60 votes

Show some tolerance can we?

I've seen so much fighting between many "liberty" lovers it drives me crazy. We have enough problems trying to deal with the statists, can't we at least show some tolerance towards others who are fighting for liberty? I hear so many people say "So-and-so is pretty good on liberty but his stand on (fill-in-the-blank) is completely out of step with TRUE liberty ideals."

You know what? We ALL have stances that are unique to ourselves. We ALL believe our positions are correct (or else we would change them). I'm not going to agree with you on everything and you are not going to agree with me. We can agree on the "non-aggression principal" as a good place to start but even then we have perhaps slight differences on what that means. One thing that IS certain, we need as many fighting for liberty as we can get to succeed over the collective will of the statists.

So if you come across someone who "believes in liberty", but they think (x) is wrong while you think (x) is right, just accept them and move on. You can discuss (x) when we have managed some real progress towards reversing the power of the goons who want to dictate our lives to us.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options



"We ALL believe our positions are correct (or else we would change them)."

I don't believe Anarchists think their ideas work. They can't defend their ideas, and when they try Communist crap starts seeping out.

I think they know Anarchism fails. To NOT know that would be to believe they're blind to the world and have no eyes, ears, or functioning minds. I say they're highly intelligent frauds who just want to destroy what stands between them and what they actually DO want and support.

I don't turn a blind eye to people fighting against everything that has any value defending liberty. I don't turn a blind eye to people who condemn the very idea of justice.

Look at some of the comments from these Anarchists: "All politicians are statists."

These people have nothing but hate for anyone defending liberty, yet they need mobs to get what they want, so they're here at the Daily Paul trying to "cause a revolution", but not because liberty is any friend of theirs.

Who are these people you are talking about?

I think I talk to some anarchists who believe in voluntary associations. Communism certainly isn't voluntary as far as I can tell. It is criminal. Am I missing something? Am I too naive to understand where people are coming from? I certainly am concerned that liberty be co-opted and used for nefarious means by criminals who want to usurp the current criminals in power. I think I recognize that in history. So are you saying there are communists here at the DP?


Where are the Anarchists I'm talking about?

You haven't noticed all the Anarchists here at the Daily Paul? Look who wrote this article. He's getting scared and starting to understand what he's bought into and why Jesus told him to pay his taxes. Damnation awaits.

Here's another one in this thread sharing his wisdom and telling people that "all politicians are statists". He knows that's not true, but it's another slur Anarchists throw at people.


PS Communists always try and sell Communism as voluntary, yet even if voluntary it self destructs. Communism rewards something destructive and punishes something productive until it starts to collapse, at which point the Commune is either destroyed or no longer voluntary.

Communism only really serves two purposes, to either destroy a society or to put a boot on societies neck.

I kinda think this may be happening before our eyes


and that is exactly what Ron Paul was working to alert people to. I don't think Ron Paul talks about overthrowing government or having no government. I think he is a Constitutionalist who wants the government boot to stay INSIDE the Constitution and off of society's neck so that the Republic is not destroyed.

You see, I kind of think that the boot is what actually destroys a society from within.

I think we can see that boot in the form of 60% in taxes and regulations coming out of most people's pocket. A healthcare system that has been broken so that a new one can be installed. Guns taken away from their owners so the people cannot protect themselves while the boot is coming down ever so hard on the neck of society. I actually think the powers that be want the people to revolt so they can squash the people. I think that is what the boot is doing at this very minute.

I think Ron Paul advocates Liberty. Not Anarchism, not Communism, but Liberty that exists when the government exists within the confines of the constitution.

What am I missing here?

Because in the video I linked, there were Anarchists and Communists fighting the Fascists and the people were stuck in the middle. I think Ron Paul would be in the middle with the people. His voting record shows that he does not run to the Communists or to the Fascists, but to the Constitution.


Don't stress

Don't stress.

Individualists are strongly opinionated. We happily argue with one another, call each other names and fued. However when push comes to shove and the time is right, we'll come together to fight the man. I know because we're all fighting for ourselvs and our own families.


My first wife was a direct descendent of Jefferson Davis (mother-in-law's maiden name) She had her kids adopted by the "new" daddy! My ex's adopted father was a descendent of the Hatfields. (His mother)

My marriage never had a chance!

Odd, but true!

OP in denial about Peter Schiff

The OP is probably referring to my post about Peter Schiff. Well, if you want to go and support someone who openly claims "he would've gone into Iraq" after all this time and that the US should "just blow the place up" referring to Iran's "nuclear" facilities, then go ahead.

Just know that the idea of invading your neighbours property because he refuses entry to your thugs is not "non-interventionist" - it's just more of demented neoconservatism that's pretty much destroyed the USA.

If you believe blindly supporting warmongers because they agree on one or two things you do, then you also inherit and own the moral culpability for the crimes they commit on your behalf. You are responsible for your actions too. If you provide aid and comform to a "terrorist" or a murderer, then you participate in the conspiracy and are liable. Just the same way if you vote for and support "liberty candidate" who then get into power and kill a million. You own that too.

I, for one, refuse to be continuously hoodwinked, scammed and robbed by Jewish supremacists who pretend to have my best interests at heart. Benedict Arnolds EXIST and it's naive to operate under the assumption that they don't. You only need look at RP's 2012 campaign to see that.

ChristianAnarchist's picture

Agree 2 disagree

PETA is an excellent example where we can agree to disagree. I'm not a big supporter of PETA and I see you are. That's fine. As long as you don't try to force me to pay for PETA, I'm cool with you trying to gain support for your position. You, on the other hand, should also except the fact that many of us will not give support for PETA and even may try to get active in fighting PETA. The bottom line is we need to work toward the BIGGER goal of getting the goons off of our collective backs...

Beware the cult of "government"...

Who Are You Referring To?

One problem I have found with this site is knowing who is talking to whom. Are you talking to me? If not, sorry to bother you.


If you dont agree with me...


Thats my pet peeve. You can certainly disagree with Rand Paul, but to call him a statist is absurd. Obama, Bush, McCain, etc- those are real statists. They may not even know why they believe what they do, but they always promote and jealously guard the power of the state.

Visit https://soundcloud.com/politics-of-freedom for all recent Ron Paul interviews, speeches, debates, forums, panels, press conferences, news coverage, and Texas Straight Talk updates!

"Terrorism is the war of the poor, while war is the terrorism of

Including Ron Paul?

Including the Founding Fathers? So anyone who isn't an absolute anarchist is a statist? I guess that's a clever point of view to come up with, but really?

Yes, of course including those lowlifes

In a civilized society, the level of legitimate governance is precisely zero. Anyone who tries to establish a superstructure of governance or to perpetuate such an established superstructure is someone who is trying to d-e-f-r-a-u-d people.

Except we don't live in in Idealland

There are always going to be people who seek power over others, whether it's under the label of 'government', 'organized religion', 'cult of personality', or any other label. It's just in the nature of some people, just as it's in the nature of some people to blindly follow those they perceive as leadership figures. I don't like it, but I don't expect umpteen thousands of years of behavioral evolution to simply vanish overnight.

All that said, would a society be "civilized" if the government was 100% voluntary?

I don't think there will ever be complete freedom or complete enslavement, we've been pretty much trapped somewhere in between and I don't think we'll ever shift to one extreme or another. We're too varied as a species to ever let that happen, IMO.

A signature used to be here!

ChristianAnarchist's picture

EXPECT people to be different...

We are all individuals so we are NEVER going to be the same as the next person nor will we agree with them 100%. I know there are people who exclude others because they are from a different "group" or "tribe", that's fine, that does not affect liberty. We might not like it, but as long as there's no violence, people are free to associate with whomever they wish. Some people want to have sex with those of the same sex as them, some people just want to have sex with everyone (party time!) and some just want to have sex with their longtime "other-half". Most of these people will "group" according to their sexual preference. SO WHAT! We can still try to get along with each other without being ass holes. We don't need to even like each other (there are many people I don't like). As long as we let each other live in peace...

Beware the cult of "government"...

deacon's picture

most people

including myself to a point,have had or have
problems looking at what we agree on,but instead dwell
on the small points we disagree on,and then spend most of our time arguing about it
what i believe does not ever line up totally with others believe
and vice versa
most who want liberty and freedom for all,need to realize there
are many roads and many paths,but all lead in the same direction
and to the same point
we are not clones
and thank you for this post


Yeah, get with the program, people

Didn't you learn anything at the Frankfurt School? Protect the tribe! Seal off the ideological borders and revel in the one-of-us that is liberty.



I made a similar comment earlier about how an increasing number of people seem to be taking on an "exclusive" attitude when it comes to whether or not a given individual is "libertarian enough".

What does that even mean? I thought liberty was all about diverse opinions and all that idealistic jazz, when in fact it's more of the same garbage that made me dislike D's/R's in the first place. Oh, did you deviate from the norm, even slightly? Poof! You were a freedom fighter ten seconds ago, and now you're a warmongering neocon who loves Israel, and probably has connections to the Trilateral Commission. It's beginning to border on the ridiculous...or typical, I can't tell the two apart anymore.

There are times when I can be rude, even a flat out jerk, but it's almost always to get a point across. So, I understand why some people here choose to take a more abrasive approach. What I don't understand is the elitist mindset that I brought up earlier. Then again, it seems to be an inevitability, given the nature of people.

Us humans really are quite the collection of paradoxes and contradictions, aren't we?


A signature used to be here!

And Yet You SLAM ME

for defending PETA without seeming to have any idea what PETA is really about except what MSM has told you it is. Go figure.


bzzt. Try again.

I didn't "slam" you for defending PETA, I pointed out that your argument was constructed with emotion and flimsy logic, and pointed out that there is plenty of evidence that shows PETA in a bad light, but very little in the way of good.

Also, you make a baseless assumption by claiming that I don't know anything about PETA "except for what the MSM told me". See? There it is. You acting like an elitist know-it-all while putting forth ZERO evidence, just like last time.

No, the reason why I "slammed" you was for the same reason why I'm doing it now; because you're being a kneejerk reactionary who's quick to make assumptions.

EDIT: Actually, you know what? This really isn't the time/thread for this debate.

A signature used to be here!


I think if PETA gets enough people to turn vegan, then I can get my steaks for less! I can't afford the $12 a pound! Right now, I am eating more venison than beef.

I See You Accuse Me of Being Emotional

yet you never addressed the issues that PETA as a group try to address. Sounds like a politician talking here to me. Why don't you address the things I said in my post about the animal cruelty instead of attacking me as a member of PETA and trying to act so superior to me as a person? Hmmmmmmm? Is all you can come up with is "oh you are being an emotional idiot because you believe PETA is a good thing" Is THAT all you can attack me with? GET REAL! And as far as this being the time or place to talk about this then what better place than this particular thread to talk about being tolerant especially in light of the fact that YOU are the one posting as a hotshot here?


Back in your cave Troll

just kidding, just kidding. : )
completely agree


How many ADHD kids does it take 2 unscrew a light bulb?

