nothing has changed. These guys do not need to be recycled into positions of greater authority and even less accountability, apparently. Has to be a Washington outsider.

And one other follow-up question: Why don’t you Paulies like Glenn Beck? I’m telling you, he basically pushed “end the fed” for an hour the other day. Give Ron Paul a personality, and you’ve got Glenn Beck. So what is it?

I wonder if everyone still feels the same way about things–

I still like Ron Paul.

I was an anarchist wannabe for years–

and then I called myself a pro-life libertarian (which includes no aggressive wars)–

and now I’m just an old woman with grandchildren I would like to see live in a better world.

Thanks for keeping your blog going, Connor. So many have ‘fallen by the wayside’–

It’s really difficult for me to understand your logic (or lack thereof). Ron Paul has never advocated for the government to “buy the slaves” as if they were going to “provide a new market” for slaves. He advocated buying their freedom… Just like Joseph Smith campaigned. Please tell me you can see the difference. Your “government providing a baby market” analogy doesn’t apply at all.

Tell ya what, though, I am really diggin’ on Joseph Smith’s idea of funding government through a reduction in pay of members of Congress. Pass that idea on to Ron Paul, that there’s a winner.

Ron Paul is the only member of Congress who, every year, voluntarily returns a portion of his congressional salary, returns a large portion of the congressional office budget, and refuses to take part in Congress’ pension system. I’ll be sure to pass on that idea… But I think he’s already got it.

I was in Elders quorum 2-3 weeks ago and mentioned Ron Paul in a comment. It was relevant to the lesson, I wasn’t campaigning. Of course, my comment was followed by some mumblings and laughter, then a few snide remarks. I was a little taken back by the very negative nature of the comments. The teacher tried to take back the conversation by saying we shouldn’t be talking politics in church, “especially fringe topics, like the things Ron Paul talks about.”

I was under the impression that the constitution was an important part of our scripture and doctrine. Why is it that the Constitution, even among LDSs, is a hiss and a byword? It is the very core of liberty in this country and a shining, albeit imperfect, example to the rest of the world. How is conversation of constitutional government a fringe topic? When we look at the core of liberty as the foundation of our country, aren’t preemptive war, socialized auto manufacturing, and corporate socialism the real fringe topics? Why do LDSs hold so tightly to the fascist views of the the neo-con Republican Party? Since when is an aggressive war okay in the eyes of God? What about the Patriot Act supports Free Agency? We all chose Agency in the pre-existence, why do so many despise it now? Since when is a conversation about Agency or Liberty unfit for a church setting? Why are comments of the Constitution hanging by a thread always in some distant future? Why don’t LDSs see that the thread is ready to break, if it has not already broken? Why aren’t predominantly LDS communities focusing on State and Individual sovereignty? How can we be a light to the world when all we seem to do is run around trying to prove to the world that we really aren’t that much different? We should be different. We should be Constitutional, regardless of what the federal aristocracy does. The Gadianton Robbers have infiltrated DC and they are in the White House, they roam the halls of Congress, and they lounge in the seat of Justice.

Do we read the warnings of corruption and tyranny in the BoM with disdain, then turn around and embrace it in our lives? God will not magically save this country from itself. We can either get busy and make huge changes to turn this boat around, or we can share the fate of all the “sinners” we so easily point a critical finger at.

Sorry to bug, that’s just what’s floating around in my head at the moment.

That’s a silly comparison (forgive me for saying so).

Once the slave market is ended and all the slaves freed, anyone bringing a NEW slave to the government for money would just be arrested on the spot for enslaving another human being.