Reddit mentions of The Revolution: A Manifesto

it was called the ron paul revolution. I made a stencil for t-shirts and made 200. went to busch gardens and everyone in that park was like fuck yeah ron paul, so I'd toss them a shirt.

everybody I knew voted for Paul. shit was mega rigged as soon as it hit Iowa though.

the big thing I remember though was the MILITARY LOVED PAUL. aka most of his donations came from active and retired military because he ran on the principle we shouldn't be nation building and having 1000s of foreign military bases. he wanted to fix marijuana off schedule 1.

he wrote a good book during this time.

https://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Manifesto-Ron-Paul/dp/0446537527/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1503187706&sr=8-1&keywords=ron+paul

Great! I'd start with this one:

https://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Manifesto-Ron-Paul/dp/0446537527/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1480350675&sr=8-1&keywords=ron+paul+the+revolution

and then follow up with this one:

https://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Defined-Essential-Issues-Freedom/dp/1455501441/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1480350707&sr=8-1&keywords=ron+paul+liberty+defined

https://www.amazon.com/Way-Forward-Renewing-American-Idea/dp/1455557560
https://www.amazon.com/Ted-Cruz/e/B00NPNPM34
https://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Manifesto-Ron-Paul/dp/0446537527
https://www.amazon.com/John-McCain/e/B001IGNQI8

>there is no attempt to appeal to the common man.

Yeah, most people don't get turned onto Austrian economics (or its pop-vulgar variety, what Phokus is no doubt referring to) via Rothbard or Mises. They read some absurd article or naive Aesop and start thinking, "Hey, not paying taxes means I'd have more money, which is clearly better than paying taxes!" Or they pick up one of Ron Paul's books (go ahead and tell me The Revolution: A Manifesto isn't aimed at the common man).
>It makes strong but respectful argument against Austrian economics.

He certainly states it in a respectful manner, but when he says Rothbard "simply does not understand the position he is attacking," he's not being generous is he?

It's alright. That's why you need to educate yourself and be able to stand up for him. If you choose to defend him on facts rather than emotion you will convince people.

A general comment, read his books revolution, end the fed, and liberty defined. You can even buy them in a bundle.


another great book from a great thinker, andrew napolitano

You don't have to agree with everything these people say to support them. If you understand the core principles and believe in the constitution and free, unalienable rights, then we can at least have educated discussions about these ideas and how to deploy them. And I am writing in generalities... I'm using "you" in a very broad, non-descriptive sense.

This one is excellent for beginners and highlights modern libertarian ideology

Mises literature often strays into an-cap areas, and can scare away people who are new to the idea of pure liberty.

Really? I downvoted it for the following reasons:

>On the federal level, he sounds great -- he's against the federal government doing pretty much anything.

I'm glad that you agree that this is a great thing. This happens to be why I most like RP.

>But instead he wants to give the individual states vastly more power than the current federal and state governments combined.

False. He wants to take away power from the Federal government (for example, education), and give it back to the states. He's not advocating the creation of new powers, but if States wanted to create them, then that would be for them to decide.

>I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in the south under a Ron Paul presidency.

So don't, then; no one is asking you to. Do you live in the South now? If not, why the hell do you care whether it is a livable place (in your mind)? I personally think the South is a great place to live. If you don't, that's fine by you.

> [From a later post in the thread]Right now the Bill of Rights removes a lot of state rights and grants a lot of individual rights. Paul wants to remove most of those individual rights and let the states decide on which of them they should implement on a piecemeal basis.

This just couldn't be more wrong. The Bill of Rights cannot be taken away. They are part of the US Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land. All other powers not explicitly mentioned in it are granted to the States, or to the People. This means no criminalizing marijuana, no criminalizing abortion, no DOMA, no Federal Assault Weapons Ban, and on and on for a whole host of other issues over which there is a split consensus. Most importantly, it means no using tax dollars to subsidize businesses. If the whole population of the US decides that something is worth enacting on a national level, the Constitution can be amended. It's my understanding that this is how the Constitution was intended.

Seriously, please read Ron Paul's book, The Revolution, to find out where he is really coming from. The paperback version is 10 bucks at Amazon.

> healthcare used to only be economically viable through an employer

And employers offered healthcare, costs were lower. Now that everyone has insurance, true costs are hidden and thus have been allowed to skyrocket.

Personally, I think we should:

• eliminate incentives for businesses to offer healthcare, and encourage salary as the primary means of competing for employees (WW2 wage controls caused high health care prices; here's the history of health insurance benefits)
  
• disallow group plans and force insurance to be bought by each individual/family to level the playing field
  
• reform the patent system to reduce prices of drugs
  
• limit awards to medical malpractice suits
  
  To make healthcare cheaper, we need to make it more transparent and competitive. If patients don't see the true cost of insurance (e.g. costs are hidden behind insurance premiums), they won't look for a cheaper solution, so they'll take whatever the doctor recommends. Insurance should only cover real emergencies (e.g. you don't insure your car for oil changes), which means that they'll pay cash for routine procedures, which will allow smaller clinics to specialize and drive down prices.
  
  Ron Paul has a good section on this in The Revolution: A Manifesto (here is his stance on his website). A quote from Gary Johnson:
  
  > “We want Stitches-R-Us,” he said. “We would have Gallbladders-R-Us. We would have advertised pricing with advertised outcomes.”
  
  Now, after we've opened up competition in health care and made everything more transparent, we can talk about what to do with the poor. I think that having something like Basic Income would work out because it doesn't play favorites in the market and it allows people to choose how to allocate their money (e.g. how much health care they want vs other things in their lives).
  
  > what the ideal healthcare situation would look like in the US
  
  The ideal situation is inexpensive, world class healthcare without government interference. The less than ideal situation is to help the poor afford inexpensive healthcare.

What you're talking about is a real system error. The solution you're suggesting however, goes against some deep player made code (which would require a very damaging reboot to change and that might just make it worse). Most people think that re-distributing gold will work if we get high-level (aka. "Gov.") players to do it. However, this is actually what those same high-level players want us to believe so that they still have the power to control the gold.

I could go into allot more detail, but I think this The_Real_Ron_Paul guy says it better. He wrote a player guide book that essentially explained why the two major factions in the server are both abusing or misunderstanding the original code and that either methodology just kind of fucks things up.

You really need to look past the fact that he associates with certain clans, factions, and admin followings because, if you listen to him, he's kind of above it.