# Think Tank > History >  What's the best book to read about Thomas Jefferson?

## driege

I'd like something that is accurate, but perhaps looks at Jefferson from a libertarian point of view.  Any recommendations?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

I like Nock's Bio of TJ, for one.  Available free here, courtesy of the Mises Institute (that same MI that the minarchists like to mindlessly bash  )

----------


## low preference guy

> I like Nock's Bio of TJ, for one.  Available free here, *courtesy of the Mises Institute (that same MI that the minarchists like to mindlessly bash*  )


off topic? also, i've never heard anyone here bash the Mises Institute. do you have a a source? or did you just make it up?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> off topic? also, i've never heard anyone here bash the Mises Institute. do you have a a source? or did you just make it up?


It's a common theme during the debates between minarchists and anarchists.  I assumed it was common knowledge.  I'll dig something up if I have a chance.

----------


## driege

> I like Nock's Bio of TJ, for one.  Available free here, courtesy of the Mises Institute (that same MI that the minarchists like to mindlessly bash  )


I appreciate the recommendation.  Unfortunately, I won't be able to read an entire book in PDF format.  Any other suggestions (besides trying to find Nock's book at a bookstore)?

----------


## ClayTrainor

> off topic? also, i've never heard anyone here bash the Mises Institute. do you have a a source?


The only person I'm aware of is that Galileo Galilei dude.  I literally lol'd when I read this one. 





> This shows the danger of the Mises Institute.  They are feeding Ron Paul bogus information.  The Mises Institute likes to propogate neocon propaganda.
> 
> Ever notice that the Mises Institutie doesn't support Rand Paul?  Instead they call him a neocon and trash him behind his back.  They got NWO written all over them.

----------


## low preference guy

> The only person I'm aware of is that Galileo Galilei dude.  I literally lol'd when I read this one.


Galileo is super out of his mind. That's one of the posters the NWO told me not to read, so I don't. Galileo by the way claims to be both a mathematician and a "constitutional scholar". His words.

I think heavenly boy's generalization is unwarranted. Plus it's off topic. [redacted]

----------


## RCA

Jefferson and His Time by Dumas Malone. It's the Magnum Opus of Jefferson biographies.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Galileo is super out of his mind. That's one of the posters the NWO told me not to read, so I don't. Galileo by the way claims to be both a mathematician and a "constitutional scholar". His words.
> 
> I think heavenly boy's generalization is unwarranted. Plus it's off topic. *He probably has mental problems.*


Can you possibly be any more of a douche bag?  


It wasn't a generalization, btw.  I said it was a "common theme" among certain members.

----------


## driege

> Jefferson and His Time by Dumas Malone. It's the Magnum Opus of Jefferson biographies.


I don't think I can handle reading that many books about Jefferson since that's not just one book.  Any particular books in the series that stand out?  
_Jefferson and the Rights of Man_ and _Jefferson and the Ordeal of Liberty_ look interesting.  I am mostly interested in learning about Jefferson's thoughts and vision.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I like Nock's Bio of TJ, for one.  Available free here, courtesy of the Mises Institute (*that same MI that the minarchists like to mindlessly bash*  )


Is this another attempt to pick a fight?

Heavenlyboy is overgeneralizing.  Ludwig von Mises was not an anarchist, yet some here seem to want to depict the organization bearing his name, as such.  There is plenty of information depicting classical liberalism on there and in fact, when Blumert was still alive, that's what you saw all over the home page.

----------


## Andrew-Austin

> I like Nock's Bio of TJ, for one.  Available free here, courtesy of the Mises Institute (that same MI that the minarchists like to mindlessly bash  )


Its no secret HB that you don't exactly shy away from an opportunity to sound condescending.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Heavenlyboy is overgeneralizing. Ludwig von Mises was not an anarchist, yet some here seem to want to depict the organization bearing his name, as such.  There is plenty of information depicting classical liberalism on there and in fact, when Blumert was still alive, that's what you saw all over the home page.


A very fair point, for sure.  There are plenty of people who publish at Mises who are not anarchists, and Mises himself was a minarchist.  The Mises Institute also has a ton of Minarchist fans and advocates.

The thing is though If you take the actual Austrian Business Cycle Theory to its logical conclusion, the Free-market is always the answer, every single time.  This is why, in my opinion, Mises students do tend to show a strong tendency towards Anarchism, unlike virtually all other schools of Economics.  The theory is Anarchistic, unlike say... Chicago, Chicago, Keynesian, and Marxian schools who all advocate various degrees of a State Central Bank.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> Is this another attempt to pick a fight?
> 
> Heavenlyboy is overgeneralizing.  Ludwig von Mises was not an anarchist, yet some here seem to want to depict the organization bearing his name, as such.  There is plenty of information depicting classical liberalism on there and in fact, when Blumert was still alive, that's what you saw all over the home page.


Just because it is called the Mises Institute doesn't mean it isn't Rothbardian in nature. It would be like Mises setting up the Bohm-Bawerk Institute. They would be promoting the Misesian viewpoint, rather than the total and complete Bawerk viewpoint (but using Bawerk's methodology). The reason the Mises Institute is named after Mises, was because Rothbard & Rockwell were devout Austrians and the Institute was foremost economic in nature (e.g. the same methodology as Mises) -- valueless. The LvMI has over time drifted more to the political economy, and in that area the Mises Institute is fully Rothbardian. _You can try and deny it all you want, but every single fellow at the LvMI is an Anarchist. Every single one._ 

Besides, its the natural progression of those who believe the market is better in every area than the State.

Let's take the Senior Fellows:




> Block, Walter Loyola University, New Orleans  wblock@loyno.edu 
> Cochran, John P. Metropolitan State College of Denver  cochranj@mscd.edu 
> DiLorenzo, Thomas Loyola College of Maryland  tdilo@aol.com 
> Gordon, David The Mises Review  dgordon@mises.org 
> Herbener, Jeffrey M. Grove City College  jmherbener@gcc.edu 
> Hoppe, Hans-Hermann University of Nevada, Las Vegas 
> Distinguished Fellow, The Mises Institute  Hoppe@Mises.com 
> Hülsmann, Jörg Guido University of Angers  jgh@guidohulsmann.com 
> Kinsella, Stephan Applied Optoelectronics, Inc  stephan@stephankinsella.com 
> ...


^ *Every single one not a Minarchist.*

----------


## ClayTrainor

> _You can try and deny it all you want, but every single fellow at the LvMI is an Anarchist. Every single one._


Edit: I just realized how retarded my question was. [Retracted]

----------


## LibertyEagle

That would be your opinion, Clay.  Funny that Mises, who brought Austrian Economics here, did not advocate dissolving all government.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> _You can try and deny it all you want, but every single fellow at the LvMI is an Anarchist. Every single one._


If that is true, I would well imagine that Ludwig von Mises would be very disappointed in what his name was being used for.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> That would be your opinion, Clay.  Funny that Mises, who brought Austrian Economics here, did not advocate dissolving all government.


 I completely concede that Mises was in fact a minarchist.  That does not change my point, which is not my opinion.  It is a fact.  The Austrian Theory is anarchistic, in that the Free-market is* ALWAYS* the answer.

Does the Austrian Theory make excuses for government intervention, ever?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I completely concede that Mises was in fact a minarchist.  That does not change my point, which is not my opinion.  It is a fact.  The Austrian Theory is anarchistic, in that the Free-market is* ALWAYS* the answer.
> 
> Does the Austrian Theory make excuses for government intervention, ever?


It isn't about government; it's about economics.  Don't be ridiculous.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> If that is true, I would well imagine that Ludwig von Mises would be very disappointed in what his name was being used for.


Are you serious? Murray Rothbard was Mises foremost student and Ludwig loved to death Murray. You are delusional.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Austrian Economic Disciple, you may think that by listing how many of the Senior Fellows you believe are anarchist, that it will somehow draw people to the site.  However, it just makes me very sad that what I once knew the Mises Institute to be has fallen to this extent.  It is also why I no longer send people there.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> It isn't about government; it's about economics.


Exactly!  There is no room for government in the Austrian Theory, unlike other economic schools which do make room for government! I'm so glad you understand and agree with me!!!  

There is no room for government in the Austrian Theory, because It's all about Free-market economics, not statist economics.  It is anarchistic, like it or not.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> Austrian Economic Disciple, you may think that by listing how many of the Senior Fellows you believe are anarchist, that it will somehow draw people to the site.  However, it just makes me very sad that what I once knew the Mises Institute to be has fallen to this extent.  It is also why I no longer send people there.


The Mises Institute was always like this. It was set up by Rothbard and Rockwell, both lifelong Voluntaryist/Anarcho-Capitalists. Similarly, CATO was set up by Rothbard who got stabbed in the back by the Kochtopus, and the Volker Fund was hugely influenced by Rothbard and the rest of the An-Caps at the time. You live in $#@!ing denial. You use all the work of the Voluntaryists and then torch us at the same time. Get real.

I bet you didn't know that FFF, and FEE are both run by An-Cap/Voluntaryists do you?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Are you serious? Murray Rothbard was Mises foremost student and Ludwig loved to death Murray. You are delusional.


No, I am not.  Their "love" for each other has nothing whatsoever to do with whether he wanted an organization named after him to be preaching something that he himself did not believe in.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> The Mises Institute was always like this. It was set up by Rothbard and Rockwell, both lifelong Voluntaryist/Anarcho-Capitalists. Similarly, CATO was set up by Rothbard who got stabbed in the back by the Kochtopus, and the Volker Fund was hugely influenced by Rothbard and the rest of the An-Caps at the time. You live in $#@!ing denial. You use all the work of the Voluntaryists and then torch us at the same time. Get real.


Use all the work?  I'm not using $#@!.  I came to this site because I supported Ron Paul and have for over twenty years.  I'm not some little child who rails against the government on his high horse, but accepts a check every month  from same.  I am also not here to piggyback off of Ron Paul to promote my own fricking agenda.  

Secondly, you need to check your facts more than just a little bit.  Rothbard and Rockwell most certainly were NOT always anarchists.




> I bet you didn't know that FFF, and FEE are both run by An-Cap/Voluntaryists do you?


I have noticed that about FEE, but that was not the case when the founder was still alive.  However, his son is now running it.  I'm not positive, but I think Skousen was at the helm for awhile after the founder died.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Don't be ridiculous.


Kinda funny to me how you edited this in after words.  Ouch... you got me.

----------


## ClayTrainor

BTW do you guys realize how badly we've derailed this thread? lol

Dam you and your little snarky comment HB!

----------


## LibertyEagle

Is that the best you have, Clay?

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Is that the best you have, Clay?


I don't know, I'm just letting my mind flow.  You can keep testing me if you want?

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

That's nice LE. If you would so kindly then if you wish, be reciprocal. If you are going to be so vitriolic towards the Voluntaryists, then it would be only logical to not use the work expounded upon by these same people. Ergo, Thomas Woods is off-limits. Stings a bit knowing that he is a Voluntaryist doesn't it? This fight is stupid to begin with anyways, because you can do your political stuff, and I'll do my thing with the Voluntaryists in New Hampshire, and we'll see what is more successful.

----------


## LibertyEagle

I have nothing whatsoever against Voluntaryists at all, or anarchists for that matter.  But, this constant crap of a select few using Ron Paul and this movement to push an alternate agenda is getting really old.  Not to mention the constant digs against anyone who doesn't want to burn the Constitution, hate the Founding Fathers, Christianity, or dissolve any and all government.  That is NOT what Ron Paul is about.  

Just cut it out.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I don't know, I'm just letting my mind flow.  You can keep testing me if you want?


Nah.  You flunked long ago when you made it clear you want my country to be dissolved and my Constitution ripped up.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> But, this constant crap of a select few using Ron Paul and this movement to push an alternate agenda is getting really old.


The agenda is the pursuit of individual liberty.




> Not to mention the constant digs against anyone who doesn't want to burn the Constitution, hate the Founding Fathers, Christianity, or dissolve any and all government.  That is NOT what Ron Paul is about.


1.  Why did you throw Christianity in there?  Plenty of voluntaryists are religious.  I think you just had a freudian slip.  You just exposed that you're getting offended at people who don't agree with your worldview.  It's an online forum, get used to having your ideas criticized sometimes unfairly, FFS! It ain't gonna stop the more you bitch about it

2.  You are using hyperbole language "Burn the constitution" that voluntaryists pretty much never use.  It's true they criticize and stand against any and all Statist solutions. The Constitution simply isn't an exception to them, and it is to you.

----------


## LibertyEagle

No freudian slip, Clay.  And you keep playing your game by inferring that I am talking about a collective, rather than _specific individuals_.

I thought you were all about the individual, eh?  Why don't you stick with that on this too.  Be consistent.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Nah.  You flunked long ago when you made it clear you want my country to be dissolved and my Constitution ripped up.


lol, you're the most antagonistic, hyperbole abusing member of this board.  I never said anything quite like that.

I say the constitution did not do anything to limit the government, and it actually granted the power of taxation to a small group of people.

Countries are Human Farms, We are Tax Livestock.  I want free-markets to replace government.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> No freudian slip, Clay.


If you say so. 

Why did you mention Christianity when this is a discussion about Voluntaryism, minarchism and economics?

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> lol, you're the most antagonistic, hyperbole abusing member of this board.  I never said anything quite like that.
> 
> *I say the constitution did not do anything to limit the government, and it actually granted the power of taxation to a small group of people.*
> 
> Countries are Human Farms, We are Tax Livestock.  I want free-markets to replace government.


The Founding Fathers "Brutus" "Centinel" & "Old Whig" said the same things. Then again though, LE is a staunch Federalist and dislikes the Anti-Federalists like Patrick Henry & George Mason who called for abolishment of standing armies, localized Government (e.g. Anti-Constitution), etc. So I can say that LE hates our Founding Fathers also.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> lol, you're the most antagonistic, hyperbole abusing member of this board.  I never said anything quite like that.
> 
> I say the constitution did not do anything to limit the government, and it actually granted the power of taxation to a small group of people.


Actually, you've said quite a lot more than that and not too long ago, in fact.  There was no hyperbole in what I said.




> Countries are Human Farms, We are Tax Livestock.  I want free-markets to replace government.


I'm sorry, Clay.  If a foreigner wants to rip up my country and throw my Constitution away, it doesn't sit too well with me.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Why did you mention Christianity when this is a discussion about Voluntaryism, minarchism and economics?


There you go again.




> And you keep playing your game by inferring that I am talking about a collective, rather than _specific individuals_.
> 
> I thought you were all about the individual, eh?  Why don't you stick with that on this too.  Be consistent.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Actually, you've said quite a lot more than that and not too long ago, in fact.  There was no hyperbole in what I said.


Certainly not in this thread, and I've never said anything like "burn the constitution", or "the constitution should be ripped up".  It's true I'm heavily critical of the constitution, but yes, you are using hyperbole to try and make me, and other voluntaryists look bad.





> I'm sorry, Clay.  If a foreigner wants to rip up my country and throw my Constitution away, it doesn't sit too well with me.


Again, hyperbole that you could not quote from me.  The constitution was void from president Numero Uno.  It never worked.  That's my claim.  Also, you get just as pissy at people who aren't from Canada and hold this position, so don't act like my tax owners have anything to do with this. 

Whatever, LE.  Your obviously not willing to discuss this in an honest manner without fighting.  Take a chill pill, relax a bit.  I'm not here to hurt you, or Ron Paul.  I'm going to support much of his efforts if he runs in 2012, and I really can't wait.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Then again though, LE is a staunch Federalist and dislikes the Anti-Federalists like Patrick Henry & George Mason who called for abolishment of standing armies, localized Government (e.g. Anti-Constitution), etc. So I can say that LE hates our Founding Fathers also.


That would be a lie.

You have no shame, do you.

Furthermore, you need to do a lot more studying.  I suggest reading the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers again.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

See LE hates our Founding Fathers and signers of the Declaration of Independence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Yates_(politician)

Robert Yates (1738-1801) was a politician and judge well known for his Anti-Federalist stances. He is also well known as the presumed author of political essays published in 1787 and 1788 under the pseudonyms "Brutus" and "Sydney". *The essays opposed the introduction of the Constitution of the United States.*

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> That would be a lie.
> 
> You have no shame, do you.


I am merely using your debate tactic. I certainly do not hate all of our Founding Fathers, I merely hate the Federalists, like you yourself who support the Constitution and the centralization it brought.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> There you go again.


A "select few" is still a collective. you didn't mention individual names 

And this is a voluntaryism / Minarchism / economics discussion, and you brought Christianity into it.  Freudian Slip, imo.  Obviously not yours

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I am merely using your debate tactic. I certainly do not hate all of our Founding Fathers, I merely hate the Federalists, like you yourself who support the Constitution and the centralization it brought.


I dislike individuals, AED.  And I dislike them for their beliefs and their actions.  Your collectivism is astonishing, considering how much you rail against it in others.

And your last statement is so beyond stupid, I am not even going to waste my time.

----------


## FrankRep

> I am merely using your debate tactic. I certainly do not hate all of our Founding Fathers, I merely hate the Federalists, like you yourself who support the Constitution and the centralization it brought.


Econ, you Hate the Constitution do ya? Well gosh, you realize that Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist, right?

Come to think about it you just said you hated LibertyEagle, Ron Paul, and myself.

Wow.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> I dislike individuals, AED.  And I dislike them for their beliefs and their actions.  Your collectivism is astonishing, considering how much you rail against it in others.
> 
> And your last statement is so beyond stupid, I am not even going to waste my time.


Why then do you say I hate our "Founding Fathers" when the Founding Fathers held a wide array of views. The only thing being collectivized here is you using Founding Fathers to support your view that the Constitution is necessary, or even more ridiculous a paper that supports liberty. The Federalists had to use massive propaganda to get the Constitution passed, and barely so in many states like New York, VA, and Rhode Island. Almost everything the Anti-Federalists said has happened. Perhaps it is you who should read the Anti-Federalist papers, since I have done so many times. 

I dislike the Federalists for undoing everything the Revolution fought for. (Same reason why Thomas Jefferson said he felt more alive and more in company in France than in America after the revolution, for liberty was discarded, for State power)

----------


## LibertyEagle

> A "select few" is still a collective. you didn't mention individual names


Individuals, Clay, individuals.  Surely, you can grasp that concept.




> And this is a voluntaryism / economics discussion,


There you go again...




> Originally Posted by *LibertyEagle*  
> And you keep playing your game by inferring that I am talking about a collective, rather than _specific individuals_.
> 
> 
> I thought you were all about the individual, eh? Why don't you stick with that on this too. Be consistent.





> and you brought Christianity into it.  Freudian Slip, imo.  Obviously not yours


No Freudian slip.  The specific individuals, as you well know, also detest Christians, as well as the Constitution, the Founding Fathers and my country, in that they want it dissolved.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> Econ, you Hate the Constitution do ya? Well gosh, you realize that Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist, right?
> 
> Come to think about it you just said you hated LibertyEagle, Ron Paul, and myself.
> 
> Wow.


Considering that Ron Paul said that his ultimate goal is self-government or Autarchism, a philosophy that Ralph Waldo Emerson and Robert LeFevre expounded upon, it hardly seems to be true. Besides, Ron Paul holds many many views that are contrary to the Constitution. Even you yourself do. You don't support the 14th, 16th, or 17th do you? Well then, you don't support the Constitution! 

*Ron Paul is a libertarian.*

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Come to think about it you just said you hated LibertyEagle, Ron Paul, and myself.
> 
> Wow.


So you speak for Ron Paul, do you?  I'm pretty sure the man can speak for himself, but I'm sure he loves that people try to speak for him. 


*MHD: "What do you say to people who advocate for self-government rather than a return to the Constitution? Just like ..."*

*Ron Paul: "Great. Fine. And I think that's really what my goal is."*

YouTube - Ron Paul Discusses Civil Disobedience, Self-Government & More with Motorhome Diaries

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Considering that Ron Paul said that his ultimate goal is self-government or Autarchism, a philosophy that Ralph Waldo Emerson and Robert LeFevre expounded upon, it hardly seems to be true. Besides, Ron Paul holds many many views that are contrary to the Constitution. Even you yourself do. You don't support the 14th, 16th, or 17th do you? Well then, you don't support the Constitution! 
> 
> *Ron Paul is a libertarian.*



Ron Paul is also a Constitutionalist and a Republican.  I know it chaps you, but get over it.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Individuals, Clay, individuals.  Surely, you can grasp that concept.


"Select few" surely you can grasp that concept. 




> No Freudian slip.  The specific individuals, as you well know, also detest Christians, as well as the Constitution, the Founding Fathers and my country, in that they want it dissolved.


I have no idea who this "select few" includes.  I thought we were talking about The Austrian Theory in regards to Voluntaryism and Minarchism, then you threw that curveball at me.  

Oh, LE.  If I didn't enjoy our conversations so much, I'd stop having them. I hope you're enjoy them as much as me.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Clay,

lololol.  That same 'ol tired video.  Oh puhleeese...  

Do you want me to list all his many, many articles he wrote about upholding the Constitution?

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Ron Paul is also a Constitutionalist and a Republican.  I know it chaps you, but get over it.


All true.  But you can't deny that he is also more than sympathetic to some ideas that perhaps don't see the constitution as valid.

MHD: "What do you say to people who advocate for self-government rather than a return to the Constitution? Just like ..."

Ron Paul: "Great. Fine. And I think that's really what my goal is."

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Clay,
> 
> lololol.  That same 'ol tired video.  Oh puhleeese...


You can either take FrankRep's word for it or Ron Pauls.




> Do you want me to list all his many, many articles he wrote about upholding the Constitution?


I'm well aware of every single one of them.  It doesn't change what he said in the MHD interview, does it?  Was he lying?  Being stupid?  No... he was being honest, like he always is.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

This is why the John Randolph Club could never last and when Ron Paul sadly dies, this coalition will part ways. We simply have differing views on the ultimate solutions and goals. This thread just brings it out more and more, and the rift of Federalist & Anti-Federalist is still alive and well as evidenced by those of us who look at the Constitution as a document that destroyed liberty than those who look at it doing the opposite (which is quite astonishing to me, but whatever). That's why I have hope for the Free State Project. Every Anti-Federalist & Voluntaryist should move there in hopes of bringing about liberty. LE you can have the rest of the 49 states, sound good?

----------


## FrankRep

> So you speak for Ron Paul, do you?  I'm pretty sure the man can speak for himself, but I'm sure he loves that people try to speak for him. 
> 
> *MHD: "What do you say to people who advocate for self-government rather than a return to the Constitution? Just like ..."*
> 
> *Ron Paul: "Great. Fine. And I think that's really what my goal is."*



I hope you're not trying to make Ron Paul look like an Anarchist. Ron Paul never promoted Anarchy.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I hope you're not trying to make Ron Paul look like an Anarchist.


Of course not. I don't speak for other people. Why would you suggest that?  Is that how you take Ron Pauls words???

  From what he said in that interview, he does not seem opposed or willing to ridicule to alternative solutions to liberty in any way.  He didn't say, "What do you mean you want the constitution ripped up and thrown out and my country dissolved"  like some members of this board jump to.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> All true.  But you can't deny that he is also more than sympathetic to some ideas that perhaps don't see the constitution as valid.
> 
> MHD: "What do you say to people who advocate for self-government rather than a return to the Constitution? Just like ..."
> 
> Ron Paul: "Great. Fine. And I think that's really what my goal is."


This is where a couple of folks go way over the bend.  You in particular seem to believe that self-government is a concept owned by the anarchists.  lolol.  It isn't.  It is what at least the good Founders wanted for us.  That the majority of any governing that went on would be done by US.  Not government at all.  The government's purpose was to be strictly limited.

You however, take things as an all or nothing affair.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> This is where a couple of folks go way over the bend.  You in particular seem to believe that self-government is a concept owned by the anarchists.  lolol.  It isn't.  It is what at least the good Founders wanted for us.  That the majority of any governing that went on would be done by US.  Not government at all.  The government's purpose was to be strictly limited.


LE you have no idea what self-Government even means do you? Self-Government precludes a State. Self-Government is AUTARCHISM. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autarchism

Autarchism (from Greek, "belief in self rule") is a political philosophy that upholds the principle of individual liberty, rejects compulsory government, and supports the elimination of government in favor of ruling oneself and no other. Advocates of the philosophy are autarchist (from Greek, "one who believes in self rule"), while the state in which everyone rules themselves and no one else is autarchy (from Greek αὐταρχία autarchia, "state of self rule").

You are just as bad as FrankRep spewing this propaganda.

----------


## FrankRep

> Of course not. I don't speak for other people. Why would you suggest that?  Is that how you take Ron Pauls words???


Ron Paul has shown interest in creating a "Republic of Texas," but the form of Government will be a Republic with a Constitution.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Of course not. I don't speak for other people. Why would you suggest that?


Maybe because he has read your posts.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> This is where a couple of folks go way over the bend.  You in particular seem to believe that self-government is a concept owned by the anarchists.  lolol.


self-government stands on it's own, it isn't owned by anyone.  It means what it means.  It certainly doesn't mean state government.




> It isn't.  It is what at least the good Founders wanted for us.  That the majority of any governing that went on would be done by US.  Not government at all.  The government's purpose was to be strictly limited.


Okay, but Ron Paul is not against or willing to ridicule people who "advocate for self-government *rather than a return to the Constitution*".  You should consider his approach and stop trying to tell people that I want the constitution "ripped up" when I've said no such thing!

I think it was a noble effort, but it had a fatal flaw.  Taxation.  I would like to see a push for alternatives at least as much as I'd like to see efforts to "limit" government through political activism..

----------


## LibertyEagle

> LE you have no idea what self-Government even means do you? Self-Government precludes a State. Self-Government is AUTARCHISM. 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autarchism
> 
> Autarchism (from Greek, "belief in self rule") is a political philosophy that upholds the principle of individual liberty, rejects compulsory government, and supports the elimination of government in favor of ruling oneself and no other. Advocates of the philosophy are autarchist (from Greek, "one who believes in self rule"), while the state in which everyone rules themselves and no one else is autarchy (from Greek αὐταρχία autarchia, "state of self rule").


Same all or nothing BS.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> Same all or nothing BS.


You can't even comprehend simple linguistics. Why do I even bother.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> You can't even comprehend simple linguistics. Why do I even bother.


She's easily the most divisive and antagonistic member of this board, imo.  Don't let her get you frustrated. 

You're right, we are just wasting our time here.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Ron Paul has shown interest in creating a "Republic of Texas," but the form of Government will be a Republic with a Constitution.


Okay, that's fine.   He fights to limit government any way he can, and that would be a way to limit the federal government. he also said.

MHD: "What do you say to people who advocate for self-government rather than a return to the Constitution? Just like ..."

Ron Paul: "Great. Fine. And I think that's really what my goal is."

The man can speak for himself.  He's clearly not against, or even willing to ridicule those who seek rational alternatives to the constitution, like some members of this board are.  Ron Paul even said, "That's really what my goal is".  I'm not saying he's an anarchist, nor am I trying to label him as one. I'm just saying RON PAUL $#@!ing said that!  So stop trying to act like he only supports your specific view of how to get things done.

He is for *Liberty*... PERIOD!

----------


## FrankRep

> self-government stands on it's own, it isn't owned by anyone.  It means what it means.  It certainly doesn't mean state government.


You're trying to manipulate Ron Paul's words of "self-government" to mean Anarchy. It's absolutely shameful to exploit Ron Paul to push your own agenda.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Okay, but Ron Paul is not against or willing to ridicule people who "advocate for self-government *rather than a return to the Constitution*".


Most of us here want self-government.  Your definition however, is again, all or nothing.  I could care less what you believe, but when you start inferring or directly calling Ron Paul an anarchist, or wanting my country dissolved and my Constitution thrown out, then, yeah, you and I are probably going to have a problem.




> You should consider his approach and stop trying to tell people that I want the constitution "ripped up" when I've said no such thing!


You want it gone, Clay.  Stop playing word games.  




> I think it was a noble effort, but it had a fatal flaw.  Taxation.  I would like to see a push for alternatives at least as much as I'd like to *see efforts to "limit" government through political activism*..


I think we're all for that.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> You're trying to manipulate Ron Paul's words of "self-government" to mean Anarchy. It's absolutely shameful to exploit Ron Paul to push your own agenda.


Pot meet Kettle. Don't you have some communists to expose?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> You can't even comprehend simple linguistics. Why do I even bother.


Have you _comprehended_ yet that Rothbard and Rockwell were not always anarchists, like you claimed?

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> Have you _comprehended_ yet that Rothbard and Rockwell were not always anarchists?


I can concede this point. I should probably not have said lifelong, as I am unaware of their political leanings when they were 14, but I can say that for their adult-lives they were (Rockwell when he was ~ 29). Are you willing to concede that you are wrong about many of the issues brought up in this thread? Let's see who is more dogmatic.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> You're trying to manipulate Ron Paul's words of "self-government" to mean Anarchy.


No you are.  I'm saying Ron Paul clearly supports "Self-government" whatever that is, as a possible alternative to the constitution.

The phrase Self-Government can stand on it's own merits, I'm not manipulating anything.  It definitely doesn't mean state government!





> It's absolutely shameful to exploit Ron Paul to push your own agenda.


Hilarious coming from you frank. Absolutely, Hilarious.   I'm literally lol'ing my ass 
off right now. Thank you.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I could care less what you believe, but when you start inferring or directly calling Ron Paul an anarchist, or wanting my country dissolved and my Constitution thrown out, then, yeah, you and I are probably going to have a problem.


I did no such thing.  Those are all your own words.  pure $#@!ing divisive hyperbole, the typical LE post. 




> You want it gone, Clay.  Stop playing word games.



I'll leave the word games to you and frank. You're much better at the political games than me. 

I want free-markets  to replace political documents like the constitution, yes.  Abso-$#@!ing-lutely.  Ron Paul isn't against that idea, IN HIS OWN WORDS, so stop trying to act like he is.

And no, Ron Paul does not call himself an anarchist, nor would I call him one.  Happy?!

----------


## LibertyEagle

Ok, Clay, let me get this straight.

1.  You don't think Ron Paul is an anarchist.  (I stand corrected)




> I want free-markets to replace political documents like the constitution, yes. Abso-$#@!ing-lutely.


2.  This seems to mean that yes, you want the Constitution trashed.  (check)

So that leaves us with you confirming what you have discussed in other threads.

3.  Do you or don't you want the United States as a country to be dissolved?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I can concede this point. I should probably not have said lifelong, as I am unaware of their political leanings when they were 14, but I can say that for their adult-lives they were (Rockwell when he was ~ 29).


14?  You've got some reading to do. lolol




> Are you willing to concede that you are wrong about many of the issues brought up in this thread? Let's see who is more dogmatic.


No, because I wasn't wrong.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> Damn straight, Clay.  If I see you twisting Ron Paul's words or those of the U.S.' Founders, you can count on me saying something about it.


The only one twisting words is yourself LE. Once again, pot meet kettle.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> 14?  You've got some reading to do. lolol
> 
> 
> 
> No, because I wasn't wrong.


That's right, because no founding father was anti-Constitution...LE you make me laugh. Keep up the propaganda, you are bound to find a few fools.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Damn straight, Clay.


I enjoy our conversations LE.  That's why I'm still here.  I think you do too, because we have them so often. 




> If I see you twisting Ron Paul's words or those of the U.S.' Founders, you can count on me saying something about it.


Twisting Ron Pauls words? lol. Talk to frankrep, He's the one claiming to speak for the man. 

I think the man can speak for himself.

MHD: "What do you say to people who advocate for self-government rather than a return to the Constitution? Just like ..."

Ron Paul: "Great. Fine. And I think that's really what my goal is.".

And no, I'm not saying Ron Paul would call himself an anarchist, nor would I call him one.  I'm saying hte man said, what he $#@!ing said!  He's got no problem with people seeking alternatives to the constitution. 

 Cheer up LE, stop being so angry all the time.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> The only one twisting words is yourself LE. Once again, pot meet kettle.


And Frank! Don't forget frank.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> And Frank! Don't forget frank.


Ah, yes, how can I forget Frank!

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I think the man can speak for himself.
> 
> MHD: "What do you say to people who advocate for self-government rather than a return to the Constitution? Just like ..."
> 
> Ron Paul: "Great. Fine. And I think that's really what my goal is.".
> 
> And no, I'm not saying Ron Paul would call himself an anarchist, nor would I call him one.  I'm saying hte man said, what he $#@!ing said!  He's got no problem with people seeking alternatives to the constitution. 
> 
>  Cheer up LE, stop being so angry all the time.


I now pronounce you Alex Jones, Jr.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I now pronounce you Alex Jones, Jr.


haha, wow... I must say, that one truly caught me by surprise. You mean Alex "Restore the Republic" Jones, the Christian, Constitutionalist?  

I HAVE THE DOCUMENTS!!!

----------


## LibertyEagle

It's ok, boys.  I've always known that you don't represent hardly a thing about Ron Paul.  My only concern has ever been that onlookers might think you did and be scared off from him.

What I don't know is whether you know that too.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> haha, wow... I must say, that one truly caught me by surprise. You mean Alex "Restore the Republic" Jones, the Christian, Constitutionalist?  
> 
> I HAVE THE DOCUMENTS!!!


No, the one who is king of twisting a man's words to fit his own agenda.  He did that to Dr. Paul more than once during the campaign.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> I now pronounce you Alex Jones, Jr.


Hey LE, I have a question for you. Please list all the signers of the DoI who were in favor of the Constitution, and who were against the Constitution. I'd bet you would be very surprised at the result. (or not, since you would just deny the facts anyways...)

----------


## ClayTrainor

> It's ok, boys.  I've always known that you don't represent hardly a thing about Ron Paul.


Completely false, but thanks for your opinion.

I was just showing some new friends some Ron Paul debate videos the other day.  I probably did that because I don't support the guy, right? 




> My only concern has ever been that onlookers might think you did and be scared off from him.
> 
> What I don't know is whether you know that too.


lol... you try to make them scared of us by saying things like "They want the constitution ripped up and burned".

You're hilarious LE.  Thank you for the laughs you've provided me tonight.  I've had a rough week, I needed that.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> No, the one who is king of twisting a man's words to fit his own agenda.  He did that to Dr. Paul more than once during the campaign.


I didn't twist his words at all.  I quoted his words.  I quoted what the man $#@!ing said, DIRECTLY, not out of context, whatsoever.  LOL!  

I'll do it again too! 

MHD: "What do you say to people who advocate for self-government rather than a return to the Constitution? Just like ..."

Ron Paul: "Great. Fine. And I think that's really what my goal is.".

And no, I'm not saying he's an anarchist, nor would I call him one.  Stop pretending like you're making any logical sense here LE.  My gut is starting to hurt from the laughter. 

Ron Paul supports Constitutional Activism, as well as Non-Constitutional Liberty activism.  Own up to it.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Clay, do you not read what you write? * You already admitted you want the Constitution gone.*  Your little word games aren't doing a thing for you.

You still haven't answered my question though.  I already know the answer, but since you say I have it all wrong, why don't you answer it now?

*Do you or don't you want the United States as a country to be dissolved?*

Stop dodging.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Ron Paul supports Constitutional Activism, as well as Non-Constitutional Liberty activism.  Own up to it.


lol.  In your eyes, liberty activism is only that which bashes the Constitution?  

If you are attempting to say that there is political activism and other activism which is not political in nature, yes.  I have no doubt he supports both.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> Clay, do you not read what you write?  You admitted you want the Constitution gone.  Your little word games aren't doing a thing for you.
> 
> You still haven't answered my question though.  I already know the answer, but since you say I have it all wrong, why don't you answer it now?
> 
> Do you or don't you want the United States as a country to be dissolved?


Well LE has officially outed herself. She is anti-secession. She also apparently is unaware that more signers of the DoI were against the Constitution than for it!

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Clay, do you not read what you write?  You admitted you want the Constitution gone.  Your little word games aren't doing a thing for you.


Maybe Ron Pauls words, have an influence on you?

MHD: "What do you say to people who advocate for self-government rather than a return to the Constitution? Just like ..."

Ron Paul: "Great. Fine. And I think that's really what my goal is.".


I simply agree with what he said here, and you obviously don't.  




> You still haven't answered my question though.  I already know the answer, but since you say I have it all wrong, why don't you answer it now?


Yes I already did, but sure!  I'll re-answer your question.




> Do you or don't you want the United States as a country to be dissolved?


First of all, this is a brand new question, you did not ask this one yet. 


Secondly, if by "as a country" you mean "as state", than the answer is *Yes*, In my ideal world I would like all the All states to dissolve, and be replaced by free-markets and voluntaryism.  I don't support violent means to this end, and I'll even support Constitutional solutions as a means to this end, if they can prove to work.

Something Ron Paul is in NO WAY against, in HIS OWN WORDS!!!

*
MHD: "What do you say to people who advocate for self-government rather than a return to the Constitution? Just like ..."

Ron Paul: "Great. Fine. And I think that's really what my goal is.".*

But go ahead and keep trying to speak for him.  You're much better at playing politics than I am.  I'm just trying to be honest with you here, and you're trying to paint me as an enemy, as usual.  Oh, LE, how I love how you loathe me.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> lol.  In your eyes, liberty activism is only that which bashes the Constitution?


Absolutely not.  Bashing the constitution is not productive, but honestly criticizing it can be, and seeking potential alternatives is perfectly rational.  It's also something Ron Paul supports IN HIS OWN $#@!ING WORDS!!! 

MHD: "What do you say to people who advocate for self-government rather than a return to the Constitution? Just like ..."

Ron Paul: "Great. Fine. And I think that's really what my goal is.".




> If you are attempting to say that there is political activism and other activism which is not political in nature, yes.  I have no doubt he supports both.


Of course, and Ron Paul can speak for himself.  Both of us support Ron Paul.  Obviously we have different reasons as to why, but we both do.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Well LE has officially outed herself. She is anti-secession. She also apparently is unaware that more signers of the DoI were against the Constitution than for it!


lolololol.  

Secession sounds great in theory and to me too at times.  Especially for my own state, Texas.  However, you may want to pull your head out of the clouds and read what Debra Medina had to say about it.  She did not advocate secession at all and in fact, warned against it.

AED seems to be unaware that many who were wary of the Constitution, still signed it.  Thomas Jefferson was one who was extremely wary.  Which is why he insisted upon adding the Bill of Rights.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> lolololol.  
> 
> Secession sounds great in theory and to me too at times.  Especially for my own state, Texas.  However, you may want to pull your head out of the clouds and read what Debra Medina had to say about it.  She did not advocate secession at all and in fact, warned against it.
> 
> AED seems to be unaware that many who were wary of the Constitution, still signed it.  Thomas Jefferson was one who was extremely wary.  Which is why he insisted upon adding the Bill of Rights.


Actually those that were wary and those adamantly against it, did not sign it. It's why it barely passed NY, VA, and RI for instance. Are you just that daft LE? As for secession, if you are against secession than you have to be against the US, because the US was born out of secession, or did this fact escape you?

*But, anyways I'm done with you LE. For a so-called Constitutionalist you hardly know anything about the Constitution.*

----------


## ClayTrainor

> AED seems to be unaware that many who were wary of the Constitution, still signed it.  Thomas Jefferson was one who was extremely wary.  Which is why he insisted upon adding the Bill of Rights.


How many people signed the constitution?  How many people are there in America?

Case $#@!ing closed.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Maybe Ron Pauls words, have an influence on you?
> 
> MHD: "What do you say to people who advocate for self-government rather than a return to the Constitution? Just like ..."
> 
> Ron Paul: "Great. Fine. And I think that's really what my goal is.".
> 
> 
> I simply agree with what he said here, and you obviously don't.  
> 
> ...


Ok, so yes, you *do* want the Constitution to be dissolved and the U.S. as a country to be dissolved.  Check, check.  

My, wouldn't the one-worlders be proud of you.  Yes, indeed.  




> Something Ron Paul is in NO WAY against, in HIS OWN WORDS!!!
> 
> *
> MHD: "What do you say to people who advocate for self-government rather than a return to the Constitution? Just like ..."
> 
> Ron Paul: "Great. Fine. And I think that's really what my goal is.".*
> 
> But go ahead and keep trying to speak for him.  You're much better at playing politics than I am.  I'm just trying to be honest with you here, and you're trying to paint me as an enemy, as usual.  Oh, LE, how I love how you loathe me.


I just wanted to save this for posterity, where you are inferring that Ron Paul agrees with your crap about throwing out the Constitution and dissolving the U.S.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> Ok, so yes, you *do* want the Constitution to be dissolved and the U.S. as a country to be dissolved.  Check, check.  
> 
> My, wouldn't the one-worlders be proud of you.  Yes, indeed.  
> 
> 
> 
> I just wanted to save this for posterity, where you are inferring that Ron Paul agrees with your crap about throwing out the Constitution and dissolving the U.S.


Just like the one-worlders were all giddy with excitement when the USSR crumbled and the eastern-states seceeded from and dissolved the USSR. 

LE you are a terribly funny propagandist and troll.

*Apparently LE doesn't realize its a lot harder to control hundreds of millions of people without centralization. The One-Worlders though know this.*

----------


## ClayTrainor

> *But, anyways I'm done with you LE. For a so-called Constitutionalist you hardly know anything about the Constitution.*


Haha, yea, same here.  These things can last all night, if you keep responding to her.  There is no end to her frustration with us. 

I find it rather fun, but it really is just a waste of time.  She seems to think that she's in some sort of intellectual battle for the curious onlooker who might be scared away by someone speaking of alternatives to the constitution.  

No one she argues against uses rhetoric like "hate the constitution" and "it should be burned and ripped up"... she just uses hyperbole, because she's a very frustrated and angry person on the inside.  

She makes me laugh.  I really enjoy my conversations with her.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Actually those that were wary and those adamantly against it, did not sign it. It's why it barely passed NY, VA, and RI for instance. Are you just that daft LE? As for secession, if you are against secession than you have to be against the US, because the US was born out of secession, or did this fact escape you?
> 
> *But, anyways I'm done with you LE. For a so-called Constitutionalist you hardly know anything about the Constitution.*


You're changing the subject.  Are you that afraid, that you can't stand up and debate honestly?

The topic was whether secession would be a good plan, *now*.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Ok, so yes, you *do* want the Constitution to be dissolved* and* the U.S. as a country to be dissolved.  Check, check.


LOL!  Who's trying to manipulate words now?

The question I just answered was not about the constitution. c'mon LE.  I said I want the State to be dissolved, if that's what you mean by a country.  Is it? 

My position on the constitution was that it was void from the 1st president,* it's already dissolved.*

And I'm also in complete agreement with ROn Paul in what he said here...
*
MHD: "What do you say to people who advocate for self-government rather than a return to the Constitution? Just like ..."

Ron Paul: "Great. Fine. And I think that's really what my goal is.".
*




> My, wouldn't the one-worlders be proud of you.  Yes, indeed.





> I just wanted to save this for posterity, where you are inferring that Ron Paul agrees with your crap about throwing out the Constitution and dissolving the U.S.


lol.  I have never once said anything like "throw out the constiution", or "burn the constitution", or "i want hte constitution ripped up", like you have suggested in this thread.  That is all hyperbole from you. You're the one who is helplessly twisting words here. 

Hey, Do whatever you want.  I can't wait til we butt-heads in the future.  I love our convos.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> you're changing the subject.  Are you that afraid, that you can't stand up and debate honestly?



lol!!!!!!!!!!!

----------


## LibertyEagle

This is all pretty much moot.  As I already consider anyone who wants to dissolve my country and my Constitution to be my enemies; every bit as much, if not more, than the one-worlders.

See ya, boys.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> This is all pretty much moot.  As I already consider anyone who wants to dissolve my country and my Constitution to be my enemies; every bit as much, if not more, than the one-worlders.


You twisted my words again, but I guess this is ultimately where you disagree with something Ron Paul said, and are having trouble accepting it.

MHD: "What do you say to people who advocate for self-government rather than a return to the Constitution? Just like ..."

Ron Paul: "Great. Fine. And I think that's really what my goal is.".




> See ya, boys.


Sometime soon, I hope.

----------


## ClayTrainor

This has to be one of the biggest thread derails in RPF history!

My apologies to the mods, and the OP.  It all started with HB's Snarky comment.  lol!!!

----------


## Liberty Star

> Its no secret HB that you don't exactly shy away from an opportunity to sound condescending.


Kid from austim with a racist avie is calling others "condescending". This is swell.

----------


## erowe1

> I appreciate the recommendation.  Unfortunately, I won't be able to read an entire book in PDF format.  Any other suggestions (besides trying to find Nock's book at a bookstore)?


You definitely can buy hard copies of Nock's book. I haven't read it yet, so I can't recommend it on my own authority. But it's definitely on my to-read list, and I've seen it highly praised by authors I like.

----------


## erowe1

> more signers of the DoI were against the Constitution than for it!


That is a very interesting tidbit. Got a source?

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> That is a very interesting tidbit. Got a source?


Let me put it together, and I'll post it here within a day or so. Been up all night, so its about time to get some shut-eye.

----------


## erowe1

> Let me put it together, and I'll post it here within a day or so. Been up all night, so its about time to get some shut-eye.


OK. One of the tricky things will be keeping things in context. In truth all the people who cared about the Constitution fell along a spectrum of satisfaction and dissatisfaction, and the ones who were dissatisfied were for various reasons, and in some cases their dissatisfaction was great enough to object to its ratification entirely, and in other cases not that great, and in some cases it was an opinion that changed over time.

But all that said, it will still be interesting to see the list, even without all the specifics about each individual.

----------


## RokiLothbard

anyways ... back to original question.

I second the Nock book. You don't have to go the pdf route. Actual bound copies of the book are available too .... I have one. Go to mises.org and search for it.

----------


## oyarde

What you really want is his own writings . Try Jefferson , by  Peterson on Amazon , probably around $27 . Or The Writings of Jefferson , edited by Albert Bergh.

----------

