# Think Tank > Political Philosophy & Government Policy >  Ron Paul & voluntarists

## Conza88

*ADAM KOKESH:* So you've described yourself as a voluntarist. Can you tell us what that means for the big picture, and what your ideal society would be, as a voluntarist?

*RON PAUL:* Voluntary means no coercion. So if you want to change people's habits or change the world you should do it by setting examples and trying to persuade people to do it. You can use force only when somebody uses force against you. So voluntary use of information and persuading people, I think, is the best way to go; and no matter what kind of problem you're looking at.

*ADAM KOKESH:* Do you think we have a change of achieving a society based on those ideals in America?

*RON PAUL:* Not soon. We had a relative voluntary society (you know) in our early history, but steadily, even after the Constitution was passed, steadily it was undermined and it systematically grew, it grew certainly through the 20th century; that is the authoritarian approach, which is the opposite. That is: the government tells us everything we can do and can't do.

Hello forum  How is everyone? 

As some of you may remember.. the above is obviously not anything new.  I often made the case on these forums & over *here*_ (contains the video where he says he prefers self-government as opposed to a return to the constitution)_.

Before jumping in _(if you are so inclined)_ I'd suggest you don't _assume_ any positions/strategy I hold because of the above. Simply ask. Cheers! 

Edit: (additional video)







> No he's not. He has explicitly said he is in favour of self-government INSTEAD of a return to the Constitution. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Ron Paul and Anarcho-Capitalism*… Hint: _He’s not a statist_ (4min+ of video).
> 
> For a better justification see this Mises thread *here* and my responses:
> 
> ...





> If Canada and the United States can be separate nations without being denounced as being in a state of impermissible "anarchy," why may not the South secede from the United States? New York State from the Union? New York City from the state? Why may not Manhattan secede? Each neighborhood? Each block? Each house? Each person? _But, of course, if each person may secede from government, we have virtually arrived at the purely free society, where defense is supplied along with all other services by the free market and where the invasive State has ceased to exist._ — Murray N. Rothbard


Also check out this amazing thread: *Ron Paul and Private Courts*, which lays out the case emphatically. In addition to this Ron Paul in his new book, Liberty Defined recommends reading *Democracy: The God that Failed* by _Hans-Hermann Hoppe_ & *Abolish Government* by _Lysander Spooner_. *Check the Democracy section. Two great reads .

----------


## Romulus

Welcome Back!

----------


## rp08orbust

As much as I'd like Ron to say he's a voluntar*y*ist, I only heard voluntarist.

----------


## nayjevin

Welcome back!  Happy moneybomb day

----------


## Conza88

> Welcome Back!


Thanks! However, I'm not sure that I'll be staying.




> As much as I'd like Ron to say he's a voluntar*y*ist, I only heard voluntarist.


Voluntaryism, or voluntarism, there's a difference? It'd be great if you could elaborate. Because according to the public lexicon there isn't. Maybe I'm ignorant though, see when it comes to Libertarianism or libertarianism the 'difference' means nothing to me.




> Welcome back!  Happy moneybomb day


Cheers Nay!

----------


## specsaregood

But he isn't an anarchist, he said it explicitly in an interview last week.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

hi conza!!!

----------


## Conza88

> But he isn't an anarchist, he said it explicitly in an interview last week.


I don't use that label either... and I'm not "running" for office. Rothbard wrote an article on the etymology of the word. 

I'd like to see the interview. Do you have a link? 

Was the term properly defined? No, right?...




> hi conza!!!


Mike!

----------


## rp08orbust

> Voluntaryism, or voluntarism, there's a difference? It'd be great if you could elaborate. Because according to the public lexicon there isn't. Maybe I'm ignorant though, see when it comes to Libertarianism or libertarianism the 'difference' means nothing to me.


Voluntaryism is a subset of voluntarism.  Voluntarism can refer to any advocacy of voluntary action, while voluntaryism is basically a synonym for the specific ideology of anarcho-capitalism.  A person who refers to himself as a voluntarist isn't necessarily claiming to be a voluntaryist.

----------


## specsaregood

> I'd like to see the interview. Do you have a link?


I'm about 99.7% sure it was the Hannity tv interview or radio interview last week.  I'm sure somebody else will remember which.




> Was the term properly defined? No, right?...


Well he offered the denial, unasked so no definition was needed I'd say.

----------


## Sola_Fide

You have to at least praise Ron for bringing these concepts into the national dialogue.  It is not every day that you hear anarchism being mentioned on the Sean Hannity show.

----------


## specsaregood

> I'd like to see the interview. Do you have a link? 
> Was the term properly defined? No, right?...





> I'm about 99.7% sure it was the Hannity tv interview or radio interview last week.  I'm sure somebody else will remember which.


Ok, It was the radio show:



It is about 4:30 BUT you should start around 4:00.  He says the best term for him is a non-interventionist.  And I was incorrect, he does offer up a definition for a "total anarchist".

----------


## Sola_Fide

DbL

----------


## Conza88

> Voluntaryism is a subset of voluntarism.  Voluntarism can refer to any advocacy of voluntary action, while voluntaryism is basically a synonym for the specific ideology of anarcho-capitalism.  A person who refers to himself as a voluntarist isn't necessarily claiming to be a voluntaryist.


According to you.The wiki states otherwise, i.e that they're the same _(not that it's an authority)_. I've never made the distinction before, because it doesn't matter. Does it? Are you making the claim that within this context he's not an anarcho-capitalist type voluntarist, but another type? What would that be then? An an-com? Ha.

You can be an an-com & call yourself a voluntarist, but if your political philosophy doesn't accept the principles of self-ownership and original appropriation, which make agreement and contract - including that of not agreeing and contracting - possible... then it doesn't deserve the title of 'voluntary' at all. What I mean by this is - they need to support the principles of anarcho-capitalism prior / before they go on their commune adventure. I could careless what they do on their property... this is exactly what Ron Paul states in the _other_ video.

He explicitly states what he means by voluntarist in this video. This discussion is a bit of a red herring.

----------


## Conza88

> Ok, It was the radio show:
> 
> 
> 
> It is about 4:30 BUT you should start around 4:00.  He says the best term for him is a non-interventionist.  And I was incorrect, he does offer up a definition for a "total anarchist".


 
*AEN:* Was Mises better than the classical liberals on the question of the state?

*HOPPE:* Mises thought it was necessary to have an institution that suppresses those people who cannot behave appropriately in society, people who are a danger because they steal and murder. He calls this institution government.

But he has a unique idea of how government should work. To check its power, every group and every individual, if possible, must have the right to secede from the territory of the state. He called this the right of self determination, not of nations as the League of Nations said, but of villages, districts, and groups of any size. In Liberalism and Nation, State, and Economy, he elevates secession to a central principle of classical liberalism. If it were possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, he says, it would have to be done. Thus the democratic state becomes, for Mises, a voluntary organization.

*AEN:* Yet you have been a strong critic of democracy.

*HOPPE:* Yes, as that term is usually understood. But under Mises's unique definition of democracy, the term means self rule or self government in its most literal sense. All organizations in society, including government, should be the result of voluntary interactions.

In a sense you can say that Mises was a near anarchist. If he stopped short of affirming the right of individual secession, it was only because of what he regarded as technical grounds. In modern democracy, we exalt the method of majority rule as the means of electing the rulers of a compulsory monopoly of taxation.

Mises frequently made an analogy between voting and the marketplace. But he was quite aware that voting in the marketplace means voting with your own property. The weight of your vote is in accord with your value productivity. In the political arena, you do not vote with your property; you vote concerning the property of everyone, including your own. People do not have votes according to their value productivity.

*AEN:* Yet Mises attacks anarchism in no uncertain terms.

*HOPPE:* His targets here are left-utopians. He attacks their theory that man is good enough not to need an organized defense against the enemies of civilization. But this is not what the private-property anarchist believes. Of course, murderers and thieves exist. There needs to be an institution that keeps these people at bay. Mises calls this institution government, while people who want no state at all point out that all essential defensive services can be better performed by firms in the market. We can call these firms government if we want to.
Does the above sound familiar?  This fits in perfectly where Ron Paul has stated (*here - 4min+*) that his end goal is self-_GOVERNMENT_.   Rhetoric is important, why shut down minds with cognitive dissonance before they can be reached.. simply because you have a desire to cling to the name of a label? It makes even less sense to adopt a bad label that wasn't with your political philosophy to begin with hehe.

----------


## Conza88

Nice colored tie you have there Ron...

----------


## BuddyRey

Conza!!!

Great to see you back, man!!!  I missed you!

----------


## torchbearer

I agree with everything Conza says in his OP, but i will add that Ron still believes in using the political process. which diverts from the teachings of Apostle Rockwell.

----------


## Wesker1982

> Nice colored tie you have there Ron...


I pointed this out to my fiance and friend right away lol. 

Also I think it should be obvious that when most people hear anarchy they think of lawlessness, chaos, molotov cocktails etc. I think Ron Paul was using the term anarchy in this sense on the Hannity show. When Sean Hannity's listeners hear anarchy they do not equate it with voluntaryism/anarcho-libertarianism etc. Ron Paul is not an anarchist as it is defined by 95% of the population.

I planned on making a thread on this subject, didn't know if I would get in trouble for posting it in general, but since I didn't make this thread I will post what I was going to post here:

_Liberty Defined_, Page 127: Advocating voluntary courts




> ...but a free people do entrust the management of social norms to the courts of taste and manners *that arise spontaneously within civilization*.


_Liberty Defined_, Page 254: 




> In a free society, where depending on government is minimal *or absent*, any real crisis serves to motivate individuals, families, churches, and communities to come together and work to offset the crisis, whether it comes from natural causes such as floods, droughts, fire, illness, or predators or is man-made.


Liberty Defined, Page 254-255: Advocating private defense, including national defense




> We might reflect on how we achieve security in our everyday lives. We have locks on our doors, provided by private manufacturers. We use privately provided alarm systems. We depend on the idea that others are going to drive safely, and the incentive to do so comes from a private system of insurance. Some people own and carry guns for security. Their efforts help everyone by deterring criminality. Commercial establishments such as banks and jewelry stores hire private security guards. Malls and subdivisions have their own security apparatus.


Here Ron Paul is clearly advocating private defense, one of the issues that keeps minarchists from becoming voluntaryists. 




> If we reflect on how security works in the real world, we discover a huge and important role for private enterprise, and we find that the vast government apparatus of "national security" does not keep us safe so much as threaten our liberties by regarding the entire citizenry as a threat. Private security does not threaten our civil liberties, but government-provided security does.


Liberty Defined, Page 51:




> A free society, valued by the people, would be adequately defend by volunteers, without age, sex, or any other restrictions.


Ron Paul praises private security and voluntary national defense, then *he expresses that the government is not efficient in providing national security*. Logic would conclude he advocates the private production of *all* defense. 

And I almost forgot an important one:




> *The government is incapable of doing what it's suppose to do. A job like the provision of security is something best left to private institutions.* -_Liberty Defined_, Page 288


Liberty Defined, Page 70: 




> Lysander Spooner carried this argument further. He believed that only a "few" consented (to the constitution). Therefore, the Constitution should not apply to those who did not give their personal consent to cede any personal liberty (power) to the state. This is an interesting argument, but it's not likely to make much headway at this stage in our history. Enforcing the Tenth Amendment is a big enough challenge to us for now.


Ron made no point to say he disagrees with Spooner, and in fact says in the footnote:




> All of Spooner's writings are worthy of study.


I believe by purposefully avoiding saying that he disagrees with Spooner and then recommending you read his work, he is implying he agrees with Spooner's analysis. He lists _Let's Abolish Government_ at the end of the chapter.

He also mentions _For a New Liberty_ (the anarcho-capitalist manifesto).

And it doesn't get much more clear than:




> If we as a nation continue to believe that that paying for civilization through taxation is a wise purchase and the only way to achieve civilization, we are doomed.-_Liberty Defined_, Page 284

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I don't use that label either... and I'm not "running" for office. Rothbard wrote an article on the etymology of the word. 
> 
> I'd like to see the interview. Do you have a link? 
> 
> Was the term properly defined? No, right?...
> 
> 
> 
> Mike!


Nice Rothbard piece-I haven't read that one before.  Welcome back, Conzilla!

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I agree with everything Conza says in his OP, but i will add that Ron still believes in using the political process. which diverts from the teachings of *Apostle Rockwell*.


Apostle?  Has Lew met Yeshua?

*a·pos·tle*

   [uh-pos-uhl]  Show IPA 
–noun 1. any of the early followers of Jesus who carried the Christian message into the world. 

2. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) any of the original 12 disciples called by Jesus to preach the gospel: Simon Peter, the brothers James and John, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alpheus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot, Judas Iscariot. 

3. the first or the best-known Christian missionary in any region or country.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

To Rothbardians (which Ron is) Rothbard and the Thomist/Natural Law tradition are our guiding light so to speak.

----------


## Conza88

> Conza!!!
> Great to see you back, man!!!  I missed you!


Heya Buddy! 




> I agree with everything Conza says in his OP, but i will add that Ron still believes in using the political process. which diverts from the teachings of Apostle Rockwell.


 Thanks. My main issue has been with people who deny it, contrary to his own words. It's hard to take someone seriously when they call themselves a supporter, but then deny the guys own statements which are crystal clear. The debate about strategy is secondary. I agree with using the political process for educational purposes.
*
“Ideas are the only things that count, and politicians are, for the most part, pretty much irrelevant,”* Ron Paul told the London Independent in December.




> I planned on making a thread on this subject, didn't know if I would get in trouble for posting it in general, but since I didn't make this thread I will post what I was going to post here...


Haha... so not much has changed?
Those are some great quotes. Here's another:

*“In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written.”* ~ Ron Paul,  End the Fed




> Nice Rothbard piece-I haven't read that one before.  Welcome back, Conzilla!


Hey HB! Yeah, he later went with the term anarcho-capitalism. Voluntarism is good show though when talking to the uneducated. 




> To Rothbardians (which Ron is) Rothbard and the Thomist/Natural Law tradition are our guiding light so to speak.


Yep... though don't forget argumentation ethics 

_"Nevertheless, by coming out with a genuinely new theory (amazing in itself, considering the long history of political philosophy) Hoppe is in danger of offending all the intellectual vested interests of the libertarian camp. Utilitarians, who should be happy that value freedom was preserved, will be appalled to find that Hoppean rights are even more absolutist and "dogmatic" than natural rights. Natural rightsers, while happy at the "dogmatism" will be unwilling to accept an ethics not grounded in the board nature of things. Randians will be particularly upset on the satantic immanual kant and his "synthetic a priori".

Randians might be mollified, however, to learn that Hoppe is influence by a group of German Kantians (headed by mathematician Paul Lorenzen) who interpret Kant as a deeply realistic Aristotelian, in contrast to the Idealist interpretation common in the U.S.

As a natural rightser, I don't see any real contradiction here, or why one cannot hold to both the natural rights and the Hoppean rights ethic at the same time. Both rights ethics, after all, are grounded, like the realist version of Kantianism, in the nature of reality. Natural law, too, provides a personal and social ethic apart from libertarianism; this is an area Hoppe is not concerned with."_ - MNR, pg 2

----------


## Liberty Rebellion

Conza's back?! Dude/ma'am, I missed you!

Were you banned temp and just didn't come around again or were you just uncensored (hard to imagine that happening here and I thought I saw you over at Mises)

----------


## Conza88

> Conza's back?! Dude/ma'am, I missed you!
> 
> Were you banned temp and just didn't come around again or were you just uncensored (hard to imagine that happening here and I thought I saw you over at Mises)


Ha, dude. 

There's probably some threads discussing it at the time. I was perm banned. But then I was eventually unbanned _(making it temp)_ after I dunno 6 months? This is from memory and it was _years_? ago. I decided not to come back out of principle. Others had said nothing had changed, so why waste my time there? I had 'moved' to Mises Forums in the interim & hung around there for awhile. I still do, but to a far lesser degree.

_But let's not focus on the negative_ _and dredge up the past aye?_ 

Why am I back now? To see if this place has changed. To enjoy the revolution. But also get 'inspired' by folks here to thus indirectly help me finish a project I've been working on for awhile now. That and the help this place offers in spreading material that deserves to be. To help those question their premises. Who doesn't want to properly understand reality & the world we live in? To quite frankly ask... Ron Paul is a voluntarist, why aren't you?

For eg. I have a few things saved from the memory hole.  One being a video which has excerpts from a book Ron Paul recommends in his_ Liberty Defined_.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Nice colored tie you have there Ron...




Sweet tie!  I want one!

----------


## BuddyRey

The climate here is _far_ more hospitable to Voluntaryism than it was during the height and denouement of the '08 campaign, and I think our presence has increased a good deal (both from new forum members and seasoned ones who eventually shed the last vestiges of uncertainty).  Old resentments may resurface now that campaign '12 is rolling (though I certainly hope they don't), but we've enjoyed a great few months generally free from drama.

----------


## Wesker1982

> Haha... so not much has changed?


I had just heard horror stories, they scared me lol. It seems pretty friendly around here. I noticed your post on this subject on the mises.org forum, I lurk/sometimes post there.

----------


## teacherone

conza's been back 2 days and so far not one single wall-o-text-copy-paste from mises?

 not one single ranting video from that crazy bald guy?

you're losin' your touch brother.


but welcome home

----------


## low preference guy

Sure, Ron Paul calls himself voluntaryist, but that doesn't mean for him that there should be no government, because he specifically rejected that idea.

----------


## Mini-Me

YOUUU'RE BAAAAAAAAAAAAACK!!!! 

You said you don't know if you'll keep posting, but it'd be nice if you did.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

nt

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

nt

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Sure, Ron Paul calls himself voluntaryist, but that doesn't mean for him that there should be no government, because he specifically rejected that idea.


 Voluntaryists don't argue that there should be no government-only that each person's relationship with any government should be voluntary, and that anyone can end their relationship with the government at any time.

----------


## Wesker1982

> Voluntaryists don't argue that there should be no government-only that each person's relationship with any government should be voluntary, and that anyone can end their relationship with the government at any time.


QFT. There is also a difference between people voluntarily governing themselves and the *State*.




> I define the state as that institution which possesses one or both (almost always both) of the following properties: *(1)* it acquires its income by the physical coercion known as "taxation"; and *(2)* it asserts and usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the provision of defense service (police and courts) over a given territorial area. An institution not possessing either of these properties is not and cannot be, in accordance with my definition, a state.-*Murray Rothbard*


*(1)* If we as a nation continue to believe that that paying for civilization through taxation is a wise purchase and the only way to achieve civilization, we are doomed. -Ron Paul

Ron Paul may support completely voluntary governance but this is very different than supporting the State. As shown in my earlier post, *(2)* Ron Paul not only advocates the private production of a select few defense services, but advocates the private production of all defense services.

Ron Paul + his beliefs on (1) and (2) = voluntaryist.

----------


## dannno

Wow, conza is absolutely pwning this thread.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

bumped...

----------


## Wesker1982

> bumped...


It was at the top already, lol

----------


## A Son of Liberty

Ugh... and buried here in a forum it's sure to be abandoned...

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> It was at the top already, lol


1. It's important enough to keep at the top.   

2. It wasn't when I bumped it...

----------


## Wesker1982

Yeah it was at the top of the philosophy forum, but unbumpable in general...

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> QFT. There is also a difference between people voluntarily governing themselves and the *State*.
> 
> I define the state as that institution which possesses one or both (almost always both) of the following properties: *(1)* it acquires its income by the physical coercion known as "taxation"; and *(2)*  it asserts and usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the provision of  defense service (police and courts) over a given territorial area. An  institution not possessing either of these properties is not and cannot  be, in accordance with my definition, a state.-*Murray Rothbard*
> 
> *(1)* If we as a nation continue to believe that that paying for civilization through taxation is a wise purchase and the only way to achieve civilization, we are doomed. -Ron Paul
> 
> Ron Paul may support completely voluntary governance but this is very different than supporting the State. As shown in my earlier post, *(2)* Ron Paul not only advocates the private production of a select few defense services, but advocates the private production of all defense services.
> 
> Ron Paul + his beliefs on (1) and (2) = voluntaryist.


That Rothbard quote is very good.  I would encourage anyone who wants to better understand the State to read Murray's Anatomy of The State.  It's got plenty of footnotes and citations and so forth for further reading.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Conza, welcome back man!

----------


## Conza88

> The climate here is _far_ more hospitable to Voluntaryism than it was during the height and denouement of the '08 campaign, and I think our presence has increased a good deal (both from new forum members and seasoned ones who eventually shed the last vestiges of uncertainty).  Old resentments may resurface now that campaign '12 is rolling (though I certainly hope they don't), but we've enjoyed a great few months generally free from drama.


That's good to hear. Hope it stays that way... Although I see this has been moved to the _"philosophy"_ forum. Funny that, I thought _"General Politics"_ literally contained discussions of political *philosophy* in every thread... it's kind of inherent within the concept. 

Is there anyway to tell which moderator moved the thread? That I'd like to know.




> I had just heard horror stories, they scared me lol. It seems pretty friendly around here. I noticed your post on this subject on the mises.org forum, I lurk/sometimes post there.


They're probably all true  . That forum has it's problems as well... long story but those 'controlling' the scenes are consequentialist's / utilitarians. Long term moderator _(now former)_, amazing guy both logically and in terms of knowledge - wouldn't succumb. Made them look like fools. He was eventually turfed out, offered no notification/reason. Anyway, that was awhile ago. 




> conza's been back 2 days and so far not one single wall-o-text-copy-paste from mises?
>  not one single ranting video from that crazy bald guy?
> you're losin' your touch brother.
> but welcome home


Ha, well thankfully I haven't seen anything where it has felt necessary to post anything quite like that. 




> Sure, Ron Paul calls himself voluntaryist, but that doesn't mean for him that there should be no government, because he specifically rejected that idea.


That's *right*. He's in favor of _self_-government. [Mod note- edit for forum guidelines]

----------


## Conza88

> YOUUU'RE BAAAAAAAAAAAAACK!!!! 
> You said you don't know if you'll keep posting, but it'd be nice if you did.


Thanks Mini-Me. 




> Vindication .
> I do hope you stick around...


Cheers Live Free 




> Wow, conza is absolutely pwning this thread.


Ha, thanks Dannno. I'd like to think my _'skills'_ have improved quite alot since I've been absent. Being on the side of truth makes it so much easier. 




> Conza, welcome back man!


Anti-Fed, good to see ya still around!

----------


## Theocrat

I bet Congressman Paul wasn't a voluntarist when it came to raising his kids.

----------


## Wesker1982

> Being on the side of truth makes it so much easier.


Yep. This became very clear after I became a voluntaryist. When people irl tell me I am a good debater I tell them that it's easy when the truth is on your side.

----------


## Conza88

> I bet Congressman Paul wasn't a voluntarist when it came to raising his kids.


Oh.. because Ron Paul definitely beats little boys & girls. Good one Theocrat.

In other news, just wondering if there has been a recent poll anywhere on the forums about self-government versus constitution? Would be interested, cheers.

----------


## Kotin

Always nice to see you pop in, conza..

----------


## Wesker1982

> In other news, just wondering if there has been a recent poll anywhere on the forums about self-government versus constitution? Would be interested, cheers.


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...an-are-you-***

----------


## Sentient Void

Conservative and minarchist supporters of RP on this forum weep.

Market Anarchists & Voluntaryists nod.

----------


## Wesker1982

I came across this in _Reason_ magazine, apparently we aren't the only ones who have come to this conclusion:




> For longtime students of the libertarian movement, Ron Paul and his followers represent something several libertarians have predicted but is still very hard to believe has actually arisen: an eager mass populist movement of almost-anarchist Middle Americans. (Paul never gets explicit about it, but you can easily glean from this book a complete opposition to any taxation on the grounds that it is essentially theft and a belief that a free market can meet every conceivable human social need.) While very different in polemical style and approach, in ideas Ron Paul is the successor to the controversial libertarian economist, philosopher, journalist, and activist Murray Rothbard, to whom he frequently tips his hat.
> 
> Given how radical Rothbard could be, it is surprising that the biggest sparkplug in the present or foreseeable future of libertarianism would be a politician pushing a largely Rothbardian vision.


http://reason.com/archives/2011/06/0...radical-vision

It is interesting to see _Reason_ publish this. I wonder how much freedom the writers are allowed to write about anarcho-capitalism? According to wiki, Brian Doherty "supports capitalist anarchism". And also Katherine Mangu-Ward from _Reason_ made pretty clear that she is an anarcho-capitalist one time on Freedom Watch. I wonder how much they could write about it before the CATO guys put their foot down? JW...

----------


## eOs

Cheers Conza, welcome back

----------


## low preference guy

> I came across this in _Reason_ magazine, apparently we aren't the only ones who have come to this conclusion:
> 
> 
> 
> http://reason.com/archives/2011/06/0...radical-vision
> 
> It is interesting to see _Reason_ publish this. I wonder how much freedom the writers are allowed to write about anarcho-capitalism? According to wiki, Brian Doherty "supports capitalist anarchism". And also Katherine Mangu-Ward from _Reason_ made pretty clear that she is an anarcho-capitalist one time on Freedom Watch. I wonder how much they could write about it before the CATO guys put their foot down? JW...


Highlighting the key word:




> Given how radical Rothbard could be, it is surprising that the biggest sparkplug in the present or foreseeable future of libertarianism would be a politician pushing a *largely* Rothbardian vision.


Do you really believe Ron Paul was lying when he said he wasn't an anarchist?

----------


## Wesker1982

I believe he was equating anarchism with how 99.9% of Sean Hannity's audience understands the term (chaos). So that would mean I do not think he was lying. I do not believe Ron Paul advocates lawlessness, chaos, violence, etc. 

If by Ron Paul saying he isn't an anarchist he was referring to anarcho-capitalism, then yes, I think he lied. 

Since he was talking to an audience who overwhelmingly believes anarchy=chaos, and has no idea what anarcho-capitalism is, I conclude Ron Paul was not talking about anarcho-capitalism. To think he was talking about free-market anarchy is to assume Ron Paul is dumb enough to think Sean Hannity's audience is well read in Rothbard or free-market statelessness.

----------


## Travlyr

> Conservative and minarchist supporters of RP on this forum weep.
> 
> Market Anarchists & Voluntaryists nod.


lol.. smiling ... not weeping...  

Excellent interview, Adam!

The champion of the Constitution in favor of a voluntary society and States rights is describing minarchy.

----------


## low preference guy

> I believe he was equating anarchism with how 99.9% of Sean Hannity's audience understands the term (chaos). So that would mean I do not think he was lying. I do not believe Ron Paul advocates lawlessness, chaos, violence, etc. 
> 
> If by Ron Paul saying he isn't an anarchist he was referring to anarcho-capitalism, then yes, I think he lied. 
> 
> Since he was talking to an audience who overwhelmingly believes anarchy=chaos, and has no idea what anarcho-capitalism is, I conclude Ron Paul was not talking about anarcho-capitalism. To think he was talking about free-market anarchy is to assume Ron Paul is dumb enough to think Sean Hannity's audience is well read in Rothbard or free-market statelessness.


He actually clarified what he meant by anarchist... those who advocate no government, that's what he said. So he wasn't referring to the definition of anarchy as chaos.




> To think he was talking about free-market anarchy is to assume Ron Paul is dumb enough to think Sean Hannity's audience is well read in Rothbard or free-market statelessness.


Yeah... like when RP says capitalism. RP must be dumb to think people know what they mean. Ron Paul is really, really dumb. 

Or when he says "Austrian Economics". A lot of people think it's about the economy from Austria. How dumb is Ron Paul.

----------


## Wesker1982

> He actually clarified what he meant by anarchist... those who advocate *no government*, that's what he said. So he wasn't referring to the definition of anarchy as chaos.


The bolded in this context is equating no government with chaos. Ron Paul is not the type of anarchist who advocates no governance. He does not advocate no government. It is important to make the distinction between government and the State.

You can be an anarchist and advocate government/governance. People equate no government with chaos/"anarchy". I believe Ron Paul advocates governance but not the State.  

You have been deliberately ignoring context this whole discussion. 




> Yeah... like when RP says capitalism. RP must be dumb to think people know what they mean. Ron Paul is really, really dumb. 
> 
> Or when he says "Austrian Economics". A lot of people think it's about the economy from Austria. How dumb is Ron Paul.


You are falsely assuming that the level of difficulty in teaching people the meaning of capitalism and Austrian Economics is on par with explaining the meaning of anarchy. If you honestly believe this then I don't think I can help you.

----------


## low preference guy

> You are falsely assuming that the level of difficulty in teaching people the meaning of capitalism and Austrian Economics is on par with explaining the meaning of anarchy. If you honestly believe this then I don't think I can help you.


There are various degrees of difficulty to explain various things, and you arbitrarily draw the line on anarchy. That's the exact one thing for which Ron Paul would not use the meaning he uses for himself and will use the meaning of other people without even clarifying. He would go so far as to muddle language and encourage  confusion on the word that actually describes his political beliefs. And he would do all this umprompted, on his own initiative, as Hannity didn't even ask him anything about anarchy.

If you would go so far as to believe that Ron Paul will change the way he usually acts and become someone who isn't like Ron Paul at all just to justify your belief that he agrees with you, then I can't help you.

----------


## Wesker1982

> There are various degrees of difficulty to explain various things


Yes.




> and you arbitrarily draw the line on anarchy.


I don't think so. I reason that explaining anarchy to the average person (especially neocons) is harder than explaining the other two.




> He would go so far as to muddle language and encourage confusion on the word that actually describes his political beliefs.


There really is no confusion. It is clear that anarchy means chaos and no government to the majority of people. What Ron Paul said was interpreted as: "I do not advocate lawlessness and chaos. I do not reject governance."




> And he would do all this umprompted, on his own initiative, as Hannity didn't even ask him anything about anarchy.


He wants to make clear that by wanting things out of the hands of a centralized authority he does not support chaos, the "law of the jungle", etc. When some people hear Ron Paul's "extreme" positions on the role of government they start to question whether or not he is an anarchist (as the masses interpret the word), whether or not he believes in any governance at all. 




> If you would go so far as to believe that Ron Paul will change the way he usually acts and become someone who isn't like Ron Paul


I don't believe that. I believe he used the word in the context that is consistent with the interpretation of the majority of Sean Hannity's listeners to make clear that he does not reject governance.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

If you owe $40k+ just for coming out of a womb in the U.S. it's not that difficult to envision existence insurance costing less than $40k+ a year....

----------


## Conza88

> Cheers Conza, welcome back


Thanks! eOs 




> Do you really believe Ron Paul was lying when he said he wasn't an anarchist?


How about you address the posts I made earlier in the thread - which address this point and absolutely shatter your "argument". Ron Paul using same definition as Mises. Oh and Rothbard too for a time. It's a word, what does the user mean when they use it. He's using the Mises definition, that doesn't mean he's not for Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism AKA SELF-GOVERNMENT AKA VOLUNTARISM. 

 *Hoppe:*
* Rothbard's anarchism was not the sort of anarchism that his teacher and mentor Mises had rejected as hopelessly naive*, of course. "The anarchists," Mises had written,
 contend that a social order in which nobody enjoys privileges at the expense of his fellow-citizens could exist without any *compulsion* and coercion for the prevention of action detrimental to society. . . . The anarchists overlook the undeniable fact that some people are either too narrow-minded or too weak to adjust themselves spontaneously to the conditions of social life. . . . An anarchistic society would be exposed to the mercy of every individual. Society cannot exist if the majority is not ready to hinder, by the application or threat of violent action, minorities from destroying the social order.[10]Indeed, Rothbard wholeheartedly agreed with Mises that without resort to *compulsion*, the existence of society would be endangered and that behind the rules of conduct whose observance is necessary to assure peaceful human cooperation must stand the threat to force if the whole edifice of society is not to be continually at the mercy of any one of its members. One must be in a position to compel a person who will not respect the lives, health, personal freedom, or private property of others to acquiesce in the rules of life in society.[11]

 Inspired in particular by the nineteenth-century American anarchist political theorists Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker and the Belgian economist Gustave de Molinari, from the outset Rothbard's anarchism took it for granted that there will always be murderers, thieves, thugs, con artists, etc., and that life in society would be impossible if they were not punished by physical force. As a reflection of this fundamental realism—anti-utopianism—of his private-property anarchism, Rothbard, unlike most contemporary political philosophers, accorded central importance to the subject of punishment. For him, private property and the right to physical defense were inseparable. No one can be said to be the owner of something if he is not permitted to defend his property by physical violence against possible invaders and invasions. "Would," Rothbard asked, "somebody be allowed to 'take the law into his own hands'? Would the victim, or a friend of the victim, be allowed to exact justice personally on the criminal?" and he answered, "of course, Yes, since all rights of punishment derive from the victim's right of self-defense" (p. 90). Hence, the question is not whether or not evil and aggression exist, but how to deal with its existence justly and efficiently, and it is only in the answer to this question that Rothbard reaches conclusions which qualify him as an anarchist.

----------


## Conza88

> lol.. smiling ... not weeping...  
> 
> Excellent interview, Adam!
> 
> The champion of the Constitution in favor of a voluntary society and States rights is describing minarchy.


No he's not. He has explicitly said he is in favour of self-government OVER a return to the Constitution. 




*Ron Paul and Anarcho-Capitalism*… Hint: _He’s not a statist_ (4min+ of video).
For a better justification see this Mises thread *here* and my responses:
 Ron Paul’s real goal is self government / anarcho-capitalism, instead  of  a return to the Constitution. The strategy merely differs. His role  is  educational, i.e directing folks to Libertarianism and Austrian   Economics. He acknowledges that voting (in Congress) won’t change   anything.…
 Except he’s never advocated it, when compared to a voluntaryist  society. Philosophically, the question  you need to ask is _“Compared to what?”_
_COMPARED to what_ we have now, would you prefer a return to the size of government as outlined in the US Constitution?_ (Obviously leaving aside the fact that it would only grow in size again)._ _…_
 “… In the name of practicality, the  opportunist not only loses any  chance of advancing others toward the  ultimate goal, but he himself  gradually loses sight of that goal—as  happens with any “sellout” of  principle. Thus, suppose that one is  writing about taxation. It is not  incumbent on the libertarian to always  proclaim his full “anarchist”  position in whatever he writes; but *it is incumbent upon him in no way to praise taxation or condone it*; _he should simply leave this perhaps glaring vacuum_,   and wait for the eager reader to begin to question and perhaps come to   you for further enlightenment. But if the libertarian says, “Of  course,  some taxes must be levied,” or something of the sort, he has  betrayed  the cause.” - Rothbard’s 1961 Confidential Memo to Volker Fund…
“But one must use democratic means only for defensive  purposes; that is,  one may use an antidemocratic platform to be elected  by an  antidemocratic constituency to implement antidemocratic — that  is,  anti-egalitarian and pro-private property — policies. Or, to put it   differently, a person is not honorable because he is democratically   elected. If anything, this makes him a suspect. Despite the fact that a   person has been elected democratically, he may still be a decent and   honorable man; we have heard one before.” - What Must be Done, Hoppe…
 *“In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written.”* ~ Ron Paul,  End the Fed…
 “Ideas are the only things that count, and politicians are, for the most part, pretty much irrelevant,” Ron Paul told the London _Independent_ in December.

----------


## Deborah K

Conza, trying to propagate anarchy during an election period (when Dr. Paul has stated in debates that he considers himself the "Champion of the Constitution"), is a bad tactical move on your part, if you want to see the man get elected.  How do you expect our country to advance out of the mess we're in without him?

----------


## Travlyr

Ron Paul has said over and over again that he defers to the constitution when he votes. As president he would base all his decisions on the rule of law, the U.S. Constitution. If he felt that changes were needed to the constitution, Ron Paul would use the amendment process to effect changes.

Anybody who represents him in a different light is disingenuous at best, and they should cease and desist misrepresenting him. 

For those who earnestly want to learn about Ron Paul, _"Liberty Defined"_ is excellent!

----------


## Deborah K

> Ron Paul has said over and over again that he defers to the constitution when he votes. As president he would base all his decisions on the rule of law, the U.S. Constitution. If he felt that changes were needed to the constitution, Ron Paul would use the amendment process to effect changes.
> 
> Anybody who represents him in a different light is disingenuous at best, and they should cease and desist misrepresenting him. 
> 
> For those who earnestly want to learn about Ron Paul, _"Liberty Defined"_ is excellent!


This

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Ron Paul has said over and over again that he defers to the constitution when he votes. As president he would base all his decisions on the rule of law, the U.S. Constitution. If he felt that changes were needed to the constitution, Ron Paul would use the amendment process to effect changes.
> 
> Anybody who represents him in a different light is disingenuous at best, and they should cease and desist misrepresenting him. 
> 
> For those who earnestly want to learn about Ron Paul, _"Liberty Defined"_ is excellent!


We've established in other threads that anarchists can use the political system as a means to an end-the destruction of statism.  It seems that you are the disingenuous one.  I wouldn't consider RP an anarchist, but many of his opinions are anarchist-friendly.  He's more Voluntaryist than anarchist.  It's difficult to put RP into any one neat category, really.

----------


## specsaregood

> We've established in other threads that anarchists can use the political system as a means to an end-the destruction of statism.  It seems that you are the disingenuous one.  I wouldn't consider RP an anarchist, but many of his opinions are anarchist-friendly.  He's more Voluntaryist than anarchist.  It's difficult to put RP into any one neat category, really.


While we argue over the minutiae of constitutionalist vs voluntaryist vs. anarchist.  The war machine continues to pound us all in the ass.

----------


## Deborah K

> We've established in other threads that anarchists can use the political system as a means to an end-the destruction of statism.  It seems that you are the disingenuous one.  I wouldn't consider RP an anarchist, but many of his opinions are anarchist-friendly.  He's more Voluntaryist than anarchist.  It's difficult to put RP into any one neat category, really.


The disengenuous ones are the ones who put their almighty philosophical points of view before the objective - which is to get Dr. Paul elected.  We are living in a David and Goliath moment folks.  Know thy enemy's strengths and weaknesses.  The media crushed our chances last time.  Learn from it.  And don't make the mistake of thinking this forum is not being monitored.

----------


## Travlyr

> We've established in other threads that anarchists can use the political system as a means to an end-the destruction of statism.  It seems that you are the disingenuous one.  I wouldn't consider RP an anarchist, but many of his opinions are anarchist-friendly.  He's more Voluntaryist than anarchist.  It's difficult to put RP into any one neat category, really.


I'm not being disingenuous at all! Watch the videos! Ron Paul clearly states that he is working within the system and if others want to work outside the system it is fine with him. He ended the first video by stating the problem that anarchists on this forum cannot seem to learn. Keynesianism is the culprit of our day. Anarchists think that statism is the culprit which it clearly is not as evidenced by their inability to adequately answer some simple questions. 

It never ceases to amaze me that anarchists cannot see that it is the anarchists who are the _powers-that-be_. They don't call it that, but it is the rulers who are above the law... the diplomatic immunity crowd that counterfeits money, profits from wars, socialize societies, rule the Mundanes with laws and police ... it is the Keynesians who have to go to achieve liberty, peace, and prosperity.

Ron Paul has consistently advocated for voluntary involvement as the "Champion of the Constitution." His goal is not to overthrow governments as anarchists claim. That is their agenda.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFYRH...layer_embedded



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RF1PM...layer_embedded

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *
> It never ceases to amaze me that anarchists cannot see that it is the anarchists who are the powers-that-be. They don't call it that, but it is the rulers who are above the law... the diplomatic immunity crowd that counterfeits money, profits from wars, socialize societies, rule the Mundanes with laws and police ... it is the Keynesians who have to go to achieve liberty, peace, and prosperity.*


You MUST be kidding.  TPTB have long been smearing anarchists.  Remember the relatively recent riots in Europe?  The rioters were called "anarchists", but were really rioting for more welfare.  The bolded above is an absolute backwards understanding of reality.  This should not be construed as a complete defense of or apologia for anarchism (I am not an anarchist myself).  I'm just trying to get you to be honest.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> While we argue over the minutiae of constitutionalist vs voluntaryist vs. anarchist.  The war machine continues to pound us all in the ass.


It would be the same even if we weren't arguing these minutiae.  The war machine is going to keep going till it runs out of money, runs out of victims, or is overthrown (the latter is not going to happen through political means anytime soon).  War is about the only thing we have to export now that the regime has destroyed so much of the private sector's wealth.

----------


## Travlyr

> You MUST be kidding.  TPTB have long been smearing anarchists.  Remember the relatively recent riots in Europe?  The rioters were called "anarchists", but were really rioting for more welfare.  The bolded above is an absolute backwards understanding of reality.  This should not be construed as a complete defense of or apologia for anarchism (I am not an anarchist myself).  I'm just trying to get you to be honest.


 Not kidding... it is proved. At least I'm in good company.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIs5r...894DE8E2855597

----------


## specsaregood

> It would be the same even if we weren't arguing these minutiae.  The war machine is going to keep going till it runs out of money, runs out of victims, or is overthrown (the latter is not going to happen through political means anytime soon).  War is about the only thing we have to export now that the regime has destroyed so much of the private sector's wealth.


No real disagreement there.  But I'm of the opinion that our war export is just a side effect of propping up our primary export of debt.
I really just wanted to get the words "pound us all in the ass" into this thread.  Thanks for the assist.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

I think I get Travlyr's point... the corporatists and the banksters operate above the law - they impose it, but are not subject to it so, in a sense, they are operating in a quasi-stateless environment.  

While an interesting observation (if I'm correct in my interpretation), it is also abusive of the concept we anarchists are advocating.  Also, these people are not above the state so much as they ARE the state, as much as a king might have been... or more so, really.  They have seized the power of the state and turned it to their uses.  We anarchists don't propose to subject these people to discipline meted out by the state - we propose to do away with the levers of power altogether... to do otherwise only invites it to happen again to another generation.

----------


## Travlyr

> I think I get Travlyr's point... the corporatists and the banksters operate above the law - they impose it, but are not subject to it so, in a sense, they are operating in a quasi-stateless environment.  
> 
> While an interesting observation (if I'm correct in my interpretation), it is also abusive of the concept we anarchists are advocating.


It is, but you anarchists are on a mission that Ron Paul is not on. We want to end all these false claims during the election cycle ... the _"Ron Paul doesn't want to return to the constitution"_ BS because it is not true. Others drop-by the forum see anarchists and go running away or posting it on blogs.




> Also, these people are not above the state so much as they ARE the state, as much as a king might have been... or more so, really.  They have seized the power of the state and turned it to their uses.  We anarchists don't propose to subject these people to discipline meted out by the state - we propose to do away with the levers of power altogether... to do otherwise only invites it to happen again to another generation.


When you say "state", are you referring to The State of Alabama? Do you want to do away with the State of Florida? That's what most people think of when they hear the word "State." I don't want to do away with that organizational structure and neither does Ron Paul. People who say he does are lying.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> It is, but you anarchists are on a mission that Ron Paul is not on. We want to end all these false claims during the election cycle ... the _"Ron Paul doesn't want to return to the constitution"_ BS because it is not true. Others drop-by the forum see anarchists and go running away or posting it on blogs.
> 
> 
> When you say "state", are you referring to The State of Alabama? Do you want to do away with the State of Florida? That's what most people think of when they hear the word "State." I don't want to do away with that organizational structure and neither does Ron Paul. People who say he does are lying.


Dr. Paul has left us with a pile of clues as to where his true moral compass points, but he has not really come out plainly and said, "I am a minarchist!", or "I am an anarchist!".  It's true that he has said that he is a Constitutionalist - a Champion of the Constitution, even.  But so am I, as I've stated in another thread - I would prefer strict adherence by the government to it over the present paradigm, and afterall it is the operating governing document of the federal government and as such ought to be held to it... but I'd also prefer the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution (and I believe Ron has said something similar, but I can't cite it at the moment), and the relative freedom of the colonies to the Articles, and ultimately real, true individual liberty.  Just as well as calling himself a Constitutionalist, he's also said that the ultimate goal is self-government, the implication of course being that capital-G Government isn't necessary... and he's certainly made himself quite friendly with more than a few well-established anarchists.

Without offense, I find the unequivocal declarations that Ron IS or ISN'T something to be a bit absurd... he's never really come right out and said specifically that anarchism is preferable, or that government is.  It's my personal opinion, from some of the things he's said and some of the folks he's associated himself with, that he is at least sympathetic to the philosophy of anarchism.  In the end, frankly, it doesn't matter to me.  It wouldn't matter to me if I were the only person on the planet who acknowledged the objective, moral truth of individual sovereignty.

----------


## Travlyr

In the forward to my copy of the Constitution.

"The Constitution is a revolutionary document. It is also a perfect illustration of how freedom brings people together." - Ron Paul

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> It is, but you anarchists are on a mission that Ron Paul is not on. We want to end all these false claims during the election cycle ... the _"Ron Paul doesn't want to return to the constitution"_ BS because it is not true. Others drop-by the forum see anarchists and go running away or posting it on blogs.
> 
> 
> *When you say "state", are you referring to The State of Alabama? Do you want to do away with the State of Florida? That's what most people think of when they hear the word "State."* I don't want to do away with that organizational structure and neither does Ron Paul. People who say he does are lying.


 The State, as anarchists use the term, is defined:
 That institution which interferes with the   Free Market through the direct exercise of   coercion  or the granting of   privileges (backed by   coercion). 	
 _ The Illuminatus! Trilogy_   			[_celine_] 		   That organization that claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a given territory. 	
  bkMarcus   			[_bk_] 		   A compulsory territorial monopoly on final judgments. 	
Hans-Hermann Hoppe  			[_hoppe_] 		 
 The state is "the embodiment of the principle of invasion in an individual, or a band of individuals, assuming to act as representatives or masters of the entire people within a given area."   
    Government is "the subjection of the noninvasive individual to an external will."   
 Joseph A. Labadie (summarizing Tucker) 
 Anarchism: What It Is and What It Is Not   			[_labadie_] 		   Anarchists have no quarrel with any institution that contents itself with enforcing the law of   equal freedom,  and ... they oppose the State only after first defining it as an institution that claims authority over the _non-aggressive_  individual and enforces that authority by physical force or by means  that are effective only because they can and will be backed by physical  force if necessary. 	
 _Individual Liberty_ by Benjamin Tucker,  		 		"Liberty and Politics"   			[_tucker_] 		  (involuntary government)
 SEK3   			[_sek3_] 		   The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone expects to live at the expense of everyone else. 	
     Frederic Bastiat  		  			[_bastiat_] 		   The State is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a  monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area;  in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its  revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered  but by coercion. While other individuals or institutions obtain their  income by production of goods and services and by the peaceful and  voluntary sale of these goods and services to others, the State obtains  its revenue by the use of compulsion; that is, by the use and the threat  of the jailhouse and the bayonet. Having used force and violence to  obtain its revenue, the State generally goes on to regulate and dictate  the other actions of its individual subjects. 	
 Murray Rothbard,  "The Anatomy of the State"   			[_rothbard_] 		   There will always be those who claim to have special rights over the  rest of society, and the state is the most organized attempt to get away  with it. 	
 Lew Rockwell, "Why the State Is Different"   			[_rockwell_] 		   ... while some Libertarians cling to the State as somehow capable of  defending Liberty if only kept small enough, the modern Libertarian  Movement ... considers the State ... a necessary or unnecessary Evil but  definitely an Evil. In fact, the State is generally perceived as the  institutional opposite of Liberty. 	
 SEK3   			[_sek3_] 		 
 Nowhere has the coercive and parasitic nature of the State been more  clearly limned than by the great late nineteenth-century German  sociologist, Franz Oppenheimer. Oppenheimer pointed out that there are  two and only two mutually exclusive means for man to obtain wealth. One,  the method of production and voluntary exchange, the method of the free  market, Oppenheimer termed the "economic means"; the other, the method  of robbery by the use of violence, he called the "political means." The  political means is clearly parasitic, for it requires previous  production for the exploiters to confiscate, and it subtracts from  instead of adding to the total production in society. Oppenheimer then  proceeded to define the State as the "organization of the political  means" -- the systematization of the predatory process over a given  territorial area. 		
 		 [Franz Oppenheimer, The State (New York: Vanguard Press, 1926), pp. 24-27 and passim.] 		


 Let me begin with the definition of government: A government is a compulsory territorial monopolist of ultimate decision-making (jurisdiction) and, implied in this, a compulsory territorial monopolist of taxation. That is, a government is the ultimate arbiter, for the inhabitants of a given territory, regarding what is just and what is not, and it can determine unilaterally, i.e., without requiring the consent of those seeking justice or arbitration, the price that justice-seekers must pay to the government for providing this service. 	
Hans-Hermann Hoppe, "Government, Money, and International Politics" [PDF]  			[_hoppe_] 		 
 The State is a group of people who have managed to acquire a virtual  monopoly of the use of violence throughout a given territorial area.  In particular, it has acquired a monopoly of  _aggressive_ violence, for States generally recognize the right of individuals to use  violence (though not against States, of course) in self defense. The State then uses this monopoly to wield power over the inhabitants of  the area and to enjoy the material fruits of that power.  The State, then, is the only organization in society that regularly and  openly obtains its monetary revenues by the use of aggressive violence;  all other individuals and organizations (except if delegated that right  by the State) can obtain wealth only by peaceful production and by  voluntary exchange of their respective products.  This use of violence to obtain its revenue (called 'taxation')  is the keystone of State power. 		
 Murray Rothbard,  The Libertarian Manifesto "Let me say from the beginning that I define the state as that  institution which possesses one or both (almost always both) of the  following properties: (1) it acquires its income by the physical  coercion known as "taxation"; and (2) it asserts and usually obtains a  coerced monopoly of the provision of defense service (police and courts)  over a given territorial area. An institution not possessing either of  these properties is not and cannot be, in accordance with my definition,  a state. On the other hand, I define anarchist society as one where  there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person  or property of an individual. "  Murray Rothbard, "Society Without A State"

----------


## A Son of Liberty

Okay... 

"Our Constitution was designed to protect individual rights, and the Founders knew clearly that they wanted a republic, not a democracy, where the majority could not dictate the definition of rights of the minority.  They did a reasonably good job in writing the Constitution but yielded to the principle of democracy in compromising on the slavery issue.  The majority voted for supporting second-class citizenship for blacks, a compromise that we paid heavily for, not only in the 1860's but more than a hundred years later as well.  It would have been better if we had stayed a loose-knit confederation and not allowed the failed principles of democracy and slavery to infect the Constitution."  

Liberty Defined, pages 66-67.

We can go back and forth citing quotes... that's kind of the point I was making.  

It seems you're a bit intractible on this, and that's fine.  It's a bit odd to me, but to each his own.

Edit: In reply to Travlyr

----------


## Deborah K

> Dr. Paul has left us with a pile of clues as to where his true moral compass points, but he has not really come out plainly and said, "I am a minarchist!", or "I am an anarchist!".  It's true that he has said that he is a Constitutionalist - a Champion of the Constitution, even.  But so am I, as I've stated in another thread - I would prefer strict adherence by the government to it over the present paradigm, and afterall it is the operating governing document of the federal government and as such ought to be held to it... but I'd also prefer the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution (and I believe Ron has said something similar, but I can't cite it at the moment), and the relative freedom of the colonies to the Articles, and ultimately real, true individual liberty.  Just as well as calling himself a Constitutionalist, he's also said that the ultimate goal is self-government, the implication of course being that capital-G Government isn't necessary... and he's certainly made himself quite friendly with more than a few well-established anarchists.
> 
> *Without offense, I find the unequivocal declarations that Ron IS or ISN'T something to be a bit absurd*... he's never really come right out and said specifically that anarchism is preferable, or that government is.  It's my personal opinion, from some of the things he's said and some of the folks he's associated himself with, that he is at least sympathetic to the philosophy of anarchism.  In the end, frankly, it doesn't matter to me.  It wouldn't matter to me if I were the only person on the planet who acknowledged the objective, moral truth of individual sovereignty.


A reasonable perspective.  Perhaps the bolded part could be directed at the OP.

----------


## Deborah K

> Okay... 
> 
> "Our Constitution was designed to protect individual rights, and the Founders knew clearly that they wanted a republic, not a democracy, where the majority could not dictate the definition of rights of the minority.  They did a reasonably good job in writing the Constitution but yielded to the principle of democracy in compromising on the slavery issue.  The majority voted for supporting second-class citizenship for blacks, a compromise that we paid heavily for, not only in the 1860's but more than a hundred years later as well.  It would have been better if we had stayed a loose-knit confederation and not allowed the failed principles of democracy and slavery to infect the Constitution."  
> 
> Liberty Defined, pages 66-67.
> 
> We can go back and forth citing quotes... that's kind of the point I was making.  
> 
> It seems you're a bit intractible on this, and that's fine.  It's a bit odd to me, but to each his own.
> ...



The same could be said about the OP and many of his advocates.  Can we end this now?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The same could be said about the OP and many of his advocates.  Can we end this now?


 'Twould be fine with me.

----------


## Travlyr

> Okay... 
> 
> "Our Constitution was designed to protect individual rights, and the Founders knew clearly that they wanted a republic, not a democracy, where the majority could not dictate the definition of rights of the minority.  They did a reasonably good job in writing the Constitution but yielded to the principle of democracy in compromising on the slavery issue.  The majority voted for supporting second-class citizenship for blacks, a compromise that we paid heavily for, not only in the 1860's but more than a hundred years later as well.  *It would have been better if* we had stayed a loose-knit confederation and not allowed the failed principles of democracy and slavery to infect the Constitution."  
> 
> Liberty Defined, pages 66-67.
> 
> We can go back and forth citing quotes... that's kind of the point I was making.  
> 
> It seems you're a bit intractible on this, and that's fine.  It's a bit odd to me, but to each his own.
> ...


Coulda - Woulda - Shoulda... Now we are dealing with reality of our day. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Ron Paul has proven that he will use the rule of law to rule.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Coulda - Woulda - Shoulda... Now we are dealing with reality of our day. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Ron Paul has proven that he will use the rule of law to rule.

----------


## Wesker1982

I had never seen his speech that starts at about 2:50  

It makes sense and confirms what the Voluntaryists have been saying.

Also something that is absolutely indisputable is his support of the individuals right to opt out (like in the interview he mentions the Amish should just be left alone). And he talks about how in a libertarian society if a group of socialists want to start a community or whatever, he would have no problem with it so long as they didn't live off of anyone who didn't agree. *This is Voluntaryism*. 

Right to opt out =




> If each person may secede from government, we have virtually arrived at the purely free society, where defense is supplied along with all other services by the free market and where the invasive State has ceased to exist.





> Once admit any right of secession whatever, and there is no logical stopping-point short of the right of individual secession, which logically entails anarchism, since then individuals may secede and patronize their own defense agencies, and the State has crumbled

----------


## Travlyr

More propaganda,

Where in the Constitutions do they say the purpose of the State is to provide security?
Articles & Sections please.

----------


## Travlyr

Getting rid of the State will start a civil war. If you do not understand that, then you need to understand it. If a civil war is not your goal, then you need to study harder.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Getting rid of the State will start a civil war. If you do not understand that, then you need to understand it. If a civil war is not your goal, then you need to study harder.


Assertions are not arguments.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> More propaganda,


Assertions are not arguments.  




> Where in the Constitutions do they say the purpose of the State is to provide security?
> Articles & Sections please.


What, *exactly* does this have to do with Weskers post? (which is what I'm assuming you're responding to)

----------


## Travlyr

> Assertions are not arguments.


Answer the question.

Where in the Constitutions do they say the purpose of the State is to provide security?
Articles & Sections

And be honest to your recruits. Insincerity is not a trait of Ron Paul

----------


## Travlyr

> What, *exactly* does this have to do with Weskers post? (which is what I'm assuming you're responding to)


Word for word out of the recruitment video he posted.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Answer the question.


Please, explain to me the relevance of the question, according to the subject matter being discussed here.




> Where in the Constitutions do they say the purpose of the State is to provide security?
> Articles & Sections
> 
> And be honest to your recruits. Insincerity is not a trait of Ron Paul


I truly don't give a $#@! what the US constitution says, how's that for honesty?

----------


## Travlyr

> Please, explain to me the relevance of the question, according to the subject matter being discussed here.
> 
> I truly don't give a $#@! what the US constitution says, how's that for honesty?


But you should. It was written for the people.

And I don't want to take-up arms against my brothers. All I'm asking for is for honest sincere adult debate.
The State is not the problem of our day.

----------


## Travlyr

You guys misrepresent the State. And a lot of people believe what you say. If you are not going to be honest, it is a cult.

----------


## Travlyr

I am seriously beginning to believe that Clay Trainor and Wesker are here to disrupt liberty rather than promote it. 
They never answer the tough questions.

Property is currently vested in the State. Getting rid of the State without first considering what to do with the property deeds that are publicly recorded in county clerks offices all across the country is not a smart move.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> But you should. It was written for the people.


No, it was written to establish a central organization with the power to lay and collect taxes, with limitations.... which is a laughably utopian idea on it's face.




> And I don't want to take-up arms against my brothers.


Do you wish to impose the state on your brothers who don't want one and have committed no aggressive crime?




> The State is not the problem of our day.


Some people having the right to initiate coercive force and fraud against other people is, and has always been the central problem for humanity.

----------


## klamath

> I had never seen his speech that starts at about 2:50  
> 
> It makes sense and confirms what the Voluntaryists have been saying.
> 
> Also something that is absolutely indisputable is his support of the individuals right to opt out (like in the interview he mentions the Amish should just be left alone). And he talks about how in a libertarian society if a group of socialists want to start a community or whatever, he would have no problem with it* so long as they didn't live off of anyone who didn't agree.* *This is Voluntaryism*. 
> 
> Right to opt out =


Ah. but there is the question. What if they *were* living off of the minority in a community and suspending the minorities god given rights, what would RP's answer be?

----------


## Travlyr

Answer the question.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> You guys misrepresent the State. And a lot of people believe what you say. If you are not going to be honest, it is a cult.


I think it's fair to say that you've likely contributed far more to converting people to voluntaryism than I have.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Answer the question.



What one?

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I am seriously beginning to believe that Clay Trainor and Wesker are here to disrupt liberty rather than promote it.


Im here to promote liberty and free-markets, not Constitutions and statism.

----------


## Travlyr

The State can be amended to be voluntary.

Stupid anarchy cult is stupid.

----------


## Travlyr

You misrepresent the state by lying to your recruits, and claim you have a better solution but can never answer questions posed to you by property owners.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> The State can be amended to be voluntary.


Out of all the states that exist in the world today, which ones are 100% voluntary?




> Stupid cult is stupid.


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

----------


## Travlyr

If you didn't have to lie to your recruits and misrepresent the State it would be different. Liars are losers in the 21st century.

----------


## Travlyr

No State that I know of today is voluntary, but they can be amended as such.

Now it is your turn. Why do you feel you need to lie to get recruits?

----------


## ClayTrainor

> You misrepresent the state by lying to your recruits,


I merely represent myself and my own thoughts.

If I just wanted to recruit people to anarchy, all I need to do is let them read your arguments with an open mind. 

Case in point:




> Discussions like this are why I lean more and more towards anarchy each day. *Almost all of the arguments against it are based on strawman.* 
> 
> With Voluntarism, the logical inconsistancies are largely gone. There are no contradictory beliefs about how the income tax is immoral, but a sales tax or tariff tax is ok. There are no pet issues. There isn't the belief that many other Libertarians have that the Austrian School of economics is right on all but one pet issue, where it just so happens that the random libertarian and the government knows more than all Austrian economists. There are no excuses for advocating government coercion with voluntarism.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> No State that I know of today is voluntary, but they can be amended as such.


Would you argue the same about the mafia?  They aren't voluntary, but can be amended as such?




> Now it is your turn. Why do you feel you need to lie to get recruits?


I'm merely interested in expressing my own ideas and thoughs, and people are free to disagree with them and challenge them. 

If you think I'm lying about something, cite it... demonstrate it... don't just assert it.

----------


## Travlyr

> 


This is NLP. Ron Paul supporters should go to YouTube and dislike and comment because they are misrepresenting the good Doctor Paul.

At 39 seconds into this video the video maker lies about the State and misrepresents Ron Paul's position.

*"The purpose of the State is to provide security"* is an out-n-out lie.

The constitutions do not call for police. The police did not come onto the scene until about the time of the War Between the States the first time the counterfeiting cabal started printing paper money.

They are doing everything in their power to destroy his campaign.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> This is NLP. Ron Paul supporters should go to YouTube and dislike and comment because they are misrepresenting the good Doctor Paul.


Ron Paul supporters should think for themselves and act accordingly. 




> At 39 seconds into this video the video maker lies about the State and misrepresents Ron Paul's position.
> 
> *"The purpose of the State is to provide security"* is an out-n-out lie.


What did they constitution mean by "Provide for.... and *secure* the blessings of liberty" in the preamble?




> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, *provide for* the common defence, promote the general Welfare, *and secure the Blessings of Liberty* to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.





> The constitutions do not call for police. The police did not come onto the scene until about the time of the War Between the States the first time the counterfeiting cabal started printing paper money.


Security does not necessarily mean police.




> They are doing everything in their power to destroy his campaign.


That's quite a bold claim.  Are you asserting this towards anyone specifically, or collectively?

I think you have bigger dragons to slay, and would also suggest that your arguments against voluntaryism are not having the effect that you intend.  I certainly welcome you to keep it up, though.

----------


## Travlyr

I read secure the blessing of liberty as intending to establish courts of justice.

Ron Paul is a "Defender of Liberty" and supporter of the Constitution. Those are his words. Why do you guys lie about that?

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I read secure the blessing of liberty as intending to establish courts of justice.


How is that not "providing" a form of "Security", with regards individual liberty?




> Ron Paul is a "Defender of Liberty" and supporter of the Constitution. Those are his words. Why do you guys lie about that?


I can't speak for others, but I personally have never claimed that Ron Paul isn't a supporter of the Constitution.  However, it is also clear that Ron Paul is in no way opposed to a libertarian society that advocates for self-government, rather than a return to the constitution.




Ron Paul was asked at 3:55: "What do you say to people who advocate self-government, rather than a return to the Constitution?"

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

----------


## Travlyr

> Ron Paul supporters should think for themselves and act accordingly.


I'm sure they will. 
Liars and dumb asses should quit misrepresenting Ron Paul's positions.

Stupid Anarchy cult is stupid.

----------


## V3n

Admins: Please stop allowing this thread to appear when I hit "New Posts".  Categorization and labeling doesn't help anyone, can this thread just die please?

----------


## newbitech

are we sure he is not talking about selfish-government?  wouldn't want to get our terms confused

----------


## Travlyr

"The purpose of the State is to provide security" is an out-n-out lie.
This infers a police state and State constitutions do not call for police or security teams. 

Ron Paul is not going to get rid of the State. Ron Paul is "defender of liberty" and supporter of the Constitution. 

How come you guys lie and cannot be honest about that?

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Liars and dumb asses should quit misrepresenting Ron Paul's positions.


Ron Paul can speak for himself. 




> Stupid Anarchy cult is stupid.


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

It's obvious you've lost the argument when you resort to constant ad-hom bombs.

I feel like quoting myself, because I think you are making my case.




> I really think the forum minarchists who make a point of arguing against an-cap and voluntaryist philosophy on a regular basis are probably responsible for opening more minds up to voluntaryism and anarchy than the an-caps themselves.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> "The purpose of the State is to provide security" is an out-n-out lie.
> *This infers a police state* and State constitutions do not call for police or security teams.


No, you are inferring that all on your own.




> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, *provide for* the common defence, promote the general Welfare, *and secure the Blessings of Liberty* to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.





> Ron Paul is "defender of liberty" and supporter of the Constitution. How come you guys lie and cannot be honest about that?





> I can't speak for others, but I personally have never claimed that Ron Paul isn't a supporter of the Constitution. However, it is also clear that Ron Paul is in no way opposed to a libertarian society that advocates for self-government, rather than a return to the constitution.


No one here is lying, you're just getting uptight and resorting to ad-hominems and accusations about our motives, which to me is typical of someone who is losing an argument.

Also, for someone who said... 




> They never answer the tough questions.


It's pretty interesting how you avoided my last question, and proceeded with assertions and ad-hom bombs.




> How is that not "providing" a form of "Security", with regards individual liberty?

----------


## V3n

If you agree with him, vote for him, if not, don't.  Enough with this collectivist $#@!.  Please!

----------


## ClayTrainor

> If you agree with him, vote for him, if not, don't.  Enough with this collectivist $#@!.  Please!


This isn't a conversation about whether or not someone should vote for Ron Paul, this is a thread about Philsophy and whether or not Ron Paul accepts voluntaryism as a valid idea, and how that relates to his support of the Constitution and Limited Government.

The last couple of pages, I have been defending myself against Travlyr's harsh claims such as "lying" and "misrepresenting".  My honest apologies if this frustrates you, but I can't help but feel the need to respond when someone makes such harsh claims about me.

----------


## V3n

I'm sorry. My frustration is not with you, nor Travlyr in specific, it's with the overall theme of this thread.

You all can debate the philosophy of another human being who has their Own Philosophy, until you're both blue in the face or in straight jackets.. what does this add to our cause?  There's no answer until Ron Paul himself comes on this board to answer the question.

I may be wrong for trying to shut-down intelligent discussion, but involving another human in this discussion, who's not even here (Ron Paul), is wrong.  You hear what you want to hear.. both of you, all of you, anyone.  Put them in whatever box you are comfortable with and move on.

If you want to debate the merits of your philosophy v. their philosophy, I understand.  If you want to defend yourself against unfair accusations, I understand. But don't (either of you, anyone) put a label on someone who is not even available to speak for themselves on this board.  I would prefer you take it offline or take Dr. Paul out of it. 

(IMHO - this is the internet - I give up)

----------


## Deborah K

> I'm sorry. My frustration is not with you, nor Travlyr in specific, it's with the overall theme of this thread.
> 
> You all can debate the philosophy of another human being who has their Own Philosophy, until you're both blue in the face or in straight jackets.. what does this add to our cause?  There's no answer until Ron Paul himself comes on this board to answer the question.
> 
> I may be wrong for trying to shut-down intelligent discussion, but involving another human in this discussion, who's not even here (Ron Paul), is wrong.  You hear what you want to hear.. both of you, all of you, anyone.  Put them in whatever box you are comfortable with and move on.
> 
> If you want to debate the merits of your philosophy v. their philosophy, I understand.  If you want to defend yourself against unfair accusations, I understand. But don't (either of you, anyone) put a label on someone who is not even available to speak for themselves on this board.  I would prefer you take it offline or take Dr. Paul out of it. 
> 
> (IMHO - this is the internet - I give up)


Well stated.

----------


## Travlyr

> This isn't a conversation about whether or not someone should vote for Ron Paul, this is a thread about Philsophy and whether or not Ron Paul accepts voluntaryism as a valid idea, and how that relates to his support of the Constitution and Limited Government.


The thread title labels Ron Paul as a voluntarist. The video claims that eliminating the state is necessary for a voluntary society. Both are false claims which Ron Paul has never said. The fact that he is sympathetic to voluntarism shows Ron Paul's compassion but it is not honest to label Ron Paul something he is not. 

Ron Paul is a "defender of liberty" and supporter of the Constitution. That is the label Ron Paul chose and the one that honest people will promote. 




> The last couple of pages, I have been defending myself against Travlyr's harsh claims such as "lying" and "misrepresenting".  My honest apologies if this frustrates you, but I can't help but feel the need to respond when someone makes such harsh claims about me.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> The thread title labels Ron Paul as a voluntarist.


Then your beef is really with Adam Kokesh, not me.  




> ADAM KOKESH:* So you've described yourself as a voluntarist.* Can you tell us what that means for the big picture, and what your ideal society would be, as a voluntarist?
> 
> RON PAUL: Voluntary means no coercion. So if you want to change people's habits or change the world you should do it by setting examples and trying to persuade people to do it. You can use force only when somebody uses force against you.* So voluntary use of information and persuading people*, *I think, is the best way to go*; and no matter what kind of problem you're looking at.


I also find it interesting that Ron Paul didn't correct him, and even said that he thinks "it's the best way to go"?  I guess I'm just misrepresenting him and lying again, eh?




> Ron Paul is a "defender of liberty" and supporter of the Constitution.


Please show me where I in any way challenged this.  I have never said Ron Paul is not a defender of liberty, or a Constitutionalist.  I don't know what your point is.

----------


## Wesker1982

> "The purpose of the State is to provide security" is an out-n-out lie.
> This infers a police state and State constitutions do not call for police or security teams. 
> 
> How come you guys lie and cannot be honest about that?


The government is incapable of *doing what it's suppose to do*. A job like* the provision of security* is something best left to private institutions. -Liberty Defined, Page 288

So Ron Paul is lying here? Maybe you disagree with this, but ad hominems will only discredit you. 


_It is not incumbent on the libertarian to always proclaim his full anarchist position in whatever he writes; but it is incumbent upon him in no way to praise taxation or condone it; he should simply leave this perhaps glaring vacuum, and wait for the eager reader to begin to question and perhaps come to you for further enlightenment._

What do you say to this:




> Also something that is absolutely indisputable is his support of the individuals right to opt out (like in the interview he mentions the Amish should just be left alone). And he talks about how in a libertarian society if a group of socialists want to start a community or whatever, he would have no problem with it so long as they didn't live off of anyone who didn't agree. *This is Voluntaryism*. 
> 
> Right to opt out =
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Do you support the right of the individual to secede? And do you believe Ron Paul supports the individuals right to secede, or do you think he would advocate the use of violence to stop individuals from seceding?

----------


## Wesker1982

Also,

Like it or not, if you support the individuals right to secede, then you are a Voluntaryist. Even if you are a masochist who wants to live in a totalitarian dystopia, if you advocate the rights of individual secession, and would not use violence to force people into your society, you are a Voluntaryist.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The government is incapable of *doing what it's suppose to do*. A job like* the provision of security* is something best left to private institutions. -Liberty Defined, Page 288
> 
> So Ron Paul is lying here? Maybe you disagree with this, but ad hominems will only discredit you. 
> 
> 
> _It is not incumbent on the libertarian to always proclaim his full “anarchist” position in whatever he writes; but it is incumbent upon him in no way to praise taxation or condone it; he should simply leave this perhaps glaring vacuum, and wait for the eager reader to begin to question and perhaps come to you for further enlightenment._
> 
> What do you say to this:
> 
> ...


 +rep

----------


## ClayTrainor

> _It is not incumbent on the libertarian to always proclaim his full “anarchist” position in whatever he writes; but it is incumbent upon him in no way to praise taxation or condone it; he should simply leave this perhaps glaring vacuum, and wait for the eager reader to begin to question and perhaps come to you for further enlightenment._


That's a very provocative quote.  I need to reflect on that a bit.  Is that Rothbard as well?

----------


## Travlyr

Why is it so hard for you guys to say, "Ron Paul calls himself "defender of liberty" and supporter of the Constitution"? 

The thread title labels Ron Paul as a voluntarist. The video claims that eliminating the state is necessary for a voluntary society. Both are false claims which Ron Paul has never said. 

If you were honest you would post true statements.
The State is a method of property distribution. A State has counties, counties contain townships, townships are made up of sections, 640 acre sections are divided up in smaller plots of 1/2 section, 1/4 section, etc. The State provides common people with the ability to own land and their homes.The State can be amended to be voluntary without destroying it.
Nonetheless, I have decided to end my debate with you anarchists because I have faith that your cult will fissile when people realize you lied to them. And I doubt you will be able to successfully attach the anarchist label to Ron Paul.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> The thread title labels Ron Paul as a voluntarist.


The thread title seems to accurately describe the content of the video, unless of course Adam Kokesh is flatout lying to Ron Pauls face, and Ron chooses not to correct him, but instead sound rather supportive of the idea to the point of saying "I think, is the best way to go; and no matter what kind of problem you're looking at."




> ADAM KOKESH:* So you've described yourself as a voluntarist.* Can you tell us what that means for the big picture, and what your ideal society would be,* as a voluntarist?*
> 
> RON PAUL: Voluntary means no coercion. So if you want to change people's habits or change the world you should do it by setting examples and trying to persuade people to do it. You can use force only when somebody uses force against you. So voluntary use of information and persuading people, I think, is the best way to go; and no matter what kind of problem you're looking at.





> Nonetheless, I have decided to end my debate with you anarchists because I have faith that *your cult* will fissile when people realize you lied to them.


Finishing it off with yet another ad-hominem personal attack, eh?  Way to go, champ!  That means you win!

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> [*]The State is a method of property distribution. A State has counties, counties contain townships, townships are made up of sections, 640 acre sections are divided up in smaller plots of 1/2 section, 1/4 section, etc. The State provides common people with the ability to own land and their homes.


 Incorrect.  The State (as Rothbard and other anarchists use the term) is that entity in society which has legal monopoly on the use of force.  The way you use the word should be lowercase (state).  This concept is relatively new in history.  This rise of the Nation-State came about in the 19th century (by most accounts), and the concept of smaller, soverign territories (called "states") within a nation-state is only a bit older than that.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

I've found it interesting that Travlyr chose to rather blatantly ignore the dialogue between Kokesh and Dr. Paul, as well as the discussion in the Motor Home Diaries.

I also ask Travlyr to retract his statement that the voluntaryists are here to do damage to Dr. Paul's campaign.  One can very much be a voluntaryist/anarchist while at the same time support Dr. Paul's campaign to a more limited government.  Those are stops on the same railway.  One is just a little further down the tracks than the other.  I'm a vigorous supporter of Dr. Paul, and it doesn't particularly matter to me whether he is a voluntaryist or not - I respect the man immensely for his principles and the way he has lived his life.  

Travlyr's opposition to anarchism/voluntaryism is extremely irrational - *especially when comparied to how Ron Paul interacts with voluntaryists/anarchists* - and his arguments are weak, and unsubstantiated.

----------


## Deborah K

Ron has a couple of conversations with anarchists et al. as compared to all of his speeches and interviews regarding adherence to the Constitution and some of you cling to it like it's some kind of proof that he intends to abandon his oath at some point.  Declarations like that of this thread's title are damaging to our cause, no matter how much you don't want to face it.  Especially when newcomers to Ron's message happen upon divisive threads like this one.  But it's par for the course.  The overriding mindset of the anarchist type in these forums is to propagate the philosophy, and recruit, at all costs - including Ron's election.




> Conza, trying to propagate anarchy during an election period (when Dr. Paul has stated in debates that he considers himself the "Champion of the Constitution"), is a bad tactical move on your part, if you want to see the man get elected.  How do you expect our country to advance out of the mess we're in without him?





> Dr. Paul has left us with a pile of clues as to where his true moral compass points, but he has not really come out plainly and said, "I am a minarchist!", or "I am an anarchist!".  It's true that he has said that he is a Constitutionalist - a Champion of the Constitution, even.  But so am I, as I've stated in another thread - I would prefer strict adherence by the government to it over the present paradigm, and afterall it is the operating governing document of the federal government and as such ought to be held to it... but I'd also prefer the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution (and I believe Ron has said something similar, but I can't cite it at the moment), and the relative freedom of the colonies to the Articles, and ultimately real, true individual liberty.  Just as well as calling himself a Constitutionalist, he's also said that the ultimate goal is self-government, the implication of course being that capital-G Government isn't necessary... and he's certainly made himself quite friendly with more than a few well-established anarchists.
> 
> *Without offense, I find the unequivocal declarations that Ron IS or ISN'T something to be a bit absurd... he's never really come right out and said specifically that anarchism is preferable, or that government is.*  It's my personal opinion, from some of the things he's said and some of the folks he's associated himself with, that he is at least sympathetic to the philosophy of anarchism.  In the end, frankly, it doesn't matter to me.  It wouldn't matter to me if I were the only person on the planet who acknowledged the objective, moral truth of individual sovereignty.

----------


## klamath

> I'm sorry. My frustration is not with you, nor Travlyr in specific, it's with the overall theme of this thread.
> 
> You all can debate the philosophy of another human being who has their Own Philosophy, until you're both blue in the face or in straight jackets.. what does this add to our cause?  There's no answer until Ron Paul himself comes on this board to answer the question.
> 
> I may be wrong for trying to shut-down intelligent discussion, but involving another human in this discussion, who's not even here (Ron Paul), is wrong.  You hear what you want to hear.. both of you, all of you, anyone.  Put them in whatever box you are comfortable with and move on.
> 
> If you want to debate the merits of your philosophy v. their philosophy, I understand.  If you want to defend yourself against unfair accusations, I understand. But don't (either of you, anyone) put a label on someone who is not even available to speak for themselves on this board.  I would prefer you take it offline or take Dr. Paul out of it. 
> 
> (IMHO - this is the internet - I give up)


Very true

----------


## Wesker1982

> That's a very provocative quote.  I need to reflect on that a bit.  Is that Rothbard as well?


Yes. 

I don't remember the last time I was talking to someone in person and I labeled myself an anarchist. I actually don't think I ever have lol (except maybe when I 13 cuz I was a cool punk rocker).  Sometimes people end up asking: "what are you, an anarchist?", after I tell them that taxation is not voluntary (easy reply is: if it is voluntary, it would not have to be coercive), it is theft. I reply with: "well, that depends on what you mean by anarchist.", and then I have _them_ define what they are talking about and reply accordingly.

But before I even say taxation is not voluntary, and before they ask me if I am an anarchist, I usually start the discussion with: "Using violence against non-criminals is not justified.[1] Defense and courts would be cheaper and more efficient in producing law and order if they were voluntarily funded." This helps clarify right away that I do not advocate lawlessness, regardless of what they try to label me. Even if they ask if I am an anarchist, it is already established in their mind that whatever the hell it is I am, I do not advocate chaos.

[1] If you agree with this, welcome to Voluntaryism  

Travlyr,

You are either being intellectually dishonest, or you are mistaking The State (2nd paragraph) with states (as HB34 defined).


I am still interested to hear any statist responses to this: 

Do you support the right of the individual to secede? 
Do you believe Ron Paul supports the individuals right to secede?
Do you think he would advocate the use of violence to stop peaceful individuals from seceding?

If the answer to #1 and #2 is YES, then how is this *not* Voluntaryism? 

If the answer to #3 is YES, then in your opinion, how could so many Voluntaryists and Anarchists (Tom Woods, Bob Murphy, Mary Ruwart, Doug Casey, Stephan Kinsella etc.) logically support Ron Paul when this would mean he is in clear opposition to them? And why would Ron Paul admire and associate with so many anarchists when a YES to #3 would make him directly opposed to one of their main fundamental beliefs (the NAP)?

----------


## Deborah K

Wesker, do you care if Ron wins the election?

----------


## Travlyr

> Wesker, do you care if Ron wins the election?


Wesker? What say you?

----------


## Travlyr

> I've found it interesting that Travlyr chose to rather blatantly ignore the dialogue between Kokesh and Dr. Paul, as well as the discussion in the Motor Home Diaries.


I have posted the interview between Adam and Dr. Paul on more than one occasion. It is an excellent interview but it does not confirm that Ron Paul wants to end the State. Ron Paul talks about a society without coercion. That is why he is a defender of liberty and supporter of the Constitution. 

You people make a leap of faith and say that the State has to be eliminated to achieve that. That is not true, and the mention of it drives people away. The constitutions can be amended to achieve a non-coercive society. If you would just take the time to learn about the supreme law of the land, then you could stop redefining words and expect everyone else to know what you are talking about.




> I also ask Travlyr to retract his statement that the voluntaryists are here to do damage to Dr. Paul's campaign.  One can very much be a voluntaryist/anarchist while at the same time support Dr. Paul's campaign to a more limited government.  Those are stops on the same railway.  One is just a little further down the tracks than the other.  I'm a vigorous supporter of Dr. Paul, and it doesn't particularly matter to me whether he is a voluntaryist or not - I respect the man immensely for his principles and the way he has lived his life.  
> 
> Travlyr's opposition to anarchism/voluntaryism is extremely irrational - *especially when comparied to how Ron Paul interacts with voluntaryists/anarchists* - and his arguments are weak, and unsubstantiated.


I disagree with you, want to protect my property, and you call me extremely irrational. And then you want me to take you serious. All I ask is honesty. Anarchism is extremism. You could prove this to yourself by doing a survey of what people think of anarchy. Just don't do it while wearing Ron Paul gear.

There is noting irrational about understanding that most people do not want to live in a lawless society. 99% of the people in the world go to the dictionary to learn the meaning of words. If that is not what anarchy is, then change the dictionary and converse in meaningful language.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gm5yMq0w6OA

----------


## Wesker1982

> Wesker? What say you?


It is not fun to ask you a question, have it ignored, and then be expected to answer your question.

Do you support the right of the individual to secede? 
Do you believe Ron Paul supports the individuals right to secede?
Do you think he would advocate the use of violence to stop peaceful individuals from seceding?

If the answer to #1 and #2 is YES, then how is this not Voluntaryism? 

If the answer to #3 is YES, then in your opinion, how could so many Voluntaryists and Anarchists (Tom Woods, Bob Murphy, Mary Ruwart, Doug Casey, Stephan Kinsella etc.) logically support Ron Paul when this would mean he is in clear opposition to them? And why would Ron Paul admire and associate with so many anarchists when a YES to #3 would make him directly opposed to one of their main fundamental beliefs (the NAP)?




> It is an excellent interview but it does not confirm that Ron Paul wants to end the State. Ron Paul talks about a society without coercion. That is why he is a defender of liberty and supporter of the Constitution.


*You can use force only when somebody uses force against you.* - Ron Paul

So long as "THE STATE" is funded through force (which it is right now), then yes, he does want to end it. Is anyone claiming he wants to end voluntary means to governance (law,order,defense, property titles)? No.

----------


## Conza88

Blah blah blah, video form for those that are slow .

Ron Paul "supporters" - stop trying to deny reality. He is a voluntarist / anarcho-capitalist / natural law / private law supporter. 

Get a grip in terms of - THAT doesn't mean you also need to advocate anarcho-capitalism. Just don't EVER defend taxation.. like Ron Paul, it's pretty simple.

----------


## Travlyr

> It is not fun to ask you a question, have it ignored, and then be expected to answer your question.


Believe me, I know the feeling. Back at post #91 when the video you posted misrepresented what is a constitutional republic ... the State ... The State of Washington for example. Crickets.




> Answer the question.
> 
> Where in the Constitutions do they say the purpose of the State is to provide security?
> Articles & Sections
> 
> And be honest to your recruits. Insincerity is not a trait of Ron Paul


When will you get around to answering that question?




> Do you support the right of the individual to secede? 
> Do you believe Ron Paul supports the individuals right to secede?
> Do you think he would advocate the use of violence to stop peaceful individuals from seceding?
> 
> If the answer to #1 and #2 is YES, then how is this not Voluntaryism?


My answer to #1 & #2 is Yes. They are constitutional principles. #3 is not a fair question... of course not ... have you studied Dr. Paul at all? No one is saying anything of the sort as far as I can tell.




> If the answer to #3 is YES, then in your opinion, how could so many Voluntaryists and Anarchists (Tom Woods, Bob Murphy, Mary Ruwart, Doug Casey, Stephan Kinsella etc.) logically support Ron Paul when this would mean he is in clear opposition to them? And why would Ron Paul admire and associate with so many anarchists when a YES to #3 would make him directly opposed to one of their main fundamental beliefs (the NAP)?


Why do you believe it appropriate to label people? Let them speak for themselves. 



> *You can use force only when somebody uses force against you.* - Ron Paul
> 
> So long as "THE STATE" is funded through force (which it is right now), then yes, he does want to end it. Is anyone claiming he wants to end voluntary means to governance (law,order,defense, property titles)? No.


Re-defining words and then expecting others to understand what you mean doesn't work.

----------


## Conza88

*Admin note - removed due to forum guidelines violation.*

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Re-defining words and then expecting others to understand what you mean doesn't work.


 Yes it does.  Scientists and specialists of all varieties coin new words and redefine old ones all the time.  Before the advent of scanners, to "scan a document" meant to look over it with one's eyes.  There was a time when "gay" was basically synonymous with happy.  Now, we don't use it in that way very often because the modern understanding of the word (homosexual) has become much more common.  However, you're right to the extent that those coining new words or expanding the language are responsible for explaining their usage.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

Maybe it's just the day I've had, but I'm exhausted with this.  I've had more  fruitful conversations with a pint of Guinness, and more entertaining, too.  And it's turned into such a circular discussion, my head's spinning like it was well more than just the one pint.

----------


## newbitech

> Look... when you stfu and acknowledge that Ron Paul is actually a voluntarist, you just might find that there is no need for me and other _real_ supporters to harp on about it & defend _true_ liberty... THUS accomplishing your goal of it not being brought up and talked about to apparently "scare" new "supporters" away.


Hmmm... I will not acknowledge that Ron Paul is a voluntarist until I here him




> As government is defined as a monopoly on the initiation of aggressive force and coercion in a given geographical region, voluntaryists *call for its abolition.*


I see that voluntaryist call for abolition of government because it apparently is "defined as a monopoly on the initiation of aggressive force and coercion".  

So lets see, has Ron Paul called for the abolition of "government".  No I don't think so.  And since Ron Paul is an advocate of self-"government" he clearly believes that some form of government is necessary.  So I wonder if voluntaryist consider self-government to be a monopoly on the initiation of aggressive force and coercion in that little geographical environment around their person?  Certainly that is ok and desirable for the functioning of an all voluntary interactive society? 

Ron Paul may share some of the same views as people who label themselves voluntaryist, but as far as I can tell, Ron Paul has gone on national TV and vigorously defended his conservatism and Republican credentials.  

Anyways, after all this time, you are still waiting for others to "STFU" so that your's is the only voice heard.  If that is how a "voluntary" society works, then I'll be looking for a new word to describe my interactions with other individuals with opinions and ideas different than my own.  

Ron Paul IS NOT a "voluntaryist".

----------


## heavenlyboy34

newbitech-Conza has oversimplified Voluntaryism so much so as to make it practically synonymous with anarchism.  Please know that he doesn't speak for all voluntaryists (or many at all, really).

----------


## newbitech

> newbitech-Conza has oversimplified Voluntaryism so much so as to make it practically synonymous with anarchism.  Please know that he doesn't speak for all voluntaryists (or many at all, really).


That's ok,  I just didn't really appreciate him telling someone to STFU and accept something that might not be true and then putting in to question someone's support.  So 

I could have discredited voluntarism but that is not what I am trying to do.  I am simply rejecting the label, which it seems like what many others in opposition are trying to do as well.

Doesn't mean I don't believe in the idea, hell I support the idea.  But here is one big problem.  

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/voluntarism




> World English Dictionary
> voluntarism  (ˈvɒləntəˌrɪzəm) 
> 
> — n
> 1.	philosophy  the theory that the will rather than the intellect is the ultimate principle of reality


Can you see how I might have a problem with someone forcing their will on me in conversation, rather than relying on intellect, even if they hold a principle that supposes I have none simply because my will is not the guiding light in my life?  Seems like a backwards definition in the context of this thread if you ask me.  Or depending on you perspective, it is very subtle irony.

----------


## Theocrat

Everyone is a voluntarist, in some way. I believe in voluntary associations, but I also believe in having a civil government structure in society, to protect God-given rights and punish civil evildoers. Just because someone believes in having a state does not exclude them from having voluntary associations in other realms of life.

----------


## Travlyr

> It is not fun to ask you a question, have it ignored, and then be expected to answer your question.


I answered your question. Now it it your turn. Do you support Ron Paul for President of the Untied States?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> That's ok,  I just didn't really appreciate him telling someone to STFU and accept something that might not be true and then putting in to question someone's support.  So 
> 
> I could have discredited voluntarism but that is not what I am trying to do.  I am simply rejecting the label, which it seems like what many others in opposition are trying to do as well.
> 
> Doesn't mean I don't believe in the idea, hell I support the idea.  But here is one big problem.  
> 
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/voluntarism
> 
> 
> ...


Voluntarism is not necessarily voluntaryism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism
*Voluntaryism*, or *voluntarism*,[1] is a philosophy according to which all forms of human association should be voluntary as far as possible.
Watner, Carl. On the History of the Word "Voluntaryism". _The Voluntaryist_. Retrieved on 2009-04-01. The _New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary_ offers the following definitions, citing usage that dates back to the 1830s: voluntar[y]ism - "The principle that the Church or schools should be  independent of the State and supported by voluntary contributions.
 voluntar[y]ist - "An advocate or adherent of voluntarism or voluntaryism."
I appreciate your civility, btw.

----------


## Wesker1982

> #3 is not a fair question... of course not ...


If the answer to #1 and #2 is YES, then how is this not Voluntaryism? If the answer to #3 is NO, then how is this not Voluntaryism?

And if those are your answers, where exactly do they contradict these statements made by Rothbard:

_But, of course, if each person may secede from government, we have virtually arrived at the purely free society, where defense is supplied along with all other services by the free market and where the invasive State has ceased to exist._

_Once admit any right of secession whatever, and there is no logical stopping-point short of the right of individual secession, which logically entails anarchism, since then individuals may secede and patronize their own defense agencies, and the State has crumbled._

Don't ignore how Rothbard defines the State here. It is not state as in California. Rothbard is using the term State as in a *non-voluntary*, *coercively established*, and* coercively maintained* monopoly over a certain geographical area. Ignoring the definition in this context is a blatant red herring. 

Also FWIW, no one has even attempted to address the subject of secession as presented by Rothbard here. I assume it is because you would either *(a)* have to admit that you advocate the use of violence on peaceful non-criminals who wish to secede, or *(b)* advocate Voluntaryism. There is no middle ground, and you know it.




> have you studied Dr. Paul at all?


Yes. I have read all of his books which have lead to my conclusion that he is a Voluntaryist. Especially the quotes from _Liberty Defined_ I posted on either the 1st or 2nd page of this thread.




> I answered your question. Now it it your turn. Do you support Ron Paul for President of the Untied States?


I would really hate to answer this without getting my answer first out of Deborah because I feel if I answer this question now, she will reply to my answer to you while dodging my original question to her. I will give her some time but if she doesn't answer I will PM you my response. 

Something else that is good for this thread:

Ron Paul is also on the back of Mary Ruwart's book _Healing Our World in an Age of Agression_:

_Healing Our World_ bridges the gap between conservatives and liberals, Christians and New Agers, special interests and the common good,* with practical solutions to our economic and societal woes*. - Ron Paul

It is a book on Voluntaryism and Mary Ruwart is a Voluntaryist. 

*So here we have Ron Paul stating that the Voluntaryist solutions are practical for economic and social problems.*

----------


## newbitech

self-government is government.  come back to me with that definition please.

----------


## Conza88

> Hmmm... I will not acknowledge that Ron Paul is a voluntarist until I here him...
> 
> I see that voluntaryist call for abolition of government because it apparently is "defined as a monopoly on the initiation of aggressive force and coercion".  
> 
> So lets see, has Ron Paul called for the abolition of "government".  No I don't think so.


Set up a strawman, knock it down... *claps* 

“… In the name of practicality, the  opportunist not only loses any  chance of advancing others toward the  ultimate goal, but he himself  gradually loses sight of that goal—as  happens with any “sellout” of  principle. Thus, suppose that one is  writing about taxation. It is not  incumbent on the libertarian to always  proclaim his full “anarchist”  position in whatever he writes; but *it is incumbent upon him in no way to praise taxation or condone it*; _he should simply leave this perhaps glaring vacuum_,   and wait for the eager reader to begin to question and perhaps come to   you for further enlightenment. But if the libertarian says, “Of  course,  some taxes must be levied,” or something of the sort, he has  betrayed  the cause.” - Rothbard’s 1961 Confidential Memo to Volker Fund
Oh wait... but he has said all taxation is theft... lol.




> And since Ron Paul is an advocate of self-"government" he clearly believes that some form of government is necessary.  So I wonder if voluntaryist consider self-government to be a monopoly on the initiation of aggressive force and coercion in that little geographical environment around their person?  Certainly that is ok and desirable for the functioning of an all voluntary interactive society? 
> 
> Ron Paul may share some of the same views as people who label themselves voluntaryist, but as far as I can tell, Ron Paul has gone on national TV and vigorously defended his conservatism and Republican credentials.


 Except he’s never _advocated_ it as an end goal, when compared to a voluntaryist society. Philosophically, the question you need to ask is _“Compared to what?”_ 

_COMPARED to what_ we have now, would you prefer a return to the size of government as outlined in the US Constitution?_ (Obviously leaving aside the fact that it would only grow in size again). 

Who wouldn't?_ 

Hans-Hermann Hoppe makes the point that absolute monarchy [private owners] > democracy [public owners]... it is relative. That however, doesn't mean he's for absolute monarchy, just that it is better than the other bad.

I mean, do you people not understand basic argumentation? :s Did you not watch the video where Ron Paul explicitly says why he uses the constitution? It's rhetorical bro.



> Anyways, after all this time, you are still waiting for others to "STFU" so that your's is the only voice heard.  If that is how a "voluntary" society works, then I'll be looking for a new word to describe my interactions with other individuals with opinions and ideas different than my own.


You're still here, and obviously still don't understand the underpinnings of a free society, given the above.




> Ron Paul IS NOT a "voluntaryist".


It's a pity you have absolutely no _valid_ arguments to back that up. Wishful thinking. Just such a shame you don't support true liberty, like Ron Paul .

----------


## Conza88

*Admin note - removed due to forum guidelines violation.*

----------


## Conza88

> Voluntarism is not necessarily voluntaryism
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism
> *Voluntaryism*, or *voluntarism*,[1] is a philosophy according to which all forms of human association should be voluntary as far as possible.
> Watner, Carl. On the History of the Word "Voluntaryism". _The Voluntaryist_. Retrieved on 2009-04-01. The _New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary_ offers the following definitions, citing usage that dates back to the 1830s: voluntar[y]ism - "The principle that the Church or schools should be  independent of the State and supported by voluntary contributions.
>  voluntar[y]ist - "An advocate or adherent of voluntarism or voluntaryism."
> I appreciate your civility, btw.


And we are back to the second page of the thread...




> self-government is government.  come back to me with that definition please.


And literally the *next post* after the above...

Self-government, aka voluntarism, aka anarcho-capitalism, aka natural order, aka private law society.

----------


## Kotin

It's awesome to see you posting again, Conza!!

----------


## ClayTrainor

> It's awesome to see you posting again, Conza!!


Me too.  He's kind of a legend around here.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> It's awesome to see you posting again, Conza!!


 qft

----------


## newbitech

I didn't create a strawman Conza.  You told someone to STFU and acknowledge that RP is a voluntarist.  I simply looked at what the common and dictionary definition of voluntarist are, and Ron Paul doesn't fit that mold.  Ron Paul takes voluntarism to mean no coercion.  Fine, if that is the only definition you want to use for that, then he is a voluntarist.  

Here is your problem.  The term voluntarist is also used to describe people who want to get rid of government completely.  Also, if you look at the dictionary definition, it does your argument no favors either.  

So slapping Ron Paul with extremist type labels is probably not good coming from supposed supporters, while he is in fact campaigning to run the very government you are hoping to abolish.  

So don't try and twist the words of the man to fit your ideas.  Take your own advice and accept him for who he says he is.  A champion of the constitution, a Republican, and a conservative.  These are the labels he chooses to use to introduce himself to the masses, this is who he wants to be and how he wants to be remembered.  

If you can't accept that, it's fine by me, but I don't appreciate you talking down to people because they don't agree with you twisting the truth.  I am not here to argue with you, just pointing out the pretty obvious problem you have once again with slapping labels on RP.  3 years ago, he was an anarchist.  That label didn't stick, so now you want to find some other obscure "politically philosophical" idea, and try an attach that singular word as a label for what Ron Paul is.  

What is the point you are making?  That Ron Paul believes in not using coercion?  Cause that is pretty much all he said in the video.  Tossing around obscure words as labels that compete with the labels that Ron Paul has chosen for himself, doesn't help his message.  I am sure you see that, but I think you are more interested in validating your world view and building a status for your own gain, than you are in actually advancing the cause of freedom in my back yard.  

When you interrupt intelligent conversation with belligerent rantings, you absolutely are forcing your will upon others.  You use force anytime you punch the keys on your keyboard.  You use force when you open your mouth to speak.  Force is not inherently a good or bad thing.  You force you will upon people by insulting them, egging them on, and pushing their buttons.  Maybe you ought to go look up "will".  Then when you are done, go back and look up voluntarism once again.  Send me a link I can share with others.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/voluntarism

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/force

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/will

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intellect

----------


## Deborah K

What a self serving trouble maker you turned out to be!!!

----------


## Conza88

> What a self serving trouble maker you turned out to be!!!


Oh wow, a Ron Paul "supporter" is mad at me... for defending Ron Paul's political position with his own words. I'm shattered! 

I'm sorry, but can you please elaborate and back up your assertion. Self serving... how? Defending Ron Paul and true liberty, makes me a "trouble maker" according to you?

Fine, guilty as charged. But what's that make you then Deborah K?

Oh wait, this is all completely irrelevant to the core issues and arguments presented in this thread... attacking me, instead of the arguments (not surprising since you don't have any). Ad hominem... *yawn*

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Oh wait, this is all completely irrelevant to the core issues and arguments presented in this thread... attacking me, instead of the arguments (not surprising since you don't have any). Ad hominem... *yawn*


They're their own worst enemies.




> Originally Posted by Cutlerzzz
> 
> 
> Discussions like this are why I lean more and more towards anarchy each day. Almost all of the arguments against it are based on strawman. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really think the forum minarchists who make a point of arguing against an-cap and voluntaryist philosophy on a regular basis are probably responsible for opening more minds up to voluntaryism and anarchy than the an-caps themselves.

----------


## newbitech

abolishing the government is extremist.  You can't have it both ways.  

Ron said he is running to win.  Becoming the president puts him in charge of the government of the United States of America.  This means, as president, he runs what he is presiding over.  I think what you mean is the federal government is not meant to run our lives.  I'm fine with that.   In 2012, that Ron Paul is not trying to "win" and trying to put himself in a position where he is running the government.  If you deny that, then you aren't on the same page as the people in Iowa, others in this forum, me, etc..  That is fine, you don't have to be on the same page.  But I'd like to hear you tell Ron Paul to his face that abolishing the government is NOT and extreme position, that he is not really trying to win, that the MASSIVE amounts of money he is getting from people who expect him to win AND run the government, is to be used to get rid of the government completely.

You express your views in an extremist way, with an extremist sentiment.  You make voluntarism out to be an extremist position, and you make Ron Paul and his beliefs out to be extremist in nature.  You will scare off more people than you convert by being so brazen and harsh with your interpretations of the truth.  That might work for some people, but it won't work for enough to make a difference.

----------


## newbitech

> Oh wow, a Ron Paul "supporter" is mad at me... for defending Ron Paul's political position with his own words. I'm shattered! 
> 
> I'm sorry, but can you please elaborate and back up your assertion. Self serving... how? Defending Ron Paul and true liberty, makes me a "trouble maker" according to you?
> 
> Fine, guilty as charged. But what's that make you then Deborah K?
> 
> Oh wait, this is all completely irrelevant to the core issues and arguments presented in this thread... attacking me, instead of the arguments (not surprising since you don't have any). Ad hominem... *yawn*


You aren't defending Ron Paul.  None of us have lived with true liberty in our life times, you don't sound like you know how to make it happen either.

----------


## Travlyr

> They're their own worst enemies.


A quite naive statement. We are not your enemy, and you aren't ours. I am a statist just like Mises. Our philosophies are closely aligned but I will not become an anarchist on Earth. That stuff is for the afterlife, imo. It is also an extreme position which to me is not logical. Encouraging debate is our goal. We just ask you bring honesty, integrity, and intellect to the debate. 

Ron Paul is a "defender of liberty" and "supporter of the Constitution." Attaching labels on him that he has never himself claimed is a disingenuous effort to promote your own agenda and an affront to everyone who has spent their time and money to promote him.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

Personally, whether Ron is or isn't an anarchist or voluntaryist isn't consequential.  I am interested in and enjoy the debate.  

I don't think wishing to end the state is an extremist position, nor do I think it is utopian.  

I'll grant that it is extremist in that it is an unrepresented paradigm in our world today, but the underlying sentiment - opposing the implementation of force on any grounds - seems to me to be the opposite of an extremist position, philosophically.  

As for utopian, establishing and granting social sanction to an institution with extra-human rights/powers yet nonetheless under the operation of humans seems to be a far more utopian proposition; especially once one observes the scaffolding such an institution requires, and the lengths gone to to hopefully "prevent" it from breaking out of it's defined limits.  Observe the American government - established under the most rigorous of controls to keep it in check; and yet a scant 200 years later, an utter leviathan, knowing no boudaries nor limitations.  

Government is utopian.  Anarchism is... natural.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Encouraging debate is our goal. We just ask you bring honesty, integrity, and intellect to the debate. .


Interesting coming from someone who has been constantly avoiding questions.... I count at least 4 of my own that you simply never answered...

*First Question you avoided:*



> Originally Posted by Travlyr
> 
> 
> And I don't want to take-up arms against my brothers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*2nd Question you avoided*




> Originally Posted by Travlyr
> 
> 
> The State can be amended to be voluntary..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*Third Question that you avoided:*




> Originally Posted by Travlyr
> 
> 
> At 39 seconds into this video the video maker lies about the State and misrepresents Ron Paul's position.
> 
> *"The purpose of the State is to provide security"* is an out-n-out lie.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*Fourth Question that you avoided:*




> Originally Posted by Travlyr
> 
> 
> They are doing everything in their power to destroy his campaign.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


For someone who constantly says things like....




> They never answer the tough questions.





> You misrepresent the state by lying to your recruits, and claim you have a better solution but can never *answer questions* posed to you by property owners.


.... It sure is interesting that you don't grant the same courtesy that you demand of others.  

Not only do you avoid my questions, but your follow up responses are also full of ad-hominem personal attacks, as well as constant accusations of lying and not answering questions. 




> Nonetheless, I have decided to end my debate with you anarchists because I have faith that *your cult* will fissile when people realize *you lied* to them.


I find this one ↑↑↑ rather amusing, since you in fact lied before you accused other people of lying. 




> Stupid anarchy *cult* is stupid.


All of this, and you still have the audacity to say...




> We just ask you bring honesty, integrity, and intellect to the debate. .




Travlyr,  I think it's fair to say that you are engaging in behaviour that is quite blatantly intellectually dishonest.  

I don't really have any interest in continuing this discussion with you at this point, other than maybe continuing to cite and expose your supposed "arguments" and demands for what they really are, if you continue to make them.  

It's conversations like this that I believe make a strong case for my hypothesis...




> I really think the forum minarchists who make a point of arguing against an-cap and voluntaryist philosophy on a regular basis are probably responsible for opening more minds up to voluntaryism and anarchy than the an-caps themselves.


...so for that, I thank you!

----------


## Travlyr

> Do you support Ron Paul for President of the Untied States?





> I would really hate to answer this without getting my answer first out of Deborah because I feel if I answer this question now, she will reply to my answer to you while dodging my original question to her. I will give her some time but if she doesn't answer I will PM you my response.


You never answer the questions, so it is difficult to determine if you are friend or foe.

A President Ron Paul will bring liberty, peace, and prosperity back to America in leaps and bounds which will be a breath of fresh air for anyone who wants to enjoy freedom. A lot of us are spending much of our time and a lot of money to achieve that goal. 

You are here to promote your own agenda which undermines Ron Paul's campaign because you are lazy in language. It is one thing to discuss anarchy with other anarchists, but when you are in promotion mode it is wise to consider your audience and their understanding of the words you use.

I've been learning on these forums since December 2009. That was when I was first introduced to anarchism and voluntaryism. Most people when they hear the word State will think of the State of Montana or such. I've pointed that out and asked the question more than once, "Do you wish to get rid of the State of Montana?" The only response I got was "No." But I think that was a lie. So what are you talking about? You want me to learn more about your philosophy and definition of the State when I already understand my world just fine. I am not at all interested in anarchism or voluntaryism if abolition of the State of California is on the agenda. I am a statist just like Mises was. You're not. I'm fine with that. Just realize that the State is the method of property distribution and taking that away will upset many people.

If you are sincere, you will not be lazy in language. Anarchy to the general population means whatever the dictionary says it does. A lot of us want nothing to do with it as it is currently defined.  




> RON PAUL: Voluntary means no coercion. So if you want to change people's habits or change the world you should do it by setting examples and trying to persuade people to do it. You can use force only when somebody uses force against you. So voluntary use of information and persuading people, I think, is the best way to go; and no matter what kind of problem you're looking at.
> 
> RON PAUL: We had a relative voluntary society (you know) in our early history, but steadily, even after the Constitution was passed, steadily it was undermined and it systematically grew, it grew certainly through the 20th century; that is the authoritarian approach, which is the opposite. That is: the government tells us everything we can do and can't do.


Excellent interview, Adam. Voluntary yes, but not one mention of doing away with government.




> 





> Where in the Constitutions do they say the purpose of the State is to provide security?
> Articles & Sections
> 
> Be honest to your recruits. Insincerity is not a trait of Ron Paul


This video is disingenuous in title and in fact. The purpose of the State is not to provide security as claimed at 39 seconds. It is a flat out lie. The purpose of the State is property distribution and law.

Ron Paul points out in the video that the voluntary society did not go away with the inception of the Republics:


> RON PAUL: We had a relative voluntary society (you know) in our early history, but steadily, even after the Constitution was passed, steadily it was undermined and it systematically grew, it grew certainly through the 20th century;


Almost all the growth occurred after the National Banking Act of 1863. The Eastern States are mostly privately owned. Much of the Western States are federally owned. That needs to change to help make a prosperous America. To hate the State is the wrong target, imo. Corporatocracy is the enemy.

And no Conza. We are not slow. We just disagree with you and wish you would help us promote Ron Paul in same light he promotes himself. Ron Paul 2012, "I am a defender of liberty and supporter of the Constitution."

----------


## Travlyr

It is difficult to answer all the questions posed for sure. I avoid you because you are vicious and do face palming when you can't answer the question.



> Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
> Encouraging debate is our goal. We just ask you bring honesty, integrity, and intellect to the debate. .
> Interesting coming from someone who has been constantly avoiding questions.... I count at least 4 of my own that you simply never answered...
> 
> First Question you avoided:
> Quote Originally Posted by 1stQuestion
> 
> Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
> And I don't want to take-up arms against my brothers.
> ...


No. But it is kind of silly to cry about all taxation being theft when most of us have been taxed 50% of everything we've ever earned our entire lives. I just think you guys should grow up. Nonetheless, I've talked about voluntary taxation which you claim is impossible. I've often advocated for taxation without penalty. You just never read my answers.



> 2nd Question you avoided
> 
> Quote Originally Posted by 2ndQuestion
> Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
> The State can be amended to be voluntary..
> Quote Originally Posted by ClayTrainor View Post
> Out of all the states that exist in the world today, which ones are 100% voluntary?
> Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
> No State that I know of today is voluntary, but they can be amended as such.
> ...


I don't know anything about the mafia.



> Third Question that you avoided:
> 
> Quote Originally Posted by 3rdQuestion
> Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
> At 39 seconds into this video the video maker lies about the State and misrepresents Ron Paul's position.
> 
> "The purpose of the State is to provide security" is an out-n-out lie.
> Quote Originally Posted by ClayTrainor View Post
> What did they constitution mean by "Provide for.... and secure the blessings of liberty" in the preamble?
> ...


It is not true that the State was formed to redistribute wealth, provide police, or cradle to grave services. The primary purpose of the State (which I stated many times) is to organize property and provide for contract law.



> Fourth Question that you avoided:
> 
> Quote Originally Posted by 4th Question
> Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
> They are doing everything in their power to destroy his campaign.


I made that statement because the media is in bed with the politicians who are in bed with the counterfeiting cabal. They will be using insiders to disrupt our campaign. Anarchy/Anarchists (as defined currently online and in dictionaries) is one method I expect them to try. Wesker is not a confirmed Ron Paul supporter. I do not know about you, yet either. I've made it my mission this election cycle to ferret out anyone who wants to destroy the best chance we have ever had at liberty, peace, and prosperity. If your intentions are to help us, then help us. If not, then why are you here?



> Quote Originally Posted by ClayTrainor View Post
> That's quite a bold claim. Are you asserting this towards anyone specifically, or collectively?
> For someone who constantly says things like....
> 
> Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
> They never answer the tough questions.
> Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
> You misrepresent the state by lying to your recruits, and claim you have a better solution but can never answer questions posed to you by property owners.
> .... It sure is interesting that you don't grant the same courtesy that you demand of others.
> ...


The question you never answer is: Moving from a State to Anarchy, "What method of property distribution will replace the method of property distribution we currently use with the State, County, Township, Town & City charters? Property owners want to know the answer to this most fundamental question.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I avoid you because you are vicious and do face palming when you can't answer the question.


Please, cite me using 1 single facepalm in this thread.  Oh, you can't?  That's because it never $#@!ing happened.

And you accuse me of being vicious while you constantly dish out Ad-hominems instead of answering my questions??!?!?!




> No. But it is kind of silly to cry about all taxation being theft when most of us have been taxed 50% of everything we've ever earned our entire lives.


Umm, no it's not.  It cuts through all the bull$#@! and gets directly to the point.  Taking things from people without their consent, IS THEFT, regardless of the amount or what you call it.




> ANDREW NAPOLITANO: I believe that all taxation is theft. Because you have the right to the product of your own labor. If the government can take the fruits of your labor against your will, it can take anything.
> 
> STOSSEL: So, we have a voluntary tax system? (Later) No Taxes?
> 
> ANDREW NAPOLITANO: No Taxes!… Who says we have to have an Army and a Navy. And who says it has to be paid for by taxes?


 


> I just think you guys should grow up.


Yet another ad-hominem personal attack, what a surprise!  Do you also think Judge Napolitano needs to grow up?




> I do not know about you, yet either. I've made it my mission this election cycle to ferret out anyone who wants to destroy the best chance we have ever had at liberty, peace, and prosperity. If your intentions are to help us, then help us. If not, then why are you here?


You're talking to the guy who created the videos for the Constitution Revolution 2012 project, which got well over 100,000 views combined.










 I also played a central role in organizing and marketing Adam Kokesh's first money bomb when he ran for congress, which also just so happened to be his biggest.  The website is no longer up, but the video I made is...




I spent over 40 hours in one week working on that video.  I chose to work on it, instead of make money. (I'm a professional marketer, btw) 

I have donated to multiple chipin's, I have donated money to this forum, I have helped to create, pay for and host websites for certain friends of Ron Paul, including Michael Scheuers www.non-intervention.com.  I even donated my fully functional HP laptop to an activist on this forum who was in dire need of a new computer.  And these are just the things i can think of at the moment.

I currently have a couple of exciting liberty activist project ideas that I can't wait to start working on in the near future.  I have been on this forum for over 2 years longer than you have, I was supporting the $#@!ing hell out of Ron Pauls ideas before you were even a member.

Who are you to question my support? 




> The question you never answer is: Moving from a State to Anarchy, "*What method of property distribution* will replace the method of property distribution we currently use with the State, County, Township, Town & City charters? Property owners want to know the answer to this most fundamental question.


Free-market Capitalism and voluntary trade instead of theft, fraud and force.  Ron Paul says it better than I ever could...




> Voluntary means no coercion. So if you want to change people's habits or change the world you should do it by setting examples and trying to persuade people to do it. You can use force only when somebody uses force against you. So voluntary use of information and persuading people, *I think, is the best way to go; and no matter what kind of problem you're looking at.*

----------


## Travlyr

Very well. My apology. I am glad you are on our side. You have apologized for your aggressive behavior to me in the past as well. You've negative repped me for saying that anarchy will start a civil war calling it a strawman argument. It is not strawman or wrong until you present a better method than the State to survey, record, and make public real estate property deeds. Furthermore, "I just think you guys should grow up" is not ad-hominem in my mind. Taxes are a fact of life. And yes, if Judge Napolitano goes to his grave crying about all taxes being theft, then he should have grown up. There are two things you cannot escape in this life ... death and taxes.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Very well. My apology. I am glad you are on our side. You have apologized for your aggressive behavior to me in the past as well. You've negative repped me for saying that anarchy will start a civil war calling it a strawman argument. It is not strawman or wrong until you present a better method than the State to survey, record, and make public real estate property deeds. Furthermore, "I just think you guys should grow up" is not ad-hominem in my mind. Taxes are a fact of life. And yes, if Judge Napolitano goes to his grave crying about all taxes being theft, then he should have grown up. There are two things you cannot escape in this life ... death and taxes.


Thanks for the apology.  You've made your case, and I've made mine.  I'm going to leave it at that.

----------


## mczerone

> Very well. My apology. I am glad you are on our side. You have apologized for your aggressive behavior to me in the past as well. You've negative repped me for saying that anarchy will start a civil war calling it a strawman argument. It is not strawman or wrong until you present a better method than the State to survey, record, and make public real estate property deeds. Furthermore, "I just think you guys should grow up" is not ad-hominem in my mind. Taxes are a fact of life. And yes, if Judge Napolitano goes to his grave crying about all taxes being theft, then he should have grown up. There are two things you cannot escape in this life ... death and taxes.


We've answered the "How will deeds be handled?" before. And you're right that this isn't a "strawman" argument.  The fact remains that we think that competitive agencies would better handle these services that a violent monopoly.

I believe that we can escape "taxes" in our lifetime, and replace them with "bills" paid to companies who must compete for our loyalty.  We can debates the merits of this system, but I'm not sure we'd get anywhere with each other.

It seems to me that part of "growing up" is beginning to question all the things that have been told to you as unquestioned truth, and remaining childish to just accept that Santa Claus is real, that you're the most special person on earth, that the King has our best interests at heart, that Neptune sends great storms to smite mortals, and that the Federal Reserve can run the economy.

And it's off topic, but what makes you think that no human will ever escape death?

----------


## Wesker1982

> You never answer the questions


Wow. Are you serious? That is a *very* extreme exaggeration. Either dozens of hours I have spent typing (and saving) my answers has been completely imaginary and I need to get some serious psychiatric help ASAP (and probably get my computer checked because these mysterious files keep popping up, claiming I wrote them!), or you are dishonest.

You ask a Question
I answer it
You ignore the answer
You make the above quoted claim

You do it quite often. I am not sure if you are just mistaken, or being dishonest. Besides the question Deborah asked me (which I will PM you the answer after this post), I have answered all of your questions.  

The *only question* you have repeatedly *claimed* I have not answered is the one on land titles. So which is it, you happened not to notice these, or you are intentionally being dishonest?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3411339

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...04#post3380004

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...79#post3375979

You may not like my answers, or disagree with them, but to claim I never answered them is simply *not true*. I rest my case, apologies accepted.

Another reason this claim is a bit funny is because you routinely do what you accuse me of doing, except I refrain accusing you of being a possible foe (because I can have disagreements with people and still be their friend): 






> And if those are your answers, *where exactly do they contradict these statements made by Rothbard:*
> 
> _But, of course, if each person may secede from government, we have virtually arrived at the purely free society, where defense is supplied along with all other services by the free market and where the invasive State has ceased to exist._
> 
> _Once admit any right of secession whatever, and there is no logical stopping-point short of the right of individual secession, which logically entails anarchism, since then individuals may secede and patronize their own defense agencies, and the State has crumbled._
> 
> Don't ignore how Rothbard defines the State here. It is not state as in California. Rothbard is using the term State as in a *non-voluntary*, *coercively established*, and* coercively maintained* monopoly over a certain geographical area. Ignoring the definition in this context is a blatant red herring. 
> 
> Also FWIW, no one has even attempted to address the subject of secession as presented by Rothbard here. I assume it is because you would either *(a)* have to admit that you advocate the use of violence on peaceful non-criminals who wish to secede, or *(b)* advocate Voluntaryism. There is no middle ground, and you know it.

----------


## Travlyr

> We've answered the "How will deeds be handled?" before. And you're right that this isn't a "strawman" argument.  The fact remains that we think that competitive agencies would better handle these services that a violent monopoly.
> 
> I believe that we can escape "taxes" in our lifetime, and replace them with "bills" paid to companies who must compete for our loyalty.  We can debates the merits of this system, but I'm not sure we'd get anywhere with each other.
> 
> It seems to me that part of "growing up" is beginning to question all the things that have been told to you as unquestioned truth, and remaining childish to just accept that Santa Claus is real, that you're the most special person on earth, that the King has our best interests at heart, that Neptune sends great storms to smite mortals, and that the Federal Reserve can run the economy.
> 
> And it's off topic, but what makes you think that no human will ever escape death?


You bring up good points. While the "How will deeds be handled?" has been addressed, no salable method has been put forth to date that would interest property owners to abandon the county clerks offices today. In the future, a better system may be offered. I am likely older than you and do not expect to see it. It is indeed worth debating. As I've stated, I am a minimal statist, so I will likely not be a good innovator for competing agencies in law or justice because those concepts should not be for sale which eliminates the need for competition.

No doubt, I do hope you younger folks get to enjoy a non-coercive society someday. As for me, I will be delighted with laissez-fair capitalism using honest sound money living a peaceful and prosperous life under state republic rules of law. 




> And it's off topic, but what makes you think that no human will ever escape death?


Then there would be no reason for life.

----------


## Travlyr

> Wow. Are you serious? That is a *very* extreme exaggeration.


That's for sure. I should never use never. I made that statement because you avoided my question yesterday, and it is important. Often the threads get filled up with three or four opponents which makes it impossible for to keep up. And I am a bit older than you so I forget which thread is which sometimes. You have been diligent in answering most of my questions. That was not justified on my part. However, your answers were not sufficient to solve the dilemma. It could be this way or it could be that way is impossible to sell. Competing agencies are good for the markets, but courts and justice are not for sale and do not need competition. 

Do you support Ron Paul for President?

----------


## Wesker1982

I actually typed this in a PM to you, but I decided I will post it here:




> Wesker, do you care if Ron wins the election?


Yes. 

I hope Ron Paul wins but:

I understand that there must be a major philosophical change in people's minds or else Ron Paul will come and go, and people will not be much different. They will blame all of the inevitable economic problems on our libertarian president, and then because of their lack of philosophical change in ideas they will just elect another totalitarian after Ron Paul "fails". Ideas are what matters, politicians are irrelevant (Ron Paul has said this). Ideas are bulletproof (V!), but Ron Paul is not. 

I believe he understands this, and that is why he has always said that _his primary goal is education_. He knows he will only be around for so long, and he has repeatedly said there must be a fundamental philosophical change in people's minds for freedom to last. I believe that it is no coincidence that his educational campaign has encouraged discussions like this very one we are having all over the internet (every forum I lurk people are aware of Rothbard, this still shocks but delights me).* At the point of this philosophical revolution that he is advocating and pursuing, a completely free/voluntaryist society will be achievable.* 

And I disagree that posting about his Voluntaryism in the dark corner of the basement (philosophy subforum) will damage his chances of winning. This is either fear mongering or paranoia imo. And if anyone comes here and says: "I can't vote for Ron Paul now because some dude on RPF pointed out that Ron Paul does not advocate the use of violence on peaceful non-criminals...", well then I doubt that guy would have even went through the trouble of putting his shoes on to walk out the door to the voting booth.

fwiw though, if I thought threads like this had an actual effect on decreasing his chances, I wouldn't post in them. I wouldn't intentionally hurt his chance. But imo these discussions do far more good than bad.

----------


## Travlyr

> Originally Posted by Wesker1982
> And if those are your answers, where exactly do they contradict these statements made by Rothbard:
> 
> But, of course, if each person may secede from government, we have virtually arrived at the purely free society, where defense is supplied along with all other services by the free market and where the invasive State has ceased to exist.
> 
> Once admit any right of secession whatever, and there is no logical stopping-point short of the right of individual secession, which logically entails anarchism, since then individuals may secede and patronize their own defense agencies, and the State has crumbled.
> 
> Don't ignore how Rothbard defines the State here. It is not state as in California. Rothbard is using the term State as in a non-voluntary, coercively established, and coercively maintained monopoly over a certain geographical area. Ignoring the definition in this context is a blatant red herring.
> 
> Also FWIW, no one has even attempted to address the subject of secession as presented by Rothbard here. I assume it is because you would either (a) have to admit that you advocate the use of violence on peaceful non-criminals who wish to secede, or (b) advocate Voluntaryism. There is no middle ground, and you know it.


I don't understand the State defined this way. 

Are you arguing that if you secede from the State as defined by Rothbard, then I cannot come after you for injustice you do to me?

----------


## Wesker1982

> Are you arguing that if you secede from the State as defined by Rothbard, then I cannot come after you for injustice you do to me?


What I am arguing is that if you advocate every individual non-criminal's right to secession from whatever form of governance they participate in, then you advocate a voluntaryist society.


edit: I will be out of town until Monday. So any questions asked are not being ignored, just being put on hold.

----------


## Travlyr

> I hope Ron Paul wins but:


That's great to hear.



> I understand that there must be a major philosophical change in people's minds or else Ron Paul will come and go, and people will not be much different. They will blame all of the inevitable economic problems on our libertarian president, and then because of their lack of philosophical change in ideas they will just elect another totalitarian after Ron Paul "fails". Ideas are what matters, politicians are irrelevant (Ron Paul has said this). Ideas are bulletproof (V!), but Ron Paul is not.


There is no doubt in my mind you are right about this. But I also think there is more going on. For example, our generation did not have the Internet. Research was more difficult, books banned and burned, and we did not know that a criminal cabal controlled an empire. We actually trusted Walter Cronkite to tell us the truth, and we believed our teachers when they taught history. 




> I believe he understands this, and that is why he has always said that _his primary goal is education_. He knows he will only be around for so long, and he has repeatedly said there must be a fundamental philosophical change in people's minds for freedom to last. I believe that it is no coincidence that his educational campaign has encouraged discussions like this very one we are having all over the internet (every forum I lurk people are aware of Rothbard, this still shocks but delights me).* At the point of this philosophical revolution that he is advocating and pursuing, a completely free/voluntaryist society will be achievable.*


I would encourage a thorough understanding of Mises - Human Action.




> And I disagree that posting about his Voluntaryism in the dark corner of the basement (philosophy subforum) will damage his chances of winning. This is either fear mongering or paranoia imo. And if anyone comes here and says: "I can't vote for Ron Paul now because some dude on RPF pointed out that Ron Paul does not advocate the use of violence on peaceful non-criminals...", well then I doubt that guy would have even went through the trouble of putting his shoes on to walk out the door to the voting booth.


Consider your audience, the generally accepted meaning of words, and remember young people tend toward anarchy. Older people ... don't understand, have too much work to do to bother reading up on it ... and older property owners, farmers, ranchers, businessmen, homeowners, etc. will gang up on you if they even THINK you might try to eliminate the state without offering a better alternative. They know where their property deed is displayed.




> fwiw though, if I thought threads like this had an actual effect on decreasing his chances, I wouldn't post in them. I wouldn't intentionally hurt his chance. But imo these discussions do far more good than bad.


I agree threads like this do no harm. However, an anarchist in senior centers could use your philosophy to turn people off Ron Paul by using fear and scaring them. They are already concerned that he wants to do away with Medicare, etc. ... please do not give them more ammo in your quest for liberty. That's the rub.

----------


## Travlyr

> What I am arguing is that if you advocate every individual non-criminal's right to secession from whatever form of governance they participate in, then you advocate a voluntaryist society.


You can move freely from state to state, but I will be delightfully surprised if you achieve anything like voluntaryism as you describe in my lifetime. You guys are out of my league philosophically. I am now bowing out.

I just want you guys to realize that a President Ron Paul offers the best hope for liberty we have had in our lifetime. Help us win it, and be sensitive to others who may not get it.

----------


## Conza88

Excuse me... but WHY the hell was my post in response to newbitech deleted / completely removed / censored?

*Too much truth for ya'll obviously!* _[Pm if you want a copy]_ It was in between #160-161. Am I wrong mods? Aye? 

Sidenote: I just want to take this opportunity to thank *newbitech, Travlyr, deborah k* & the other CD's (cognitive dissonants*)... without you guys, the reality of Ron Paul being a voluntarist would hardly see the light on day in this place. Every post you guys make, you help change minds for the better. Thank you so much  Keep it up

----------


## Conza88

> abolishing the government is *extremist*.  You can't have it both ways.


Just because you say so, right? Define "*extremism*" thanks. Not trying to have it both ways, whatever the hell that means. 




> Ron said he is running to win.  Becoming the president puts him in charge of the government of the United States of America.  This means, as president, he runs what he is presiding over.  I think what you mean is the federal government is not meant to run our lives.  I'm fine with that.   In 2012, that Ron Paul is not trying to "win" and trying to put himself in a position where he is running the government.  If you deny that, then you aren't on the same page as the people in Iowa, others in this forum, me, etc..  That is fine, you don't have to be on the same page.  But I'd like to hear you tell Ron Paul to his face that abolishing the government is NOT and extreme position, that he is not really trying to win, that the MASSIVE amounts of money he is getting from people who expect him to win AND run the government, is to be used to get rid of the government completely.


It's being used to support the message of liberty. The further Ron Paul goes, the better for that message. The wider the audience, the greater the influence etc. ZOMG, IT"S SO HARB TOO UND3R5TAND,, 




> You express your views in an *extremist* way, with an* extremist* sentiment.  You make voluntarism out to be an extremist position, and you make Ron Paul and his beliefs out to be* extremist* in nature.  You will scare off more people than you convert by being so brazen and harsh with your interpretations of the truth.  That might work for some people, but it won't work for enough to make a difference.


Yo guys, check this out more ad hominems... wooo! You remind me of Guilliani and the neo-cons. "9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11 - terrorism, terrorism, terrorism". 

"Extremism" "Extremism" "Extremism" "Extremism"... _*yawn*_ - You don't notice the irony that this is exactly what the charge the MSM and neo-cons throw at Ron Paul right?   Abolish the IRS, End the FED, bring the troops home? "EXTREMISM! "

I am only 'brazen' and 'harsh' with people after they show a history of intellectual dishonesty, and not being open to reason.

----------


## Conza88

> I am a statist just like Mises. Our philosophies are closely aligned but I will not become an anarchist on Earth. That stuff is for the afterlife, imo. It is also an extreme position which to me is not logical.


*Mises wasn't a statist.* He was a philosophical 'anarchist' like Albert Jay Nock. Seriously though, are you blind or intellectually dishonest? This has already been covered and mentioned I dunno how many times. Here it is again. From page 2 - *here*.[I] *Going to repaste it below several posts down, interview with Hoppe* 




> *Hoppe:** Rothbard's anarchism* was not the sort of anarchism that his teacher and mentor Mises had rejected as hopelessly naive*, of course. "The anarchists," Mises had written, 
>  _contend that a social order in which nobody enjoys privileges at the expense of his fellow-citizens could exist without any compulsion  and coercion for the prevention of action detrimental to society. . . .  The anarchists overlook the undeniable fact that some people are either  too narrow-minded or too weak to adjust themselves spontaneously to the  conditions of social life. . . . An anarchistic society would be  exposed to the mercy of every individual. Society cannot exist if the  majority is not ready to hinder, by the application or threat of violent  action, minorities from destroying the social order.[10]_     Indeed, Rothbard wholeheartedly agreed with Mises that without resort to *compulsion*,  the existence of society would be endangered and that behind the rules  of conduct whose observance is necessary to assure peaceful human  cooperation must stand the threat to force if the whole edifice of  society is not to be continually at the mercy of any one of its members.  One must be in a position to compel a person who will not respect the  lives, health, personal freedom, or private property of others to  acquiesce in the rules of life in society.[11]
> 
>      Inspired in particular by the nineteenth-century American anarchist  political theorists Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker and the  Belgian economist Gustave de Molinari, from the outset Rothbard's  anarchism took it for granted that there will always be murderers,  thieves, thugs, con artists, etc., and that life in society would be  impossible if they were not punished by physical force. As a reflection  of this fundamental realism—anti-utopianism—of his private-property  anarchism, Rothbard, unlike most contemporary political philosophers,  accorded central importance to the subject of punishment. For him,  private property and the right to physical defense were inseparable. No  one can be said to be the owner of something if he is not permitted to  defend his property by physical violence against possible invaders and  invasions. "Would," Rothbard asked, "somebody be allowed to 'take the  law into his own hands'? Would the victim, or a friend of the victim, be  allowed to exact justice personally on the criminal?" and he answered,  "of course, Yes, since all rights of punishment derive from the victim's  right of self-defense" (p. 90). Hence, the question is not whether or  not evil and aggression exist, but how to deal with its existence justly  and efficiently, and it is only in the answer to this question that  Rothbard reaches conclusions which qualify him as an anarchist*
> 
> [*anarcho-capitalism/voluntarist/private law/natural order/self government]*.

----------


## Conza88

"Here we go again. (HT: Kinsella)
  "How far would Mises push the principle of secession, of  self-determination? Down to a single village, he states; but would he  press beyond even that? He calls the right of self-determination not of  nations, but rather the right of self-determination of the inhabitants  of every territory large enough to form an independent administrative  unit. But how about self-determination for the ultimate unit, _for each individual_?  Allowing each individual to remain where he lives and yet secede from  the State is tantamount to anarchism, and yet Mises comes very close to  anarchism, blocked only by practical technical considerations:
  If it were in any way possible to grant this right of self-determination  to every individual person, it would have to be done. This is  impracticable only because of compelling technical considerations, which  make it necessary that the right of self-determination be restricted to  the will of the majority of the inhabitants of areas large enough to  count as *territorial units in the administration* of the country.That Mises, at least in theory, believed in the right of individual  secession and therefore came close to anarchism can also be seen in his  description of liberalism, that it forces no one against his will into  the structure of the State. - MNR

_
Liberalism_ pp. 109-10: 
  The right of self-determination in regard to the question of membership  in a state thus means: whenever the inhabitants of a particular  territory, whether it be a single village, a whole district, or a series  of adjacent districts, make it known, by a freely conducted plebiscite,  that they no longer wish to remain united to the state to which they  belong at the time, but wish either to form an independent state or to  attach themselves to some other state, their wishes are to be respected  and complied with. This is the only feasible and effective way of  preventing revolutions and civil and international wars.  However, the  right of self-determination of which we speak is not the right of  self-determination of nations, but rather the right of  self-determination of the inhabitants of every territory large enough to  form an *independent administrative unit*. *If it were in  any way possible to grant this right of self-determination to every  individual person, it would have to be done.*"

----------


## Conza88

> *AEN:* Was Mises better than the classical liberals on the question of the state?
> 
> *HOPPE:* Mises thought it was necessary to have an institution that suppresses those people who cannot behave appropriately in society, people who are a danger because they steal and murder. He calls this institution government.
> 
> But he has a unique idea of how government should work. To check its power, every group and every individual, if possible, must have the right to secede from the territory of the state. He called this the right of self determination, not of nations as the League of Nations said, but of villages, districts, and groups of any size. In Liberalism and Nation, State, and Economy, he elevates secession to a central principle of classical liberalism. If it were possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, he says, it would have to be done. Thus the democratic state becomes, for Mises, a voluntary organization.
> 
> *AEN:* Yet you have been a strong critic of democracy.
> 
> *HOPPE:* Yes, as that term is usually understood. But under Mises's unique definition of democracy, the term means self rule or self government in its most literal sense. All organizations in society, including government, should be the result of voluntary interactions.
> ...


... Mises, better than the classical liberals , are you? Nope. Unless you responsibly and reasonably decide to alter your opinion, as a follower of the truth would dictate - then welcome to the club .

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> "Here we go again. (HT: Kinsella)
>   "How far would Mises push the principle of secession, of  self-determination? Down to a single village, he states; but would he  press beyond even that? He calls the right of self-determination not of  nations, “but rather the right of self-determination of the inhabitants  of every territory large enough to form an independent administrative  unit.” But how about self-determination for the ultimate unit, _for each individual_?  Allowing each individual to remain where he lives and yet secede from  the State is tantamount to anarchism, and yet Mises comes very close to  anarchism, blocked only by practical technical considerations:
>   If it were in any way possible to grant this right of self-determination  to every individual person, it would have to be done. This is  impracticable only because of compelling technical considerations, which  make it necessary that the right of self-determination be restricted to  the will of the majority of the inhabitants of areas large enough to  count as *territorial units in the administration* of the country.That Mises, at least in theory, believed in the right of individual  secession and therefore came close to anarchism can also be seen in his  description of liberalism, that “it forces no one against his will into  the structure of the State.” - MNR
> 
> _
> Liberalism_ pp. 109-10: 
>   The right of self-determination in regard to the question of membership  in a state thus means: whenever the inhabitants of a particular  territory, whether it be a single village, a whole district, or a series  of adjacent districts, make it known, by a freely conducted plebiscite,  that they no longer wish to remain united to the state to which they  belong at the time, but wish either to form an independent state or to  attach themselves to some other state, their wishes are to be respected  and complied with. This is the only feasible and effective way of  preventing revolutions and civil and international wars. … However, the  right of self-determination of which we speak is not the right of  self-determination of nations, but rather the right of  self-determination of the inhabitants of every territory large enough to  form an *independent administrative unit*. *If it were in  any way possible to grant this right of self-determination to every  individual person, it would have to be done.*"


 +rep

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Excuse me... but WHY the hell was my post in response to newbitech deleted / completely removed / censored?


I noticed the thread title has changed as well.

----------


## josh b

> Excuse me... but WHY the hell was my post in response to newbitech deleted / completely removed / censored?


I was wondering that as well.  

Awesome posts on Mises.  It's sad that you have to repeat this stuff so often.

----------


## Travlyr

> I was wondering that as well.  
> 
> Awesome posts on Mises.  It's sad that you have to repeat this stuff so often.


It is because the real issue goes right over the heads of the philosophers in here. The classic _"can't see the forest for the trees"_ dilemma.

It is one thing to learn and teach a philosophy. It is quite another to misunderstand that voters are not philosophers, students of philosophy, or book readers. They are TV watchers and radio listeners. It is sort of incredible to me that such brilliant people want to put their liberty off decades longer because they would rather win the argument than win their freedom. A President Ron Paul will usher in a new era of peace and prosperity. Only if voters will elect him.

If voters believe that Ron Paul supporters are anarchists who want to do away with the State of Florida and the other 49 States, then peace and prosperity will elude us and tyranny will win the day. You guys are like a ball and chain even if your hearts and minds are in the right place.

Why not join us in our quest for liberty, peace, and prosperity by promoting Ron Paul as he promotes himself - _"Defender of Liberty" and "Supporter of the Constitution"_?  Give Peace A Chance.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> It is because the real issue goes right over the heads of the philosophers in here. The classic _"can't see the forest for the trees"_ dilemma.
> 
> It is one thing to learn and teach a philosophy. It is quite another to misunderstand that voters are not philosophers, students of philosophy, or book readers. They are TV watchers and radio listeners. It is sort of incredible to me that such brilliant people want to put their liberty off decades longer because they would rather win the argument than win their freedom. A President Ron Paul will usher in a new era of peace and prosperity. Only if voters will elect him.
> 
> If voters believe that Ron Paul supporters are anarchists who want to do away with the State of Florida and the other 49 States, then peace and prosperity will elude us and tyranny will win the day. You guys are like a ball and chain even if your hearts and minds are in the right place.
> 
> Why not join us in our quest for liberty, peace, and prosperity by promoting Ron Paul as he promotes himself - _"Defender of Liberty" and "Supporter of the Constitution"_?  Give Peace A Chance.

----------


## Travlyr

That's funny HB. According to Clay & Conza my posts are driving people closer to their philosophy, so I keep posting to let people who want to learn more about learn from the experts. While I try and point out to the experts that it took me a year and a half of reading and posting my objections to begin to understand which leads me to believe that millions of TV watchers will take longer than that to accept the voluntary philosophy. The election is 16 months away. And all I get is insults from you.

----------


## newbitech

From the wiki

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




> Political agendas perceived as extremist often include those from the *far left* or *far right* as well as *fundamentalism* or, as a more general term, *fanaticism*.


and from the dictionary

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/extremism




> a tendency or disposition *to go to extremes*  or an instance of going to extremes,  especially in political matters: leftist extremism; the extremism of the Nazis.


as in "taking the philosophy ALL the way out to it's logical (and extreme) conclusion"




> a person who *favours or resorts* to immoderate, *uncompromising*, or *fanatical methods* or behaviour, esp in being *politically radical*


Maybe Ron Paul is perceived as an extremist because some of his supporters are?  Maybe Ron Paul's ideas of liberty are extreme because the country and world has lurched so far away from true liberty?  

Just because you and I don't consider liberty and freedom to be extremist views, doesn't mean they aren't.  It't called respecting other folks opinions and ideas even if they are radically different from our own.  You do this by listening and understanding where someone is coming from.  Not by belittling them, not by throwing daggers at their support, and certainly not by holding up someone else's ideas, words, and opinions in a way that makes them look like something they are not.  

Now, Conza, I know you have a completely different definition of extremism right?  You are going to tell me again that the definition I used is wrong because the source is wrong.  So lets have it, go ahead and define extremism for me.  While your at it, go ahead and go back to those other definitions I provided and gives us the correct definitions for those as well.  In the mean time, I will contact the publishers of these other sources and tell them that Conza said they are full of $#@!.  Nah, not really, but it might not be that ridiculous or extreme thing to do, pending your investigation of what words mean, of course.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> And all I get is insults from you.


 I didn't insult you.  I expressed frustration, yes.  I've given you far more time and careful attention, guidance, and hand-holding than you even asked for or any reasonable person should need, in fact.  (You have given me more than enough material to insult you about, but I choose not to go down that route, because it doesn't add to the discussion)

----------


## Travlyr

> I didn't insult you.  I expressed frustration, yes.  I've given you far more time and careful attention, guidance, and hand-holding than you even asked for or any reasonable person should need, in fact.  (You have given me more than enough material to insult you about, but I choose not to go down that route, because it doesn't add to the discussion)


I don't understand why I frustrate you. I get +reps from Ron Paul supporters. 
Nonetheless, I do find this thread humorous. As a Ron Paul and constitutional republic supporter, I wonder where voluntaryist's support lies. Ron Paul is a student of Rothbard & Mises. If we are all sincere in achieving liberty in our lifetimes, then surely most of us are fairly closely aligned philosophically.

----------


## josh b

> It is because the real issue goes right over the heads of the philosophers in here. The classic _"can't see the forest for the trees"_ dilemma.
> 
> It is one thing to learn and teach a philosophy. It is quite another to misunderstand that voters are not philosophers, students of philosophy, or book readers. They are TV watchers and radio listeners.





> If voters believe that Ron Paul supporters are anarchists who want to do away with the State of Florida and the other 49 States, then peace and prosperity will elude us and tyranny will win the day.


Point conceded.  I do believe that we need to be careful about the use of terminology around here, particularly during the election cycle (though the problem is over exaggerated).  I've thought for a while that we should switch to 'Rothbardian' or 'voluntarist' for the sake of the campaign.  Anarchist may be technically accurate under certain usages of the term but it's not a particularly marketable word.

Regarding the Constitution, we are not allowed to criticize it at all, even if it is to argue that even more restraints should have been put on the government? Interesting.  What if one of us was to argue against the Constitution and for the Articles of Confederation? That doesn't seem too off-putting to voters.  I would think that more academic discussion on here would convince more potential voters that we know what we are talking about.  As long as we don't use forbidden words like 'anarchy' of course.




> A President Ron Paul will usher in a new era of peace and prosperity. Only if voters will elect him.


A little over optimistic there eh Travlyr? Remember that Ron Paul still has a century's worth of Statism to overturn and interests in the rest of the government to fight against if he gets elected.  His victory in the election is a stepping stone on the way peace and prosperity not the end of the road.




> Why not join us in our quest for liberty, peace, and prosperity by promoting Ron Paul as he promotes himself - _"Defender of Liberty" and "Supporter of the Constitution"_?


I promote the Constitution as a way of helping the campaign.  I'm also voting for the good doctor.  What more do you want?  Also, even though the verdict isn't in, I think Conza made a pretty good case for Ron Paul being a voluntarist.  




> Give Peace A Chance.


If only that were possible with the State involved.  I prefer Rothbard, Conza, and others' quest 'for liberty, peace, and prosperity' over yours.

----------


## Conza88

> I noticed the thread title has changed as well.


Oh wow, didn't notice that. Shameful. "Ron Paul re-confirms his voluntarism" is what is was, for the record. What a joke, this place hasn't changed one bit.

_"Excuse me... but WHY the hell was my post in response to newbitech deleted / completely removed / censored?"_




> I was wondering that as well.  
> Awesome posts on Mises.  It's sad that you have to repeat this stuff so often.


Thanks! Would the mod who changed the forum title and removed my post (censorship) without any notice or justification - like to come forward and state your case. Have the integrity, or remain a coward. 




> I didn't create a strawman Conza.  You told someone to STFU and acknowledge that RP is a voluntarist.  I simply looked at what the common and dictionary definition of voluntarist are, and Ron Paul doesn't fit that mold.  Ron Paul takes voluntarism to mean no coercion.  Fine, if that is the only definition you want to use for that, then he is a voluntarist.

----------


## Conza88

> It is sort of incredible to me that such brilliant people want to put their liberty off decades longer because they would rather win the argument than win their freedom. A President Ron Paul will usher in a new era of peace and prosperity. Only if voters will elect him.
> 
> If voters believe that Ron Paul supporters are anarchists who want to do away with the State of Florida and the other 49 States, then peace and prosperity will elude us and tyranny will win the day. You guys are like a ball and chain even if your hearts and minds are in the right place.


Epic fail. Where have I suggested the strategy that should be taken, is for Ron Paul to promote publicly and campaign as an anarcho-capitalist? Are you demented? Are you? Read the friggin OP of the thread.

You guys aren't concerned with the truth at all. Your whole "crusade" against "us" is based on an abysmally flawed assumption... and that is your downfall. Terribly humorous, terribly sad - that you're in fact a Ron Paul "supporter" and fail to see that.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Epic fail. Where have I suggested the strategy that should be taken, is for Ron Paul to promote publicly and campaign as an anarcho-capitalist? Are you demented? Are you? Read the friggin OP of the thread.
> 
> You guys aren't concerned with the truth at all.Your whole "crusade" against "us" is based on an abysmally flawed assumption... and that is your downfall. Terribly humorous, terribly sad - that you're in fact a Ron Paul "supporter" and fail to see that.


 IOU a +rep when I get some more ammo.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I don't understand why I frustrate you. I get +reps from Ron Paul supporters. 
> Nonetheless, I do find this thread humorous. As a Ron Paul and constitutional republic supporter, I wonder where voluntaryist's support lies. Ron Paul is a student of Rothbard & Mises. If we are all sincere in achieving liberty in our lifetimes, then surely most of us are fairly closely aligned philosophically.


 You frustrate me because you slander me and because you lie about me (and others).   You also try to criticize philosophies that you clearly don't understand and aren't willing to learn about.  

You wonder where the voluntaryist's support lies-it lies in freedom, voluntary relationships between individuals and groups, and peace.  If you do in fact take Mises' and Rothbard's insights seriously, then yes we are quite close philosophically.  IIRC, Mises supported an individual's right to secession and nullification(in the book "Liberalism", I believe)-something I have long been in favor of.  I hope more minarchists take up this cause in the future, as it is in their best interests as well.

----------


## Seraphim

Ron Paul is most certainly a voluntarist in relation to the marketplace - politically he's an American Constitutionalist because realistically it's the best we've ever come up with fairly distributing political power. The Constitution is CHANGEABLE - but through a set of rigorous and uncompromising measures. It keeps the changes honest and leaves the scars of prior societies widely viewable.

Changes to the Constitution so far have been done through cheating that process of laws and those changes have over inflated the Federal Government. They must be repealed and a few minor changes about monetary policy need to be implemented.

The ultimate indicator of success in my mind is whether or not the new generation is in agreement with the mythical social contract (that doesn't really exist)...But if the "contract" that is the Constituition is so well defined and UNAGGRESSIVE in nature, it's reknewal may occur organically.

Judging by his body language in interviews, I have the deep suspicion that RP is a market anarchist - politically he's a realist and an astute observer of human behavior and the effects of concentrated power on society...

But in relation TO THE MARKET PLACE...RP is a voluntarist, no doubt about that.

----------


## Conza88

> "Political agendas perceived as extremist often include those from the far left or far right as well as fundamentalism or, as a more general term, fanaticism."
> 
> "a tendency or disposition to go to extremes or an instance of going to extremes, especially in political matters: leftist extremism; the extremism of the Nazis."
> 
> "a person who favours or resorts to immoderate, uncompromising, or fanatical methods or behaviour, esp in being politically radical"


Come on newbitech, I thought you were better than that. Guess not. *False left right paradigm,*  which leads to 

“*For some twenty centuries Western man has come to accept the Aristotelian theory that the sensible position is between any two extremes, known politically today as the “middle-of-the-road” position.* Now, if libertarians use the terms “left” and “right,” they announce themselves to be extreme right by virtue of being extremely distant in their beliefs from communism. But “right” has been successfully identified with fascism. Therefore, more and more persons are led to believe that the sound position is somewhere between communism and fascism, both spelling authoritarianism.

The golden-mean theory cannot properly be applied indiscriminately. For instance, it is sound enough when deciding between no food at all on the one hand or gluttony on the other hand. But it is patently unsound when deciding between stealing nothing or stealing $1,000. The golden mean would commend stealing $500. Thus, the golden mean has no more soundness when applied to communism and fascism (two names for the same thing) than it does to two amounts in theft.” [...]

Libertarians reject this principle and in so doing are not to the right or left of authoritarians. They, as the human spirit they would free, ascend—are above—this degradation. Their position, if directional analogies are to be used, is up—in the sense that vapor from a muckheap rises to a wholesome atmosphere.* If the idea of extremity is to be applied to a libertarian, let it be based on how extremely well he has shed himself of authoritarian beliefs.*

Establish this concept of emerging, of freeing — which is the meaning of libertarianism—and the golden – mean or “middle-of-the-road” theory becomes inapplicable. For there can be no halfway position between zero and infinity. It is absurd to suggest that there can be.
- Neither Left nor Right, Leonard Read



> Maybe Ron Paul is perceived as an extremist because some of his supporters are?  Maybe Ron Paul's ideas of liberty are extreme because the country and world has lurched so far away from true liberty?  
> 
> Just because you and I don't consider liberty and freedom to be extremist views, doesn't mean they aren't.  It't called respecting other folks opinions and ideas even if they are radically different from our own.  You do this by listening and understanding where someone is coming from.  Not by belittling them, not by throwing daggers at their support, and certainly not by holding up someone else's ideas, words, and opinions in a way that makes them look like something they are not.


You're wrong in labeling them 'extremist', so is the rest of the country. Appeal to popularity fallacy. 




> Now, Conza, I know you have a completely different definition of extremism right?  You are going to tell me again that the definition I used is wrong because the source is wrong.  So lets have it, go ahead and define extremism for me.  While your at it, go ahead and go back to those other definitions I provided and gives us the correct definitions for those as well.  In the mean time, I will contact the publishers of these other sources and tell them that Conza said they are full of $#@!.  Nah, not really, but it might not be that ridiculous or extreme thing to do, pending your investigation of what words mean, of course.


No, because it is illogical and a fallacy - false paradigm. OR do you DISAGREE with that the left / right paradigm is false? Do you disagree with Ron Paul? Aye? 

I use the standard libertarian conception, as accepted by Ron Paul, and others here. Don't know why you don't. Just a way to continue arguing no doubt.

I'm not an extremeist, nor is Ron Paul. We are however, radicals - latin for 'strike at the root' cause. I.e Address the actual problem.

The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naïve and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair.
— H.L. Mencken (Letter to Upton Sinclair, October 14, 1917)

----------


## newbitech

Pretty sure those are just example of extremism Conza.  You are trying too hard.  Make it easy on yourself.  

Think of your original post, on how Ron Paul described what YOU want to be, a voluntaryist.  Right?  So no coercion.  

From one extreme, a relative voluntary society to the other extreme (the opposite) the authoritarian approach.

This is the context in which I used the word extremist.  Do you see how Ron Paul talks about the difference between the two without coming across as extremist?  Also notice how Ron Paul answers the next question, do we have a chance of achieving society based on those ideals?  Not soon.

So there are some intermediate steps.   Why?  Because right now, unfortunately and almost unbelievably, a voluntary society is an extreme position in our current authoritarian state.   

That should be easy for you to accept, just as in a voluntary society, cops running around arresting people for non violent crimes like smoking pot would seem to be extreme (as one example).  Stepping in between a voluntary contract between two parties and taking a piece of the action from both sides would be extreme.  Again, and unfortunately right now, those things are accepted as the norm!  

We have a long way to go before those types of things are considered extremism and the opposite is considered the norm.  So rather than trying to cram extremist idea's down people's throats, why don't you find a different approach?  Hmmm?  Well, I am not even asking you to do that.  I just want you to back off pinning labels on people.  

All I can do is ask, and all I can do is point out how you are wrong for continually trashing views that are not in line with yours. False left right paradigm example....

COnza's opinion........................................ .......................Anyone who disagrees.

----------


## Travlyr

> Point conceded.  I do believe that we need to be careful about the use of terminology around here, particularly during the election cycle (though the problem is over exaggerated).  I've thought for a while that we should switch to 'Rothbardian' or 'voluntarist' for the sake of the campaign.  Anarchist may be technically accurate under certain usages of the term but it's not a particularly marketable word.


Thank you josh. I asked around a little bit yesterday without wearing my Ron Paul gear and I found 100% of the people I talked to thought that anarchy was an extremely negative connotation. The hard working people of the world don't want anything to do with it. I suspect that most people would embrace a voluntary society if they understood it like the members on this board.




> Regarding the Constitution, we are not allowed to criticize it at all, even if it is to argue that even more restraints should have been put on the government?


My personal opinion is that the Constitution is highly flawed. Thankfully there is an amendment process. Since it is the supreme law of the land, and it contains the Bill of Rights, we can use it to our advantage.




> Interesting.  What if one of us was to argue against the Constitution and for the Articles of Confederation? That doesn't seem too off-putting to voters.  I would think that more academic discussion on here would convince more potential voters that we know what we are talking about.


The States were organized under the Articles of Confederation. That may have been a superior way to organize states. I don't join in that debate because I don't know enough about it. Perhaps the Constitution could be amended to embrace those ideas if desired, I don't know. I want our political leaders to be lawful. Ron Paul leads that concept by example.




> As long as we don't use forbidden words like 'anarchy' of course.


The word is not forbidden, it is the idea that we can enlighten a majority of TV watching voters on its etymology before November 2012 that is questioned. And since it currently holds such a negative connotation, then it is wise to put the promotion of anarchy on the back burner during the election cycle for anyone who thinks a President Ron Paul would be good.




> A little over optimistic there eh Travlyr? Remember that Ron Paul still has a century's worth of Statism to overturn and interests in the rest of the government to fight against if he gets elected.  His victory in the election is a stepping stone on the way peace and prosperity not the end of the road.


One step in the right direction will be a great first step. I do not declare victory; nonetheless, Ron Paul said he will send ships to the Middle East as fast as they could go to bring the troops home. A President Ron Paul as Commander in Chief will work toward peace at the outset of his presidency. Ron Paul said he would pardon non-violent federal offenders who had not committed other serious crimes. He would look to using a house arrest system rather than cages. Prosperity will take longer, but a step in the right direction is my goal for 2012.




> I promote the Constitution as a way of helping the campaign.  I'm also voting for the good doctor.  What more do you want?  Also, even though the verdict isn't in, I think Conza made a pretty good case for Ron Paul being a voluntarist.


I fully agree. I was not on these boards last election. Conza was and I see he has a lot of cheerleaders. His intelligence is welcome and his philosophy is welcome as well. His political antics will help to defeat Ron Paul. I don't know if that is his intention, but his reappearance at election time is interesting, and the divisive threads he is bumping is suspect as well.

I think that is also why we don't hear much from Ron Paul about LewRockwell.com and the Mises Institute anymore. Ron talks about sound money, Austrian economics, and non-interventionist foreign policy but last election the media was successful in painting Ron Paul as a racist due in part to political antics of "friends." Ron Paul supports their philosophy but they do not return political support in kind. Anarchists are Ron's political _Achilles Heal_.   




> If only that were possible with the State involved.  I prefer Rothbard, Conza, and others' quest 'for liberty, peace, and prosperity' over yours.


My quest is simply to elect Ron Paul as President of the United States of America and return to using real money in transactions. Since Ron Paul was a proud student of Rothbard, I seriously doubt your quest is much different than mine.

----------


## Travlyr

> You frustrate me because you slander me and because you lie about me (and others).   You also try to criticize philosophies that you clearly don't understand and aren't willing to learn about.  
> 
> You wonder where the voluntaryist's support lies-it lies in freedom, voluntary relationships between individuals and groups, and peace.  If you do in fact take Mises' and Rothbard's insights seriously, then yes we are quite close philosophically.  IIRC, Mises supported an individual's right to secession and nullification(in the book "Liberalism", I believe)-something I have long been in favor of.  I hope more minarchists take up this cause in the future, as it is in their best interests as well.


I don't have any problem with you HB. My goal this election cycle is to help Ron Paul win as "Defender of Liberty" because I am a selfish individual who is sold on his ideas. I don't worry about philosophy, and you are right I'm out of my league in that debate. I'm bowing out of it. Nevertheless, I will remain persistent ferreting out anyone who intentionally works to derail Ron's campaign. I ask others if they will refrain from derailing it unintentionally.

----------


## Deborah K

> Excuse me... but WHY the hell was my post in response to newbitech deleted / completely removed / censored?
> 
> *Too much truth for ya'll obviously!* _[Pm if you want a copy]_ It was in between #160-161. Am I wrong mods? Aye? 
> 
> Sidenote: I just want to take this opportunity to thank *newbitech, Travlyr, deborah k* & the other CD's (cognitive dissonants*)... without you guys, the reality of Ron Paul being a voluntarist would hardly see the light on day in this place. Every post you guys make, you help change minds for the better. Thank you so much  Keep it up



You live in a dream world Conza, on another continent I might add.  What do you really care about the future of America?  My guess is you could give a rat's ass about Americans and their freedom.  The only thing you seem to be interested in is coming here and recruiting people to your philosophy, which basically does not include getting Ron Paul elected.  I've already seen, in the comments section of internet articles, where people are labeling Ron Paul an anarchist and claiming they will not vote for him because of it.   You have no right or business interfering with our elections or labeling Ron Paul.  YOU are the one experiencing cognitive dissonance if you think threads like this will help Ron get elected!  You don't seem to get that achieving the kind of society you dream about has to be done in an systematic way, as an incremental process, first by electing a President who wants to legalize freedom!  You, and others like you,  who don't live in this country either don't care about that, or you are strategically and politically ignorant!  OR, you don't think he can win anyway so you're just going to do as much damage to this forum as you can!  Whatever the reason is, why don't you just take your recruits and go start your own forum.  

Let it be known to any newcomers to this forum, that this OP's opinions of Ron Paul are rejected outright by those of us who believe Ron has a chance to win.  

Conza, stick to your self righteous philosophizing, and leave Ron Paul out of it!

----------


## ClayTrainor

Here's just a little reminder of what's in the OP, since there's a lot of side-discussion that has gone off on a lot of tangents since the OP....




> *ADAM KOKESH:* *So you've described yourself as a voluntarist.* Can you tell us what that means for the big picture, and what your ideal society would be, *as a voluntarist*?
> 
> *RON PAUL:* Voluntary means no coercion. So if you want to change people's habits or change the world you should do it by setting examples and trying to persuade people to do it. You can use force only when somebody uses force against you. So voluntary use of information and persuading people, I think, is the best way to go; and no matter what kind of problem you're looking at.


So, out of this we can come to 2 possible conclusions, as far as I can see...

*1.*  Adam Kokesh outright lied to Ron Pauls face, and Ron Paul not only chooses not to correct him but instead go on to sound rather supportive of the assertion, to the point of saying "I think, is the best way to go; and *no matter what kind of problem you're looking at.*"

*2.* Ron Paul is a voluntarist.

----------


## Travlyr

> *1.*  Adam Kokesh outright lied to Ron Pauls face, and Ron Paul not only chooses not to correct him but instead go on to sound rather supportive of the assertion, to the point of saying "I think, is the best way to go; and *no matter what kind of problem you're looking at.*"
> 
> *2.* Ron Paul is a voluntarist.


And a voluntary society can exist within the State.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> And a voluntary society can exist within the State.


Sure, if the state is defined as "Lollypops and sunshine" or something along those lines, lol.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> And a voluntary society can exist within the State.


How?  Are you defining the state as something other than that entity which enjoys a monopoly of force within a given geographic area?

----------


## Travlyr

> How?  Are you defining the state as something other than that entity which enjoys a monopoly of force within a given geographic area?


 I don't define words. A voluntary society can exist within any one of the existing 50 States in America. All that needs done to achieve that goal is to amend their constitutions.

----------


## josh b

> I really think the forum minarchists who make a point of arguing against an-cap and voluntaryist philosophy on a regular basis are probably responsible for opening more minds up to voluntaryism and anarchy than the an-caps themselves.


Before I joined up here I had no idea how strained the relationship was between the traditional Rothbardian libertarians and the newer minarchists.  More and more this post seems to be the case.  

Well, as long as the we're all supporting Paul I really don't care how this turns out. Let's get this thread back on topic.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I don't define words. A voluntary society can exist within any one of the existing 50 States in America. All that needs done to achieve that goal is to amend their constitutions.


You didn't say "a state".  You said, "the State".  

The United States of America is known as such because the country was founded as a loose confederation of states - independent governing districts; just as Great Britain was/is a state, France is/was a state, and Maryland was a state - 'was' because it's authority as an independent governing district has been for all intents and purposes entirely usurped by the federal government established by the Constitution.  The term state directly refers to a particular geographic region under some authority.  

Don't duck the question - how is it possible for fully voluntary associations to exist within the context of  particular geographic region wherein a particular entity enjoys a monopoly of force?

----------


## Travlyr

> You didn't say "a state".  You said, "the State".  
> 
> The United States of America is known as such because the country was founded as a loose confederation of states - independent governing districts; just as Great Britain was/is a state, France is/was a state, and Maryland was a state - 'was' *because it's authority as an independent governing district has been for all intents and purposes entirely usurped by the federal government established by the Constitution.*  The term state directly refers to a particular geographic region under some authority.


I do not agree with this premise. (bold)



> Don't duck the question - how is it possible for fully voluntary associations to exist within the context of  particular geographic region wherein a particular entity enjoys a monopoly of force?


Perhaps I don't understand the intent of your question, but I would think that if the State Constitutions were amended to have no penalty for not paying taxes, then it would be a voluntary State.

----------


## newbitech

> How?  Are you defining the state as something other than that entity which enjoys a monopoly of force within a given geographic area?


What is wrong with force?  Are you confusing the term with coercion?  No matter, I am currently enjoying a monopoly of force within my given geographic area.  I am "state"!  yaya!

Not to be a total asshat, but that definition of "the state" seems to be missing something.  I wonder what it is?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I do not agree with this premise. (bold)


You don't agree that Maryland, etc., was an independent colony before it was a subservient federal district?  




> Perhaps I don't understand the intent of your question, but I would think that if the State Constitutions were amended to have no penalty for not paying taxes, then it would be a voluntary State.


State constitutions would have to be amended to allow for competition in all areas of human interaction - not just the funding of monopolized services.  An individual must be free to contract with, for example, security agencies other than the local government police, etc.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> What is wrong with force?  Are you confusing the term with coercion?  No matter, I am currently enjoying a monopoly of force within my given geographic area.  I am "state"!  yaya!
> 
> Not to be a total asshat, but that definition of "the state" seems to be missing something.  I wonder what it is?


There's nothing wrong with that definition of the state, because you do not enjoy a monopoly of force within whatever geographic region you're currently occupying... unless you're posting from some stateless territory on this planet of which I'm not aware...?

----------


## Travlyr

> You don't agree that Maryland, etc., was an independent colony before it was a subservient federal district?


Prior to the "War Between the States" and counterfeiting by oligarchs in America, the States were not considered subservient to the federal district.  




> State constitutions would have to be amended to allow for competition in all areas of human interaction - not just the funding of monopolized services.  An individual must be free to contract with, for example, security agencies other than the local government police, etc.


 Nobody said it would be easy.

----------


## newbitech

> There's nothing wrong with that definition of the state, because you do not enjoy a monopoly of force within whatever geographic region you're currently occupying... unless you're posting from some stateless territory on this planet of which I'm not aware...?


yeah, actually I am.  There is currently no unwanted use of force occurring anywhere around me.  The geographic region I am in is about 1500 square feet.  I don't own it, but the person who does has granted me permission to use it how I see fit.  There will be no use of force occurring here without invitation, and certainly no aggressive use of force (coercion?).  So yes, I do have a monopoly of the use of force within this given geographic region.  I am enjoying it.  I am an entity.  That fits your definition that I originally commented on, does it not? 

So yeah, something is missing, and I am waiting for you to reply and fill in that blank.  Please hurry, I don't like being referred to as "state"!

----------


## Travlyr

> Before I joined up here I had no idea how strained the relationship was between the traditional Rothbardian libertarians and the newer minarchists.  More and more this post seems to be the case.  
> 
> Well, as long as the we're all supporting Paul I really don't care how this turns out. Let's get this thread back on topic.


Why do you call the minarchists - newer? While I believe the Constitution went too far, early America ... States organized under the Articles of Confederation are minarchy by design. Rothbard is 20th century.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Prior to the "War Between the States" and counterfeiting by oligarchs in America, the States were not considered subservient to the federal district.


That's why I said, "was".  





> Nobody said it would be easy.


Did anyone say it was possible?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> yeah, actually I am.  There is currently no unwanted use of force occurring anywhere around me.  The geographic region I am in is about 1500 square feet.  I don't own it, but the person who does has granted me permission to use it how I see fit.  There will be no use of force occurring here without invitation, and certainly no aggressive use of force (coercion?).  So yes, I do have a monopoly of the use of force within this given geographic region.  I am enjoying it.  I am an entity.  That fits your definition that I originally commented on, does it not? 
> 
> So yeah, something is missing, and I am waiting for you to reply and fill in that blank.  Please hurry, I don't like being referred to as "state"!


There will be no use of force there without invitation, huh?  Let's cut to the chase: where are you located?

----------


## Travlyr

> That's why I said, "was".


But your claim was that the Constitution undermined the States. I pointed out that it was a counterfeiting cabal that undermined the States.




> Did anyone say it was possible?


Yes, I did.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> But your claim was that the Constitution undermined the States. I pointed out that it was a counterfeiting cabal that undermined the States.


Sorry - I lost my train of thought in the interim.  Not particularly relevant anyway. 




> Yes, I did.


But you didn't substantiate it.

----------


## Travlyr

> Sorry - I lost my train of thought in the interim.  Not particularly relevant anyway.


Very relevant.



> But you didn't substantiate it.


Amend the Constitutions. Substantiated.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Very relevant.
> 
> Amend the Constitutions. Substantiated.


Amend them... into irrelevance?  Sounds good!

----------


## Travlyr

> Amend them... into irrelevance?  Sounds good!


Nobody said it would be easy.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Nobody said it would be easy.


In order to amend the state to allow fully voluntary association, it would be amended right out of existence.  

I don't think this is the target you're aiming at...

----------


## newbitech

> There will be no use of force there without invitation, huh?  Let's cut to the chase: where are you located?


are you attempting to use coercion to get some involuntary information out of me?  I was hoping to not have to attempt to validate my monopoly on the use of force within my already given geographical area.  By asking for more details on my location other than what I have voluntarily provided, you are coming across as a threat to my individual sovereignty and you are forcing me to consider legitimate use of force to protect my monopoly.  I from upon your answer since you and I appear to be in the same corning and you continue to paint, in spite of my humble not violent request for you to agree with me and STOP PAINTING.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> are you attempting to use coercion to get some involuntary information out of me?  I was hoping to not have to attempt to validate my monopoly on the use of force within my already given geographical area.  By asking for more details on my location other than what I have voluntarily provided, you are coming across as a threat to my individual sovereignty and you are forcing me to consider legitimate use of force to protect my monopoly.  I from upon your answer since you and I appear to be in the same corning and you continue to paint, in spite of my humble not violent request for you to agree with me and STOP PAINTING.


Lol okay bud.  You can pretend that you live outside the jurisdiction of a particular state agency, and that my asking questions is somehow the use of coercive force... and I can move on to a less disingenuous discussion.

----------


## newbitech

> In order to amend the state to allow fully voluntary association, it would be amended right out of existence.  
> 
> I don't think this is the target you're aiming at...


The only amendment necessary is an amendment that will permanently end the coercive use of force.  If the state choose to redefine itself and operate without violence, it can end itself.  By your definition, the only way to end the state is to challenge it's monopoly in a violent manner.  Thus provoking the state to violently defending its monopoly.  Of course now we will abandon this definition and go back to, the state cannot be a person, yet once again, your definition proves that it can act as a person.

This definition makes it impossible for the state to exist without some form of violence.  The only peaceful solution is for you to believe that the state will abandon itself, in which case it wouldn't have been a state to begin with.  This leads me to believe that your definition of the state exists only in a fictional or hypothetical sense.  

This is the same reason incidentally that I told COnza he can't have it both ways.

----------


## josh b

> Why do you call the minarchists - newer? While I believe the Constitution went too far, early America ... States organized under the Articles of Confederation are minarchy by design. Rothbard is 20th century.


I was referring to libertarianism. It was first used by the Spanish anarchists if I remember correctly. Rothbard and company were the ones who brought the term back into use.  From a previous post of mine:




> I'll add that libertarianism was originally anarchist in nature.  It was used as a reference to Murray Rothbard's political philosophy.  Rothbard helped to found organizations like the Cato Institute and the Libertarian Party.  They eventually moderated their views for the sake of gaining influence and the term 'libertarian' went with them.


Yes I used the forbidden word.  You brought it up, lol.

----------


## Conza88

> **immature ad hominem filled rant**
> 
> Conza, stick to your self righteous philosophizing, and leave Ron Paul out of it!


I'll stick to defending Ron Paul's true political position against so called "supporters" thanks. 




All Ron Paul's words... why he prefers a voluntary society (self-government) *OVER* a return to the Constitution... 

You don't have an issue with me [I'm just the messenger], you actually have an issue with Ron Paul. Why don't you go critique the video then. I'm not the one living in the fantasy world lady, you are.

And that's not my problem.  So by all means, keep posting irrational tripe - and keep bumping this post for new forum members to see.

----------


## Conza88

> Pretty sure those are just example of extremism Conza.  You are trying too hard.  Make it easy on yourself.  
> 
> Think of your original post, on how Ron Paul described what YOU want to be, a voluntaryist.  Right?  So no coercion.  
> 
> From one extreme, a relative voluntary society to the other extreme (the opposite) the authoritarian approach.
> 
> This is the context in which I used the word extremist.  Do you see how Ron Paul talks about the difference between the two without coming across as extremist?  Also notice how Ron Paul answers the next question, do we have a chance of achieving society based on those ideals?  Not soon.
> 
> So there are some intermediate steps.   Why?  Because right now, unfortunately and almost unbelievably, a voluntary society is an extreme position in our current authoritarian state.


So a little bit of slavery is good? 

*What it means to be an anarcho-capitalist* - Stephan Kinsella.




> Libertarian opponents of anarchy are attacking a straw man. Their arguments are usually utilitarian in nature and amount to "but anarchy won't work" or "we need the (things provided by the) state." But these attacks are confused at best, if not disingenuous. To be an anarchist does not mean you think anarchy will "work" (whatever that means); *nor that you predict it will or "can" be achieved.* It is possible to be a pessimistic anarchist, after all. To be an anarchist only means that you believe that aggression is not justified, and that states necessarily employ aggression. And, therefore, that states, and the aggression they necessarily employ, are unjustified. It's quite simple, really. It's an ethical view, so no surprise it confuses utilitarians.





> We have a long way to go before those types of things are considered extremism and the opposite is considered the norm.  So rather than trying to cram extremist idea's down people's throats, why don't you find a different approach?  Hmmm?  Well, I am not even asking you to do that.  I just want you to back off pinning labels on people.  
> 
> All I can do is ask, and all I can do is point out how you are wrong for continually trashing views that are not in line with yours. False left right paradigm example....


You clearly need to learn logic. My approach is working thanks. Just not on you; but that's ok - you're the soundboard, you've been 'chosen' because of your intellectual dishonesty and close mindedness. 

Ad hominems' you minarchists are full of them. If you want to have a discussion about strategy, I said in the OP - we can have that discussion......... BUT once again, you've got nothing but bs strawmen. You don't ASK what my position is, YOU ASSUME. And assumptions are the mother of all...

----------


## Conza88

> The only amendment necessary is an amendment that will permanently end the coercive use of force.  If the state choose to redefine itself and operate without violence, it can end itself.  By your definition, the only way to end the state is to challenge it's monopoly in a violent manner.  Thus provoking the state to violently defending its monopoly.  Of course now we will abandon this definition and go back to, the state cannot be a person, yet once again, your definition proves that it can act as a person.
> 
> This definition makes it impossible for the state to exist without some form of violence.  The only peaceful solution is for you to believe that the state will abandon itself, in which case it wouldn't have been a state to begin with.  This leads me to believe that your definition of the state exists only in a fictional or hypothetical sense.


"In conjunction with the privatization of all assets according to the principles outlined, the government should adopt a private property constitution and declare it to be the immutable basic law of the entire country. This constitution should be extremely brief and lay down the following principles in terms as unambiguous as possible:

_Every person, apart from being the sole owner of his physical body, has the right to employ his private property in anyway he sees fit so long as in doing so he does not uninvitedly change the physical integrity of another person’s body or property. All interpersonal exchanges and all exchanges of property titles between property owners are to be voluntary (contractual). These rights of a person are absolute. Any person’s infringement on them is subject to lawful persecution by the victim of this infringement or his agent, and is actionable in accordance with the principles of proportionality of punishment and of strict liability.19_
As implied by this constitution, then, all existing wage and price controls, all property regulations and licensing requirements, and all import and export restrictions should be immediately abolished and complete freedom of contract, occupation, trade and migration introduced. Subsequently, the government, now propertyless, should declare its own continued existence as unconstitutional-in so far as it depends on noncontractual property acquisitions, that is, taxation-and abdicate." ~ *Democracy: God that Failed, Hoppe - p215**

*The book Ron Paul recommends you read. I suggest you go do it.

----------


## Conza88

> The only peaceful solution is for you to believe that the state will abandon itself, in which case it wouldn't have been a state to begin with.


Epic failure. Methodological individualism 101. Different individuals bro, do you not understand that? 

“Since socialism cannot arise without the expropriation of assets originally “created” and owned by individual homesteaders, producers, and/or contractors, all socialist property, ill-begotten from the very start, should be forfeited. No government, even if freely elected, can be considered the owner of any socialist property, for a criminal heir, even if himself innocent, does not become the legitimate owner of illegitimately acquired assets. Because of his personal innocence he remains exempt from persecution, but all of his “inherited” gains must immediately revert to the original victims, and their repossession of socialist property must take place without their being required to pay anything. In fact, to charge a victimized population a price for the reacquisition of what was originally its own would itself be a crime and would forever take away any innocence that a government previously might have had.”

More specifically, all original property titles should be recognized immediately, regardless of who presently owns them. In so far as the claims of original private owners or their heirs clash with those of the current assets’ users, the former should override the latter. Only if a current user can prove that an original owner-heir’s claim is illegitimate - that the title to the property in question had initially been acquired by coercion or fraudulent means - should a user’s claim prevail and should he be recognized as the legitimate owner.[10]

[10] In those cases in which current users actually bought expropriated assets from the government, they should seek compensation from those responsible for the sale, and the government officials accountable for it should be compelled to repay the purchase price. ~ *Democracy: The God that Failed*, Hans-Hermann Hoppe p125.*

*The book Ron Paul recommends you read. I suggest you do that. 

But then there is also - *Ending Tyranny Without Violence* by MNR.

----------


## Conza88

Yo Travlyr, what books/sources have you read on private law/ natural order/ voluntarism / self government / anarcho-capitalism?

Don't worry newbitech, I know that even though it's been roughly 4-5 years - you still haven't read anything substantial on the subject.

----------


## Travlyr

> I was referring to libertarianism. It was first used by the Spanish anarchists if I remember correctly. Rothbard and company were the ones who brought the term back into use.


The Spanish Anarchists: The Heroic Years 1868-1936
I don't know if this is the same Spanish anarchists to which you refer, but if so they were a century behind the colonies which morphed into States. Constitutional government seems to be the elder of libertarianism.




> Yes I used the forbidden word.  You brought it up, lol.


lol... keep in mind that it is not forbidden. What I watch for are people who paint Ron Paul as an anarchist when he clearly is not. Lots of people have put much energy into it in order to disrupt (divide & conquer) the liberty movement. Actions speak louder than words. Ron Paul is running for a third time for the highest office the State has ever known. He is doing it because he is for the rule of law. Self described labels are honest and accurate. Ron Paul is a "defender of liberty and supporter of the Constitution." Ron Paul's words ... not Conza's. Philosophically Mises, Rothbard, and Paul are closely aligned. Mises understood and Paul understands that the State is actually a good design for property distribution and rights. I don't know where Rothbard stands on that.

----------


## Travlyr

> In order to amend the state to allow fully voluntary association, it would be amended right out of existence.  
> 
> I don't think this is the target you're aiming at...


Right. That is your target. But I walk this Earth too and I'm going to fight you before you reach your goal. I've mentioned earlier that anarchists will start a civil war if they try to achieve their goals. Here's why. My property pins are located and recorded in deeds held at the county clerk's office at my county building which is under the authority of the State where I live. If you have a better plan offer it up before you eliminate the State. If not, then get the hell off my property, leave me alone, and if you destroy the county building and my property deed I'll fill your butt full of lead. My property is where I raise my food. I will defend my rights.

----------


## Conza88

> Ron Paul is a "defender of liberty and supporter of the Constitution." Ron Paul's words ... not Conza's.


Intellectual honesty fail.

*I am ALSO* A DEFENDER OF LIBERTY and a SUPPORTER OF THE CONSTITUTION -> *compared to* what we have now. Who isn't? 

And, just like Ron Paul... I support *SELF-GOVERNMENT* *COMPARED TO* _THE CONSTITUTION_... self-government/voluntarism/anarcho-capitalism being his _end goal_. His words. Pretty damn clear. 




> Philosophically Mises, Rothbard, and Paul are closely aligned. Mises understood and Paul understands that the State is actually a good design for property distribution and rights. I don't know where Rothbard stands on that.


Wrong, wrong, wrong. Not closely, directly aligned. Ron Paul directly follows the Rothbard *caucus' 10 points* [The Ron Paul revolution is essentially Rothbardian].

Ron Paul says _"the state is a good design for property distribution and rights?"_ <- Hahaha!  That is beyond ret#$%^d.

Back up that claim, please oh please provide the sources that back up that statement. Wayyy too funny [due to absurdity]!

----------


## A Son of Liberty

Alright, that's it... 




> Right. That is your target. But I walk this Earth too and I'm going to fight you before you reach your goal.


Of course you are going to fight us.  You believe that you've been granted some extra-human authority that allows you to dictate terms to other individuals, so when some of those other individuals dare "step out of line", in order for you to not abandon your philosophy, you MUST fight them.




> I've mentioned earlier that anarchists will start a civil war if they try to achieve their goals.


Do us a favor - refer to a post made by an professed anarchist in this forum - any thread - where he advocates civil war.  Please?  Otherwise, guess what?  You're not talking to us, you're talking to the strawman you've constructed in your own head.

ETA: Unless you're saying you'll initiate civil war... I think that's what you're saying, actually.  Which goes to my point below.  YOU are the violent one.  




> Here's why. My property pins are located and recorded in deeds held at the county clerk's office at my county building which is under the authority of the State where I live. If you have a better plan offer it up before you eliminate the State.


First, that's been done.

Second, I'm but one human being.  There are 6 billion other human beings on this planet right now.  If I cannot give or cite you a voluntary solution to this problem, surely someone else on the planet might come up with something.  But you're here in this thread denying that possibility exists, so YOU wish to forcefully impose your vision of the solution on the rest of this.  THIS IS THE WHOLE POINT.  FREE PEOPLE FREELY EXCHANGING IDEAS, AND REJECTING FORCEFULLY IMPOSING THEIR VISION ON OTHERS.  




> If not, then get the hell off my property, leave me alone, and if you destroy the county building and my property deed I'll fill your butt full of lead. My property is where I raise my food.


Good lord, dude.  I'm not on your property.  Seriously, this is hilarious.  *I* respect you and your property.  It is YOU who has openly and unequivocally stated that YOU will encroach upon the rights of ANYONE WHO DOES NOT AGREE WITH YOU.  Read your own language.  YOU ARE THE VIOLENT ONE.  YOU ARE THE ONLY PERSON IN THIS THREAD WHO HAS THREATENED TO SHOOT ANYONE, for cryin' out loud.  




> I will defend my rights.


No, you destroy your rights by advocating the suppression of the rights of others.  You do not defend rights.  You may advocate "less" violation of rights than, say, a socialist or a fascist, but at the end of the day, you still adovcate the violation of individual rights.

----------


## Travlyr

> Intellectual honesty fail.


I'm calling you out Conza. I suspect you are not a philosopher or student of liberty. You post like a privileged elite doing his damnest to divide the liberty movement and rile up young people who are working hard to learn truths. Bumping old divisive threads from the past is further evidence that you are here maliciously to stir $#@! up.

Flat out lie right here ... a distortion of the truth, 



> Ron Paul says _"the state is a good design for property distribution and rights?"_


Here is the truth,



> Mises understood and Paul understands that the State is actually a good design for property distribution and rights.


I made the claim that Ron Paul understands it. Nowhere did I make the claim that Ron Paul said it. It is the same difference as putting incorrect labels on people to advance an agenda. Conza is doing that and it is not honest.




> Back up that claim, please oh please provide the sources that back up that statement.


State, County, Township, Sections, Acreage, Lots & Blocks to allow individual property ownership with property boundaries surveyed and recorded as deeds held in public records at the county clerk & recorder's offices under the authority of the State.

----------


## Travlyr

> Alright, that's it...


I'm a peaceful man until you tread on me. I defend my right to own property for me and my posterity.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I'm a peaceful man until you tread on me. I defend my right to own property for me and my posterity.


Way to read what I wrote.  We anarchists are not imposing upon you.  You are the one who treads...

----------


## Travlyr

> Good lord, dude.  I'm not on your property.  Seriously, this is hilarious.  *I* respect you and your property.  It is YOU who has openly and unequivocally stated that YOU will encroach upon the rights of ANYONE WHO DOES NOT AGREE WITH YOU.  Read your own language.  YOU ARE THE VIOLENT ONE.  YOU ARE THE ONLY PERSON IN THIS THREAD WHO HAS THREATENED TO SHOOT ANYONE, for cryin' out loud.


In defense of my right to my property. That's all I said. There is no need to twist my words. No aggression.

----------


## Conza88

> I'm calling you out Conza. I suspect you are not a philosopher or student of liberty. You post like a privileged elite doing his damnest to divide the liberty movement and rile up young people who are working hard to learn truths. Bumping old divisive threads from the past is further evidence that you are here maliciously to stir $#@! up.


Hahaha ! I've done *more for this movement than you have, or ever will*.

Fantasy land bro, you're living in a dream world.




> I made the claim that Ron Paul understands it. Nowhere did I make the claim that Ron Paul said it. It is the same difference as putting incorrect labels on people to advance an agenda. Conza is doing that and it is not honest.


Hahah! Ok, so you admit that he has never said it, or written it. Then how in the f$)%#n hell can you make the claim he "understands" that. 

The claim is absolutely baseless - which you seem to openly admit... amazing! You're literally making stuff up and claiming it as truth.




> State, County, Township, Sections, Acreage, Lots & Blocks to allow individual property ownership with property boundaries surveyed and recorded as deeds held in public records at the county clerk & recorder's offices under the authority of the State.


lol  ... was that meant to be an argument? For what exactly? Try write a sentence that has at least some resemblance of coherency.

Yo Trav, don't dodge my questions.




> Yo Travlyr, what books/sources have you read on private law/ natural order/ voluntarism / self government / anarcho-capitalism?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> In defense of my right to my property. That's all I said. There is no need to twist my words. No aggression.


I'm not twisting your words.  You insist that an involuntary agency must exist, and those who oppose that aggression should be subject to physical force.

----------


## Travlyr

> Ok, so you admit that he has never said it, or written it. Then how in the f$)%#n hell can you make the claim he "understands" that.


I don't know if he ever said it. Good point though. I should have said that he SEEMS to understand it because of his actions. 




> The claim is absolutely baseless - which you seem to openly admit... amazing! You're literally making stuff up and claiming it as truth.


Ron Paul is running for President of the United States of America. The highest office in the history of the world of Nation/State. Pretty much makes him a statist.

----------


## Travlyr

> I'm not twisting your words.  You insist that an involuntary agency must exist, and those who oppose that aggression should be subject to physical force.


Exactly. That is why I keep saying that Voluntaryism can only work within the bounds of the State here on Earth because we live in an imperfect world. It is extreme and I want nothing to do with it. Personally, I will let you take it as far as you wish as long as it does not aggress against me.

Hypothetically speaking ... If you were to walk up to my table and take my food off my plate the result would not be pretty, I will defend my right to my property.

----------


## Conza88

Yo Trav, about Ron Paul and that "property rights distribution" claim...




38 seconds

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Exactly. That is why I keep saying that Voluntaryism can only work within the bounds of the State here on Earth because we live in an imperfect world. It is extreme and I want nothing to do with it. Personally, I will let you take it as far as you wish as long as it does not aggress against me.


I can't tell if it's that I'm doing a bad job of explaining it, or if you're being willful.




> Hypothetically speaking ... If you were to walk up to my table and take my food off my plate the result would not be pretty, I will defend my right to my property.


What in the world... This is not an appropriate hypothetical.  A correct analogy would have us all sitting at a table, and I suggest that we should be able to get plates from whatever plate manufacturer we want, then you flip out and threaten to shoot me if I try it.

I'm not touching your food, dude.  You're denying me the right to define my plate in any way other than through the involuntary, fiat plate manufacturer you prefer.

----------


## Conza88

> I don't know if he ever said it. Good point though. I should have said that he SEEMS to understand it because of his actions.


Hahaha !

Ok, so you have absolutely *no proof*. Nor even anything close to resembling an argument that would support your claim. 




> Ron Paul is running for President of the United States of America. The highest office in the history of the world of Nation/State. Pretty much makes him a statist.


Trav, do you not read? Re-paste from this thread...




> He's not campaigning to run the government. Mate, if anyone is twisting reality - it is you. Seriously, check what you just said, think that over, long and hard. Ron Paul... campaigning, because he *wants to run the government*? Seriously?! 
> 
> _"Of course I'm cheering on Ron Paul because he is exposing the nature of the whole system. He is not running for president. He is running against the presidency as it is currently understood." - Lew Rockwell_
> 
> All he friggin does is run _against_ the government. "I don't want to run your lives", does that ring a bell? But honestly, it's *about the message*. 
> 
> But lets hear from someone who would be in the know. A close family member. According to Ron Paul's niece -> _"He's running just to make a point"_. 
> 
> 
> ...


pwn3d. Yo Trav, for the third time...




> Yo Travlyr, what books/sources have you read on private law/ natural order/ voluntarism / self government / anarcho-capitalism?

----------


## Travlyr

> I'm not touching your food, dude.  You're denying me the right to define my plate in any way other than through the involuntary, fiat plate manufacturer you prefer.


I don't care where you get your plate or even if you don't get one.

I will defend my rights. I have property within the State where I live. If you are not interested in removing my property deed from my clerk & recorder's office, then I have no more to discuss with you. It is not a philosophical argument. It is real life.

----------


## Travlyr

> Trav, do you not read? Re-paste from this thread...


Let Ron Paul promote himself. Let Ron Paul label himself. Quit putting words into the mouths of others. Quit dividing the liberty movement. Be honest. Ron Paul is honest.

----------


## newbitech

> So a little bit of slavery is good? 
> *What it means to be an anarcho-capitalist* - Stephan Kinsella.
> 
> You clearly need to learn logic. My approach is working thanks. Just not on you; but that's ok - you're the soundboard, you've been 'chosen' because of your intellectual dishonesty and close mindedness. 
> 
> Ad hominems' you minarchists are full of them. If you want to have a discussion about strategy, I said in the OP - we can have that discussion......... BUT once again, you've got nothing but bs strawmen. You don't ASK what my position is, YOU ASSUME. And assumptions are the mother of all...


No, are you calling Ron Paul a slave as well?  Good for you.  It's nice to hear that folks in Australia are throwing down their chains and are on the cusps of peacefully removing "the state".   Oh, I am the sound board now huh?  You chose me did you?  Intellectual dishonesty?  Close mindedness?  Is that what people are who disagree with you?  

No I told you why I entered this thread.  I am just about finished accomplishing what I set out to do.  There is a stark contrast between your approach and that of the man you decided to hitch your wagon to and promote your ideals and your extreme views.  You don't like to be slapped with the label extremist, so I won't call you that, but I will use that word to describe what you are promoting.  

If you don't think your ideas are extremist, then you'll have to find a way to describe "the state" in a way that either makes "it" not existent in the present tense (since "the state" is the opposite of voluntarism or anarchy).  Otherwise, there are no examples of freedom ever occurring, admit that freedom is an unattainable goal in the sense of totality while the path to freedom is more desirable than the path away from it.  

If we cannot have true freedom as long as "the state" exists, then we will have to accept that true freedom will always involve creating an anti-state to defend it.  This implies violence in to perpetuity.  I don't know too many people who would choose to risk theirs lives for that extra 10% of freedom that you are promising.  I do know people who WILL sacrifice their lives to put themselves on the path and to defend that path.  

THe only way I can see having 100% freedom as in without a state, would be for a group of people to establish and anti-state for the sole purpose of busting up any monopoly on violence that may try to take root, and of course be successful at it.  How this would not in and of itself become "the state" is something that I am still struggling to wrap my mind around.  How ever, listening to you tell it, it doesn't matter anyways, because we'd first have to destroy the current "state" before we can have any sort of freedom in which to protect.  




> Epic failure. Methodological individualism 101. Different individuals bro, do you not understand that?


So you disagree with the definition of the state that I was commenting on?  You agree that there is something missing too?  Interesting.  Am I seeing signs of a Conza that has learned how to find common ground rather than claiming he can fly?




> Don't worry newbitech, I know that even though it's been roughly 4-5 years - you still haven't read anything substantial on the subject.


Out of curiosity, what books and writings do you think the people who won their independence from the British Empire used to benefit their victory?  Weren't you claiming that Ireland was an example of this voluntarism?  I wonder what books and resource they had at their disposal to figure this stuff out.  You have no idea what I have and haven't read.  I don't want this to come across as sounding like I am attacking you, but do you have any common sense at all, or does your opinion only come from what others have told you it should be?  Does it really take years and years of study to figure out what your natural birth rights should be?  I think some people have an easier time of breaking their indoctrination than others. 

Know what it took for me to "wake up" bro?  Took me realizing that I was having more fun watching the wars on TV than playing my video games.  I realized there was something sick and wrong with my thinking.  This happened way before I met Ron Paul.  It took me another 3-4 years AFTER I "woke up"  to discover Ron Paul.  I wasn't lead here by scholars or philosophers.  I was lead here by common friggin sense.  

So yeah, I have read up to what my appetite for reading can stomach.  You want to keep digging, go ahead, but bro, the "X" is over here.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> you live in a dream world conza, on another continent i might add.  What do you really care about the future of america?  My guess is you could give a rat's ass about americans and their freedom.  The only thing you seem to be interested in is coming here and recruiting people to your philosophy, which basically does not include getting ron paul elected.  I've already seen, in the comments section of internet articles, where people are labeling ron paul an anarchist and claiming they will not vote for him because of it.   You have no right or business interfering with our elections or labeling ron paul.  You are the one experiencing cognitive dissonance if you think threads like this will help ron get elected!  You don't seem to get that achieving the kind of society you dream about has to be done in an systematic way, as an incremental process, first by electing a president who wants to legalize freedom!  You, and others like you,  who don't live in this country either don't care about that, or you are strategically and politically ignorant!  Or, you don't think he can win anyway so you're just going to do as much damage to this forum as you can!  Whatever the reason is, why don't you just take your recruits and go start your own forum.  
> 
> Let it be known to any newcomers to this forum, that this op's opinions of ron paul are rejected outright by those of us who believe ron has a chance to win.  
> 
> Conza, stick to your self righteous philosophizing, and leave ron paul out of it!


quoted
for
truth

----------


## Travlyr

> Exactly. That is why I keep saying that Voluntaryism can only work within the bounds of the State here on Earth because we live in an imperfect world. Anarchy is extreme and I want nothing to do with it. Personally, I will let you take it as far as you wish as long as it does not aggress against me.





> HOPPE: Mises thought it was necessary to have an institution that suppresses those people who cannot behave appropriately in society, people who are a danger because they steal and murder. He calls this institution government.
> 
> But he has a unique idea of how government should work. To check its power, every group and every individual, if possible, must have the right to secede from the territory of the state. He called this the right of self determination, not of nations as the League of Nations said, but of villages, districts, and groups of any size. In Liberalism and Nation, State, and Economy, he elevates secession to a central principle of classical liberalism. If it were possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, he says, it would have to be done. *Thus the democratic state becomes, for Mises, a voluntary organization.*


Mises is not a self described anarchist. That label was put on him by others after he died.

Know This. I am not an anarchist under anybody's definition. When I die if others label me as an anarchist, then I'll haunt you if I can.

----------


## newbitech

for the record, Conza was not talking about "self-government" until our little discussion about Gandhi and self-government.  He didn't believe that Dr. Paul could be an advocate of ANY kind of government and that it was easy to see that Dr. Paul was an anarchist capitalist.  I backed up my statement by showing him the brand new link to the interview.  Now he is equating everything to self-government.  

Also for the record, I also pointed out where Rothbard advocated for nationalism in certain situations and that an ideal society would promote nationalism if it gave rise to a society that was not bound by an oppressive state.  This national self-determination was and is the link between self-government and the formation of a voluntary non-coercive state.  Of course the problem being, how to maintain that state, and that is where anarchist and now apparently voluntarist definitions of the world start breaking down.

Of course, the reason is, there can be no such thing as a non-coercive state according to anarchist and now voluntarist apparently, so I am waiting for the next new word to up to see what they call it.  It's definitely NOT self-government though, because self-government can and clearly MUST exist within the current status quo in order for any liberty lover aka slave, to find their freedom.

----------


## ClayTrainor

...




> Here's just a little reminder of what's in the OP, since there's a lot of side-discussion that has gone off on a lot of tangents since the OP....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by Conza88
> 
> ...


There is denial and there is acceptance.  What state of mind are you in?

----------


## ClayTrainor

> quoted
> for
> truth


It's worth noting that the entire post you quoted is a giant personal attack on conza, and in no way addresses the subject matter of the op or the conversation currently taking place.

----------


## Travlyr

> It's worth noting that the entire post you quoted is a giant personal attack on conza, and in no way addresses the subject matter of the op or the conversation currently taking place.


Oh he earned it. Conza is not interested in philosophy. He is here to divide the liberty movement and rile people up. You on the other hand seem sincerely interested in the philosophy along with many others.

----------


## newbitech

> ...
> 
> 
> 
> There is denial and there is acceptance.  What state of mind are you in?


If the definition of voluntarism is simply as Ron Paul stated, no coercion, then he is a voluntarist.

If the definition also includes defining government as an entity that can only exist through coercion, then he is not a voluntarist.

Ron Paul is not calling to abolish government.  Government can and does exist with out coercion.  An example would be self-government, which, if you choose to equate to voluntarism, then a voluntarist cannot call for the abolishment of government.  If voluntarim is just another word for ancap or rather straight up anarchism as defined in the peaceful sense (is that possible), then you'll have to find another way to define "the state", and certainly make a clear distinction between "the state" and government.

So I don't have a problem agreeing that Ron Paul believes in no coercion.  But if you are going to extend that definition to include other elements of voluntarism, you'd need to close some holes in the definitions.  As of right now, I don't think the interview supports either of your conclusions.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Oh he earned it.


Just like I earned the "Cult" and "liar" labels that you constantly threw at me earlier in this thread?




> Conza is not interested in philosophy. He is here to divide the liberty movement and rile people up. You on the other hand seem sincerely interested in the philosophy along with many others.


All assertions without facts to back them up.  Conza is one of the most ardent Ron Paul supporters and Liberty Activists that I have ever had the pleasure of meeting online.   If you ever read the mises.org forums you would know that Conza is constantly defending Ron Paul whenever he is attacked by one of their members.

He's also constantly working on projects, and defending Ron Paul in various circles.   For example, he made this video which has well over 200,000 views.  




Whens the last time you got Ron Pauls message in front of hundreds of thousands of eyeballs???

----------


## newbitech

> Just like I earned the "Cult" and "liar" labels that you constantly threw at me earlier in this thread?
> 
> All assertions without facts to back them up.  Conza is one of the most ardent Ron Paul supporters and Liberty Activists that I have ever had the pleasure of meeting online.   If you ever read the mises.org forums you would know that Conza is constantly defending Ron Paul whenever he is attacked by one of their members.
> 
> He's also constantly working on projects, and defending Ron Paul in various circles.   For example, he made this video which has well over 200,000 views.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whens the last time you got Ron Pauls message in front of hundreds of thousands of eyeballs???


The MSM gets Ron Paul in front of millions and the entire viewing world.  Good thing they supported Ron Paul in 2008 and now in 2012.  

I don't necessarily agree that Conza is a willful provocateur, hell I don't necessarily agree that he is off base with his ideas.  I do think his method and approach do not work for this forum as part of the political process, however I think he is posting in the proper sub forum and I appreciate that fact that this political forum does leave room for his opinion, no matter how unsavory his approach.  I think his discussion and opinion is valuable in the sense that it IS extreme and it does give others a chance to discover Ron Paul from a different perspective.  

I don't see why folks in this sub forum cannot express different views without resorting to questioning the posters support for Ron's campaign, ideas, values, freedom and liberty.  It does sort of force me to turn that question around on them, namely Conza.  He could find ways to be more agreeable, but he doesn't want to, has no desire to, and as long as he thinks his approach is successful, he won't stop offending me.

----------


## Travlyr

> Just like I earned the "Cult" and "liar" labels that you constantly threw at me earlier in this thread?


It is like you don't read. He lied about something I posted to distort the truth. I pointed it out. Mises did not describe himself as an anarchist. He understood it and rejected the label. After he died others painted him with that brush. That is dishonest. Liars are losers in the 21st century.

If anarchy can not be achieved without deceiving people, then it is simply a cult. Honesty and integrity Ron Paul style is required to achieve a movement. That is why liberty is racing forward. Ron Paul ... not Conza. Let Ron Paul promote himself.




> All assertions without facts to back them up.  Conza is one of the most ardent Ron Paul supporters and Liberty Activists that I have ever had the pleasure of meeting online.   If you ever read the mises.org forums you would know that Conza is constantly defending Ron Paul whenever he is attacked by one of their members.
> 
> He's also constantly working on projects, and defending Ron Paul in various circles.   For example, he made this video which has well over 200,000 views.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whens the last time you got Ron Pauls message in front of hundreds of thousands of eyeballs???


That is a good video. Nice work Conza. Make sure that everybody knows that Ron Paul does not plan to dismantle the State. We are not philosophers. We are property owners and do not want that disrupted. There is enough trouble in the world as it is. Don't go after our property.

Ron Paul is quite qualified to promote himself. And he is not an anarchist who wants to dismantle the government. Conza paints him wrong on this forum. When was the last time you heard Ron Paul say that he starts his day on Lew Rockwell.com? They screwed his political ambitions by their antics last time. This time we are calling them out. They need to be honest. 

On this forum Conza is divisive.

Ron Paul 2012

----------


## ClayTrainor

> The MSM gets Ron Paul in front of millions and the entire viewing world.  Good thing they supported Ron Paul in 2008 and now in 2012.


That's not a valid point, the MSM attacked Ron Paul more than they spread his message.  

Conza's "loyalties" are put into question by Travlyr, and I demonstrated clear empirical evidence that he produces content that is strongly in support of Ron Pauls and the ideas of liberty, and gets it seen by hundreds of thousands. 




> I don't necessarily agree that Conza is a willful provocateur, hell I don't necessarily agree that he is off base with his ideas.  I do think his method and approach do not work for this forum as part of the political process, however I think he is posting in the proper sub forum and I appreciate that fact that this political forum does leave room for his opinion, no matter how unsavory his approach.


Travlyr and Deb K are resorting to ad-hominems far more than anyone else in this thread.




> I think his discussion and opinion is valuable in the sense  that it *IS extreme* and it does give others a chance to discover Ron Paul  from a different perspective.


Virtually every position Ron Paul takes gets labelled as extreme... Taxation is theft, End the Fed, End the income Tax, etc.

You're saying virtually nothing at all, when you use that word.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> On this forum Conza is divisive.


 So are you.

----------


## Travlyr

Address the public property deed recorded at the county which gets its authority from the State issue honestly. What's your plan? Not what it could be, but what it is *before* you dismantle the State.

----------


## Travlyr

> So are you.


Only with people who want to do away with my property.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Honesty and integrity Ron Paul style is required to achieve a movement. That is why liberty is racing forward. Ron Paul ... not Conza. Let Ron Paul promote himself.


Ron Paul can also speak for himself.  Ron Paul openly admits taxation is theft, unlike you who tells people that you think they should grow up when they make such a claim.




> But it is kind of silly to cry about all taxation  being theft when most of us have been taxed 50% of everything we've  ever earned our entire lives. I just think you guys should grow up.





> Go to about 3:30
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Spitzer:* Is taxation theft in your mind?
> 
> *Ron Paul:* *Yes, it is*.  It has to steal from productive individuals and give to somebody else.



*C'mon Ron Paul, Travlyr thinks you should Grow Up!*




> Ron Paul is quite qualified to promote himself. And he is not an anarchist who wants to dismantle the government.


Ron Paul is a voluntarist who always chooses liberty, who believes that voluntary interaction is ALWAYS the best way to go.  




> Here's just a little reminder of what's in  the OP, since there's a lot of side-discussion that has gone off on a  lot of tangents since the OP....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by Conza88
> 
> ...


He always chooses voluntary alternatives, when compared to any form of statism, including the constitution.




> *MHD:* but what do you say to people who advocate for self-government rather than interpreting the constitution.
> 
> *Ron Paul:* Great, fine. *I think that’s really what my goal is.*





> Conza paints him wrong on this forum. When was the last time you heard Ron Paul say that he starts his day on Lew Rockwell.com?


I don't keep track, but I see Ron Paul constantly associating himself with anarchists all the time.




> This time we are calling them out. They need to be honest.


I'm sure you tell yourself that's what your doing, but in reality, you're merely being divisive, ignoring questions, making accusations without evidence, and throwing around ad-hominem personal attacks.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Only with people who want to do away with my property.


Your problem is with statist, not voluntaryists.

----------


## Travlyr

> Exactly. That is why I keep saying that Voluntaryism can only work within the bounds of the State here on Earth because we live in an imperfect world. Anarchy is extreme and I want nothing to do with it. Personally, I will let you take it as far as you wish as long as it does not aggress against me.





> HOPPE: Mises thought it was necessary to have an institution that suppresses those people who cannot behave appropriately in society, people who are a danger because they steal and murder. He calls this institution government.
> 
> But he has a unique idea of how government should work. To check its power, every group and every individual, if possible, must have the right to secede from the territory of the state. He called this the right of self determination, not of nations as the League of Nations said, but of villages, districts, and groups of any size. In Liberalism and Nation, State, and Economy, he elevates secession to a central principle of classical liberalism. If it were possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, he says, it would have to be done. *Thus the democratic state becomes, for Mises, a voluntary organization.*


Mises is not a self described anarchist. That label was put on him by others after he died.

Know This. I am not an anarchist under anybody's definition. When I die if others label me as an anarchist, then I'll haunt you if I can.

No Clay. Whoever wants to dismantle the State either proposes a method of property ownership better than what is designed by the State/County/Township/Sections/Acreage/Lots & Blocks surveyed & publicly recorded to settle disputes or face the fact that property owners will not accept a false idol.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Address the public property deed recorded at the county which gets its authority from the State issue honestly. What's your plan? Not what it could be, but what it is *before* you dismantle the State.


People, including myself, have been over this topic literally dozens of times with you, and you always act like it's never been addressed.  Why should I bother again? 




> There is a good chance the freed market model  would be similar to what you like. The market is better at finding the  answers to these questions than any one person could. That is the point  of advocating a free market. 
> 
> It is a tough sell to most people  just as free market anything is (healthcare etc). This is because most  people are economically ignorant.
> 
> You should know what I mean if  you have ever tried to tell a socialist that healthcare should be  privatized. How much will this cost? Who will regulate that? What about  greedy hospitals? How will the poor afford it? What about monopolies  only serving the uber rich? etc etc. 
> 
> If the State were to be  abolished through peaceful means (education and persuasion), then most  currently owned property would probably be respected.
> 
> It is  important to understand that customs and traditions of the people who  compose the majority of a certain geographical area will determine how  things are governed, with or without a State. That isn't to say that  there are no theories on land ownership though (there is a lot of  literature on in, just in case you didn't know). Imo it would be as  simple as demand for property claim verification leading to a market for  it. Entrepreneurs would satisfy this demand.
> ...

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Mises is not a self described anarchist. That label was put on him by others after he died.
> 
> Know This. I am not an anarchist under anybody's definition. When I die if others label me as an anarchist, then I'll haunt you if I can.


This has nothing to do with anything I said, at all.  I'm not talking about mises.  sheesh.

----------


## Travlyr

In other words Clay Trainor

We are not buying what you are selling. Ron Paul is not selling what you are selling. Ron Paul is "defender of liberty and supporter of the Constitution."

Property owners do not need fear a President Ron Paul because most of his supporters believe in property rights and will defend them.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

BOO!  BOO property owners!  BOO!  

I'm comin' to getcha!  Booga Booga!!!

----------


## Travlyr

> BOO!  BOO property owners!  BOO!  
> 
> I'm comin' to getcha!  Booga Booga!!!


It is too bad that you don't respect property rights with a plan of action. It would make it easier to sell your garbage.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> It is too bad that you don't respect property rights with a plan of action. It would make it easier to sell your garbage.


Too funny.  It's too bad YOU don't respect property and an individual's right to freely associate.  

The case has been made so effectively and in such detail in this thread that it seems you're just being oppositional.  I can understand and even appreciate a utilitarian argument from your perspective, but from a logically consistent philosophical point of view, you don't have a leg to stand on.

----------


## V for Voluntary

> When was the last time you heard Ron Paul say that he starts his day on Lew Rockwell.com?


I didn't *hear* Ron Paul say that, but...

"Visit LewRockwell.com, an outstanding and crucially important Web site I visit every day."
 -- Ron Paul, "THE REVOLUTION, A MANIFESTO" (page #158)
http://books.google.com/books?id=MuA...day%22&f=false

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Ron Paul is quite qualified to promote himself. And he is not an anarchist who wants to dismantle the government. Conza paints him wrong on this forum. When was the last time you heard Ron Paul say that he starts his day on Lew Rockwell.com?


How'd I miss this?  Ron Paul has stated that he reads LRC everyday.  

So do I.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I didn't *hear* Ron Paul say that, but...
> 
> "Visit LewRockwell.com, an outstanding and crucially important Web site I visit every day."
>  -- Ron Paul, "THE REVOLUTION, A MANIFESTO" (page #158)
> http://books.google.com/books?id=MuA...day%22&f=false


  You beat me to it!

----------


## Travlyr

> Too funny.  It's too bad YOU don't respect property and an individual's right to freely associate.


Because I don't agree with you? Total baloney. 




> The case has been made so effectively and in such detail in this thread that it seems you're just being oppositional.  I can understand and even appreciate a utilitarian argument from your perspective, but from a logically consistent philosophical point of view, you don't have a leg to stand on.


This is not a philosophical debate. This is real life. Millions upon millions of voters do not want a disruption of their property. You guys advocate it philosophically. Millions of voters need to know that Ron Paul has no intention to disrupt property ownership as you would do. Also, that Ron Paul has plenty of supporters who will defend property rights.

We're not buying what you are selling. Ron Paul is not selling what you are selling. If Ron Paul gets elected as President of the Untied States in 2012, then for the first time in my life a positive step ... gigantic step ... toward liberty, peace, and prosperity will be achieved. Finally. I've waited a long time. I hope to see it soon.

I do not intend to let a few anarchists misrepresent Ron Paul's policy positions on property rights and chase voters away just because they never took the time to understand it.

----------


## Travlyr

> I didn't *hear* Ron Paul say that, but...
> 
> "Visit LewRockwell.com, an outstanding and crucially important Web site I visit every day."
>  -- Ron Paul, "THE REVOLUTION, A MANIFESTO" (page #158)
> http://books.google.com/books?id=MuA...day%22&f=false


Fair enough. What 3 years, or so? Like I mentioned earlier in the thread, he seems to be shying away from saying the Mises Institute and Lew Rockwell this election cycle because he kind of got stabbed in the back last time. Ron supports their philosophy, but they do not return political support in kind.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Because I don't agree with you? Total baloney.


No.  For seemingly the hundredth time - because you advocate a monopolistic entity.  




> This is not a philosophical debate. This is real life. Millions upon millions of voters do not want a disruption of their property. You guys advocate it philosophically, millions of voters need to know that Ron Paul has no intention to disrupt property ownership as you would do. Also, that Ron Paul has plenty of supporters who will defend property rights.


Please cite this figure.  

Even if it were accurate at this time, it discounts the possibility that your legion property owners are not so dense as to be incapable of being persuaded against coercion and violence.  




> We're not buying what you are selling.


I'm a property owner.  Please stop trying to speak for me.  You do not speak for all property owners.




> Ron Paul is not selling what you are selling. If Ron Paul gets elected as President of the Untied States in 2012, then for the first time in my life a positive step ... gigantic step ... toward liberty, peace, and prosperity will be achieved. Finally. I've waited a long time. I hope to see it soon.


I agree, and am working toward that end.




> I do not intend to let a few anarchists misrepresent Ron Paul's policy positions on property rights and chase voters away just because they never took the time to understand it.


First of all, a philosophical discussion in a philosophy sub-forum is not going to derail the campaign.

Second of all, it has been shown that some of  the few anarchists you've been debating right here have done more for the campaign over a greater length of time than you have.

----------


## Conza88

Ron Paul "supporters" need to listen to Ron Paul. Pity if they actually did, this whole thread wouldn't be necessary...

----------


## Travlyr

> I'm a property owner.


I'm not here for the debate. I am here to win some freedoms back that we've lost since the Civil War.

Your current property rights only come from the authority of the State. If you do away with the State your property and your property rights go bye bye. Is that what you want?

How does that work in your mind?

----------


## Conza88

> http://audiovideo.economist.com/?fr_...ea02eb95&rf=bm
> 
> Ron Paul reads Rothbard...


... but then that isn't really news, nor the fact that Rothbard supports Ron Paul. How lemmings here cannot understand that, is an indictment of them - not anyone else.




> *Rothbard on the Ron Paul campaign*
> Posted by Norman Singleton on August 19, 2007 05:15 PM
> 
> This quote from a 1987 Liberty Magazine article refers to Dr. Paul's run as the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate, but I think the potential of impact of a Ron Paul presidential run that Rothbard foresaw in 1987 is being realized in Dr. Paul's current campaign:
> 
> _"The importance of this campaign is that Paul is an Old Right libertarian in the best sense, and that his 1988 campaign has the wonderful potential of reactivating a large number of instinctively libertarian and anti-Establishment Americans, men and women who, for thirty years*, have been deprived of articulate libertarian leadership. The Paul campaign can rouse these numerous Americans from their frustration and torpor and bring them into the libertarian movement, at the same time enlarging the ranks of libertarianism to make it a powerful force in American life."_
> 
> *Rothbard is referring to the mid-fifties displacement of the Old Right of Taft and Buffet with the pro-war, "conservative movement" centered around National Review.

----------


## Travlyr

> Ron Paul "supporters" need to listen to Ron Paul. Pity if they actually did, this whole thread wouldn't be necessary...





> This is the wonderful thing about the Constitution and freedom - Ron Paul


Conza I learned today that you are a Ron Paul supporter. I read some of the threads you bumped yesterday and found you divisive with other Ron Paul supporters. I am divisive with anarchists because not one of them has put forth a viable proposal on how to handle property rights without a State or contract law. Yet they rant on and on about how we should hate the State. Can you? What would you hand the owner in place of his land deed on public display at the county clerk's office?

----------


## Conza88

> Conza I learned today that you are a Ron Paul supporter. I read some of the threads you bumped yesterday and found you divisive with other Ron Paul supporters. I am divisive with anarchists because not one of them has put forth a viable proposal on how to handle property rights without a State or contract law. Yet they rant on and on about how we should hate the State. Can you? What would you hand the owner in place of his land deed on public display at the county clerk's office?


No, see Ron Paul "supporters", more to the point - did you notice the people I have been "divisive" against - they're all still here in this very thread (close minded as ever. The ones who are intellectually dishonest and have nothing but ad hominems). You're not open to reason either. Doesn't matter what is said.

Define 'anarchist' please. The onus of proof isn't on them - that's for starters. You're the one who is suggesting force be used against them. Can I?

I posted an entire thread dedicated to it, you clown. The thread you have already posted in, and got absolutely destroyed in. Want me to go bring it up? It'd be my pleasure. Go comment on it in there.

Yo, Trav - what books/sources have you read on anarcho-capitalism/voluntarism/natural order/private law society?

I have asked you this 4 times... and you dodge it ever time. <---- ZERO intellectual honesty, and that makes you a troll.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Fair enough. What 3 years, or so? Like I mentioned earlier in the thread, he seems to be shying away from saying the Mises Institute and Lew Rockwell this election cycle because he kind of got stabbed in the back last time. Ron supports their philosophy, *but they do not return political support in kind*.


 Sure, they do.  LRC has a whole archive dedicated to RP, and mises.org publishes voluminous interviews, speeches, books, etc. by RP.  Lew has personally done interviews with Ron for the LRC podcast series.

----------


## Travlyr

> The only amendment necessary is an amendment that will permanently end the coercive use of force.  If the state choose to redefine itself and operate without violence, it can end itself.  By your definition, the only way to end the state is to challenge it's monopoly in a violent manner.  Thus provoking the state to violently defending its monopoly.  Of course now we will abandon this definition and go back to, the state cannot be a person, yet once again, your definition proves that it can act as a person.
> 
> This definition makes it impossible for the state to exist without some form of violence.  The only peaceful solution is for you to believe that the state will abandon itself, in which case it wouldn't have been a state to begin with.  This leads me to believe that your definition of the state exists only in a fictional or hypothetical sense.  
> 
> This is the same reason incidentally that I told COnza he can't have it both ways.


This ^^^ +rep

----------


## Travlyr

> No, see Ron Paul "supporters", more to the point - did you notice the people I have been "divisive" against - they're all still here in this very thread (close minded as ever. The ones who are intellectually dishonest and have nothing but ad hominems). You're not open to reason either. Doesn't matter what is said.


I understand your side. Your side has no plan of action for property rights. I reject it.




> Define 'anarchist' please.


I don't define words. I look them up in the dictionary.




> The onus of proof isn't on them - that's for starters. You're the one who is suggesting force be used against them. Can I?
> 
> I posted an entire thread dedicated to it, you clown. The thread you have already posted in, and got absolutely destroyed in. Want me to go bring it up? It'd be my pleasure. Go comment on it in there.


What are you talking about?




> Yo, Trav - what books/sources have you read on anarcho-capitalism/voluntarism/natural order/private law society?
> 
> I have asked you this 4 times... and you dodge it ever time. <---- ZERO intellectual honesty, and that makes you a troll.


If they are the same books you've read, I don't need to be dumbed down.

Ron Paul - Defender of Liberty & Supporter of the Constitution



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gm5yMq0w6OA

----------


## Conza88

> I understand your side. Your side has no plan of action for property rights. I reject it.


What a load of bull. You don't understand libertarianism. What a joke.




> I don't define words. I look them up in the dictionary.


Give us the definition you are using when you call me and others an "anarchist". Discussion with you is a waste of time.




> What are you talking about?


Playing dumb? *This is what I'm talking about.*  The answer to your question, is already there. You just chose not to read it - again, not my fault. Your problem, not mine.




> If they are the same books you've read, I don't need to be dumbed down.


*DODGE.* Trav, you did not answer the question. 

What *books* or sources have you read on voluntarism / anarcho-capitalism /  self-government / private law society / natural order / logical and principled libertarianism?

Name them please. Or if you haven't read anything on the subject, please say so.

Intellectual honesty test.* Round #5.*

----------


## Travlyr

> Exactly. That is why I keep saying that Voluntaryism can only work within the bounds of the State here on Earth because we live in an imperfect world. Anarchy is extreme and I want nothing to do with it. Personally, I will let you take it as far as you wish as long as it does not aggress against me.





> HOPPE: Mises thought it was necessary to have an institution that suppresses those people who cannot behave appropriately in society, people who are a danger because they steal and murder. He calls this institution government.
> 
> But he has a unique idea of how government should work. To check its power, every group and every individual, if possible, must have the right to secede from the territory of the state. He called this the right of self determination, not of nations as the League of Nations said, but of villages, districts, and groups of any size. In Liberalism and Nation, State, and Economy, he elevates secession to a central principle of classical liberalism. If it were possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, he says, it would have to be done. *Thus the democratic state becomes, for Mises, a voluntary organization.*


Mises is not a self described anarchist. That label was put on him by others after he died.

Know This. I am not an anarchist under anybody's definition. When I die if others label me as an anarchist, then I'll haunt you if I can.

----------


## Conza88

Are you a robot, or a spambot? No? Then stop acting like one.




> I don't define words. I look them up in the dictionary.


Give us the definition you are using when you call me and others an "anarchist". Discussion with you is a waste of time.




> What are you talking about?


Playing dumb? *This is what I'm talking about.*  The answer to your question, is already there. You just chose not to read it - again, not my fault. Your problem, not mine.




> If they are the same books you've read, I don't need to be dumbed down.


*DODGE.* Trav, you did not answer the question. 

What *books* or sources have you read on voluntarism / anarcho-capitalism /  self-government / private law society / natural order / logical and principled libertarianism?

Name them please. Or if you haven't read anything on the subject, please say so.

Intellectual honesty test.* Round #5.*

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Mises is not a self described anarchist. *That label was put on him by others after he died.*
> 
> Know This. I am not an anarchist under anybody's definition. When I die if others label me as an anarchist, then I'll haunt you if I can.


 Who do you speak of?  I've never heard anyone call him an anarchist-he wasn't.  He did define government and its proper role differently than modern minarchists, though.  Your Hoppe quote is very accurate.

----------


## Conza88

> Who do you speak of?  I've never heard anyone call him an anarchist-he wasn't.  He did define government and its proper role differently than modern minarchists, though.


*Absolutely.* But welcome to the make believe world of Trav. He can make up claims all he wants. He has no proof. He has no supporting arguments. BUT he makes the claim none the less.

He gives legitimate Ron Paul supporters a bad name.

----------


## Travlyr

> Give us the definition you are using when you call me and others an "anarchist". Discussion with you is a waste of time.


If you have a dictionary, use it.




> Name them please. Or if you haven't read anything on the subject, please say so.


I've read plenty of Mises, Rothbard, Paul, and Mullins. I listened to Stefbot and other voluntarist videos. Stefbot and others are targeting "The State" while a counterfeiting cabal of Corporatocracy elitists destroy liberty around the world with their central banking practices. No matter how bad you want to end the State, the problem will persist because you are aiming at the wrong target of our day. 

The only way to achieve a true voluntary society is under the design of the State while respecting honest sound money as prescribed by Dr. Ron Paul and denationalization of currency as put forth by Hayek.

I'm talking about real life not an imaginary one. The State of New York is my definition of a State. Property owners in the State of New York are authorized to own property surveyed and recorded in County Clerk's offices.

----------


## Travlyr

> Who do you speak of?





> *Mises wasn't a statist.* He was a philosophical 'anarchist' like Albert Jay Nock.





> I've never heard anyone call him an anarchist-he wasn't.


Now you have.

----------


## Conza88

> If you have a dictionary, use it.


I am asking which definition _YOU_ are using, not the one I use. Seriously, wtf are you genuinely this slow?  Did you have a learning problem at all? Not a rhetorical question btw, just of interest in terms of 'engaging' with you.




> I've read plenty of Mises, Rothbard, Paul, and Mullins.


That's great, and yet that isn't the question. So what books by Rothbard have you read on voluntarism / anarcho-capitalism /  self-government / private law society / natural order / logical and  principled libertarianism?

Look, I know Mises and Ron Paul are voluntarists - and I'm glad you have conceded that, but what books specifically then? Mullins is a voluntarist? lol, what books has he written on anarcho-capitalism?




> I listened to Stefbot and other voluntarist videos. Stefbot and others are targeting "The State" while a counterfeiting cabal of Corporatocracy elitists destroy liberty around the world with their central banking practices. No matter how bad you want to end the State, the problem will persist because you are aiming at the wrong target of our day.


That's greaaat and yet get rid of their monopoly and ability to tax, there goes the cabals power. Cartels and monopolies can only be supported by the state. 




> The only way to achieve a true voluntary society is under the design of the State while respecting honest sound money as prescribed by Dr. Ron Paul and denationalization of currency as put forth by Hayek.


Pity *Hayek misses the mark*.




> I'm talking about real life not an imaginary one. The State of New York is my definition of a State. Property owners in the State of New York are authorized to own property surveyed and recorded in County Clerk's offices.


Yeah, I'm also talking about real life. The following was an attempt at an answer, whilst better - is still a  dodge, as you did not answer the question. So I ask it again.




> What *books*  or sources have you read on voluntarism / anarcho-capitalism /   self-government / private law society / natural order / logical and  principled libertarianism?
> 
>    Name them please. Or if you haven't read anything on the subject, please say so.

----------


## Conza88

> Now you have.


Noooo, you haven't.

Quotation marks and the presence of another word, gives it a different meaning. Or do the basic mechanics of the English language completely escape you? There is also the indication towards another individual... maybe if you weren't ignorant in terms of their history and content, you'd understand the context.

Mises was better than the classical liberals. There is no 'constitutionalism' or any of that bs. His principle of liberalism, is that of individual secession. The only thing stopping his support was 'the technical considerations', but if it could be done... it would and should be. So 'in theory' he was, hence 'philosophical anarchist'. Call it whatever the fck you want, he didn't support a state.

If you want to say you follow Mises, you need to contend with that.

All you do is further embarrass yourself.. the fact you don't even realise it is even more amusing.

----------


## Theocrat

> I'll stick to defending Ron Paul's true political position against so called "supporters" thanks. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All Ron Paul's words... why he prefers a voluntary society (self-government) *OVER* a return to the Constitution... 
> 
> You don't have an issue with me [I'm just the messenger], you actually have an issue with Ron Paul. Why don't you go critique the video then. I'm not the one living in the fantasy world lady, you are.
> 
> And that's not my problem.  So by all means, keep posting irrational tripe - and keep bumping this post for new forum members to see.


Conza, you keep making this issue into an "Either/Or" argument, but it doesn't have to be. One can be for self-government and for limited government at the same time, but each government applies to a different realm of jurisdiction and are linked. The principle of self-government relates to how an individual governs himself in society. The principle of limited government relates to how civil governments are governed in society (by a rule of law).

When individuals are unable to govern themselves in society by committing egregious acts of some kind, then the civil government has the duty to deal with those individuals. What limits the civil government is that it cannot do things to individuals which are reserved to other governments in society (like family government and church government). That is how self-government and limited government are linked.

Yes, Ron Paul is for self-government, first. He knows that on an individual level, self-government is the foundation for the success of other governments, like family, church, and state. But just because Ron emphasizes a need for self-government, it should not be misconstrued that he advocates no civil government at all. Nowhere in any of his books, articles, or speeches has Ron ever suggested we need to get rid of the State. Voluntarists need to be more intellectually honest about that, and stop using Ron Paul's campaign as a springboard for their own agenda. Ron Paul has always been known as the "Champion of the Constitution," not the "Champion of the Absence of Government."

----------


## Deborah K

Conza, don't be a hypocrite on top of everything else.  You are well known for your condescensions and demeaning remarks as you attempt to defend your positions.  The bottom line is, you are putting the cart before the horse and you don't even realize it.  What a shame.

----------


## Theocrat

> Conza, don't be a hypocrite on top of everything else.  You are well known for your condescensions and demeaning remarks as you attempt to defend your positions.  The bottom line is, you are putting the cart before the horse and you don't even realize it.  What a shame.


Agreed, and somehow, he thinks he will win more people over to his views by his condescensions and demeaning remarks. All it does is turn people away from what he trying to defend, and most members of the forum see him for what he truly is. Conza is  not trying to help Ron Paul win an election; he is trying to steal supporters for his own school of thought in Voluntarism, and he twists Ron's words to make it seem like Ron is on his side.

----------


## josh b

> The Spanish Anarchists: The Heroic Years 1868-1936
> I don't know if this is the same Spanish anarchists to which you refer, but if so they were a century behind the colonies which morphed into States. Constitutional government seems to be the elder of libertarianism.


You misunderstand me.  I'm referring to ideologies _within_ the libertarian movement.  Rothbardians got there first and are now apparently at odds with the more moderate elements.  The point about the Spanish anarchists was to draw the connection with Rothbard.  He was the one who created the modern 'libertarians'.  I'm not saying that voluntarist thought preceded the idea of limited government.  That would be a different argument.  




> Mises understood and Paul understands that the State is actually a good design for property distribution and rights.  I don't know where Rothbard stands on that.


Wait, what?  Rothbard didn't think the State should exist.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Yeah, I'm also talking about real life. The following was an attempt at an answer, whilst better - is still a  dodge, as you did not answer the question. So I ask it again.


It's amusing because travlyr is constantly accusing others of "never answering tough questions", but he constantly dodges questions himself.   After he dodges the question, you'll notice that he'll try to bring up brand new arguments and assertions to try and take the conversation onto a tangent he is more comfortable with. 

Intellectual honesty is not his specialty.  Case in point:



> Originally Posted by Travlyr
> 
> 
> Encouraging debate is our goal. We just ask you bring honesty, integrity, and intellect to the debate. .
> 
> 
> Interesting coming from someone who has been constantly avoiding questions.... I count at least 4 of my own that you simply never answered...
> 
> *First Question you avoided:*
> ...

----------


## Wesker1982

> You can move freely from state to state


Ron Paul advocates *individual secession*. He does not advocate "like it or move", more like "like it or secede". 




> *but I will be delightfully surprised if you achieve anything like voluntaryism as you describe in my lifetime.* You guys are out of my league philosophically. I am now bowing out.


Great!.....




> *It is extreme and I want nothing to do with it.*







> Address the public property deed recorded at the county which gets its authority from the State issue honestly. What's your plan? Not what it could be, but what it is *before* you dismantle the State.





> What plan do YOU think would be better than surveying property boundaries and keeping land deeds publicly recorded at the county clerk's office?


*There is no reason to assume it wouldn't be done in virtually the same way* (except it would be voluntarily funded). The service would just be provided by a private business instead of a county clerk. Something like a reputable "Land Deed Data Base" company. 




> For example, tomorrow morning you show up at my door with an offer to eliminate the State and I ask, "What about land deeds?"
> What do you offer me?


*If the people (i.e. consumers) want a particular service to function a certain way, taking away the State won't change their preferences and customs.* The market is the best way to find out the most efficient method to satisfying consumer demands. *The market result would just be a reflection of what people wanted their county government to do, except the market would do it more efficiently.*

*Customs, preferences, and respect for land boundaries would already be practically universally accepted in a state of minarchy (this is proven by the fact that minarchy was achieved in the first place).* At this point, especially given the fact that the maximum efficiency of the market has been illustrated, consumers would demand the private production of this service.

And if we got to the point of minarchy, property boundary services would probably already be provided by the market. *So the question should be equally directed at minarchists.*

*It would probably be done the same way in a voluntary society. It really isn't that difficult to imagine replacing the above wages with voluntary wages, instead of coercive taxation.
*

Equating wanting to voluntarize property title distribution with wanting to destroy property itself is a giant strawman. It is precisely because of a respect for property rights that all services should be voluntarily funded. 

The fact that these services are needed is not being disputed, what is being argued is that the use of violence is not as efficient or necessary to provide these services.

----------


## Travlyr

> Define 'anarchist' please. The onus of proof isn't on them - that's for starters. You're the one who is suggesting force be used against them. Can I?
> 
> I posted an entire thread dedicated to it, you clown. The thread you have already posted in, and got absolutely destroyed in. Want me to go bring it up? It'd be my pleasure. Go comment on it in there.
> 
> Yo, Trav - what books/sources have you read on anarcho-capitalism/voluntarism/natural order/private law society?
> 
> I have asked you this 4 times... and you dodge it ever time. <---- ZERO intellectual honesty, and that makes you a troll.


I do not intend to tell you what I have read or not read. It is none of your business. You, Clay, ProIndividual, and A Son of Liberty have made it painfully obvious that I am just an intellectually dishonest illiterate statist sociopath clown that needs destroyed because I don't understand your definitions of State and Anarchy.

For me, the State of Michigan is a state, and the dictionary is where I get my word definitions. Anarchy is: 


> an·ar·chy
> noun \ˈa-nər-kē, -ˌnär-\
> Definition of ANARCHY
> 1
> a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
> 2
> a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature  Israel Shenker>


For you anarchy is something wonderful. Problem is that I am not going to be asking you for the meanings of words because the dictionary is much easier to use. And I am not going to wait around for you to tell me. Since you don't use meanings of words from the dictionary, then I generally have no idea what you are talking about anyway. And I do not wish to read more books on the subject that interests you because I have more fun stuff to do that interests me. You read it and share if you choose. I'll run my own life and do as I please.

For you the State may, or may not, be a constitutional republic surveyed bounded and recorded for public display so that everybody can determine who owns which property and the size of it. Like the State of Illinois for example. Bounded by the Mississippi, Ohio, and Wabash Rivers and closed with imaginary lines drawn from the Mississippi River on the North and Wabash River on the East toward Lake Michigan. The State of Illinois has 102 counties with sheriffs, district attorney, county clerks, county boards, etc. Are we on the same page with the definition of the state? If so, then I want nothing to do with getting rid of it. If not, then I don't know what you are talking about.

I am not evil for liking a State like that. Someday, I hope to buy 40 acres and set-up a little mini farm with a home, barn, a few livestock, pets, and big garden for fun and food. I am not a sociopath for wanting that. 

I am a defender of my property and rights. Other than that I do my best to be a non-violent person.




> Ron Paul can also speak for himself.  Ron Paul openly admits taxation is theft, unlike you who tells people that you think they should grow up when they make such a claim.
> 
> *C'mon Ron Paul, Travlyr thinks you should Grow Up!*
> 
> Ron Paul is a voluntarist who always chooses liberty, who believes that voluntary interaction is ALWAYS the best way to go.


They do it to me too Dr. Paul. They make statements that I said something I didn't say, they place labels on me that I do not place on myself. It is frustrating.

No Congressman Paul, I do not think you should grow up. I am so proud to have met you and delighted that you held that liberty candle in that socialist dark room for so long. Thank you for sharing the light of liberty. Soon we will reach critical mass.

Like you I understand that taxes taken coercively is theft. Like you Dr. Paul I do not cry about it or focus on it because I understand that you have bigger fish to fry. I know that you are a voluntary guy. I know you are not running for President of the United States of America to rule over the masses. Most of us get that you want to re-establish the rule of law by limiting lawmakers to the bounds of the Constitution. First things first ... we must keep the cart behind the horse. We can win this ... Thank You Ron Paul for everything you have done for us.




> "Land Deed Data Base" company.


I'm done with the debate part. I favor a State as I've defined it in this thread because I hope to own a small farm some day.

Your it might be this way or it might be that way company works great philosophically. It fails in the real world because it doesn't exist. What is the name of your company, "Land Deed Data Base, LLC"? What benefit does your company offer? Not your maybe it would be company... your already established company. Otherwise I'm keeping my land deed for public data at the county clerk and recorder's office. I am not paying for no service and I'm not moving my property deed until you OFFER me a better service for less cost.

It has been fun fellows. Let Ron Paul speak for himself. Labeling others is not fair or accurate... it is dishonest.

----------


## Wesker1982

> For me, the State of Michigan is a state, and the dictionary is where I get my word definitions. Anarchy is:


What do you think Ron Paul thinks the State is?

Rothbard taught me to *always keep the distinction between peaceful market activity and State coercion* in my mind. It served as a constant guide once I was in office. - Ron Paul

----------


## Travlyr

> What do you think Ron Paul thinks the State is?
> 
> Rothbard taught me to *always keep the distinction between peaceful market activity and State coercion* in my mind. It served as a constant guide once I was in office. - Ron Paul


A taxing district?

I thank Ron Paul for working so diligently for so long within the system. He has taken brutal personal attacks, had his words twisted, and his ideas bastardized by both well intentioned and malicious people. Ron Paul's integrity is honorable.

----------


## Wesker1982

And he has explicitly said that taxation is theft.

----------


## Travlyr

> And he has explicitly said that taxation is theft.


Right, and thankfully he has worked within the system. There is a lesson there.

----------


## Wesker1982

> Your it might be this way or it might be that way company works great philosophically.


And historically. You must not have known that property law has efficiently existed voluntarily quite a few times throughout history. 




> Not your maybe it would be company... your already established company.


My established company will do it the same way, except it will be cheaper and more efficient due to the inherent efficiency of the voluntary market. Why will my company do it the same way? Because that is what the consumers (You) want!

----------


## Travlyr

> And historically. You must not have known that property law has efficiently existed voluntarily quite a few times throughout history.


Not in my lifetime. I like the State of Montana just fine. You don't... that's okay with me. There is no need to hate me for wanting to own 40 acres under the authority of a State. 



> My established company will do it the same way, except it will be cheaper and more efficient due to the inherent efficiency of the voluntary market. Why will my company do it the same way? Because that is what the consumers (You) want!


Great. When you get your company set up, PM me. I love competition.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Not in my lifetime. I like the State of Montana just fine. You don't... that's okay with me. There is no need to hate me for wanting to own 40 acres under the authority of a State.
> 
> Great. When you get your company set up, PM me. I love competition.


I don't think any of us hate you, Travlyr.  At least I don't.  I personally think you've closed your mind to the possibility of what we're advocating.  I agree wholeheartedly with Dr. Paul when he said, _"To bring about radical and permanent change in any society, our primary focus must be on the conversion of minds through education."_  (Once again, h/t Wesker).  I'm fully aware that this philosophy that I espouse is extremely unlikely to come to fruition in my or my childrens' lifetime... perhaps ever.  Yet I recognize the objective truth of it.  I wish I could describe it to you in terms you could understand and embrace, because I am so passionate about this fundamental, observable truth and I truly, deeply believe that humanity would benefit immensely if we could get enough people to recognize it.  We abhor violence in all it's manifestations, and believe that individuals should be free to associate with whomever they wish.  The state - objectively defined as that entity which enjoys a monopoly of force within a given geographic region - does not allow this in any area it deems it's sole pervue.  This is fundamentally unjust, because of the objective truth of the sovereignty of the individual - morally, how can some group of individuals form an association and determine that all individuals within some particular area may not engage in non-violent commerce with each other on agreed-upon terms?  This is fundamentally unjust.  So, even allowing for the state on the very minimal terms you've suggested STILL creates this moral paradox wherein some group of individuals dictate the terms of interaction to everyone else.  

So, Wesker will never get the opportunity to contact you regarding his deed-holding company, because the state will not allow him to establish it.  

I do not consider you to be "an intellectually dishonest illiterate statist sociopath clown that needs destroyed because I don't understand your definitions of State and Anarchy."  It's true that, in the course of debate, passions arise.  I apologize if I've given you the impression that I think this of you.  Like you, I get frustrated when it seems as though, despite my best and most thorough efforts, I fail to convince you of my argument.  I often find myself thinking that these conversations always go better for both sides in person, over a pint.    At least in that circumstance, when we disagree we can still toast each other!   

So, in sum, I recognize to an extent the futility of my position.  Yet I stand my ground, on principle.  I can even recognize the utilitarian argument for the state, and even sympathize with it.  Yet philosophically I cannot help but point out the logical inconsistency of it, again on principle.  My effort is directed toward exposing/educating people of the objective truth of the soveriegnty of the individual, and the logical consequences thereof, and sometimes that can be a frustrating proposition.

Cheers.

----------


## Wesker1982

> There is no need to hate me for wanting to own 40 acres under the authority of a State.


I don't hate you for wanting titles to legitimate property recognized, but I do hate any institution which accomplishes this task through the initiation of violence. It is a false dichotomy to say that if I don't want a violent monopoly to provide X, that I do not want X provided at all. 

Why do you oppose a method that is basically the same (surveying land, making titles public, etc.), the only difference being that the service is not delivered through the initiation of violence and is open to competition? 




> Great. When you get your company set up, PM me. I love competition.


Then you should join us in our goal of voluntarizing this service. Note that what you said here advocates the privatization of what you are apparently against privatizing...

----------


## Conza88

> I do not intend to tell you what I have read or not read. It is none of your business. You, Clay, ProIndividual, and A Son of Liberty have made it painfully obvious that I am just an intellectually dishonest illiterate statist sociopath clown that needs destroyed because I don't understand your definitions of State and Anarchy.


*Admit it*, you have read nothing substantial _[beyond wikipedia and yet I doubt even that]_ about self-government, anarcho-capitalism, voluntarism, private law society etc.

You continue to dodge the question, it's a pretty simple one mate. And yes, you continue to show yourself an intellectual dishonest ____.




> For me, the State of Michigan is a state, and the dictionary is where I get my word definitions. Anarchy is: an·ar·chy
> _noun \ˈa-nər-kē, -ˌnär-\
> Definition of ANARCHY
> 1
> a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
> 2
> a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature  Israel Shenker>_
> 
> For you anarchy is something wonderful. Problem is that I am not going to be asking you for the meanings of words because the dictionary is much easier to use. And I am not going to wait around for you to tell me. Since you don't use meanings of words from the dictionary, then I generally have no idea what you are talking about anyway. And I do not wish to read more books on the subject that interests you because I have more fun stuff to do that interests me. You read it and share if you choose. I'll run my own life and do as I please.


See how retarded this is - *you throw labels at us*, the hypocrisy is out-friggin-standing... you're a walking parody! You do not first ask what is meant by a word... because you don't care to have an intelligent discussion, that much is obvious. All you want to do is rant against the strawman you draw up - too feel good in your fantasy world of make believe.

What you have described and continue to mindlessly repeat ad neuseum (for your own sake, not others) is that I support your definition of "anarchy". Epic fail as usual. That is not what I support. I support self-government. What I consider the legitimate use of anarchy - means "no rulers", THAT does NOT mean "no rules".

Demented fools do not understand that, so I choose other words to use and associate with as rhetoric plays a role in discussion. The fact you continue to throw this label around shows your dishonesty.

If you want to continue to adopt that as your definition - by all means, but know I don't support what you think it is I support, nor that when I choose to defend the concept - I'm defend freedom, not your bs notion of it.



> For you the State may, or may not, be a constitutional republic surveyed bounded and recorded for public display so that everybody can determine who owns which property and the size of it. Like the State of Illinois for example. Bounded by the Mississippi, Ohio, and Wabash Rivers and closed with imaginary lines drawn from the Mississippi River on the North and Wabash River on the East toward Lake Michigan. The State of Illinois has 102 counties with sheriffs, district attorney, county clerks, county boards, etc. Are we on the same page with the definition of the state? If so, then I want nothing to do with getting rid of it. If not, then I don't know what you are talking about.


Do you not understand the difference between nation and nation-state? Don't worry about an answer - it's bloody obvious you don't.



> I am not evil for liking a State like that. Someday, I hope to buy 40 acres and set-up a little mini farm with a home, barn, a few livestock, pets, and big garden for fun and food. I am not a sociopath for wanting that. 
> 
> I am a defender of my property and rights. Other than that I do my best to be a non-violent person.


Nope, not the definition of the state. You're missing the whole monopoly on coercion and taxation / threat of aggression and violent force part... KIND OF THE WHOLE POINT.

Waste of time bro. The only reason you haven't gone on ignore yet, is because it's hilarious pointing out your intellectual dishonesty. Haven't got the guts to admit the truth - to yourself above of all people.

You know nothing about which you deny. You have a closed mind. For shame - hardly a Ron Paul supporter worthy of the name.

----------


## Conza88

*"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation."*  ~ Herbert Spencer.

_*COUGH*_

----------


## newbitech

voluntarism, anarchism (any form)




http://www.lyricsfreak.com/j/john+ca..._20073082.html

*John Cale Dying On The Vine Lyrics*




> I've been chasing ghosts and I don't like it 
> I wish someone would show me where to draw the line 
> I'd lay down my sword if you would take it 
> And tell everyone back home I'm doing fine 
> 
> I was with you down in acapulco 
> Trading clothing for some wine 
> Smelling like an old adobe woman 
> Or a william burroughs playing for lost time 
> ...

----------


## Conza88

Rothbard talking about Ron Paul.  1:01:29+

----------


## Jake Ralston

> Rothbard talking about Ron Paul


Yea. A lot of people have talked about Ron Paul. Big deal.

----------


## Conza88

> Yea. A lot of people have talked about Ron Paul. Big deal.


Correct. It's just that when people like LE, Trav, and yourself... have real trouble understanding how someone can be a voluntarist / self-government / anarcho-capitalism / private law society supporter; and still support Ron Paul's political campaign... this video becomes a bigger deal.

Oh btw, awesome sig ! So gooooood lol. Whatever you do, don't change it.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Correct. It's just that when people like LE, Trav, and yourself... have real trouble understanding how someone can be a voluntarist / self-government / anarcho-capitalism / private law society supporter; and still support Ron Paul's political campaign... this video becomes a bigger deal.
> 
> Oh btw, awesome sig ! So gooooood lol. Whatever you do, don't change it.


Oh, I have always understood why anarchists like Ron Paul.  My question is how *YOU*  can claim you support Ron Paul, when you do your damnedest to destroy his campaign for President by calling him an anarchist and repeatedly saying he is not trying to win.

If Ron Paul keeps gaining traction and other campaigns and/or the media finds this stuff by you claiming over and over that Ron Paul is an anarchist and uses it against him, I would imagine that it is really going to suck to be you.

----------


## Conza88

> Oh, I have always understood why anarchists like Ron Paul.  My question is how *YOU*  can claim you support Ron Paul, when you do your damnedest to destroy his campaign for President by calling him an anarchist and repeatedly saying he is not trying to win.


How are you defining "anarchist"? Where have I called him an "anarchist" recently? I've done the exact opposite. I don't even know why I bother responding to your trolling.




> If Ron Paul keeps gaining traction and other campaigns and/or the media finds this stuff by you claiming over and over that Ron Paul is an anarchist and uses it against him, I would imagine that it is really going to suck to be you.


Strawman, but I think this picture of a parrot is much better. Keep spamming LE. No-one takes your lies seriously. But then I understand you don't care what others think; only what you do. It's not for them that you are doing it; but for yourself. It must feel pretty bad when you end up arguing against Ron Paul's own words, when he comes down on my side of the argument - not yours.

----------


## Wesker1982

> Rothbard talking about Ron Paul.  1:01:29+


Thanks for posting

----------


## josh b

> Rothbard talking about Ron Paul.  1:01:29+


I forgot Ron Paul was mentioned in this.  Rothbard called it early that Ron was the type not to compromise his principles.

----------


## ProIndividual

> Voluntary means no coercion. So if you want to change people's habits or change the world you should do it by setting examples and trying to persuade people to do it. You can use force only when somebody uses force against you. So voluntary use of information and persuading people, I think, is the best way to go; and no matter what kind of problem you're looking at.


Wow, I thought I was going to vote for small govt Statist. I stand corrected...Ron is a minarchist in the sense minarchy denotes voluntary government, not coerive govt.

Ron Paul 2012!

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Voluntary means no coercion. So if you want to change people's habits or change the world you should do it by setting examples and trying to persuade people to do it. You can use force only when somebody uses force against you. So voluntary use of information and persuading people, I think, is the best way to go; and no matter what kind of problem you're looking at.
> 			
> 		
> 
> Wow, I thought I was going to vote for small govt Statist. I stand corrected...Ron is a minarchist in the sense minarchy denotes voluntary government, not coerive govt.
> 
> Ron Paul 2012!


:thumbs:

Great quote!

----------


## LibertyEagle

> How are you defining "anarchist"? Where have I called him an "anarchist" recently? I've done the exact opposite. I don't even know why I bother responding to your trolling.


That is just one of the many times, Conza.  There are numerous instances in these threads of yours smearing Ron Paul where you have grouped voluntarism, voluntaryism, self-government and anarchy all into one big lump and called them the same thing.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3385307

Your behavior of lying is getting quite tiresome.  You have no intellectual honesty, whatsoever. 




> Strawman, but I think this picture of a parrot is much better. Keep spamming LE. No-one takes your lies seriously. But then I understand you don't care what others think; only what you do. It's not for them that you are doing it; but for yourself. It must feel pretty bad when you end up arguing against Ron Paul's own words, when he comes down on my side of the argument - not yours.


It wasn't a lie, Conza.  It was a statement of fact.  I will repeat it for you again.

*If Ron Paul keeps gaining traction and other campaigns and/or the media finds this stuff by you claiming over and over that Ron Paul is an anarchist and uses it against him, I would imagine that it is really going to suck to be you.*

----------


## A Son of Liberty

Again - they do not have to come here to do that.

Sheesh.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Again - they do not have to come here to do that.
> 
> Sheesh.


That is not a rebuttal or excuse for it being done HERE.

----------


## Conza88

> That is just one of the many times, Conza.  There are numerous instances in these threads of yours smearing Ron Paul where you have grouped voluntarism, voluntaryism, self-government and anarchy all into one big lump and called them the same thing.
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3385307
> 
> Your behavior of lying is getting quite tiresome.  You have no intellectual honesty, whatsoever.


Your claim: that I have directly called Ron Paul an "anarchist" recently. I asked how you define the word, you don't answer. You then link the above as "proof" and "evidence". 

Where in your link do I say what you say I do. Where do I directly call him an anarchist? [meaning chaos?] WHERE?! IT DOESN'T EXIST. 

You, are, full, of, it. You are the liar. You are intellectually dishonest. Standard fare LE, standard fare. Act your age please.




> It wasn't a lie, Conza.  It was a statement of fact.  I will repeat it for you again.


You just did. Lie. Back up your claim, which you just openly failed to do. Your link backs up my claim. Dodge, dismiss, joke.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> That is not a rebuttal or excuse for it being done HERE.


I does bring into question the relevance of the hyperventilation over it, however.  

Think we might have a bit of an inflated sense of self-importance?

----------


## ProIndividual

All -archists (min- or an-) please read this post:

I got banned from chat for NO reason after being attacked for a half hour for statements like "MOST (not all) politicians are liars"

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...an-)-read-this

----------


## Conza88

> All -archists (min- or an-) please read this post:
> 
> I got banned from chat for NO reason after being attacked for a half hour for statements like "MOST (not all) politicians are liars"
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...an-)-read-this


Well that certainly sucks. Ugh.

----------


## Wesker1982

Ron Paul: _We endorse the idea of voluntarism_, self-responsibility, family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person.

----------


## CCTelander

> Ron Paul: _We endorse the idea of voluntarism_, self-responsibility, family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person.



I've always loved that clip!

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Ron Paul: _We endorse the idea of voluntarism_, self-responsibility, family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person.


I've seen that episode of Morton Downey jr at least 3 times and never once noticed him using the word voluntarism.  No idea how I overlooked that, but that is awesome. 

More supporting evidence for the idea that Ron Paul regularly wears a gold and black tie for a very specific reason.

----------


## CCTelander

> I've seen that episode of Morton Downey jr at least 3 times and never once noticed him using the word voluntarism.  No idea how I overlooked that, but that is awesome. 
> 
> More supporting evidence for the idea that Ron Paul regularly wears a gold and black tie for a very specific reason.



There you go again pointing out facts that are uncomfortable for some to confront!

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I does bring into question the relevance of the hyperventilation over it, however.  
> 
> Think we might have a bit of an inflated sense of self-importance?


No, just a desire to see Ron Paul become President of the United States and a long history of Conza's agenda.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Your claim: that I have directly called Ron Paul an "anarchist" recently. I asked how you define the word, you don't answer. You then link the above as "proof" and "evidence". 
> 
> Where in your link do I say what you say I do. Where do I directly call him an anarchist? [meaning chaos?] WHERE?! IT DOESN'T EXIST. 
> 
> You, are, full, of, it. You are the liar. You are intellectually dishonest. Standard fare LE, standard fare. Act your age please.
> 
> 
> 
> You just did. Lie. Back up your claim, which you just openly failed to do. Your link backs up my claim. Dodge, dismiss, joke.


How many times do I have to do that, Conza?  Go find the last time you asked me to do that and I posted some of them for you.  lol

Why do you do this, Conza?  It just makes you look foolish.

----------


## Wesker1982

"I like *voluntarism*. That's what a free society is supposed to be all about." - Ron Paul




1:16

----------


## Conza88

Hahaha , yes!

----------


## Conza88

> How many times do I have to do that, Conza?  Go find the last time you asked me to do that and I posted some of them for you.  lol
> 
> Why do you do this, Conza?  It just makes you look foolish.


You failed LE. You didn't backup your baseless assertion. You made a claim, and haven't backed it up.

Where is my apology?

It makes you look intellectually dishonest (which you are), which has been shown countless times. Thanks for re-iterating your inability to be open minded, making you a lesser amongst others here.

Why do I do what LE? You're the one you made a fallacious claim, you not being able to back it up... doesn't look poorly upon me, it reflects poorly upon you.

----------


## newbitech

> Hahaha , yes!





> You know, the one thing I think brings so many of us together, and what’s been happening these last couple of years, has been the idea of having change. As a matter of fact, somebody won an election with using that slogan of change. But there’s a change that we want that we haven’t gotten yet. And I think that’s what we’re here to talk about. What kind of change do we really want? And what can we agree on so that we’re not talking about different things? And *to me it’s very important that we understand what conservatism means*. To me, to be a conservative means to conserve the good parts of America and to *conserve our Constitution*.


Want more?

I am sure for every recent link you can cheer about Ron Paul supporting an idea that you want to twist to mean something other than what Ron Paul means, I can respond with at least 2 maybe 5 and possibly 10 links about Ron Paul supporting his own idea with out any twisting necessary. 

You are an anarchist, even though you like to claim you made some kind of logical transition to anarchy and thank Ron Paul for leading you there.  That may be true, but I can assure you that Ron Paul's idea is not to make everyone an anarchist.  

No matter how you twist it, your goal here on this forum since you started posting was to use Ron Paul popularity and fresh approach to modern day liberty as pool to fish in for potential anarchist converts.  

It's ok though, soon the R3volution will have runs its course and be transformed in to something else.  You will be able to fall back on to whatever was successful for you before the explosion of freedom debate and popularity.  IN the mean time, those of us who have really heard the message will continue to develop our personal philosophies with Ron Paul and his actions and choices as our guide.

----------


## Conza88

So the second most intellectually dishonest person on these boards, arrives. Sweet.

You'd rather me spread the message of "anarchy" to 4,000 Ron Paul supporters... than you simply provide the actual link to the thread you are quoting me about in your sig. No intellectual honesty there. So telling champ.




> Want more?


*“In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written.”* ~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

Want *more*?

How about I respost the video of Ron Paul saying compared to the US Constitution; he'd instead prefer voluntarism, i.e a non-return to the US Constitution.. i.e real liberty.




> No matter how you twist it, your goal here on this forum since you started posting was to use Ron Paul popularity and fresh approach to modern day liberty as pool to fish in for potential anarchist converts.


Go check out my earliest posts, I was a 'limited government' supporter, I parroted his conclusions,... I didn't understand how he got there. You're full of #)%$) as per usual newbitech, go on... keep making stuff up .   




> It's ok though, soon the R3volution will have runs its course and be transformed in to something else.  You will be able to fall back on to whatever was successful for you before the explosion of freedom debate and popularity.  IN the mean time, those of us who have really heard the message will continue to develop our personal philosophies with Ron Paul and his actions and choices as our guide.


Blah, blah, blah... I've done more for the campaign of liberty 10,000 miles away than you have from 10. Good one, keep running your mouth .

Actions > words .

----------


## Becker

> “In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written.” ~ Ron Paul, End the Fed



good quote.

Replace the word Constitution with any concept, doctrine, principle in absence of force, and you have the same result. (as long as they are written, of course)

----------


## Conza88

So.... in the chat room:

I responded to an individual who was saying "to donate more, more, more..."

That it might be an idea to better donate your time to a liberty worthy cause, than simply ads.

CaseyJones considered that "discouraging political activism". 

Which is completely dillusional.

I responded that I was encouraging it, but in a more productive fashion. And that I'm not against political activism, and that he should go read Hans-Hermann Hoppe's "What Must Be Done".

I was then banned.

Intellectual honesty?

----------


## Conza88

dp.

----------


## newbitech

> So the second most intellectually dishonest person on these boards, arrives. Sweet.
> 
> You'd rather me spread the message of "anarchy" to 4,000 Ron Paul supporters... than you simply provide the actual link to the thread you are quoting me about in your sig. No intellectual honesty there. So telling champ.
> 
> 
> 
> *“In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written.”* ~ Ron Paul, End the Fed
> 
> Want *more*?
> ...


Nice trotting out the same stuff Conza.  Get some new material.  Please.  There is a wealth of information, books, video's etc that you can view for free on the internet that will explain to you the history of the United States of America.

Ron Paul wants to uphold the Constitution.  Plain and simple.  Why can't you admit that without some qualifying statement?  Does it bother you so much that the United States of America has a founding document that it's freedom and liberty minded people want to uphold?

Apparently so.  From 10,000 miles away, you play around with your computer making videos to try and attract attention to yourself by using Ron Paul's name.  You won't try to refute that evidence because it is evidence you willingly give away.  Here you are again practically begging me to put a link to your video in my signature.

No.  The quote in my signature is in context, and stands alone without a link.  Why?  Because you reference it and do not deny you said it, you simply ask for a link back to the video, thus fulfilling my claim backed by the text you quoted.

Of course you will lie and pretend like your self serving nature is really about trying to help Ron Paul spread his message and get elected.  But all you do is point people to videos from what you said.  Great man good for you.  I actually live with these people that are converting to get behind Ron Paul.  We actually live out the principles in our daily lives, and will do so long after you have reaped all the benefits of the connection between Ron Paul, the internet, and your delusions of grandeur.  

Conza, please, make the next evolutionary step in your philosophical ambitions and start living the principles in your back yard.  Report back when you have taken that first step.  Thanks!

----------


## Conza88

> Nice trotting out the same stuff Conza.  Get some new material.  Please.


Mate, you've never addressed the material. And just dodged it again. There is no need for_ new_ material, when the_ 'old'_ is perfectly fine in making the point.




> There is a wealth of information, books, video's etc that you can view for free on the internet that will explain to you the history of the United States of America.
> 
> Ron Paul wants to uphold the Constitution.  Plain and simple.  Why can't you admit that without some qualifying statement?


What area of US History do you consider me ignorant in, aye? Would you like to back up your assertion that I somehow don't understand US History... which a specific case example?

"Ron Paul wants to uphold the Constitution". That's great, and so do I *'COMPARED TO'* what we have now. This isn't a 'qualifying statement', it is a statement that is implicitly made with every statement. When you say you value honesty, that means nothing... unless there is the implicit (COMPARED TO lies / falsehoods). 

I support liberty, i.e and that government and state intervention is economically and socially destructive. I thus support the US constitution; compared to what we have now. And if we ever get there, I'd support the articles of confederation... COMPARED to 'what we have now'... and on it goes to a truly free voluntarist society.





> Does it bother you so much that the United States of America has a founding document that it's freedom and liberty minded people want to uphold?
> 
> Apparently so.  From 10,000 miles away, you play around with your computer making videos to try and attract attention to yourself by using Ron Paul's name.  You won't try to refute that evidence because it is evidence you willingly give away.   Here you are again practically begging me to put a link to your video in my signature.


I don't try attract attention to myself at all. YOU GUYS are the ones who INCESSANTLY and CONSTANTLY harp on about me as a person and my character, you're the ones who keep trying to put the spotlight on me. my whole channel is geared towards RP you clown, go put the link to it in your signature then.




> No.  The quote in my signature is in context, and stands alone without a link.  Why?  Because you reference it and do not deny you said it, you simply ask for a link back to the video, thus fulfilling my claim backed by the text you quoted.


The quote isn't in context at all. That's all I ask for, I stand by what I said, sure. You don't want to link people to it, because then the real context will be revealed.. and it destroys your case. Intellectual honesty - you have none.

SURELY if you thought you had a case; directly linking to it - would SUPPORT IT. But you've DONE THE OPPOSITE.

True colors are showing NB, uhhh ohhh .





> Of course you will lie and pretend like your self serving nature is really about trying to help Ron Paul spread his message and get elected.  But all you do is point people to videos from what you said.  Great man good for you.  I actually live with these people that are converting to get behind Ron Paul.  We actually live out the principles in our daily lives, and will do so long after you have reaped all the benefits of the connection between Ron Paul, the internet, and your delusions of grandeur.  
> 
> Conza, please, make the next evolutionary step in your philosophical ambitions and start living the principles in your back yard.  Report back when you have taken that first step.  Thanks!


More ranting bs about my character, keep on running your mouth with nothing but baseless assertions and made up tripe. 

I am living my principles in my backyard. I do what I do for RP, on TOP of what I do here. Your ignorance, isn't an argument. Nor do I need to prove myself at the alter of NB. There are folks on here who do know about the projects I have underway.. 

And yet... NB, I've still done more from 10,000 miles away than you have. You didn't actually offer a refutation of that. Pretty telling

----------


## Travlyr

> Mate, you've never addressed the material. And just dodged it again. There is no need for_ new_ material, when the_ 'old'_ is perfectly fine in making the point.
> 
> 
> 
> What area of US History do you consider me ignorant in, aye? Would you like to back up your assertion that I somehow don't understand US History... which a specific case example?
> 
> "Ron Paul wants to uphold the Constitution". That's great, and so do I *'COMPARED TO'* what we have now. This isn't a 'qualifying statement', it is a statement that is implicitly made with every statement. When you say you value honesty, that means nothing... unless there is the implicit (COMPARED TO lies / falsehoods). 
> 
> I support liberty, i.e and that government and state intervention is economically and socially destructive. I thus support the US constitution; compared to what we have now. And if we ever get there, I'd support the articles of confederation... COMPARED to 'what we have now'... and on it goes to a truly free voluntarist society.
> ...


Do us all a favor Conza... define Anarcho-Capitalism for us. Please.

----------


## newbitech

> Mate, you've never addressed the material. And just dodged it again. There is no need for_ new_ material, when the_ 'old'_ is perfectly fine in making the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by ME
> 
> ...


No comment

----------


## Conza88

> No comment


The irony of which, is a comment . Implicit short translation: you have no credible defense to offer, since your position to start with was untenable. 

Wise move not to press on further.




> Do us all a favor Conza... define Anarcho-Capitalism for us. Please.


. Ok, but first does that mean to imply you have conceded there is no legitimate argument for the state? (Since you've as such failed to provide one).

I defined the state quite clearly in another thread.

Anarcho-capitalism is a label for a political philosophy. The same thoughts, principles etc. can be labeled in different ways, but mean the same thing. Private Law society, Natural Order, Voluntarism, Self-Government, Libertarianism etc. 

It relies on self-ownership, and thus original appropriation. Definition? Do I really need to go on to spell it out, did you miss the OP? 

*ADAM KOKESH:* So you've described yourself as a voluntarist. Can you tell us what that means for the big picture, and what your ideal society would be, as a voluntarist?

*RON PAUL:* *Voluntary means no coercion.* So if you want to change people's habits or change the world you should do it by setting examples and trying to persuade people to do it. *You can use force only when somebody uses force against you.* So voluntary use of information and persuading people, I think, is the best way to go; and *no matter what kind of problem you're looking at.*

----------


## Becker

> The irony of which, is a comment . Implicit short translation: you have no credible defense to offer, since your position to start with was untenable.


so every post you fail to respond to me, would be just that. thanks for the admission. (oh wait, you don't hold yourself to the same standards)

----------


## Becker

> So.... in the chat room:
> 
> I responded to an individual who was saying "to donate more, more, more..."
> 
> That it might be an idea to better donate your time to a liberty worthy cause, than simply ads.


such as what? Conza's youtube channel? Liberty Australia?

----------


## Conza88

> so every post you fail to respond to me, would be just that. thanks for the admission. (oh wait, you don't hold yourself to the same standards)


You're on my ignore list.




> good quote.
> 
> Replace the word Constitution with any concept, doctrine, principle in absence of force, and you have the same result. (as long as they are written, of course)


Yep, totally agree.

The free market is a process. 

Glad we cleared that up. 




> such as what? Conza's youtube channel? Liberty Australia?


I was referring to: *What Must Be Done*, Hoppe.

"But what then? Everything else falls almost automatically from the ultimate goal, which must be kept permanently in mind, in all of one's activities: the restoration from the bottom-up of private property and the right to property protection; the right to self-defense, to exclude or include, and to freedom of contract. And the answer can be broken down into two parts.

First, what to do within these very small districts, where a pro-private property candidate and anti-majoritarian personality can win. And second, how to deal with the higher levels of government, and especially with the central federal government. First, as an initial step, and I'm referring now to what should be done on the local level, the first central plank of one's platform should be: one must attempt to restrict the right to vote on local taxes, in particular on property taxes and regulations, to property and real estate owners. Only property owners must be permitted to vote, and their vote is not equal, but in accordance with the value of the equity owned, and the amount of taxes paid. That is, similar to what Lew Rockwell already explained has happened in some places in California." - What Must Be Done, HHH

----------


## Becker

> You're on my ignore list.


to quote you :
_Implicit short translation: you have no credible defense to offer, since your position to start with was untenable._




> Yep, totally agree.
> 
> The free market is a process. 
> 
> Glad we cleared that up.


you admit the market is neither perfect nor useful without force?

----------


## Conza88

> to quote you :
> _Implicit short translation: you have no credible defense to offer, since your position to start with was untenable._


He literally quoted the whole post, and said "no comment".

Lulz, get off the drugs mate.. just because you have a right to consume, doesn't mean you should. It's affecting your comprehension skills.




> you admit the market is neither perfect nor useful without force?


The market doesn't have a goal; it is not an entity, it is a process. Hence it is incomprehensible to apply the concept of 'failure' to it. 

Do you know what a free market is? No? Didn't think so.

Do you understand that... Force/coercion ≠ aggression. No? Didn't think so.

Well that's great, I'm done wasting my time with you. I've got more productive things to do.

Back on ignore list. Won't be responding to your bs any longer unless someone requests it.

----------


## Becker

> He literally quoted the whole post, and said "no comment".
> 
> Lulz, get off the drugs mate.. just because you have a right to consume, doesn't mean you should. It's affecting your comprehension skills.


ad hominem much?




> The market doesn't have a goal; it is not an entity, it is a process.


do you have a goal? Are you for the market even if you knew the results were undesirable? or are you going to tell me there is no such thing as undesirable if its through market?




> Hence it is incomprehensible to apply the concept of 'failure' to it.


you can have failure if you know what your goal is. Such as wealth, or poverty. 




> Do you know what a free market is? No? Didn't think so.


I know it doesn't currently exist. 




> Do you understand that... Force/coercion ≠ aggression. No? Didn't think so.


I actually don't. Please explain to me how they are different. 




> Well that's great, I'm done wasting my time with you. I've got more productive things to do.
> 
> Back on ignore list. Won't be responding to your bs any longer unless someone requests it.


Implicit short translation: you have no credible defense to offer, since your position to start with was untenable.

----------


## Wesker1982

I am a little drunk drinking some Southern Comfort, I was skimming the intro to _Liberty Defined_ and came across: 

To believe in liberty is not to believe in any particular social and economic outcome. _It is to trust the spontaneous order that emerges when the state does not intervene in human volition and human cooperation_. It permits people to work out their problems for themselves, build lives for themselves, take risks and accept responsibility for the results, and make their own decisions. - _Liberty Defined_, XII

^^^^^^^ VOLUNTARYISM.

----------


## newbitech

> He literally quoted the whole post, and said "no comment".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by ME
> 
> ...


no comment

----------


## newbitech

> I am a little drunk drinking some Southern Comfort, I was skimming the intro to _Liberty Defined_ and came across: 
> 
> To believe in liberty is not to believe in any particular social and economic outcome. _It is to trust the spontaneous order that emerges when the state does not intervene in human volition and human cooperation_. It permits people to work out their problems for themselves, build lives for themselves, take risks and accept responsibility for the results, and make their own decisions. - _Liberty Defined_, XII
> 
> ^^^^^^^ VOLUNTARYISM.


Yeah, I thought that was neat, except I am not sure I trust the "spontaneous" part.  I think the sentence right before that make a more important point that kind of sets up the expectations for what to, or not to trust.  That is, not to believe in a particular social and economic outcome.  For instance, Voluntaryism.  

I could easily replace "the state" with words like "strangers", "trolls", "minorities", "democrats", "republicans", "politicians", "gays", "wives", "neighbors", "dogs", "pie" and it has the same meaning for me.  

See I got to thinking about the spontaneity, it's not so much that any of these things including "the state" actually submerge spontaneity, or order for that matter.  What I have come to understand is that the only person who can provide order in my life is me.  This is regardless of any type of submersion spontaneous or organized that may occur.

In other words.  As long as I am free to spontaneous act as an individual, and here is the key, WITH NO FEAR, then I am truly free.  It really doesn't matter what  "strangers", "trolls", "minorities", "democrats", "republicans", "politicians", "gays", "wives", "pie" etc etc does to me or how "the state" may try to cause organized disorder, or spontaneous disorder, or whatever, in my life.

I will continue to act and be as free and as spontaneous an individual I can be until I am free of the physical constraints of my particular self.  The key is to act without fear.  

I believe that whether Dr. Paul gets elected or not, you will hear him talk more and more about dealing with personal fears.  He will soon be getting in to the more metaphysical aspects of life one way or the other.  It is my sincere belief that if he truly does want to win the Republican elections and fulfill his pledge to his supporters of being in it to win it, he will need to start talking more about "fear".  In particular, he needs to talk about America overcoming the fear of being taken over by a religion other than Christianity.  And the fear of a nuke attack.  These are the two main fears that people have, and why his foreign policy gets so much disrespect.

He needs to help America and American's confront these fears that have been lingering for far far too long.  This is what a leader will accomplish.  This is Ron Paul's destiny, whether he leads "the state" or destroys it.

----------


## Conza88

> no comment


Good bump, thanks.

----------


## newbitech

> Good bump, thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by ME
> 
> Pleading ignorance old buddy old pal?  No shame in that.  Participating in a r3volution requires enlightenment from time to time.  Have to start somewhere


no comment

----------


## Conza88

> no comment


Thanks mate, the more people that see this thread the better. Cheers for the help.

----------


## Becker

> Thanks mate, the more people that see this thread the better. Cheers for the help.


agreed, more people read and laugh at your stupidity, the better.

----------


## Wesker1982

I also found this last night:




> If the government is granted a monopoly on the use of force to achieve these goals, history shows that that power is always abused. Every single time. _Liberty Defined_, XV



So unless he wants power to be abused, this is an endorsement for non-monopolistic law.

----------


## Conza88

> I also found this last night:
> 
> 
> So unless he wants power to be abused, this is an endorsement for non-monopolistic law.


LOL. Keep them coming

----------


## Cabal

What's going on in here? >.>

----------


## Conza88

Hans-Hermann Hoppe has been a friend of Ron's for 25 years.

----------


## Conza88

"I never had much interest in politics. My interest is in policy, economics and foreign policy. I was looking for a forum to ventilate and politics has allowed me to do that. I never thought anyone would listen. *My goal was not to be in politics or be elected but to present a case for what I thought was important.* My wife warned me that it was dangerous because I could end up getting elected. I told her that would never happen! She was right. I came to Congress, but on my terms." ~ Ron Paul.

http://mises.org/books/chose_liberty_block.pdf

LE, you were saying?

----------


## Conza88

dp

----------


## Becker

> "I never had much interest in politics. My interest is in policy, economics and foreign policy. I was looking for a forum to ventilate and politics has allowed me to do that. I never thought anyone would listen. *My goal was not to be in politics or be elected but to present a case for what I thought was important.* My wife warned me that it was dangerous because I could end up getting elected. I told her that would never happen! She was right. I came to Congress, but on my terms." ~ Ron Paul.
> 
> http://mises.org/books/chose_liberty_block.pdf
> 
> LE, you were saying?


Ron Paul admits he was wrong? And he refused to quit when he got something he didn't want or feared?

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

Ron Paul—Voluntaryist
Posted by David Kramer on December 5, 2011 07:51 PM

Ron Paul responds to socialist Elizabeth Warren's quote that has been making its rounds on the internet. By the way, Paul sounds like a typical voluntaryist in this clip. Perhaps when he retires next year, he will then be able to come out of the voluntaryist "closet" and become a leading spokesman for that political viewpoint. Since he already has millions of followers, promoting real freedom would be a more productive use of his time (in my voluntaryist opinion) than the 24 years he spent with all of those puppets of the Banksters in Congress. (Then again, it's only because of the 24 years he suffered with the enemy that he was eventually able to become a big enough public figure to influence so many people in the past few years.)




http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...es/100006.html

----------


## Travlyr

> By the way, Paul sounds like a typical voluntaryist in this clip. Perhaps when he retires next year, he will then be able to come out of the voluntaryist "closet" and become a leading spokesman for that political viewpoint. Since he already has millions of followers, promoting real freedom would be a more productive use of his time (in my voluntaryist opinion) than the 24 years he spent with all of those puppets of the Banksters in Congress. (Then again, it's only because of the 24 years he suffered with the enemy that he was eventually able to become a big enough public figure to influence so many people in the past few years.)


Ron Paul is out of the voluntaryist "closet." That is what he has written about, talked about, debated on, and lived most of his life. All people need to do is read what he writes, listen to his words, hear his responses in debates, and observe how he lives his life. He is not hiding anything.

Society has an either/or choice in the world in order to live a happy meaningful purposeful life. 
A few of the choices are:
Honesty or DishonestyTruth or LiePeace or AggressionWealthy or PoorLiberty or TyrannyRule of law or LawlessnessCapitalist or Socialist
Ron Paul - _The Champion of the Constitution_ writes and says that obeying the rule of law will offer a relatively healthy, wealthy, peaceful, free, and voluntary society in this abundant world which we live. He says it all the time.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

Being a libertarian means being a Voluntaryist. I think it's silly when people claim that Ron Paul is not a voluntaryist. I don't know how much more obvious it can get, it's just people need to understand that he isn't in the Rothbard camp of pressing the button immediately. In an ideal Ron Paul world it would be a free-society (ergo Voluntaryist Society (of your choosing, whether Market or non-Market). The only common thread would be respect for, and understanding of property rights, which are the only rights that exist (Yes, even Marxists / Communists, can respect property rights.... (Check out American 19th Century history if you think in a free-society you can't have socialists and libertarians living side by side in harmony). You own yourself, therefore you own what you produce, buy, and trade. Very simple.

----------


## Conza88

Massive Lolz to LE...

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *Being a libertarian means being a Voluntaryist.* I think it's silly when people claim that Ron Paul is not a voluntaryist. I don't know how much more obvious it can get, it's just people need to understand that he isn't in the Rothbard camp of pressing the button immediately. In an ideal Ron Paul world it would be a free-society (ergo Voluntaryist Society (of your choosing, whether Market or non-Market). The only common thread would be respect for, and understanding of property rights, which are the only rights that exist (Yes, even Marxists / Communists, can respect property rights.... (Check out American 19th Century history if you think in a free-society you can't have socialists and libertarians living side by side in harmony). You own yourself, therefore you own what you produce, buy, and trade. Very simple.


David Nolan would disagree (as do I).  Assuming you mean the common understanding of voluntaryism as practically synonymous with anarcho-capitalism, of course.

----------


## Cabal

> David Nolan would disagree (as do I).  Assuming you mean the common understanding of voluntaryism as practically synonymous with anarcho-capitalism, of course.


Voluntaryism is just taking core libertarian moral theory and philosophy to it's logically consistent conclusion. So AED is fairly correct logically speaking; unfortunately many who identify themselves as Libertarian are utilitarian/consequentialists at best, rather than moralists/ethicists, and thus many seem to disregard the core of libertarian philosophy in favor of minarchist statism. Some adhere to the core philosophy of libertarianism while not advocating the Rothbardian perspective, instead proposing a path of gradualism; and this is understandable, but the minarchy types who don't care for logically consistent moral theory don't really identify as such--I suspect Ron Paul may very well fall into the gradualism category, for better or worse.

----------


## newbitech

> Massive Lolz to LE...


Ron Paul might not want to be going around comparing his rivals to these types of people...




> The Tinkerer has a genius intellect, with extensive knowledge in a  wide variety of scientific disciplines. He has a high degree of  expertise in the design and manufacture of inventive weapons and devices  derived from pre-existing technologies. The Tinkerer has invented a  wide variety of scientific and technological devices, and often has  access to these devices as needed. The Tinkerer's advanced age limits  his physical abilities, and he possesses no superhuman abilities.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Voluntaryism is just taking core libertarian moral theory and philosophy to it's logically consistent conclusion. So AED is fairly correct logically speaking; unfortunately many who identify themselves as Libertarian are utilitarian/consequentialists at best, rather than moralists/ethicists, and thus many seem to disregard the core of libertarian philosophy in favor of minarchist statism. Some adhere to the core philosophy of libertarianism while not advocating the Rothbardian perspective, instead proposing a path of gradualism; and this is understandable, but the minarchy types who don't care for logically consistent moral theory don't really identify as such--*I suspect Ron Paul may very well fall into the gradualism category, for better or worse.*


That is more consistent with what RP has written and spoken, so I'm inclined to agree.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> David Nolan would disagree (as do I).  Assuming you mean the common understanding of voluntaryism as practically synonymous with anarcho-capitalism, of course.


Disagree all you want, but you can't advocate liberty and thievery and subjugation at the same time. They are mutually exclusive set of principles and ideals. Libertarian has always meant some form of voluntaryism whether it be socialist/communist in Europe or market/individualist in America. Libertarian theory predisposes the maximization of human liberty, which ergo, means no State, no taxes, no initiation of force or aggression as permissable. Libertarianism is antithetical to statism. You can call yourself a Minarchist, or limited-Statist (Night-watchman advocate), but you do not advocate the maximization of human liberty which is libertarianism if you support any amount of Statism. 

Voluntaryism does not necessarily imply anarcho-capitalism, merely the rejection of, and determination against Statism in any form, and instead advocation for the complete voluntary society of the individuals choosing. Some say anarchy without adjective, some say Voluntaryist, others say Autarchist, the point is that each individual is autonomous, free, and sovereign and no human has the authority, moral imperative or otherwise to subjugate another individual unto their will & authority without consent free from coercion or duress. 

*That is Ron's goal & is mine. It is always highly amusing when I run into a so-called 'libertarian' and run them straight into their hypocritical views and reasoning. At least it gets some thinking. Is it wrong to steal? Yes, they say. So, since you have no right or authority to steal, you therefore have no right to give this authority to someone else or some other organization or institution to do so in your place? No, you do not. So, you advocate the elimination of all taxes? No. /WTFSLITWRIST*

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *Disagree all you want, but you can't advocate liberty and thievery and subjugation at the same time*. They are mutually exclusive set of principles and ideals. Libertarian has always meant some form of voluntaryism whether it be socialist/communist in Europe or market/individualist in America. Libertarian theory predisposes the maximization of human liberty, which ergo, means no State, no taxes, no initiation of force or aggression as permissable. Libertarianism is antithetical to statism. You can call yourself a Minarchist, or limited-Statist (Night-watchman advocate), but you do not advocate the maximization of human liberty which is libertarianism if you support any amount of Statism. 
> 
> Voluntaryism does not necessarily imply anarcho-capitalism, merely the rejection of, and determination against Statism in any form, and instead advocation for the complete voluntary society of the individuals choosing. Some say anarchy without adjective, some say Voluntaryist, others say Autarchist, the point is that each individual is autonomous, free, and sovereign and no human has the authority, moral imperative or otherwise to subjugate another individual unto their will & authority without consent free from coercion or duress. 
> 
> *That is Ron's goal & is mine. It is always highly amusing when I run into a so-called 'libertarian' and run them straight into their hypocritical views and reasoning. At least it gets some thinking. Is it wrong to steal? Yes, they say. So, since you have no right or authority to steal, you therefore have no right to give this authority to someone else or some other organization or institution to do so in your place? No, you do not. So, you advocate the elimination of all taxes? No. /WTFSLITWRIST*


Absolutely.  I didn't mean to come off as arguing for an all-powerful State or anything close.  The ideal at this point in time is Misesian micro-secession and libertarian gradualism.  As more and more people disengage from the parasitic State, it will whither and die.  Thanks for the more detailed info about Voluntaryism.  I've read conflicting descriptions about it.  Your post is overall excellent.  2 thumbs up!

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Is it wrong to steal? Yes, they say. So, since you have no right or authority to steal, you therefore have no right to give this authority to someone else or some other organization or institution to do so in your place? No, you do not. So, you advocate the elimination of all taxes? No. /WTFSLITWRIST[/B]


Here's the response I got when I used that same logic recently on another board:




> Meh. Individuals make up societies, which create governments, which ideally act in the best interests of those societies. Governments are funded by taxes which provide roads, schools, police forces, etc. - things which keep life from being solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. The idea that taxation is theft is a faulty premise, IMO.

----------


## Cabal

> Here's the response I got when I used that same logic recently on another board:


Sounds like thoughtless rationalization and complacency as a result of public school indoctrination to me.

Taking by force someone's time, energy, and property is theft by definition. What it supposedly provides is irrelevant to the fact. If these things taxes pay for are necessary and valued--if there is adequate demand--they can and would emerge from the market, and they would be voluntary. This is to mention nothing of how much better these goods/services would also be as a result.

If governments are comprised of nothing but individuals reflecting the will of society; then what is their purpose? If it is individuals acting in accord with one another to satisfy demands of a society at large, then it follows such things will result with or without government.

And to my knowledge, with the possible recent exception of Iceland which is still in the works AFAIK; the masses have never come together for the purpose of elevating the rich few to positions of monopolistic power which would be wielded over them. And even if this did take place in theory, it doesn't justify or validate imposing the government, laws, and debt of one generation on future generations.

From the ground up it is purely immoral and therefore illegitimate. To the State people are mere cattle with which to leverage debt upon as it wages war against any potential threat to its ever-expanding tyranny.

----------


## teacherone

> Here's the response I got when I used that same logic recently on another board:


that's their favorite answer because they conflate services rendered to a tax payer with money taken from the taxpayer to give to another.

these are fundamentally two different actions and the latter is quite obviously stealing. if you take money from someone in order to give to another and provide no good or service to the originator of the taxes you have robbed him.

case closed.

----------


## Wesker1982

> Here's the response I got when I used that same logic recently on another board:


_These statist arguments can be refuted by a combination of three fundamental insights: First, as for the kindergarten argument, it does not follow from the fact that the state provides roads and schools that only the state can provide such goods. People have little difficulty recognizing that this is a fallacy. From the fact that monkeys can ride bikes it does not follow that only monkeys can ride bikes. And second, immediately following, it must be recalled that the state is an institution that can legislate and tax; and hence, that state agents have little incentive to produce efficiently. State roads and schools will only be more costly and their quality lower. For there is always a tendency for state agents to use up as many resources as possible doing whatever they do but actually work as little as possible doing it.

Third, as for the more sophisticated statist argument, it involves the same fallacy encountered already at the kindergarten level. For even if one were to grant the rest of the argument, it is still a fallacy to conclude from the fact that states provide public goods that only states can do so._- HHH 




I am breaking up a Tom Woods video right now, one of the parts debunks this myth: "things which keep life from being solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." The myth that if it wasn't for the government, we would all be working for pennies a day, etc. The _exact opposite_ is the truth, of course.

----------


## V3n

Rorschach test.  See what you want to see.  Even with the new titile, I still tire at seeing this thread come up.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Rorschach test.  See what you want to see.  Even with the new titile, I still tire at seeing this thread come up.


Then why bother posting?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Massive Lolz to LE...


What exactly do you believe you proved with that video?   Was what he said news to you or something?

----------


## Conza88

> What exactly do you believe you proved with that video?   Was what he said news to you or something?


Nothing new, just came across it again. He's backing up the reasons I've previously said were the drive of his desire to run his campaign, _i.e spread the message of liberty_... and it's not to get elected, for getting elected's sake.

Thanks for the _neg rep_ you gave way back, it book marked *the post you took issue with*. And *this*.

You're the one who then had a temper tantrum about it, and took major issue with it in other threads where it was posted. Funny, you must have forgotten all that. Want me to jog your memory?

_But lets hear from someone who would be in the know. A close family member. According to Ron Paul's niece -> "He's running just to make a point"._ 



2min+

Nothing at all particularly controversial... as you appear to now concede. Back then, you got extremely miffed.. (want me to go track down the exact threads?) No? Ok, great you finally "got on board" and deny your past zealous fanaticism.

----------


## V3n

> Then why bother posting?


Capt. Morgan.

----------


## Delivered4000

I've just read all 40 pages of this thread.

Ron Paul is obviously a voluntaryist (the only moral system). The clips in this thread only re-assured me. I now admire\appreciate him even more. 

He's a voluntaryist, but he knows that you can't go out and say you want everything to be voluntary. Most people cannot fathom that just yet. They live in a statist paradigm.  I guess you could call it gradualism, but he knew the best way to do it, and the most effective, was the approach he was doing. 

That being said, his 2007-2008 campaign has exploded the ideas of liberty beyond the 'event horizon' so to speak, i.e. to the velocity at which it can escape the paradigmatic gravitational field

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I've just read all 40 pages of this thread.
> 
> Ron Paul is obviously a voluntaryist (the only moral system). The clips in this thread only re-assured me. I now admire\appreciate him even more. 
> 
> He's a voluntaryist, but he knows that you can't go out and say you want everything to be voluntary. Most people cannot fathom that just yet. They live in a statist paradigm.  I guess you could call it gradualism, but he knew the best way to do it, and the most effective, was the approach he was doing. 
> 
> That being said, his 2007-2008 campaign has exploded the ideas of liberty beyond the 'event horizon' so to speak, i.e. to the velocity at which it can escape the paradigmatic gravitational field

----------


## Conza88

> I've just read all 40 pages of this thread.
> 
> Ron Paul is obviously a voluntaryist (the only moral system). The clips in this thread only re-assured me. I now admire\appreciate him even more. 
> 
> He's a voluntaryist, but he knows that you can't go out and say you want everything to be voluntary. Most people cannot fathom that just yet. They live in a statist paradigm.  I guess you could call it gradualism, but he knew the best way to do it, and the most effective, was the approach he was doing. 
> 
> That being said, his 2007-2008 campaign has exploded the ideas of liberty beyond the 'event horizon' so to speak, i.e. to the velocity at which it can escape the paradigmatic gravitational field


Hehe . Quality .

Just to clarify/nitpick ; The Case for Radical Idealism - Rothbard, I'd take issue with the term 'gradualism'. He's a radical, and an abolitionist. Abolish, IRS, CIA, FBI, Dept. of Education, Dept. of Commerce, Bring troops home end the wars, Etc. etc. etc.


“… In the name of practicality, the opportunist not only loses any chance of advancing others toward the ultimate goal, but he himself gradually loses sight of that goal—as happens with any “sellout” of principle. Thus, suppose that one is writing about taxation. It is not incumbent on the libertarian to always proclaim his full “anarchist” position in whatever he writes; but it is incumbent upon him in no way to praise taxation or condone it; *he should simply leave this perhaps glaring vacuum*, and wait for the eager reader to begin to question and perhaps come to you for further enlightenment. But if the libertarian says, “Of course, some taxes must be levied,” or something of the sort, he has betrayed the cause.” - Rothbard’s 1961 Confidential Memo to Volker Fund

But yes, you can't abolish the FED over night... he keeps the end goal HIGH and MIGHTY (END THE FED), but there are transition programs.. audit etc. and case for a gold dollar which Rothbard himself helped deduce.

----------


## Wesker1982

All government is, is force.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> All government is, is force.


Such a beautiful answer. He's had some real gems lately, in the Huckabee forum and in this last debate.

----------


## low preference guy

> All government is, is force.


yeah, and force is good in many situations, like when recovering stolen property.

----------


## Wesker1982

> yeah, and force is good in many situations, like when recovering stolen property.


Agreed. 

But it is important to point out that everything the government does is backed by a gun. People don't make the connection that violence is behind Obamacare or any other government program. The government will have less support when people understand what Ron Paul said in that clip.

----------


## Conza88

*
Rothbard on Ron Paul.
*

----------


## Wesker1982

4:11

No question that Adam agrees with this thread. 

Edit: Not as if he didn't point this out before lol

----------


## Conza88

> *
> Rothbard on Ron Paul.
> *


Rothbard: "Ron's a *pure libertarian*, who is not going to waffle or sell out".

----------


## Conza88

LE, what do you think of this?

http://www.wzzm13.com/news/article/1...-for-President

1.45+

Which confirms _exactly_ what I said earlier in this thread.. Shh.... lol...

----------


## Conza88

Bump for the ignorant 'witch hunters'...

Ron Paul's a witch  !

----------


## Wesker1982

WTF Conza? Did I miss this somewhere ITT?

Question: Youre frequently an advocate for the Constitution.  What are your thoughts of the Lysander Spooner statement: But whether the Constitution really be one thing or another, this much is certain: that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it.  In either case, it is unfit to exist.

Ron Paul: Ill tell you what: *I dont criticize Lysander*.  *His point is very well taken, and someday maybe we will mature to that point.*  His claim was that if he himself didnt agree to the Constitution, why should somebody in a remote body agree to the Constitution and he be pushed under it?  *It is a good idea*, but under todays circumstances, I have to work with the best that we have.  Because who knows, I might have been an anti-Federalist at the time the Constitution was being written.  But fortunately we ended up with a good Constitution, and our problem is more that we dont obey the good parts about it.  I think its a very interesting philosophic issue, and *I hope that someday we mature enough to have that argument*.

11 minutes 10 seconds into this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhugbnLi4Ps

His position is *totally undeniable*. He is a Voluntaryist. Anyone who denies this with the information provided in this thread is delusional.

----------


## low preference guy

> WTF Conza? Did I miss this somewhere ITT?
> 
> Question: “You’re frequently an advocate for the Constitution.  What are your thoughts of the Lysander Spooner statement: “But whether the Constitution really be one thing or another, this much is certain: that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it.  In either case, it is unfit to exist.”
> 
> Ron Paul: “I’ll tell you what: *I don’t criticize Lysander*.  *His point is very well taken, and someday maybe we will mature to that point.*  His claim was that if he himself didn’t agree to the Constitution, why should somebody in a remote body agree to the Constitution and he be pushed under it?  *It is a good idea*, but under today’s circumstances, I have to work with the best that we have.  Because who knows, I might have been an anti-Federalist at the time the Constitution was being written.  But fortunately we ended up with a good Constitution, and our problem is more that we don’t obey the good parts about it.  I think it’s a very interesting philosophic issue, and *I hope that someday we mature enough to have that argument*.”
> 
> 11 minutes 10 seconds into this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhugbnLi4Ps
> 
> His position is *totally undeniable*. He is a Voluntaryist. Anyone who denies this with the information provided in this thread is delusional.


Are you equating being an Anti-Federalist who doesn't believe in the idiocy of social contracts with being a Voluntaryist?

----------


## nayjevin

> His position is *totally undeniable*. He is a Voluntaryist. Anyone who denies this with the information provided in this thread is delusional.


Really?  I personally hold out some space for the possibility that I'm wrong about voluntaryism.  To me it sounded like he recognizes that argument as one that is fruitful only among a widely educated public, and mostly free society.

I see the scale from voluntaryism to constitutionalism as the range where the correct answer definitely exists.  I don't hold 100% sure that I know the exact point of truth, but I do have my opinion.

I read Ron's statement as essentially, 'if the people have the mature argument within that range, they will figure out the best way - regardless of my opinion of where that point is.'  No one can be 100% sure of theory right?

----------


## Cabal

> No one can be 100% sure of theory right?


I think we can be 100% sure that the State is an institution of violence and coercion, regardless of what constitution it may or may not be charged to follow.

----------


## nayjevin

> I think we can be 100% sure that the State is an institution of violence and coercion, regardless of what constitution it may or may not be charged to follow.


Would you say private professional repo men and private court/rehabilitation systems are institutions of violence and coercion?

----------


## Cabal

> Would you say private professional repo men and private court/rehabilitation systems are institutions of violence and coercion?


Not by default, no. It would depend on how they function and operate, ultimately.

----------


## nayjevin

Then would it be effective to push for individual sovereignty / secession from the Constitution?  Make the Constitution, paying taxes and protection of rights, voluntary?

----------


## Conza88

> WTF Conza? Did I miss this somewhere ITT?
> 
> Question: Youre frequently an advocate for the Constitution.  What are your thoughts of the Lysander Spooner statement: But whether the Constitution really be one thing or another, this much is certain: that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it.  In either case, it is unfit to exist.
> 
> Ron Paul: Ill tell you what: *I dont criticize Lysander*.  *His point is very well taken, and someday maybe we will mature to that point.*  His claim was that if he himself didnt agree to the Constitution, why should somebody in a remote body agree to the Constitution and he be pushed under it?  *It is a good idea*, but under todays circumstances, I have to work with the best that we have.  Because who knows, I might have been an anti-Federalist at the time the Constitution was being written.  But fortunately we ended up with a good Constitution, and our problem is more that we dont obey the good parts about it.  I think its a very interesting philosophic issue, and *I hope that someday we mature enough to have that argument*.
> 
> 11 minutes 10 seconds into this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhugbnLi4Ps
> 
> His position is *totally undeniable*. He is a Voluntaryist. Anyone who denies this with the information provided in this thread is delusional.


. I remember seeing that ages ago, reflecting on the text again is great. Awesome . The confirmation continues....

----------


## Cabal

> Then would it be effective to push for individual sovereignty / secession from the Constitution?  Make the Constitution, paying taxes and protection of rights, voluntary?


I don't really know what the best path forward is or ought to be; who can really determine such things? 

I think the constitution is already largely neglected or loosely interpreted to suit the agenda of the State as it is; and I feel that I'm also wise enough now to know that the State will never allow itself to be bound by any constitution for very long. There are many who believe the constitution is the way to go, but I'm not such a huge fan of the constitution, personally.

I don't think secession is really a viable option--Lincoln pretty much put the final nail in that coffin at the expense of 600,000 lives.

And not paying taxes will just get you thrown into a cage.

I think one of the best things we can do as individuals is live our lives with the principles and philosophy of liberty in mind, and reject the State wherever possible, and pass those values and ideals down to our children. The less dependent we are on the State the more apparently unnecessary it becomes. I honestly don't believe change will occur from the top down. Nevertheless, I'm here to support RP because at least in the meantime we may mitigate against the suffering the State causes as much as possible; but I don't think even he will be able to ultimately 'fix' or supplant the State in its current form--at best I suspect he may be able to slow its cancerous spread for a time, but that isn't likely to last for long, and that's assuming 'they' even allow him into the WH.

----------


## Conza88

> That video didn't convince you? Watch this clip from a few days ago, at 40:00.  He "slipped up" in his seattle speech 
> 
> "If you had a *perfectly ideal world*, and you had liberty passed back to the individual, it would be *self-government*". 
> 
> Not sure where a state comes into play in a society of "self-government".  Self-government is synonymous with voluntaryism / anarcho-capitalism.

----------


## Conza88

Can someone explain why Ron Paul lists *For a New Liberty* and *Lets Abolish Government* and *Democracy: The God that Failed* at the end of chapters too... in his latest book Liberty Defined?

How can that be... if he's not a voluntarist? Since they are all books that promote self-government

----------


## nayjevin

> Can someone explain why Ron Paul lists *For a New Liberty* and *Lets Abolish Government* and *Democracy: The God that Failed* at the end of chapters too... in his latest book Liberty Defined?
> 
> How can that be... if he's not a voluntarist? Since they are all books that promote self-government


I suggest folks read Chomsky.  What conclusion would you draw from that?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Can someone explain why Ron Paul lists *For a New Liberty* and *Lets Abolish Government* and *Democracy: The God that Failed* at the end of chapters too... in his latest book Liberty Defined?
> 
> How can that be... if he's not a voluntarist? Since they are all books that promote self-government


Could be because they contain useful information relevant to the subject matter.  Epistemology.  RP is an ideas guy.  I count MC Escher, Picaso, and Matisse among my many influences, but they were not graphic designers as I am.  RP also likes Ayn Rand but isn't part of the Ayn Rand Cult.  We should ask Ron himself, wouldn't you agree?

----------


## low preference guy

> Could be because they contain useful information relevant to the subject matter.  Epistemology.  RP is an ideas guy.  I count MC Escher, Picaso, and Matisse among my many influences, but they were not graphic designers as I am.  RP also likes Ayn Rand but isn't part of the Ayn Rand Cult.  We should ask Ron himself, wouldn't you agree?


Are you part of the Rothbard cult?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Are you part of the Rothbard cult?


Nope.  I like a lot of his stuff, though.  I like Rand's stuff, too.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Rothbard: "Ron's a *pure libertarian*, who is not going to waffle or sell out".


Indeed he is.  But by Voluntaryist standards, he is not.  How do you explain away RP's support of the Constitution?  By its nature, it is incompatible with Voluntaryism.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Indeed he is.  But by Voluntaryist standards, he is not.  How do you explain away RP's support of the Constitution?  By its nature, it is incompatible with Voluntaryism.


He did swear an oath of office to uphold and defend the constitution. He also supports seeking alternatives to the constitution as we can see through his support of studying Spooner's arguments.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *He did swear an oath of office to uphold and defend the constitution.* He also supports seeking alternatives to the constitution as we can see through his support of studying Spooner's arguments.


Yes, but you can do that and not support it, especially to use the office as a teaching platform (it's common for congressmen to ignore their oath, as you know).

----------


## newbitech

he's just not a voluntaryist or voluntarist.  

Whatever nuanced definition you want to use, he is an advocate of the political process.  That doesn't mean he doesn't share the same goals.  

If he were a voluntarist, he wouldn't try to get people to conform to the law involuntarily by seeking the nomination and eventually become president through the electoral process.  People are voting against his ideas, yet he persist in the race because he thinks he can win and have people involuntarily support his candidacy through the use of force.

If he ere a voluntaryist, he wouldn't participate in the political process at all.  

He might like those ideas and methods, but he is not advocating them or implementing them in his life.  I don't have a problem with that, because what he does advocate is and the methods he does utilize will lead to a path of limiting government to it's proper role.  At some point along that path, we will have self-government and at that point, Ron Paul may decide to become one of those.  He also might become something completely different.  Who knows.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Yes, but you can do that and not support it, especially to use the office as a teaching platform (it's common for congressmen to ignore their oath, as you know).


I'm pretty sure Ron takes his word as seriously as possible, (not to mention it's a device he can use to expose government expansion. It's supposed to be the supreme law of the land after all.)

----------


## Wesker1982

> Indeed he is.  But by Voluntaryist standards, he is not.  How do you explain away RP's support of the Constitution?  By its nature, it is incompatible with Voluntaryism.


I support the Constitution compared to what we have now too. Are you going to tell me I am not a Voluntaryist?

And Ron says... 

"I dont criticize Lysander. His point is very well taken, and someday maybe we will mature to that point."
 "It is a good idea, *but* under todays circumstances, I have to work with the best that we have."

He supports the Constitution vs what we have now, and Voluntaryism compared to the Constitution.

----------


## Wesker1982

"It would be self government, as long as we accept one principle... *we don't force people to live the way we want to live*." - Ron Paul

Self-governance is Voluntaryism.... and obviously so is the bold. 

40 min mark... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmy6g...layer_embedded

----------


## newbitech

> I support the Constitution compared to what we have now too. Are you going to tell me I am not a Voluntaryist?
> 
> And Ron says... 
> 
> "I don’t criticize Lysander. His point is very well taken, and someday maybe we will mature to that point."
>  "It is a good idea, *but* under today’s circumstances, I have to work with the best that we have."
> 
> He supports the Constitution vs what we have now, and Voluntaryism compared to the Constitution.


compared to what we have now?  

So Voluntaryism/ism/yist/ist do not:
 advocate non-political strategies to achieve a free society
reject electoral politics
seek to delegitimize "the States" aura of moral legitimacy
withdraw cooperation and cooperation and tacit consent on which "State" power depends

So what exactly is a Voluntaryism/ism/yist/ist if the purpose is not what is stated and linked by other Voluntaryism/ism/yist/ist over at the voluntaryist.com website?

I support Ron Paul because of his unwavering integrity in upholding the Constitution, adhering to his oath, and his ideas of freedom and liberty.  

If I accept Voluntaryism, I'd need to reject the laws that give Ron Paul his authority.  I cannot on one hand support someone because of their integrity and on the other hand ignore my own integrity by giving tacit consent and cooperation to "the state".

I am not sure how Ron Paul would keep his integrity either if it does turn out to be that is what he believes. 

Compared to what we have now?  That is no excuse for not being honest about who we are.

----------


## newbitech

> "It would be self government, as long as we accept one principle... *we don't force people to live the way we want to live*." - Ron Paul
> 
> Self-governance is Voluntaryism.... and obviously so is the bold. 
> 
> 40 min mark... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmy6g...layer_embedded


No it's not.  Self-government is also allowing enclaves of some form of "statism" to exist.  Self government comes from within, not from without.  I understand the attempt to link Voluntaryism to not forcing people to live a certain way.  The only condition for self government appears to be not forcing others to conform to our way of life if they resist.  That is possible in every culture and does not require other conditions be lumped upon it.  Voluntaryism goes beyond that one principle, so it is not equal to self government.

Same can be said of the Constitutional form of government that Ron Paul does advocate.  

If you want to associate yourself to self-government all you need to do is come up with a word that describes "not forcing people to live like me"

I'd say invent a new word, because there is so much baggage with all the other words people are trying to latch on to.  throw and ist or ism on the end of it and you are golden.

----------


## Wesker1982

From wiki: 




> Voluntaryism is the philosophy which holds that all forms of human association should be voluntary. One of the moral principles frequently used to support this philosophy is the non-aggression principle, which prohibits the initiation of aggression or coercion.


Supporting less aggression (the Constitution) is consistent with that. If the U.S. followed the Constitution strictly, there would be *much* less initiated aggression. So in that regard, I support the Constitution. If I could vote Voluntaryism vs the Constitution, I would vote Voluntaryism. 

In regards to voting, if you can vote for less aggression, I do not think this contradicts Voluntaryism. If you were on a slave farm and could vote for less beatings, I would not consider voting against the beatings to be consent.

----------


## Wesker1982

> If you want to associate yourself to self-government all you need to do is come up with a word that describes "*not forcing people to live like me*"


Um yeah, that is called Voluntaryism. I do not know what you are talking about.

----------


## newbitech

> From wiki: 
> 
> 
> 
> Supporting less aggression (the Constitution) is consistent with that. If the U.S. followed the Constitution strictly, there would be *much* less initiated aggression. So in that regard, I support the Constitution. If I could vote Voluntaryism vs the Constitution, I would vote Voluntaryism. 
> 
> In regards to voting, if you can vote for less aggression, I do not think this contradicts Voluntaryism. If you were on a slave farm and could vote for less beatings, I would not consider voting against the beatings to be consent.


do you ever check the sources of your quotes?  in your wiki quote this is the source.  http://www.voluntaryist.com/forthcoming/historyofvoluntaryism.html

If you go to the home page of that site.  you find this..




> *Statement of Purpose: Voluntaryists are advocates of non-political, non-violent strategies to achieve a free society. We reject electoral politics, in theory and in practice, as incompatible with libertarian principles. Governments must cloak their actions in an aura of moral legitimacy in order to sustain their power, and political methods invariably strengthen that legitimacy. Voluntaryists seek instead to delegitimize the State through education, and we advocate withdrawal of the cooperation and tacit consent on which State power ultimately depends.*


tell me, if that is the purpose of voluntaryism, how can you make the claim that Ron Paul is a voluntaryist by linking his words of "not forcing other people to live like us" to a wiki article that describes voluntary interaction to a source that describes voluntaryism as having a purpose that Ron Paul's words and actions do not conform to?

This is circular and it fails.

----------


## BuddyRey

The idea that one cannot be a Voluntaryist *and* a participant in the political process simply isn't true.  Even Rothbard said it's ok to use any non-violent means to advance liberty, including voting and running for office.

Just because one is principled does not mean one cannot take a Gradualist approach.  Realistically, it's already hard enough just trying to get people to embrace middle-of-the-road libertarianism.  Convincing them of the wholesale immorality and inexpediency of the state is going to be so much harder.

Look at what the Fabian Socialists accomplished, through stealth and gradualism.  Of course, if they had their immediate druthers back when they first formed, The West would have been their perfect Marxist "utopia" long ago.  But they knew people would reject socialism if it was foisted on them all at once.  But slowly, by inching degrees, they infiltrated the very power centers of society and slowly unfurled their schemes for the world, while never blinking an eye or admitting what they were doing.

I know we like to hold ourselves to higher moral standards than this.  We like to be scrupulously honest with people about the problems in our country and the solutions libertarianism presents.  But in that earnest desire to be upfront with people, many of us are ceding crucial miles of tactical advantage to the enemy.

To sum up, you don't have to feel bad about being an "Anarcho-Gradualist", even if it requires you to be a bit sneaky.  Just look at what Ron Paul has accomplished by doing so.

----------


## Cabal

Rothbard supported political action and the involvement in the electoral process; yet he was a die-hard anti-statist who would just as soon push a button to obliterate the State if one existed. Rothbard is also praised by RP as one of his mentors. 

The subject of political action and the electoral process has never been unanimous within the ranks of anarchists, anarcho-capitalists, or voluntaryists. Adam K. is also a self-described voluntaryist who is very heavily involved in the electoral process and political action.

Moreover, the idea that one website has the authority to determine what does or does not qualify as voluntaryism is rather ironic.

Is RP a voluntaryist? I don't know. I don't see how it really matters one way or another. Labels schmabels. What is important are the principles he ascribes to, not what -ism people want to associate him with.

I'm a registered republican; have been for the entirety of my voting-life. Doesn't mean anything.

----------


## Wesker1982

> do you ever check the sources of your quotes?  in your wiki quote this is the source.


Yes. 




> http://www.voluntaryist.com/forthcoming/historyofvoluntaryism.html
> 
> If you go to the home page of that site.  you find this..


I have read that and mostly agree, but I think they are wrong about voting being incompatible with libertarian principles. As long as you are voting to reduce the initiation of violence, then I do not view this as violating the non-aggression principle.

To say voting makes you non-libertarian would be to say Thomas Woods, Murray Rothbard, Lysander Spooner, Walter Block, Mary Ruwart,.... are all not libertarians. 

I 100% agree with "the philosophy which holds that all forms of human association should be voluntary. One of the moral principles frequently used to support this philosophy is the non-aggression principle, which prohibits the initiation of aggression or coercion." Which I believe is enough to consider myself and Ron Paul a Voluntaryist. I do not view that voting to reduce aggression violates those principles.

Edit: In short, voting _per se_ does not violate the actual principles of Voluntaryism. The voting vs non-voting debate is over a disagreement about strategy rather than principle. I.e. you can disagree with strategy while sharing the same principles.

----------


## nayjevin

> I do not view that voting to reduce aggression violates those principles.
> 
> Edit: In short, voting _per se_ does not violate the actual principles of Voluntaryism. The voting vs non-voting debate is over a disagreement about strategy rather than principle. I.e. you can disagree with strategy while sharing the same principles.


I agree.  Voting against a new tax is not aggression by any standard.  Voting for a man who represents repealing laws, repealing taxes, and returning power toward the individual in all decisions is not aggression.  I know of one man like this...  Ron Paul!

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Ron Paul believes that human interaction should be voluntary.  He believes that, ideally and ultimately, we should not have an institution which attempts to boss people around and steal their resources.  He has said as much multiple times.

Whatever you want to call that philosophy, that is what I also believe.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Yes. 
> 
> 
> 
> I have read that and mostly agree, but I think they are wrong about voting being incompatible with libertarian principles. As long as you are voting to reduce the initiation of violence, then I do not view this as violating the non-aggression principle.
> 
> To say voting makes you non-libertarian would be to say Thomas Woods, Murray Rothbard, Lysander Spooner, Walter Block, Mary Ruwart,.... are all not libertarians. 
> 
> I 100% agree with "the philosophy which holds that all forms of human association should be voluntary. One of the moral principles frequently used to support this philosophy is the non-aggression principle, which prohibits the initiation of aggression or coercion." Which I believe is enough to consider myself and Ron Paul a Voluntaryist. I do not view that voting to reduce aggression violates those principles.
> ...


Just for what it's worth, Robert Wenzel had a convo with Ron last May, and Rothbard came up. Here's what Ron said:




> When we were riding over to the Washoe County Republican Party breakfast, somehow the topic of people dying their hair green came up and almost simultaneously a comment about San Francisco. Being as politically incorrect as ever, I managed to combine the two comments by saying, "The problem with San Francisco is that there are too many people walking around with green hair." Dr. Paul immediately responded to this in a small scolding. "Now, as long as people aren't interfering in the lives of others, it shouldn't be a problem what color their hair is," he said to me, immediately.
> 
> Again in the car, this time heading to the airport, I asked him what he said to those who were hardcore Rothbardians and didn't vote. He said that Rothbard loved politics and was always involved. He mentioned that Rothbard always followed his career and even at one time endorsed Pat Buchanan for president. He then added, "But Rothbard probably didn't vote himself."

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> It has often been maintained, and especially by conservatives, that the development of the horrendous modern weapons of mass murder (nuclear weapons, rockets, germ warfare, etc.) is only a difference of degree rather than kind from the simpler weapons of an earlier era. Of course, one answer to this is that when the degree is the number of human lives, the difference is a very big one.4 But another answer that the libertarian is particularly equipped to give is that while the bow and arrow and even the rifle can be pinpointed, if the will be there, against actual criminals, modern nuclear weapons cannot. Here is a crucial difference in kind. Of course, the bow and arrow could be used for aggressive purposes, but it could also be pinpointed to use only against aggressors. Nuclear weapons, even "conventional" aerial bombs, cannot be. These weapons are ipso facto engines of indiscriminate mass destruction. (The only exception would be the extremely rare case where a mass of people who were all criminals inhabited a vast geographical area.) We must, therefore, conclude that the use of nuclear or similar weapons, or the threat thereof, is a sin and a crime against humanity for which there can be no justification.
> 
> This is why the old cliché no longer holds that it is not the arms but the will to use them that is significant in judging matters of war and peace. For it is precisely the characteristic of modern weapons that they cannot be used selectively, cannot be used in a libertarian manner. Therefore, their very existence must be condemned, and nuclear disarmament becomes a good to be pursued for its own sake. And if we will indeed use our strategic intelligence, we will see that such disarmament is not only a good, but the highest political good that we can pursue in the modern world. For just as murder is a more heinous crime against another man than larceny, so mass murder – indeed murder so widespread as to threaten human civilization and human survival itself – is the worst crime that any man could possibly commit. And that crime is now imminent. And the forestalling of massive annihilation is far more important, in truth, than the demunicipalization of garbage disposal, as worthwhile as that may be. Or are libertarians going to wax properly indignant about price control or the income tax, and yet shrug their shoulders at or even positively advocate the ultimate crime of mass murder?
> 
> If nuclear warfare is totally illegitimate even for individuals defending themselves against criminal assault, how much more so is nuclear or even "conventional" warfare between States!


http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard26.html




> I don't want them to have a weapon. I don't even like nuclear weapons. I don't even like conventional weaponry, either.

----------


## Conza88

> Could be because they contain useful information relevant to the subject matter.  Epistemology.  RP is an ideas guy.  I count MC Escher, Picaso, and Matisse among my many influences, but they were not graphic designers as I am.  RP also likes Ayn Rand but isn't part of the Ayn Rand Cult.  We should ask Ron himself, wouldn't you agree?





> I suggest folks read Chomsky.  What conclusion would you draw from that?


Were you _best friends_ and *"PROFOUNDLY INFLUENCED"* by him? _[Ron Paul's exact stated in text words_] We're talking Rothbard here.

Right, yeah... useful information in a book called *"LET'S ABOLISH GOVERNMENT"* geee guys I wonder what 'useful information' Ron wants us to know?  He's linking Lysander Spooner... surely he wants us to know about how awesome the US Constitution and social contract is! Seriously lmao 

Hans-Hermann Hoppe has known and been a friend of RP for 25 years as well. 







> Indeed he is.  But by Voluntaryist standards, he is not.  How do you explain away RP's support of the Constitution?  By its nature, it is incompatible with Voluntaryism.


I cannot believe I have to have this conversation. NO. BY voluntarist standards *HE IS*. This has been explained upteen times, I guess you were never paying attention. 

_Philosophically, the question you need to ask is "Compared to what?"

COMPARED to what we have now, would you prefer a return to the size of government as outlined in the US Constitution? (Obviously leaving aside the fact that it would only grow in size again)._ 

Every voluntarist and libertarian, self-government supporter would say *yes*. 

*COMPARING* the Articles of Confederation to the US Constitution... would you prefer a return to the US Constitution? Supporters of self-government and voluntarism, including Ron Paul... would say *NO.*

Because it is an *INCREASE* in the size of the* STATE*.

Supporters of self-government keep on going until it is down to the individual level. Ron Paul's real goal is self government / anarcho-capitalism, instead of a return to the Constitution. As he has said, and some deluded souls here refuse to accept. The strategy merely differs. His role is educational, i.e directing folks to Libertarianism and Austrian Economics. He acknowledges that voting (in Congress) won't change anything.

----------


## newbitech

> Were you _best friends_ and *"PROFOUNDLY INFLUENCED"* by him? _[Ron Paul's exact stated in text words_] We're talking Rothbard here.
> 
> Right, yeah... useful information in a book called *"LET'S ABOLISH GOVERNMENT"* geee guys I wonder what 'useful information' Ron wants us to know?  He's linking Lysander Spooner... surely he wants us to know about how awesome the US Constitution and social contract is! Seriously lmao 
> 
> Hans-Hermann Hoppe has known and been a friend of RP for 25 years as well. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wrong, he never said his goal was anarcho-capitalism.  He never said INSTEAD of.  The question what do you say to those who advocate self-government rather than a return to the constitution?

So the questioner knows that Ron Paul advocates a return to the Constitution, as was apparent in the setup statements to the question.  He was asking Ron Paul what he says to people who are advocating self government rather than advocate a return to the Constitution like Ron Paul does.  

Also, because you stopped listening to run off and try to make some big link between Ron Paul and anarchy, you missed the part where Ron Paul explained to the guy that he is laissez faire about what to do to get us to self government.  He told the guy, you do one thing but I do something else.  He is doing it through the existing political "statist" process.  

This is not voluntaryism/ism/ist/yist.  Ron Paul is not simply involved in politics to educate.  He really does plan on changing the laws and getting back to the constitution.  He really does think he can win the Republican nomination by getting delegates (which is grossly involuntary).  He is bending the people towards his will by taking advantage of the arcane "state" system of electoral politics which is anathema to the purpose of Voluntaryism.  

Of course you are going to tell me all the same crap you have been telling me before in your futile attempt to make the connection, but you won't address the points.  You will say that Rothbard's libertarianism advocated participating in politics and voting if it brought about peaceful change and shrinks the state.

FINE!  But that is not voluntaryism.  

There is a reason that voluntaryism is a spin off.  It's pretty clear that voluntaryism seeks non-political ways and does not want to encourage "the state" by participating in state activities. 

This is different than Rothbard's AND Ron Paul's view.  So while the goals might be the same, the purpose is distinctly different.  

Your efforts to tie a label and a name to the movement is very shallow minded and is causing conflict where none is needed.   Please stop.

----------


## Wesker1982

> Wrong, he never said his goal was anarcho-capitalism.  He never said INSTEAD of.  The question what do you say to those who advocate self-government rather than a return to the constitution?
> 
> He was asking Ron Paul what he says to people who are advocating self government rather than advocate a return to the Constitution like Ron Paul does.


He said self-governance (many call anarcho-capitalism and Volutaryism) *is really what his goal is*. He also advocates the private production of all defense, and by extension of this, the courts would be private as well. See: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Private-Courts




> He really does plan on changing the laws and getting back to the constitution.


You might be naive enough to believe this is possible in 4 years, but Ron Paul is not. Changing a few laws, sure. Returning strictly to the Constitution? Yeah right. 

"Ideas are the only things that matter. Politicians for the most part are pretty much irrelevant." - Ron Paul




> FINE! But that is not voluntaryism. 
> 
> It's pretty clear that voluntaryism seeks non-political ways and does not want to encourage "the state" by participating in state activities.


The political process stuff is just a red herring. The core of Voluntaryism is that all human relationships should be voluntary. Bickering about strategy does not change principle. 

The goal of not participating in politics I agree with. The goal is to delegitimize the State. Generally this is a good strategy to achieve that goal. But Ron Paul has delegitimized the State maybe more than anyone in history through political action. Usually, sure, political action is counter productive. If the goal is to expose the State for what it really is, then Voluntaryists should support Ron Paul.

Again, it would be like claiming that voting for less beatings would imply consent to the aggression. I would not agree with this. Some might argue that it is strategically a bad idea, but no one would convince me that I am violating Voluntaryism principles by voting for reduced aggression. 






> Yes. 
> 
> 
> 
> I have read that and mostly agree, but I think they are wrong about voting being incompatible with libertarian principles. As long as you are voting to reduce the initiation of violence, then I do not view this as violating the non-aggression principle.
> 
> To say voting makes you non-libertarian would be to say Thomas Woods, Murray Rothbard, Lysander Spooner, Walter Block, Mary Ruwart,.... are all not libertarians. 
> 
> I 100% agree with "the philosophy which holds that all forms of human association should be voluntary. One of the moral principles frequently used to support this philosophy is the non-aggression principle, which prohibits the initiation of aggression or coercion." Which I believe is enough to consider myself and Ron Paul a Voluntaryist. I do not view that voting to reduce aggression violates those principles.
> ...

----------


## Conza88

> Wrong, he never said his goal was anarcho-capitalism.  He never said INSTEAD of.  The question what do you say to those who advocate self-government rather than a return to the constitution?
> 
> So the questioner knows that Ron Paul advocates a return to the Constitution, as was apparent in the setup statements to the question.  He was asking Ron Paul what he says to people who are advocating self government rather than advocate a return to the Constitution like Ron Paul does.


_Self-government_ was *compared to* _strict US Constitutionalism_.... *RON PAUL AGREED HIS END GOAL IS SELF-GOVERNMENT*. Self-government aka voluntarism, aka anarcho-capitalism. Get a grip bro, the ideas are the same... the labels different.

This was the first time he had been asked a question from a NON-STATIST PERSPECTIVE. All other general questions he gets are from a STATIST perspective, so that's why he offers the argument for the constitution which is essentially saying... "even on their own terms they fail to live up to it".

The _REASON_ Ron Paul appeals to the Constitution is so he can get a_ "pass on that"_ - HIS WORDS from a 2006 Prague Speech.





_6m 45s - 9m 01s_



> Also, because you stopped listening to run off and try to make some big link between Ron Paul and anarchy, you missed the part where Ron Paul explained to the guy that he is laissez faire about what to do to get us to self government.  He told the guy, you do one thing but I do something else.  He is doing it through the existing political "statist" process.  
> 
> This is not voluntaryism/ism/ist/yist.  Ron Paul is not simply involved in politics to educate.  He really does plan on changing the laws and getting back to the constitution.


Do you have a learning disability?  I'm actually genuinely interested.. because if so - I'll try break it down so you can understand.

And where on earth does the above contradict or refute anything I've ever said? IN FACT - I have PROMOTED the exact DIVISION OF LABOR he refers to... Hans-Hermann Hoppe also makes the case in the sense of it is "guerrilla warfare" .. more people attacking the state from different avenues and ways the better.

I've never done anything to indicate otherwise. You and LE and the other clowns here continue to think and act as if I'm against political activism. 

What part of Murray Rothbard and political activism and it not needing to be against it, do you not understand? *Ron Paul IS involved primarily to educate.*  The SIDE issue is to obviously WIN.

Now go ahead, call me out to back up this last point and I'll smash your bs _once again_. *Forewarning*; I'll be referencing the reasons he first decided to enter politics...I will also be showcasing his story to Carol.Post the video of Ron Paul's brother saying he's not in it to win.. he's in it to spread the message.Post the video of Ron Paul's niece saying he doesn't want to 'win', he's in it to spread the message.

Do I think the above facts being well known would HELP Ron Paul? Of course not. Then my suggestion would be for you to stfu so I won't need to educate your ignorant self and post them.. _but_ then we both know that won't happen.




> He really does think he can win the Republican nomination by getting delegates (which is grossly involuntary).  He is bending the people towards his will by taking advantage of the arcane "state" system of electoral politics which is anathema to the purpose of Voluntaryism.  
> 
> Of course you are going to tell me all the same crap you have been telling me before in your futile attempt to make the connection, but you won't address the points.  You will say that Rothbard's libertarianism advocated participating in politics and voting if it brought about peaceful change and shrinks the state.
> 
> FINE!  But that is not voluntaryism.


And where the F$))# do I care about it being "voluntaryism"? Where have I ever claimed it was? I've done the _OPPOSITE_.. (Those purist deviationist fallacy supporters I have to defend RP against all the time).. I'm going up against those clowns, as well as you - who refuse to accept what Ron Paul really is... a voluntarist. 




> There is a reason that voluntaryism is a spin off.  It's pretty clear that voluntaryism seeks non-political ways and does not want to encourage "the state" by participating in state activities. 
> 
> This is different than Rothbard's AND Ron Paul's view.  So while the goals might be the same, the purpose is distinctly different.  
> 
> Your efforts to tie a label and a name to the movement is very shallow minded and is causing conflict where none is needed.   Please stop.


*And you re-make the point I've already made COUNTLESS TIMES*... lmao. You're a real waste of space. Thanks for adding absolutely nothing of value. Recommendation? Crawl back into that cave of yours.

----------


## newbitech

> He said self-governance (many call anarcho-capitalism and Volutaryism) *is really what his goal is*. He also advocates the private production of all defense, and by extension of this, the courts would be private as well. See: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Private-Courts
> 
> 
> 
> You might be naive enough to believe this is possible in 4 years, but Ron Paul is not. Changing a few laws, sure. Returning strictly to the Constitution? Yeah right. 
> 
> "Ideas are the only things that matter. Politicians for the most part are pretty much irrelevant." - Ron Paul
> 
> 
> ...


I have to disagree about Ron Paul's purpose.  Sure his method is education, but his purpose is to restore Constitutional government.  In 4 years, he can do a lot.  For starters, he would be commander in chief.  He could immediately reverse 50 years of war without declaration.  He would also immediately be able to reign in much of the financial chaos by directing the Justice Department to issue indictments against financial fraudsters.  He would be able to immediately dismantle the power structures in place through executive orders.  

So no, he's not going to automatically give us freedom and liberty, but he can begin the damage control and put a halt to a big chunk of the most damaging aspects.

Many may call self government those things, but that is just evidence of misunderstanding.  Self Government is a principle that encompasses many philosophies of government.  Some good examples of self government that are not anarcho-capitalism and are not Voluntaryism would be, the American Revolution, the Indian Independence Movement, the Balkans, The American Civil war, and let us not forget the local and hyper local.  Some examples would be a community voting for or against incorporation in to the larger government.  In my town, we have several small municipalities that opted for self-government rather than tying in with the county.  These little cities are indistinguishable on a map, but they are for the most part autonomous and pass there own laws and are not under the jurisdiction of the larger communities around them.

This is self government and in some cases, force was necessary to achieve and in some case not.  The one thing that is common, is that once establish, these governments are able to exist without continuing force on the governments around them.  

So no, self government is not ancap or volutaryism.  

I agree, ideas matter.  And whether or not politicians are irrelevant, really depends on the politician now doesn't it?  What about a politician with a good idea?  Pretty much not absolute.  But I agree with the sentiment. 

The political process is not red herring.  New ideas can spread through the process.  The difference is some people abhor "the state" so much, they are unwilling to work within "the state" as a principle.  Standing by these principles is a central theme to the philosophy of Voluntaryism.  This doesn't mean that everyone who stands by their principles is a Voluntaryist.  

Ron Paul believes that some force is necessary.  The only gray area is determining precisely when that force becomes justified.  But the fact that force is necessary should not cause there to be problems with standing by principles.

I believe this is my key disagreement with Ancaps and anyone else who abhors "the state".  Those philosophies are so determined to stick to the NAP, and make the issue of force black and white, that they do not leave room for judgement or consensus.  There will always be one person who does not like the rules and buck whatever system comes up.  Probably more than that.  The only non violent solution I can see is to allow those folks to self govern.  Ancapism won't allow that.  They will send their private forces after them.  Voluntaryism won't allow that, they will find non political ways to pressure those people.  To me that is the gray area of force, justified or not.  

Self government means just leave them alone.  Hands off laissez faire.  This is why I think it is important to pay attention to what Ron Paul is saying rather than tie him in to any one philosophy other than what he actually advocates, which from what I hear and have read is liberty through the Constitution.  I agree, that may not be appealing to people who are ready to move beyond Representative Government, however that is non-violent path to self government.  If you want to practice aspects of anacapism or voluntaryism, that is aloud under the United States Constitution.  Unfortunately and as we all know, we are no longer governed by the United States Constitution.  The biggest threat of force to anacapism and voluntaryism is the usurptation of the money system enforced violently.

In other words.  Taxes.  Under the United States Constitution, individuals are aloud to keep the fruits of their labor.  That has been twisted.  Under the United States Constitution, we have real money.  That has also been twisted.  Under the United States Constitution security is directly in the hands and is the responsibility of the individual, and only under extreme duress should collective forces be controlled and committed to War at the highest levels.  That has been twisted.

You'd have no problems practicing anacapism and voluntaryism under the United States Constitution.  It was designed as a self governing document check on political violence.

----------


## newbitech

> _Self-government_ was *compared to* _strict US Constitutionalism_.... *RON PAUL AGREED HIS END GOAL IS SELF-GOVERNMENT*. Self-government aka voluntarism, aka anarcho-capitalism. Get a grip bro, the ideas are the same... the labels different.
> 
> This was the first time he had been asked a question from a NON-STATIST PERSPECTIVE. All other general questions he gets are from a STATIST perspective, so that's why he offers the argument for the constitution which is essentially saying... "even on their own terms they fail to live up to it".
> 
> The _REASON_ Ron Paul appeals to the Constitution is so he can get a_ "pass on that"_ - HIS WORDS from a 2006 Prague Speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have not looked past your personal insults and condescending nature towards me.  Correct that and I may be willing to discuss your OPINION.  At this point, you are arguing against yourself.

----------


## Conza88

I was still editing. Fixed it up for you. But really your position deserves condescension because it's that untenable. But really all your post amounts to is a nice pathetic attempt to grab the 'high ground' by refusing to engage (i.e defend your unjustifiable position) because you have no leg to stand on. These are the actions one comes to expect from an intellectually dishonest and closed minded individual.

Thanks for spreading the message of Ron Paul and his voluntarism newbitech.. what would I do without you being such a useful soundboard.

I mean.. there was a loooooooooooong period where I saw no reason to post, or have these bumped.. but here you come and give it all the impetus and re-exposure it needs. Cheers

----------


## newbitech

> I was still editing. Fixed it up for you. But really your position deserves condescension because it's that untenable. But really all your post amounts to is a nice pathetic attempt to grab the 'high ground' by refusing to engage (i.e defend your unjustifiable position) because you have no leg to stand on. These are the actions one comes to expect from an intellectually dishonest and closed minded individual.


My position is that Ron Paul is not a voluntarist/yist.  He doesn't even advocate the purpose of voluntarism/yism.  He may agree that actions should be voluntary, but clearly he divorces himself from the idea and philosophy by not only engaging in electoral politics, but also making bold pronouncements that he can win the nomination and the presidency WITHOUT popular support.  This is distinctly NOT voluntary.  Yes Ron Paul is using "state" apparatus as a platform to spread the idea of self government and non violent resistance.  If that doesn't work, then I am sure Ron Paul would support the idea of marching down to Washington DC with pitchforks and torches and taking back our government.  Why am I sure?  Because sometimes, violence is necessary and is the duty of an American citizen according to our other self governing document, the declaration of independence.  

So unless you want to redefine Voluntaryism/ism, and unless you have a direct quote from Ron Paul that he is a voluntaryist/ist, then I have provided sufficient documentation that shows by his actions and words that he does not subscribe nor advocate that particular philosophy.

So why distort Voluntaryism by tying a politician who is clearly involved with "the state" apparatus to it?  Is not Voluntaryism/ism against "the state".

And please spare me the spelling differences, I see where you participate in a Mises thread where the two spelling are used interchangeably, and you didn't bother to correct it there.

----------


## newbitech

yeah and thanks for advocating self government even though you desperately need it to mean something that it is not.

----------


## nayjevin

> Do I think the above facts being well known would HELP Ron Paul? Of course not. Then my suggestion would be for you to stfu so I won't need


Misplaced blame.  No one backed you in a corner.  No one forces you to consistently try to prove the claim in multiple threads over the course of several years.  I know you're not dumb, I know you're not intentionally intellectually dishonest.  So why are you acting like people are forcing you to prove this claim?  What I see is folks responding in self-defense to your claims, which are spurious at best.

----------


## Wesker1982

> The political process is not red herring.


You are misunderstanding what I said. I was responding in regards to Voluntaryism. It diverts attention from the real issue in regards to Voluntaryism.

See:




> Yes. 
> 
> 
> 
> I have read that and mostly agree, but I think they are wrong about voting being incompatible with libertarian principles. As long as you are voting to reduce the initiation of violence, then I do not view this as violating the non-aggression principle.
> 
> To say voting makes you non-libertarian would be to say Thomas Woods, Murray Rothbard, Lysander Spooner, Walter Block, Mary Ruwart,.... are all not libertarians. 
> 
> I 100% agree with "the philosophy which holds that all forms of human association should be voluntary. One of the moral principles frequently used to support this philosophy is the non-aggression principle, which prohibits the initiation of aggression or coercion." Which I believe is enough to consider myself and Ron Paul a Voluntaryist. I do not view that voting to reduce aggression violates those principles.
> ...


Ron Paul supports X, *compared* to a return to the Constitution. 

Call X whatever you want. I will call it Voluntaryism because Ron Paul views all taxation as theft and believes that all forms of human association should be voluntary. He believes in the moral principle frequently used to support this philosophy which is the non-aggression principle, which prohibits the initiation of aggression or coercion.

Diverting the attention away from the principles of this philosophy with arguments about political action are red herrings.

----------


## newbitech

> You are misunderstanding what I said. I was responding in regards to Voluntaryism. It diverts attention from the real issue in regards to Voluntaryism.
> 
> See:
> 
> 
> 
> Ron Paul supports X, *compared* to a return to the Constitution. 
> 
> Call X whatever you want. I will call it Voluntaryism because Ron Paul views all taxation as theft and believes that all forms of human association should be voluntary. He believes in the moral principle frequently used to support this philosophy which is the non-aggression principle, which prohibits the initiation of aggression or coercion.
> ...


Right, I agree.  You are telling me to ignore the established principle of voluntaryism (an authoritative wiki source cites voluntaryist.com) that non political action is the purpose.  Do you have another authoritative source for what the purpose of voluntaryism is that would lead me to believe there is some conflict as to the purpose and nature of the philosophy?

I don't subscribe to the philosophy so I am unaware of the nuances.  I simply look at the home page of the authoritative source and it is clear as day that the philosophy are advocates of bringing about a free society through non political means.  

Maybe that is the red herring, but I am not trying to tie Ron Paul to the philosophy either.  I can see where he espouses aspects of that philosophy and the goals are the same, but I believe making the claim that he "is" one who represents that philosophy damage not only Ron Paul's work, but also those people who do adhere to and take seriously the purpose of non political activities to promote their goal.

It is hard for me to take a philosophy seriously if the people who claim to represent that philosophy say and do things and make exceptions for the guiding purpose and key tenants of that philosophy.  Especially somewhat obscure philosophies like voluntaryism where authoritative sources for information lie dormant and outside of layman's view.  I am willing to take the step to research and dig up information and educate myself, and at the same time, I don't expect the non layman on the subject to divert my attention away from the authoritative sources, but rather give other sources or example that explain the distortions and discrepancies that are obvious to the layman and raise a first objection to the philosophy with very little effort.  

I like the philosophy too and I support it, but it's hard for me to do so because the examples I am being given quickly veer off the path of the fundamentals of the philosophy.  I hope you will gently correct the misunderstanding and give other sources and examples of people who actually SAY they are voluntaryist and show their works.

----------


## Wesker1982

> Right, I agree.  You are telling me to ignore the established principle of voluntaryism (an authoritative wiki source cites voluntaryist.com) that non political action is the purpose.


I am saying it is not an established principle. The only established principle in Voluntaryism is "all forms of human association should be voluntary". That is why it is called *Voluntary*ism. 

First paragraph from wiki:




> Voluntarism, or voluntaryism is the philosophy which holds that all forms of human association should be voluntary. One of the moral principles frequently used to support this philosophy is the non-aggression principle, which prohibits the initiation of aggression or coercion.
> 
> Since voluntaryists hold that the means must be consistent with the end, the goal of a purely voluntary society must be sought voluntarily. Voluntaryists assert that people cannot be coerced into freedom or voluntarily give it up. Voluntaryists often advocate the use of the stateless free market, *education*, persuasion, and non-violent resistance as the primary ways to change people's ideas about the state and their behavior toward it.


From Voluntaryist.com




> Voluntaryism is the doctrine that relations among people should be by mutual consent, or not at all. It represents a means, an end, and an insight. Voluntaryism does not argue for the specific form that voluntary arrangements will take; only that force be abandoned so that individuals in society may flourish. As it is the means which determine the end, the goal of an all voluntary society must be sought voluntarily. People cannot be coerced into freedom. Hence, the use of the free market, education, persuasion, and non-violent resistance as the primary ways to change people's ideas about the State.The voluntaryist insight, that all tyranny and government are grounded upon popular acceptance, explains why voluntary means are sufficient to attain that end.


Non-voting is only one form of education, non-violent resistance, persuasion, etc. 

A lot of Voluntaryists agree with me that the above is all that is required to consider yourself a Voluntaryist. Even those who disagree do not all of the sudden claim that they are not "true" Voluntaryists. They just maintain that they are incorrect on this issue. 

You are committing the No True Scotsman Fallacy

----------


## Voluntary Man

> The only established principle in Voluntaryism is "all forms of human association should be voluntary".


Bingo! All else is embellishment.

----------


## newbitech

Ok, so how does this make Ron Paul a voluntaryist?  If I ran a survey and asked 1,000 people if they agree that all forms of human association should be voluntary, I have no doubt that overwhelmingly the answer would be yes.  If I asked the same 1,000 people if they would voluntarily pay taxes, I suspect I would get a very similar response.  

Are these people Voluntaryist?  No I have not run the experiment, but you have to go a little further in to the philosophy than simply saying someone who agrees with voluntary action is a Voluntaryist. 

So back to Ron Paul.  He is planning on winning the nomination through the arcane delegate process.  He is planning on winning without popular support.  Tell me, does Voluntaryism support the idea that Ron Paul can and should take the reigns of government by using "the state" apparatus to coerce a very large majority of people who have actively voted against his candidacy into accepting his nomination?

See, I am not saying that you can't be a voluntaryist and make exception to the underlying principles.  I am saying that if someone like Ron Paul who is known for and bases his education on integrity and unwavering commitment to his principles tried to do this, he would not have the platform he currently enjoys.  This is WHY he is not a voluntaryist.  He would be subscribing to the principles of a philosophy that would render his chosen actions, trying to win the nomination through the delegate process, invalid due to the obvious involuntary nature of accepting the nomination despite the large majority of people NOT voluntarily electing him.  

He'd either have to abandon the philosophy or abandon his pursuit of the nomination via involuntary means.  Never mind the electoral politics and political activity and leveraging of "the state" apparatus necessary to pull it off. 

Or he could just cash in his integrity for something else.  

As far as the logical fallacy.  The burden of proof is on the tenants of the Voluntaryist philosophy.  I am not the one redefining the purpose of the philosophy as stated by an authoritative source to which you have also referenced.  I am simply asking if the philosophy holds to those principles.  I guess it does not, and at that point I would argue that again, Ron Paul is a principled man and he would not associate himself to a philosophy that deviates from it's principles.  At least that is his character and that is what his body of work has shown.  I can only speculate as to why he hasn't come out and associated with the philosophy.  

I would think that it is more likely because he would not want to associate with non political activities rather than some hidden agenda he has to not "out" himself.  Who knows, but what we do know is that he is 76 years old and has been in and out of politics and he is pretty much an open book.  He hasn't ever come out and said anything that would lead me to believe that Voluntaryism is at his core.  In fact, he has even said to someone who describes himself as a voluntaryist (motor home diaries guy)  basically you do your thing and I'll do mine.

----------


## newbitech

more from the authoritative source




> Although the label "voluntaryist" practically died out after the death of Auberon Herbert, its use was renewed in late 1982, when George Smith, Wendy McElroy, and Carl Watner began editing THE VOLUNTARYIST. George Smith, after publishing his article "Nineteenth-Century Opponents of State Education," suggested use of the term to identify those libertarians who believed that political action and political parties were antithetical to their ideas. In NEITHER BULLETS NOR BALLOTS: Essays on Voluntaryism, Watner, Smith, and McElroy explained that voluntaryists were advocates of non-political strategies to achieve a free society. They rejected electoral politics "in theory and practice as incompatible with libertarian goals," and explained that political methods invariably strengthen the legitimacy of coercive governments. In concluding their "Statement of Purpose" they wrote: "Voluntaryists seek instead to delegitimize the State through education, and we advocate the withdrawal of the cooperation and tacit consent on which state power ultimately depends."


So claiming to be a voluntaryist while also supporting political action is antithetical according to the people who studied, wrote about, and revived the idea.

Are these people somehow co-opting this flavor of libertarianism?  Or are the people who are claiming to be voluntaryist while advocating political activity simply misinformed as to the history of their chosen label by failing to do the requisite research before taking up a banner?

I have absolutely NOTHING against this philosophy and the people who are trying to represent it.  I even like it and would encourage people to do it.  Of course that runs afoul of my goal and the goal of this forum in supporting Ron Paul's candidacy for president.  So I feel obligated to point out the risk of acting in a way that betrays the appeal of the man we all seem to support.  

If someone wants to make exceptions, that is fine, but I don't think it is fair to paint Ron Paul as a voluntaryist if he is NOT willing to compromise his principles.

----------


## newbitech

a little more on the guy who helped write Views of the Voluntary Principle in 1845.




> Baines embraced what he called the Voluntary system which includes all that is not Government or compulsory, - all that men do for themselves, their neighbours, or their posterity, of their own free will. It comprehends the efforts of parents, on behalf of the education of their children, - of the private schoolmaster and tutor, for their individual interest, - of religious bodies, benevolent societies, wealthy benefactors, and cooperative associations, in the support of schools, - and of those numerous auxiliaries to education, the authors and editors of educational works, lecturers, artists, and whoever devotes his talents in any way to promote the instruction of the young, without the compulsion of law or the support of the public purse. ...


I am finished drawing conclusions, based on the text and the history of voluntaryism.  I think it is clear that Ron Paul and voluntaryism are compatible allies, but not occupying the same ground in the battle against "the state" or unbridled government apparatus.

----------


## Cabal

I don't doubt that if you were to poll people in general, they would agree that human interaction ought to be voluntary; yet at the same time, the same people probably don't think about all that question (or answer) entails, and how it applies to the world at large. Many people, for instance, probably do not even consider the violence inherent in mandatory income taxation.

Voluntaryism doesn't really have a one-way with regard to how to go about affecting change--that's not really part of the philosophy. There's much internal debate among voluntaryists and other such anarchists about this issue. Many see any participation in the State, including the electoral process, as either pointless or contradictory to their positions; others are more than happy to attempt to affect change through such things, and jump at the chance to minimize the state or state sponsored violence wherever possible. 

Ron Paul's strategy here has nothing to do with coercion--this is a gross misrepresentation on your part which demonstrates a lack of understanding of coercion in general, quite frankly. So no, your argument here is nonsequitur. 

As for the burden of proof, I think in this thread and others, ample proof has been provided to, at the very least, conclude that Ron Paul does indeed ascribe to some form of voluntaryism. I think the most likely truth here is that Ron Paul would ultimately prefer a purely voluntary society absent of the State; but I suspect he also realizes that isn't a practical thing to hope for at the moment, and that even if such a thing is possible, he isn't likely to see it in his lifetime. In the meantime, I suspect he would like to spread the message of liberty so that future generations may actually see such a future realized, whilst also doing what he can to shrink the State as best as he can; avoid impending wars, and mitigate against an impending monetary crisis. In my view this is the most reasonable conclusion after considering everything. 

I think one of the primary reason you and others have been in such contention with this conclusion is because you are honestly afraid that a man you idolize and support may very well not share your opposition to a stateless society or the philosophy therein.

As someone else in another thread mentioned, it's difficult to reconcile the fact that he praises such a man as Spooner while asserting that he doesn't identify with voluntaryism. Likewise, you don't get mentored by one of the most renown anarchists of the 20th century and not at least carry some of those ideals with you.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> I think one of the primary reason you and others have been in such contention with this conclusion is because you are honestly afraid that a man you idolize and support may very well not share your opposition to a stateless society or the philosophy therein.


This is precisely what Ron is referring to here, imo.




> Ron: Well, I tell you what... I don't critisize Lysander....
> but... and his point is very well taken.
> *Maybe someday we'll mature to that point.*

----------


## nayjevin

> I think it is clear that Ron Paul and voluntaryism are compatible allies, but not occupying the same ground in the battle against "the state" or unbridled government apparatus.


Good way to put it, methinks.

----------


## newbitech

> I don't doubt that if you were to poll people in general, they would agree that human interaction ought to be voluntary; yet at the same time, the same people probably don't think about all that question (or answer) entails, and how it applies to the world at large. Many people, for instance, probably do not even consider the violence inherent in mandatory income taxation.
> 
> Voluntaryism doesn't really have a one-way with regard to how to go about affecting change--that's not really part of the philosophy. There's much internal debate among voluntaryists and other such anarchists about this issue. Many see any participation in the State, including the electoral process, as either pointless or contradictory to their positions; others are more than happy to attempt to affect change through such things, and jump at the chance to minimize the state or state sponsored violence wherever possible. 
> 
> Ron Paul's strategy here has nothing to do with coercion--this is a gross misrepresentation on your part which demonstrates a lack of understanding of coercion in general, quite frankly. So no, your argument here is nonsequitur. 
> 
> As for the burden of proof, I think in this thread and others, ample proof has been provided to, at the very least, conclude that Ron Paul does indeed ascribe to some form of voluntaryism. I think the most likely truth here is that Ron Paul would ultimately prefer a purely voluntary society absent of the State; but I suspect he also realizes that isn't a practical thing to hope for at the moment, and that even if such a thing is possible, he isn't likely to see it in his lifetime. In the meantime, I suspect he would like to spread the message of liberty so that future generations may actually see such a future realized, whilst also doing what he can to shrink the State as best as he can; avoid impending wars, and mitigate against an impending monetary crisis. In my view this is the most reasonable conclusion after considering everything. 
> 
> I think one of the primary reason you and others have been in such contention with this conclusion is because you are honestly afraid that a man you idolize and support may very well not share your opposition to a stateless society or the philosophy therein.
> ...


gonna have to disagree.  Voluntaryism is already some form of libertarianism.  It is a branch in the network and the defining attribute of voluntaryism, from its earliest tenants, to the authoritative source we are citing is the non political action.  

As far as Ron Paul's strategy, it has everything to do with coercion.  Suppose he wins the delegates with only 20% - 25% popular support.  What of the other 75% - 80%.  What prevents those people from enforcing their clear will to NOT have Ron Paul their representative?  They will be forced in to complying with the results by the laws that govern the electoral process.  They may refuse to accept the results, but if they try to do anything to alter those results, they risk being caged.

This really is no different than trying to resist the income tax.  That same metaphorical gun to the head that compels people to pay their tax will also compel them to accept the results of a Ron Paul victory should he compile enough delegates to win the nomination.  Is Ron Paul holding that gun to your head to make you pay taxes? Well, he pays his and redistributes those collected funds.  Is Ron Paul holding that gun to the heads of the people who didn't vote for his nomination?  Well, he'd gladly accept the nomination.

Yes he is working from within the system, but you cannot escape the fact that he is part of the system.  

Again, some form of Voluntaryism.  We can splinter off in all different directions, but the power of the movement is by focusing on what we share in common.  So I accept that Voluntaryism is a branch of libertarianism. I also accept that some Voluntaryist are willing to abandon the non political theme that distinguishes this branch.

What I am not willing to accept is that Ron Paul is a voluntaryist because based on what voluntaryism is, how it came about, it's history, its iconic tenants, authors and body of works, they key to being a voluntaryist is understanding how to effect change WITHOUT using "the state".  

Also again, Ron Paul has many influence, including his parents who were life long Republicans.  Ronald Reagan, who as far as I know was not an anarchist.  Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Grover Cleveland, Thomas Jefferson and on and on.    I have no doubt that Ron Paul has many influence that have self identified as anarchist.  But you blow off the fact that Ron Paul has not self-identified as such because it might damage his political aspirations?  

Is it possible that he has not self-identified as an anarchist or voluntaryist in his 76 years because there are parts of those philosophies he DISAGREES WITH?  
Why in the world would anyone take up the label of a philosophy that did not match their own?  Why is it necessary to pick up a label at all?  Could it be that the label someone takes up helps to rally people around that label to further that persons agenda?  

Ron Paul HAS taken up the label of Constitutionalist.  He explains how his philosophy matches his label.  He goes in to great detail in explaining his philosophy and what he believes.  I see no reason to try and wrap his self-identity in a label that he has not chosen.  I also think the distortion that some folks are willing to take on to make this label fit, betrays their own philosophy.  

I am in contention with the conclusion because it is demonstrably false.   I have not taken up any particular label other than the required "Republican" on my voter ID card in order to support Ron Paul.  I will gladly turn that card in, just like Ron Paul did when the label loses it's value.  This won't change my beliefs as it did not change Ron Paul's beliefs.

The people who seem to have a problem with Ron Paul's label are the people who don't like the idea of returning to the Constitution as a non violent path and END RESULT of Ron Paul's work.  Ron Paul had to clarify for one such person (motor homes diary guy).  Yes Ron Paul does believe that the Constitution is a self-governing document.  That should not surprise people.  Especially people who understand self government, and MOST especially people who read Rothbard.  You know national self determination.  Home Rule (Gandhi) is another way to look at it.  

So we are all looking at the same result from different angles.  You don't see me trying to wrap Ron Paul in the label I'll call, newbitechism, cause I carry no label.  I rather focus on the ideas and how those ideas are manifest in actions and words.  

I think it is a good thing to go back and read the sources and see the influences.  I also think it is a good thing to use common sense.  Common sense tells me that if Ron Paul wanted to "be" or label himself as anything other than a Constitutionalist, that is what he would do.  His whole entire career and appeal are based on integrity and being bluntly honest.  Why would he make an exception over a label?  Possibly because using that label would betray his actions and words since the underlying philosophy that the label represents is not a philosophy that he can stand by with integrity.  Or perhaps like the Libertarian Party, the members of the label are in disarray over the philosophy that the label represents.  

This is why it's important to focus on what is in common with the philosophies and avoid labels that are based on splinters of that philosophy.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> As far as Ron Paul's strategy, it has everything to do with coercion.  Suppose he wins the delegates with only 20% - 25% popular support.  What of the other 75% - 80%.  What prevents those people from enforcing their clear will to NOT have Ron Paul their representative?  They will be forced in to complying with the results by the laws that govern the electoral process.  They may refuse to accept the results, but if they try to do anything to alter those results, they risk being caged.
> 
> This really is no different than trying to resist the income tax.  That same metaphorical gun to the head that compels people to pay their tax will also compel them to accept the results of a Ron Paul victory should he compile enough delegates to win the nomination.  Is Ron Paul holding that gun to your head to make you pay taxes? Well, he pays his and redistributes those collected funds.  Is Ron Paul holding that gun to the heads of the people who didn't vote for his nomination?  Well, he'd gladly accept the nomination.
> 
> Yes he is working from within the system, but you cannot escape the fact that he is part of the system.


Ron is trying to control the gun in the room that everyone is pointing at each other, including himself.

You're saying it's not "voluntary" enough to try and grab the gun of someone whose mugging you and pointing it in your face and to try and convince them it's not the best idea.




> *The strongest motivating force in my political activities is to
> live free since I was born free. Liberty is my first goal.* The free market
> is the only result that can be expected from a free society. I do not
> accept individual freedom because the market is efficient. Even if the
> free market were less “efficient” than central planning, I would still
> prefer my personal freedom to coercion.





> Ron Paul HAS taken up the label of Constitutionalist.  He explains how his philosophy matches his label.  He goes in to great detail in explaining his philosophy and what he believes.  I see no reason to try and wrap his self-identity in a label that he has not chosen.  I also think the distortion that some folks are willing to take on to make this label fit, betrays their own philosophy.


Yet his own words: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoUrr...utu.be&t=2m50s




> "*In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written.*" Ron Paul, End the Fed





> Ron: Well, I tell you what... I don't critisize Lysander....
> but... and his point is very well taken.
> *Maybe someday we'll mature to that point.*


He _did_ swear an _oath of office_ to uphold the constitution, as he mentions. He does see the merit in using the constitution as a device with which to argue for limitations on government, as he mentions.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I don't doubt that if you were to poll people in general, they would agree that human interaction ought to be voluntary; yet at the same time, the same people probably don't think about all that question (or answer) entails, and how it applies to the world at large. Many people, for instance, probably do not even consider the violence inherent in mandatory income taxation.
> 
> Voluntaryism doesn't really have a one-way with regard to how to go about affecting change--that's not really part of the philosophy. There's much internal debate among voluntaryists and other such anarchists about this issue. Many see any participation in the State, including the electoral process, as either pointless or contradictory to their positions; others are more than happy to attempt to affect change through such things, and jump at the chance to minimize the state or state sponsored violence wherever possible. 
> 
> Ron Paul's strategy here has nothing to do with coercion--this is a gross misrepresentation on your part which demonstrates a lack of understanding of coercion in general, quite frankly. So no, your argument here is nonsequitur. 
> 
> As for the burden of proof, I think in this thread and others, ample proof has been provided to, at the very least, conclude that Ron Paul does indeed ascribe to some form of voluntaryism. I think the most likely truth here is that Ron Paul would ultimately prefer a purely voluntary society absent of the State; but I suspect he also realizes that isn't a practical thing to hope for at the moment, and that even if such a thing is possible, he isn't likely to see it in his lifetime. In the meantime, I suspect he would like to spread the message of liberty so that future generations may actually see such a future realized, whilst also doing what he can to shrink the State as best as he can; avoid impending wars, and mitigate against an impending monetary crisis. In my view this is the most reasonable conclusion after considering everything. 
> 
> I think one of the primary reason you and others have been in such contention with this conclusion is because you are honestly afraid that a man you idolize and support may very well not share your opposition to a stateless society or the philosophy therein.
> ...


*You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Cabal again.*

----------


## Cabal

Voluntaryism being synonymous with libertarianism doesn't disqualify what I said. Just as in voluntaryist circles, libertarian circles are/were also in contention about involvement with the State or not. And once again, there is no single authoritative source on what is or is not cohesive with voluntaryism, or libertarianism for that matter.

Ron Paul is not initiating violence or threat thereof, Ron Paul is not prohibiting participation--therefore there is no coercion. Again, you seem to lack a basic understanding of the terminology. In any case your point is further disqualified when you take voter turnout into consideration. Less than half the voting population votes in the general election; even less than half of the party-voter population participates in the party primary process. Either way, whether its Ron Paul or someone else, the minority is electing the candidates and indeed the president. Now you can argue that inaction is still action--that not voting is still a vote; or you can argue that the choice not to participate is a forfeiture of your freedom to vote as you choose, but that is another discussion for another time, yet it would seem central to determining what is or is not coercion relative to the electoral process.




> What I am not willing to accept is that Ron Paul is a voluntaryist because based on what voluntaryism is, how it came about, it's history, its iconic tenants, authors and body of works, they key to being a voluntaryist is understanding how to effect change WITHOUT using "the state".


Alright, this is getting very old, very fast. Some advocate involvement, some do not. This is not a difficult fact to wrap your head around. Stefan Molyneux does not advocate involvement. Murray Rothbard did. And for both of them there are likely tens of thousands of average people, if not more, who agree with one or the other who would self-identify as voluntaryist. Stop making assertions on things which you clearly haven't bothered to understand. Please. It's annoying as hell.




> demonstrably false


And yet you continue to prove incapable of demonstrating supposed fallacy.

And, quite frankly, the only thing being demonstrated here is your disregard for the man's intellectual and professional history. It's not a matter of your doubt or lack there of. Had you any regard for what has been reiterated throughout this thread and others, or any regard for the man's intellectual and professional career, you'd know for a fact who he studied under and who those people were. 

For the record, I don't really care what label is applied to Ron Paul because as I mentioned before, that is largely irrelevant if not also far too subjective to individual biases, as we can clearly see here. 




> Is it possible that he has not self-identified as an anarchist or voluntaryist in his 76 years because there are parts of those philosophies he DISAGREES WITH?


Such as? I can't read Ron Paul's mind, so I can't answer this question which is probably just rhetorical anyhow. I can speculate that given his involvement in political office, which demonstrates a desire to attempt to affect change from within, it probably isn't in his best interests to identify with the label of anarchy which is also, unfortunately, largely misrepresented and misunderstood in the mainstream.

----------


## newbitech

> Ron is trying to control the gun in the room that everyone is pointing at each other, including himself.
> 
> You're saying it's not "voluntary" enough to try and grab the gun of someone whose mugging you and pointing it in your face and to try and convince them it's not the best idea.
> 
> Yet: 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoUrr...utu.be&t=2m50s


No, I am not using voluntary ambiguously.  I am using it as the label that represents a philosophy.  Philosophical voluntaryism is a branch of libertarianism that is distinct it's strategy for effecting change towards liberty.  That distinction is non political actions.  I put the case up there with sources to the history and authoritative sources to the reemergence of the label.   

So with that in mind, no working inside government to motivate people to participate in electoral politics and arcane delegate selection process that is neither voluntary (ambiguously) or voluntaryism/ism (dis-ambiguously).  I will leave the interpretation of the philosophy open, since I am a laymen, but I will also point to the authority, the history, the tenants, and leave it up to the reader to decide if the process represent voluntaryism.  I will also continue to disagree that Ron Paul is a voluntaryist/ist, because based on a cursory examination of the authoritative sources, writings, history, and tenants, and his lack of self-identification of that label, the answer is overwhelmingly, no he is not. 

As far the video you keep posting, I watched it.  It is unconvincing to say the least.  I appreciate what the video is trying to do, but in the context of the body of work that is Ron Paul, it falls well short of removing his self-identified label of Constitutionalist and attaching the label of voluntarist/yist.  

Yeah, people are what achieves limited government power.  The document itself is the vehicle for getting there and staying there.  Metaphorically speaking, a car itself is incapable of taking me to the grocery and picking up dinner.  I need to actually open the door, get in the car, start the engine, press the gas pedal, turn the wheel back and forth, park it, get out, go achieve what I would like to achieve and repeat the process over and over.  Sure, I could walk and abandon the car and never drive it again and still achieve what I want.  The car makes it a whole hell of lot safer, more convenient, and is just a better way to do it than walking.

I don't take this statement by Ron Paul to be him throwing off his self-identified label of Constitutionalism.  I certainly don't take this statement to mean that he is advocating abandoning the Constitution.  

Maybe some day we'll mature to the point?  The point of finding a better way to get what we want?  Sure I am all for that.  But the maturity process requires us to grow through steps.   We have to crawl before we walk.  Walk before we take the car.  And take the car before we are teleported.  Ron Paul is not trying to skip a step in the maturity process.

----------


## newbitech

> Voluntaryism being synonymous with libertarianism doesn't disqualify what I said. Just as in voluntaryist circles, libertarian circles are/were also in contention about involvement with the State or not. And once again, there is no single authoritative source on what is or is not cohesive with voluntaryism, or libertarianism for that matter.
> 
> Ron Paul is not initiating violence or threat thereof, Ron Paul is not prohibiting participation--therefore there is no coercion. Again, you seem to lack a basic understanding of the terminology. In any case your point is further disqualified when you take voter turnout into consideration. Less than half the voting population votes in the general election; even less than half of the party-voter population participates in the party primary process. Either way, whether its Ron Paul or someone else, the minority is electing the candidates and indeed the president. Now you can argue that inaction is still action--that not voting is still a vote; or you can argue that the choice not to participate is a forfeiture of your freedom to vote as you choose, but that is another discussion for another time, yet it would seem central to determining what is or is not coercion relative to the electoral process.
> 
> 
> 
> Alright, this is getting very old, very fast. Some advocate involvement, some do not. This is not a difficult fact to wrap your head around. Stefan Molyneux does not advocate involvement. Murray Rothbard did. And for both of them there are likely tens of thousands of average people, if not more, who agree with one or the other who would self-identify as voluntaryist. Stop making assertions on things which you clearly haven't bothered to understand. Please. It's annoying as hell.
> 
> 
> ...


1.) Voluntaryism is not synonymous with libertarianism.

2.) If there is no single authoritative source for what voluntaryism, cite another source. 

3.) The sources I have found compiled by the modern source at voluntaryist.com go back to the roots of the term. 

4.) The fact that Ron Paul is not the one holding the gun when my money is stolen doesn't exonerate him from participating in the 
system that allows that person to do so.

5.) The fact that Ron Paul is not the one holding the gun when he is nominated against the voluntary wishes of the people who do participate also does not exonerate him from participating in the system that allows this to happen.

6.) The fact is, Ron Paul is using the system to achieve his purposes. 

7.) I don't hear the movement condemning individuals holding the guns more than I hear the movement condemning the system altogether. 

8.) The ones who advocate involvement are libertarians

9.) The ones who advocate non involvement are voluntaryist

10.) I have bothered to understand as evidence by me being pretty much the only one citing authoritative sources

11.) I am not the one making the assertions, I am the one pointing out that the assertions being made by self-identified voluntaryist are not consistent

12.) I have provided evidence and you disagree prima facia.  I have demonstrated more than enough doubt that concluding Ron Paul is voluntaryist is false.  Now you must remove that doubt.  You won't, because rather than addressing my evidence, you continue to refer to the same prima facia conclusion. The loose knitted associations in the video simply does not hold up under the scrutiny of the evidence I have provided. 

13.) I am not disregarding his history.  I am pointing out that the history of the label that is being attached to him does not reconcile with his history.  How is that disregarding his history?  I think what is being disregarded is the history I posted about the Voluntaryist movement.  It is distinctly different from the path that Ron Paul and his mentors have taken.  For that matter, we already know that Ron Paul does not self-identify as a voluntaryist, but please which of his mentors have?

14.) I do care what label is applied because it shapes the opinion of the layperson.  If you really don't care, then bow out and allow those who are pushing the label on him to defend themselves.  Otherwise, you are tainting the discussion. 

15.) Well it's pretty obvious that Ron Paul disagrees with the purpose of Voluntaryism.  You can argue that the word and the label mean something else, but then you are not arguing against me, you are arguing against the authoritative sources, the history of voluntaryism, the founders of the philosophy, the writers and tenants of the philosophy.  Have at it, but in the mean time, until there is some significant breakthrough in that regard on your part, it's pretty easy to conclude that Ron Paul is not a voluntaryist. 

16.) I agree that Ron Paul's philosophy contains pieces other philosophies.  Which philosophy doesn't?  I also agree that Ron Paul likes voluntarism/yism, is an advocate of voluntary association, believes that voluntary means without coercion, and might even become a voluntaryist AFTER he exists politics.

17.) He is NOT a voluntaryist now, he hasn't been a voluntaryist during his time in politics, though he may have participate in some voluntaryist activities.  The label simply does not fit the man.

----------


## Cabal

> 1.) Voluntaryism is not synonymous with libertarianism.


Stopped reading there.

----------


## newbitech

> Stopped reading there.


Like I said, you dismiss based on prima facie evidence , yet you don't address the evidence I present.  It's very easy to prove 1.) but you don't accept the definitions.  If the words are synonymous, the words reflect the same philosophy.  If the philosophies are not the same, then the words are not synonymous.  

18.) The philosophies Voluntaryism and Libertarianism are not the same.

I'll add for the sake of argument,

19.) Voluntaryism and Voluntarism may not be synonymous considering Voluntaryism may be a philosophy and Voluntarism may be an action.  The distinction is unclear, but there is room for further inspection and definitions.  The Wiki source circles back to the established branch of libertarianism, Voluntaryism.  The dictionary voluntarism definition establishes the term firstly as a philosophical basis for will as the fundamental principle, the secondary definition is established in reference to churches and charity which gleans from the original source of the Voluntaryist philosophy.  The tertiary definition is established a derivative of the root voluntary as a policy or practice in the nature of actions.

Further study reveals establishment of meaning in reference to again will over intellect as the ultimate principle for reality, doctrine based on participation in an action, absence of "state" involvement in procedures of collective bargaining and union organization, and of course being SYNONYM of voluntarYism.  

And then we find that the synonymous use is of course established in reference to the principle of the absence of government in support of various none government institutions again gleaned from the founding of the philosophy.

So if voluntarism is not being used philosophically, how can the label be justified?  That is like calling Ron Paul Cyclist, since he rides a bike and advocates riding a bike.  It certainly cannot be used to challenge his self-identified label which is tied to a philosophy that he does advocate.  Constitutionalism.

----------


## Wesker1982

> In fact, he has even said to someone who describes himself as a voluntaryist (motor home diaries guy) basically you do your thing and I'll do mine.


In reply Ron says: *I think that's really what my goal is.*

The reply is in response to choice X *RATHER* than the Constitution.

From the OP:

ADAM KOKESH: *So you've described yourself as a voluntarist*. Can you tell us what that means for the big picture, and what your ideal society would be, *as a voluntarist*?

RON PAUL: Voluntary means no coercion. So if you want to change people's habits or change the world you should do it by setting examples and trying to persuade people to do it. _You can use force only when somebody uses force against you_. So voluntary use of information and persuading people, I think, is the best way to go; and *no matter what kind of problem you're looking at*.




> Ok, so how does this make Ron Paul a voluntaryist?


..........        *No True Scotsman*

----------


## Wesker1982

> Voluntaryism being synonymous with libertarianism doesn't disqualify what I said. Just as in voluntaryist circles, libertarian circles are/were also in contention about involvement with the State or not. And once again, there is no single authoritative source on what is or is not cohesive with voluntaryism, or libertarianism for that matter.
> 
> Ron Paul is not initiating violence or threat thereof, Ron Paul is not prohibiting participation--therefore there is no coercion. Again, you seem to lack a basic understanding of the terminology. In any case your point is further disqualified when you take voter turnout into consideration. Less than half the voting population votes in the general election; even less than half of the party-voter population participates in the party primary process. Either way, whether its Ron Paul or someone else, the minority is electing the candidates and indeed the president. Now you can argue that inaction is still action--that not voting is still a vote; or you can argue that the choice not to participate is a forfeiture of your freedom to vote as you choose, but that is another discussion for another time, yet it would seem central to determining what is or is not coercion relative to the electoral process.
> 
> 
> 
> Alright, this is getting very old, very fast. Some advocate involvement, some do not. This is not a difficult fact to wrap your head around. Stefan Molyneux does not advocate involvement. Murray Rothbard did. And for both of them there are likely tens of thousands of average people, if not more, who agree with one or the other who would self-identify as voluntaryist. Stop making assertions on things which you clearly haven't bothered to understand. Please. It's annoying as hell.
> 
> 
> ...


/debate

----------


## newbitech

> In reply Ron says: *I think that's really what my goal is.*
> 
> The reply is in response to choice X *RATHER* than the Constitution.
> 
> From the OP:
> 
> ADAM KOKESH: *So you've described yourself as a voluntarist*. Can you tell us what that means for the big picture, and what your ideal society would be, *as a voluntarist*?
> 
> RON PAUL: Voluntary means no coercion. So if you want to change people's habits or change the world you should do it by setting examples and trying to persuade people to do it. _You can use force only when somebody uses force against you_. So voluntary use of information and persuading people, I think, is the best way to go; and *no matter what kind of problem you're looking at*.
> ...


Prima facie STILL.  I already gave my counter, you ignored.  Why?  

Look at how much you have to chop up the question and response to get it to fit what you want it to mean?  I mean damn.  The question prefaced with the acknowledgement that Ron Paul stands for the Constitution "BUT... what do you say to people who advocate for self government rather than a return to the Constitution."  See Ron Paul advocates for a return to the Constitution.  The interviewer wanted to know what Ron Paul would say to people who DON'T advocate that.  Of course he explains his goal is self government.  Ron Paul wants those folks who don't advocate a return to the Constitution, LIKE HE DOES, to understand that the goal is the same.  You don't have to advocate for a Constitutional Government and a return to the Constitution if your goal is his goal.  He says later on,

and for the life of me I can't understand how you and many others can sit here and ignore the context

later on he tells the guy, you do your thing I'll do mine.  Ron Paul is doing something that the voluntaryist are not doing.  Hmm... why would he say that?  Oh that's right, he doesn't want to "out" himself 

Come on.  I want a real debate.  I want you to address all the stuff that I bring up that to this point you have refused to address.  You keep repeating yourself.  I keep digging and finding more and more support for my views..

I'll change my views if they are wrong. Can you say the same and actually be dependable enough to do it?

As far as Kokesh.  Obviously, Ron Paul is talking about voluntary ACTIONS and NOT Voluntarist philosophy.  Obviously.  Of course Kokesh labels himself as volunarist and pigeon holes Dr. Paul on the description and meaning of voluntarism.  Ron Paul said he endorses the idea of voluntarism (the philosophy).  Awesome, no argument from me!  But what Kokesh did there was a bit dishonest.  Clearly Kokesh was pushing the label attached to the philosophy on Ron Paul.  And you can see by Ron Paul's response, he quickly goes to the root word voluntary which indicates he took the definition established by the ACTION and not the definition established by the philosophy.  

I suspect Kokesh may not have done this on purpose if what I am seeing in this thread play out is true.  He probably has simply accepted the label based on the action definition, which isn't the philosophy.  If he knew the philosophy, he'd understand that Ron Paul cannot be a philosophical voluntaryist.  At least he can't be one with any sort of integrity.  

The problem is Ron Paul getting enough delegates to override the popular sentiment that he doesn't represent the Republican Party's views.  The solution is NOT voluntary.  The solution is to use the arcane delegate selection process to override the will (see 1st philosophical definition of voluntary) of the people who are participating the process.  

So in order for him to maintain his integrity, he cannot be a philosophical voluntaryist.  And if he thinks that using force in delegate selection process to override the will of the people is ok, then his argument now becomes that someone has used force against him in the process.   I don't see him making that argument, yet.  

You can prima facie reject that is what he is doing with delegates, but if you do that with delegates, you have to do that with taxes too.  Fact, Ron Paul is part of the system he is trying to reign in.  Fact, reigning in that system does not require collapsing that system.  Fact, Ron Paul will use force if he believes force is being used against him.  

If you want to label Ron Paul as a philosophical voluntaryist, you are going to need to show me where he was forced in to being a politician, and you are going to need to show me where the people who participate in nomination process were forced in to selecting someone other than Ron Paul at a rate of probably more than 75%.

----------


## newbitech

> /debate


premature.  Prima facie evidence has been answered.  No further evidence has been offered on the other side.  No refutation of my evidence has been forthcoming.  Possible end of debate with Cabal since he came out and said he no longer cares for the premise.

----------


## Wesker1982

> I want you to address all the stuff that I bring up that to this point you have refused to address.


You mostly ignored my responses. Reply with: BUT HOW DOES THAT MAKE HIM A VOLUNTARYIST?

If you took the time to reply to what I posted point by point, I would have no problem doing the same. Just because you write a huge wall of text does not mean it can't be a huge wall of non sequiturs and red herrings. 

I was just watching this video again...

But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist. - Lysander Spooner

Ron's response to THAT....

Ill tell you what: I dont criticize Lysander. His point is very well taken, and someday maybe we will mature to that point. His claim was that if he himself didnt agree to the Constitution, why should somebody in a remote body agree to the Constitution and he be pushed under it? *It is a good idea*, _but under todays circumstances_, I have to work with the best that we have. Because who knows, I might have been an anti-Federalist at the time the Constitution was being written. But fortunately we ended up with a good Constitution, and our problem is more that we dont obey the good parts about it. I think its a very interesting philosophic issue, and I hope that someday we mature enough to have that argument.

----------


## newbitech

> You mostly ignored my responses. Reply with: BUT HOW DOES THAT MAKE HIM A VOLUNTARYIST?
> 
> If you took the time to reply to what I posted point by point, I would have no problem doing the same. Just because you write a huge wall of text does not mean it can't be a huge wall of non sequiturs and red herrings. 
> 
> I was just watching this video again...
> 
> But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist. - Lysander Spooner
> 
> Ron's response to THAT....
> ...


Oh but I did address your points.  I addressed the source loop in the wiki.  I addressed the various definitions being used.  I addressed the fallacy you accused me of.  So don't say I mostly ignored your response.  I have been reading about Voluntaryism all day long.  please don't accuse me of ignoring.  If you have a specific point you want me to address, lay it out.

Good idea, BUT...

and

Good constitution, the problem is that we don't obey the good parts about it.

----------


## Wesker1982

> Tell me, does Voluntaryism support the idea that Ron Paul can and should take the reigns of government by using "the state" apparatus to coerce a very large majority of people who have actively voted against his candidacy into accepting his nomination?


He isn't coercing anyone. If his actions were coercive, then it would violate Voluntaryist principles. 

What is he doing to voters who voted against him? The position is essentially: "I am going to reduce as much coercion as possible. This includes using violence to get people to pay for things that you want". 

Someone is trying to take away the power of this criminal organization to initiate violence on my behalf? They are coercing me! 

See how that doesn't really work? He is not coercing the people who want other people robbed. He is reducing coercion.

----------


## RiseAgainst

_In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having ever been asked, a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practise this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defence, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man attempts to take the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot -- which is a mere substitute for a bullet -- because, as his only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency, into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defence offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him._

~Lysander Spooner

----------


## Wesker1982

"I like voluntarism. That's what a free society is supposed to be all about." - Ron Paul

To believe in liberty is not to believe in any particular social and economic outcome (*VOLUNTARYISM*). It is to trust the *spontaneous order* that emerges when the state does not intervene in human volition and human cooperation (*VOLUNTARYISM*). It permits people to work out their problems for themselves, build lives for themselves, take risks and accept responsibility for the results, and make their own decisions(*VOLUNTARYISM*). - Liberty Defined

A free people do not use force to mold person moral behavoir, but a free people do entrust the management of social norms to the courts of taste and manners that arise *spontaneously* within civilization (*VOLUNTARYISM*). - Liberty Defined

We *endorse* the idea of *voluntarism*, self-responsibility, family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. - Ron Paul

[x] Spontaneous order
[x] All interactions voluntary
[ ] initiation of coercion

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Without Austrian economics, I would not have had my political
> career. *The strongest motivating force in my political activities is to
> live free since I was born free. Liberty is my first goal. The free market
> is the only result that can be expected from a free society. I do not
> accept individual freedom because the market is efficient. Even if the
> free market were less “efficient” than central planning, I would still
> prefer my personal freedom to coercion.*


http://mises.org/books/paulmises.pdf

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Good idea, BUT...


Good idea, BUT... it's just so taboo?

----------


## Wesker1982

We *endorse* the idea of *voluntarism*, self-responsibility, family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. - Ron Paul

----------


## newbitech

> He isn't coercing anyone. If his actions were coercive, then it would violate Voluntaryist principles. 
> 
> What is he doing to voters who voted against him? The position is essentially: "I am going to reduce as much coercion as possible. This includes using violence to get people to pay for things that you want". 
> 
> Someone is trying to take away the power of this criminal organization to initiate violence on my behalf? They are coercing me! 
> 
> See how that doesn't really work? He is not coercing the people who want other people robbed. He is reducing coercion.


People who gladly pay their taxes don't believe they are being coerced either, but we make the case because we understand that some of us believe in keeping the fruits of our labor.  People who gladly vote for anyone but Paul don't believe they are being coerced either, but we make the case that winning 1144 delegates is all that matters.  

In both cases, there is coercion by "the state" against those glad people.  In the first case, it is we who are forced by the state to do something we don't want.  In the second case it is the glad people who are forced by the state to do something they don't want.  

Why is one outcome ok for us, but the other is not?  How come coercion is only challenged when it is not to our benefit?  Is there anything else that it is ok to use "the state" apparatus for?  Or is this the exception to the rule?

----------


## newbitech

> _In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having ever been asked, a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practise this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defence, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man attempts to take the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot -- which is a mere substitute for a bullet -- because, as his only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency, into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defence offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him._
> 
> ~Lysander Spooner


right, so if Ron Paul doesn't win, then what?  If Ron Paul wins against the last resort of the people who voted against him, then what for them?

----------


## newbitech

> Good idea, BUT... it's just so taboo?





> under today's circumstances, I have to work with the best we have.


In Ron Paul's view the best we have is what?

----------


## newbitech

> "I like voluntarism. That's what a free society is supposed to be all about." - Ron Paul
> 
> To believe in liberty is not to believe in any particular social and economic outcome (*VOLUNTARYISM*). It is to trust the *spontaneous order* that emerges when the state does not intervene in human volition and human cooperation (*VOLUNTARYISM*). It permits people to work out their problems for themselves, build lives for themselves, take risks and accept responsibility for the results, and make their own decisions(*VOLUNTARYISM*). - Liberty Defined
> 
> A free people do not use force to mold person moral behavoir, but a free people do entrust the management of social norms to the courts of taste and manners that arise *spontaneously* within civilization (*VOLUNTARYISM*). - Liberty Defined
> 
> We *endorse* the idea of *voluntarism*, self-responsibility, family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. - Ron Paul
> 
> [x] Spontaneous order
> ...


yes, I know.  but I don't remember reading (VOLUNTARYISM) in there.  Did you receive a different copy?  

Yes I get that he endorses the idea of voluntarism.  The definition he has consistently used is not the philosophical definition.  He is using the root voluntary.  I put the definition up there.  I don't think the use of that word or the idea of voluntarism is a label for any particular philosophy.  I can see how someone would mistakenly draw that conclusion, but once you start digging in to the philosophy vs the action, it's plain to see that philosophical voluntarism is much more than just the idea of a policy or principle based on voluntary actions.

----------


## newbitech

> We *endorse* the idea of *voluntarism*, self-responsibility, family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. - Ron Paul


yes I know, but this doesn't mean, "I am a philosophical voluntarist so label me as such."

Ron Paul endorses the idea of riding a bike, so please label him a cyclist from now on.

----------


## newbitech

> http://mises.org/books/paulmises.pdf





> Without Austrian economics, I would not have had my political
> career. *The strongest motivating force in my political activities is to
> live free since I was born free. Liberty is my first goal. The free market
> is the only result that can be expected from a free society. I do not
> accept individual freedom because the market is efficient. Even if the
> free market were less “efficient” than central planning, I would still
> prefer my personal freedom to coercion.*


Thank you.  So if Ron Paul's goal is self government and Ron Paul's goal is Liberty, then we can say that Ron Paul believes self government is liberty and liberty is self government.  Which means that I can be FOR a limited government and establish a limited government where SOME things are provided by "the state".  As long as my "state" isn't coercing others to be a part of it, then their actions can be interpreted as voluntary.  Are the people in my "state" voluntaryist/ist?  

The answer is, philosophically no they aren't.  In practice yes they are.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> In Ron Paul's view the best we have is what?


Using the constitution as a tool to push for liberty so long as people won't grow up and talk about alternatives to the state like adults because existentially challenging the state is an unthinkable social taboo?

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Which means that I can be FOR a limited government and establish a limited government where SOME things are provided by "the state".  As long as my "state" isn't coercing others to be a part of it, then their actions can be interpreted as voluntary.  Are the people in my "state" voluntaryist/ist?  
> 
> The answer is, philosophically no they aren't.  In practice yes they are.


Not sure how you're defining "government" or "state" here...

----------


## noneedtoaggress

Good reading to get behind RP's mindset on his role in politics and "natural resistance to the state".




> *Introduction*
> 
> _[U]nder the predominance of interventionist ideas, a political
> career is open only to men who identify themselves with the
> interests of a pressure group. . . . Service to the short-run interests
> of a pressure group is not conducive to the development of those
> qualities which make a great statesman. Statesmanship is invariably
> long-run policy; pressure groups do not bother about the
> long-run.1_
> ...





> *Summary*
> Austrian economics has provided me with the intellectual ammunition
> to support my natural tendency to say “no” to all forms of
> government intervention. Mises provides an inspiration to stick to
> principle and to argue quietly and confidently in favor of the superiority
> of a decentralized, consumer-oriented market, in contrast to a bureaucratic
> centrally planned economy.
> Mises is clear about the responsibility we all have in establishing a
> free society. He concludes Socialism with this advice:
> ...

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> People who gladly pay their taxes don't believe they are being coerced either, but we make the case because we understand that some of us believe in keeping the fruits of our labor.  People who gladly vote for anyone but Paul don't believe they are being coerced either, but we make the case that winning 1144 delegates is all that matters.
> 
> In both cases, there is coercion by "the state" against those glad people.  In the first case, it is we who are forced by the state to do something we don't want.  In the second case it is the glad people who are forced by the state to do something they don't want.  
> 
> Why is one outcome ok for us, but the other is not?  How come coercion is only challenged when it is not to our benefit?  Is there anything else that it is ok to use "the state" apparatus for?  Or is this the exception to the rule?


People who gladly pay their taxes believing that they aren't being coerced are wrong.  What they _believe_ doesn't really enter into it, when it comes to advocating the elimination of that coercion - taking control of the state and putting an end to the practice.  

Taking a loaded gun out of the hands of a mobster pointed at a person's head, lowering it and removing the bullets is not coercive just because I have the gun in my hand...

----------


## Wesker1982

> People who gladly pay their taxes don't believe they are being coerced either


Cool. No one is using force to prevent them from sending their money to the government. 




> In the second case it is the glad people who are forced by the state to do something they don't want.


They can still do everything they want to do. The only difference is they would not be able to force other people. 

Do I really have to explain this again? I really don't see how you can be serious here. 

THIS is what you are essentially saying: Someone is trying to take away the power of this criminal organization to initiate violence on my behalf? They are coercing me! 

*Really*. You would have to argue: Mr. X is benefiting from money that is *violently extracted* from innocent citizens Y. Someone comes along and reduces the initiation of coercion. Mr. X is therefore being coerced. 

If you can't understand that then I don't think I can help you until you learn the basics of libertarianism. 




> yes, I know.  but I don't remember reading (VOLUNTARYISM) in there.  Did you receive a different copy?


I pointed out that that everything he said there is advocating Voluntaryism. 

Everything you are saying is equivalent to: libertarians don't advocate IP, therefore if you advocate IP then you are not a libertarian. It is obvious though that you can still be a libertarian and mistakenly advocate IP. The issue of political action is still debated between Voluntaryists, supporting one side or the other does not disqualify one from the group though. Just like pro IP vs anti-IP in regards to libertarianism. 

Historically, sure, maybe every Voluntaryist refused to participate in all politics. But today *many* people self identify as Voluntaryists while participating in the political process (by voting for and supporting Ron Paul). See: The Anarcho-Capitalist Reddit, Mises.org Forums, Philosophy Forums at RPF .... These are the largest hangouts for Voluntaryists that I can think of off the top of my head. Mises.org obviously being probably the biggest. Go over there and ask them what they think...

This change in Voluntaryist consensus on voting is because almost everyone who used to identify as anarcho-capitalists are now calling themselves Voluntaryists. MANY of those anarcho-capitalists support Ron Paul. The Voluntaryist movement today *largely* consists of former self-identified anarcho-capitalists. I would say they make up the majority of the group. 

If Rothbard were alive today, almost everyone in the movement would call him a Voluntaryist... and he advocated political action. 

So with that said, there is undeniable evidence that Ron Paul:

1. Reaches his libertarian viewpoint through a totally Rothbardian belief system (natural rights)
2. Believes all interactions should be voluntary
3. Believes all taxation is theft
4. Wants the total voluntarization of all defense services (i.e., all law would be privately provided)

In other words, he is an obvious anarcho-capitalist. Most people call it Voluntaryism now because Ancap is a misnomer but the principles of it are almost identical to Voluntaryism.

----------


## RiseAgainst

> right, so if Ron Paul doesn't win, then what?  If Ron Paul wins against the last resort of the people who voted against him, then what for them?


All I'm saying is that the logic string "Ron Paul participates in political action, therefore he is not against political action" does not follow.

----------


## Wesker1982

> All I'm saying is that the logic string "Ron Paul participates in political action, therefore he is not against political action" does not follow.


Exactly. It would be like saying that because Ron Paul receives tax money that he supports taxation. He obviously would abolish taxation if given the chance. 

This is exactly why understanding Spooner is important (as Ron Paul clearly agrees).

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> *This change in Voluntaryist consensus on voting is because almost everyone who used to identify as anarcho-capitalists are now calling themselves Voluntaryists*. MANY of those anarcho-capitalists support Ron Paul. The Voluntaryist movement today *largely* consists of former self-identified anarcho-capitalists. I would say they make up the majority of the group. 
> 
> If Rothbard were alive today, almost everyone in the movement would call him a Voluntaryist... and he advocated political action.


 Your explanation is very simple, and very true.  A lot of people decided that "anarcho-capitalist" was a lousy label -- stilted, confusing, and contains two loaded and easily-misunderstood terms.  So they switched to another label -- a word with the root "voluntary", since "voluntary" is positive, non-threatening, and does in fact sum up the core idea of the philosophy.

This label change messes up the taxonomy a bit, but it solves more problems than it creates.  It's confusing newbitech right now, because newbitech has a good point that not-so-long-ago, labeling yourself as a voluntar(y)ist had to do with dropping out of the political system.  But it doesn't any more.  Once he understands/accepts that, he'll understand, perhaps, why people are calling Ron Paul a voluntar(y)ist.


By the way,

Question: is anyone using voluntarist and voluntaryist as two different things?  If so, what is the distinction?




> 1. Reaches his libertarian viewpoint through a totally Rothbardian belief system (natural rights)
> 2. Believes all interactions should be voluntary
> 3. Believes all taxation is theft
> 4. Wants the total voluntarization of all defense services (i.e., all law would be privately provided)
> 
> In other words, he is an obvious anarcho-capitalist. Most people call it Voluntaryism now because Ancap is a misnomer but the principles of it are almost identical to Voluntaryism.


 Yep.  Well, not _obvious_.  I would say he's an _under-cover_ an-cap.  It's not evident to most people (yet), so it can't be super-obvious.  It's only obvious if you're looking for it.

----------


## Wesker1982

> Question: is anyone using voluntarist and voluntaryist as two different things?  If so, what is the distinction?


In the context of libertarianism, they are the same. I use Voluntaryism because it is less likely to be confused with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntarism_(metaphysics) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntarism_(action)




> Yep. Well, not obvious. I would say he's an under-cover an-cap. It's not evident to most people (yet), so it can't be super-obvious. It's only obvious if you're looking for it.


Yeah, what I meant is that it is obvious to anyone who is aware of those 4 facts.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> In the context of libertarianism, they are the same. I use Voluntaryism because it is less likely to be confused with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntarism_(metaphysics) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntarism_(action)


  Thanks!  That makes sense.

----------


## newbitech

I'll go ahead and bow out, unconvinced.  I think HH summed it up pretty well. 

In parting I will say, it's not that I am incapable of understanding or agreeing.  All the points from the Ron Paul = Voluntarist are well met.

Someone who was looking up Ron Paul for the first time would more than likely follow the path I laid out and the seeds of doubt as to Ron Paul's credibility as a politician would be planted.  

That is not to say people won't continue researching him.  But I think it is pretty obvious why he doesn't take up the label.  It's just not who he is.

I understand the distinction between the philosophies.  If that distinction is on the ropes because people need a better label for anarchism or ancap or libertarianism, then I believe that is a sad mistake.  I think it would be better to leave the distinction in place, to leave Ron Paul's label where Ron Paul has set it, and continue the discussion without trying to attach a politician who is working within the system to a label that is distinctly trying to effect change WITHOUT the system.

In that regard, no one has to sacrifice core principles.  It can be argued that to esoteric adherence to the philosophy of voluntaryism, the distinction is worth sacrificing if it furthers the cause.  To the layman however, it points to a willingness to sacrifice principle as the ends simply do not justify the means.  In that regard, why tamper with the distinction in philosophies?  

Why not press on without involving labels?  I think that is a fair compromise and I have heard that offered albeit begrudgingly in this discussion. 

I will stand by my assertions that winning the nomination is using the same apparatus to control the masses via the delegate process as collecting taxes.  Most people who I know that do not support Ron Paul's ideas will say that there is no gun to their head when it comes to paying taxes.  If however it turns out that Ron Paul wins the nomination with less than 25% of the popular support, the people I know who vote against Ron Paul will indeed believe that they are now being forced at the barrel of a gun to accept him representation, regardless if it is good or not.  

We can't say these people are right or wrong for believing that paying taxes is their obligation and moral duty as American citizens.  That is what they believe.  We cannot even prove to them that they are slaves to the system, let alone slaves by force.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

I know you said you bowed out but I don't really get this:




> I will stand by my assertions that winning the nomination is using the same apparatus to control the masses via the delegate process as collecting taxes.  Most people who I know that do not support Ron Paul's ideas will say that there is no gun to their head when it comes to paying taxes.  If however it turns out that Ron Paul wins the nomination with less than 25% of the popular support, the people I know who vote against Ron Paul will indeed believe that they are now being forced at the barrel of a gun to accept him representation, regardless if it is good or not.


But how is that not different from a mugger complaining that you took his gun away by force after you managed to get the upper hand? What if he even said that you could have the gun if you beat him at chess... and you won? Waaaah, don't force me to put my gun away, I wanted to roooobbbb youuuuuuu, you're such a tyrant!!!!

Boohoo, I don't believe there's a gun pointed to my head when I pay tribute and force you to pay tribute, but when someone comes along and says "hey you can't force that guy to pay tribute, you can only do it yourself" and does it through your own sacred democratic process. Who cares if they whine about it?




> We can't say these people are right or wrong for believing that paying taxes is their obligation and moral duty as American citizens.  That is what they believe.  We cannot even prove to them that they are slaves to the system, let alone slaves by force.


Of course not, what's wrong is when they believe that paying taxes is YOUR obligation and moral duty and they have the right to extract it from you by force through the state. It's a perversion of law.


Beyond all that though it's pretty clear about Ron's mindset through his writings on the subject.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *In 1776, in America, it was a war for independence from British
> oppression.  In 1917, in Russia, violence was used to strengthen oppression.*


I have a nit-pick with this.  In the October Revolution (the Red-White war), the Reds believed they were using violence to oppose Czarist oppression. (they were incorrect, of course)  And the American revolution is way overhyped by everyone who tries to gin up patriotic/anti-establishment fervor-and it's become a silly nationalist fairy tale with a life of its own.  See: *Did King George III Deserve To Be Overthrown?*

----------


## newbitech

> I know you said you bowed out but I don't really get this:
> 
> 
> 
> But how is that not different from a mugger complaining that you took his gun away by force after you managed to get the upper hand? Waaaah, don't force me to put my gun away, I wanted to roooobbbb youuuuuuu, you're such a tyrant!!!!
> 
> Boohoo, I don't believe there's a gun pointed to my head when I pay tribute and force you to pay tribute, but when someone comes along and says "hey you can't force that guy to pay tribute, you can only do it yourself" and does it through your own sacred democratic process. Who cares if they whine about it?
> 
> 
> ...


yes I bowed out of the Ron Paul = voluntarist idea.  I have stated my case, someone has reiterated my point and I have a satisfactory explanation of where the differences in opinion stem from.  I can work with that.  

As far as the gun in the room, until everyone in the room can get up and leave the room on their own free will, I will continue to see the threat.  It should be clear, people who are paying taxes and voting against Ron Paul are in that room too, and the fact that Ron Paul is going to be in control that gun doesn't change the fact that those people still won't be able to get up and leave the room on their own free will.

Understand what I am saying here.  Ron Paul holding the gun does not remove that gun, nor does it remove the threat.  A lot of people will understand this when Ron Paul has the gun, because he will do the right thing.  WE know that.  But him holding the gun is not enough.  Him disarming the threat is not enough.

People like you and me need to start walking out of the room, REGARDLESS of who is holding the gun.

----------


## Wesker1982

> If Canada and the United States can be separate nations without being denounced as being in a state of impermissible "anarchy," why may not the South secede from the United States? New York State from the Union? New York City from the state? Why may not Manhattan secede? Each neighborhood? Each block? Each house? Each person? But, of course, if each person may secede from government, we have virtually arrived at the purely free society, where defense is supplied along with all other services by the free market and where the invasive State has ceased to exist.  Murray N. Rothbard

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> People like you and me need to start walking out of the room, REGARDLESS of who is holding the gun.


Sure, I don't disagree with that at all.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> 


Nice! Man I _love_ it when he takes a strike at the root...

This is one of my favorite moments this cycle:

----------


## Wesker1982

Promoting the NAP on national TV. HOPE WE CAN BELIEVE IN.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Promoting the NAP on national TV. HOPE WE CAN BELIEVE IN.





> I don't like the use of force, I like voluntaryism, that's what a free society is all about.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Nice! Man I _love_ it when he takes a strike at the root...
> 
> This is one of my favorite moments this cycle:


EPIC!!!

----------


## Cabal

> Promoting the NAP on national TV.


Legendary.

----------


## Conza88



----------


## Feeding the Abscess

I'd never read the introduction to Liberty Defined before twenty minutes ago. Holy eff, few things that jumped at me:




> Liberty means to exercise human rights in any manner a person chooses so long as it does not interfere with the exercise of the rights of others. This means, above all else, keeping government out of our lives. Only this path leads to the unleashing of human energies that build civilizations, provide security, generate wealth, and protect the people from systematic rights violations.





> To believe in liberty is not to believe in any particular social and economic outcome. It is to trust in the spontaneous order that emerges when the state does not intervene in human volition and human cooperation.





> And yet even among the friends of liberty, many people are deceived into believing that government can make them safe from all harm, provide fairly distributed economic security, and improve individual moral behavior. If the government is granted a monopoly on the use of force to achieve these goals, history shows that that power will be abused. Every single time.


These aren't dogwhistles, these are freaking bullhorns.

----------


## Conza88

> I'd never read the introduction to Liberty Defined before twenty minutes ago. Holy eff, few things that jumped at me:
> 
> These aren't dogwhistles, these are freaking bullhorns.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

@ around 10:00 min in.

----------


## Conza88

This goes out to all those in this thread who helped spawn and inspire a new meme. Couldn't have done it without you. Thanks soundboard.

----------


## Cabal

> I'd never read the introduction to Liberty Defined before twenty minutes ago. Holy eff, few things that jumped at me:
> 
> These aren't dogwhistles, these are freaking bullhorns.


There's so many anarchistic undertones in those small selections alone.




> keeping government out of our lives


If government is completely out of our lives, one could easily take this to mean it ought not to even exist. If government is not involved in anyone's lives at all, how can it exist, and for what purpose?




> spontaneous order that emerges when the state does not intervene in human volition and human cooperation


Spontaneous order in absence of the State = a direct reference to anarchy.




> many people are deceived into believing that government can make them safe from all harm


So not even national defense or police protection.




> monopoly on the use of force


Again, anarchist phraseology. 




> history shows that that power will be abused. Every single time


Common anarchist argument against government and the State.


Was there ever really any doubt? Aside from Statists trying to justify their world view by asserting the RP holds the same.

----------


## Wesker1982

> So not even national defense or police protection.


Just in case you missed it: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Private-Courts

I plan to edit sometime and add the other stuff he said about Spooner. 

Question: "You're frequently an advocate for the Constitution. What are your thoughts of the Lysander Spooner statement: "_But whether the Constitution really be one thing or another, this much is certain: that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist._"

*Ron Paul*: "I'll tell you what: *I don't criticize Lysander*. His point is *very well taken*, and someday maybe we will mature to that point. His claim was that if he himself didn't agree to the Constitution, why should somebody in a remote body agree to the Constitution and he be pushed under it? *It is a good idea*, but under today's circumstances, I have to work with the best that we have. Because who knows, I might have been an anti-Federalist at the time the Constitution was being written. But fortunately we ended up with a good Constitution [at least tries to limit government], and our problem is more that we don't obey the good parts about it. I think it's a very interesting philosophic issue, and I hope that someday we mature enough to have that argument."

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> There's so many anarchistic undertones in those small selections alone.
> 
> 
> 
> If government is completely out of our lives, one could easily take this to mean it ought not to even exist. If government is not involved in anyone's lives at all, how can it exist, and for what purpose?
> 
> 
> 
> Spontaneous order in absence of the State = a direct reference to anarchy.
> ...


Found this gem while reading through the Medical Care chapter:




> In fact, the greater the importance of anything, the stronger the reason not to depend on a government redistributionist system. A government system of anything has a nearly perfect record of failure - whether it's stopping war, preserving liberty, guaranteeing sound money, or generating economic prosperity.


Also fun is this, in the marriage section:




> It is typical of how government intervention in social issues serves no useful purpose.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

Bump.

Looky what I found:

http://www.theenc.org/img/print/RP&V.pdf

----------


## Conza88

Haha, yep... lot of good work from those here in the forums have managed to find a lot of gems. Nicely put together.

----------


## Conza88

LE, just for you

----------


## Wesker1982

> Its easy to reject the initiation of violence against ones neighbor but its ironic that the people arbitrarily and freely anoint government officials with monopoly power to initiate violence against the American peoplepractically at will.





> *No Government Monopoly over Initiating Violence*
> 
> Restraining aggressive behavior is one thing, but legalizing a government monopoly for initiating aggression can only lead to exhausting liberty associated with chaos, anger and the breakdown of civil society. Permitting such authority and expecting saintly behavior from the bureaucrats and the politicians is a pipe dream. We now have a standing army of armed bureaucrats in the TSA, CIA, FBI, Fish and Wildlife, FEMA, IRS, Corp of Engineers, etc. numbering over 100,000. Citizens are guilty until proven innocent in the unconstitutional administrative courts.
> 
> Government in a free society should have no authority to meddle in social activities or the economic transactions of individuals. Nor should government meddle in the affairs of other nations. All things peaceful, even when controversial, should be permitted.


Here he expresses the explicitly Rothbardian view that governments get away with initiating violence because of their perceived legitimatacy:




> Because its the government that initiates force, most people accept it as being legitimate.


(For the Rothbardian summary see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bqo7XMkbtEk and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpCy0gmWMCM )

Here he echos Lysander Spooner:




> It is believed by too many that governments are morally justified in initiating force supposedly to do good.  They *incorrectly believe* that this authority has come from the consent of the people.


( also see Ron Paul on Lysander Spooner here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQWz2zQ9OmI )

Here he mentions three positions:

1. economic interventionism
2. social interventionism
3. voluntarism

Then rejects two of them.  




> The problem we have faced over the years has been that economic interventionists are swayed by envy, whereas social interventionists are swayed by intolerance of habits and lifestyles. The misunderstanding that tolerance is an endorsement of certain activities, motivates many to legislate moral standards which should only be set by individuals making their own choices. Both sides use force to deal with these misplaced emotions. Both are authoritarians. Neither endorses *voluntarism*.  Both views ought to be rejected.





> What a wonderful world it would be if everyone accepted the simple moral premise of _rejecting all acts of aggression_. The retort to such a suggestion is always: its too simplistic, too idealistic, impractical, naïve, utopian, dangerous, and unrealistic to strive for such an ideal. The answer to that is that for thousands of years the acceptance of government force, to rule over the people, at the sacrifice of liberty, was considered moral and the only available option for achieving peace and prosperity. What could be more utopian than that myth  considering the results especially looking at the state sponsored killing, by nearly every government during the 20th Century, estimated to be in the hundreds of millions. *Its time to reconsider this grant of authority to the state.*






> The idealism of non-aggression and _rejecting all offensive use of force should be tried._

----------


## torchbearer

that is true.
ron did talk about the two choices... but had a government... but what was different in each example was the people.
a moral people will bring about a moral government.
a society of people that boo the golden rule produces the government we have today.

----------


## Cabal

His entire speech today was a resounding advocacy of NAP and voluntaryism as far as I can tell.

----------


## Cabal

> that is true.
> ron did talk about the two choices... but had a government... but what was different in each example was the people.
> a moral people will bring about a moral government.
> a society of people that boo the golden rule produces the government we have today.


This is actually a common anarchist argument in so many words: "The only good government is one comprised entirely of angels."

The reality is people are not angels, and some people are not moral. This will always hold true. So if everyone must be moral and everyone in the government must be an angel for 'good' government to exist, well... that strikes rather Utopian.

----------


## torchbearer

> This is actually a common anarchist argument in so many words: "The only good government is one comprised entirely of angels."
> 
> The reality is people are not angels, and some people are not moral. This will always hold true. So if everyone must be moral and everyone in the government must be an angel for 'good' government to exist, well... that strikes rather Utopian.


it can only happen by changing our neighbors minds.
we need to be 'ron pauls' in our own areas.

----------


## Wesker1982

> Ron Paul said there should be 
> 
> "No government monopoly over initiating violence"


A defense organization that does not initiate violence is a market entity

----------


## Wesker1982

*Government Security is Just Another Kind of Violence.* - Ron Paul

HMMMM, I wonder if anyone would interpret this headline as _pro-_government security? 

http://paul.house.gov/index.php?opti...rticle&id=2037

----------


## Wesker1982

*Ron Paul's Voluntaryist Position on Government Owned Land*

----------


## Cabal



----------


## eduardo89

> LE, just for you


I was asked to post this:




> I think it is hilarious the Philosophy forum at RonPaulForums.com is no longer hidden from public view.
> 
> I reckon now that Ron Paul is not running again they can let it out of the dungeon.  I also wanted to convey kudo's to Conza for post #518 in this thread:
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...tarists/page18
> 
> If anyone can post at RPF, has the desire, and opportunity let Conza know LFoD:
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member....ve_Free_Or_Die
> ...

----------


## libertygold

> Sure, Ron Paul calls himself voluntaryist, but that doesn't mean for him that there should be no government, because he specifically rejected that idea.


Yeah but his haters will pretend he is an anarchist and opposed to the state, etc.

----------


## Wesker1982



----------


## heavenlyboy34

> 


+rep

----------


## Conza88

> 


OMG... Ahahah... LE, where are you? How about Trav? Newbitech? 

*I'm waiting for all of your apologies, or to admit you were wrong.
*

It cannot literally get anymore clear than that video. You know who else was wrong? Stefan Molyneux.

_Notice: Ron Paul is no longer running for office, this time he has NO issue accepting the label._ 

I prefer not to regardless, but that is his prerogative. Just wow... I mean, I knew it, we and others said it, it was always as clear as day... but to hear it again is so sweet.

Ron Paul... putting all of you in your intellectually strategically stunted places. 

_#overthetop #responseto4yearsofmindlessattacksfromStatist trollsheredenyingreality_

----------


## Conza88



----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Yeah but his haters will pretend he is an anarchist and opposed to the state, etc.


 It would appear from the latest video posted by Wesker that Ron Paul is, in fact a voluntarist, and is fine with the label of anarchist, so long as he can make it clear that the version of anarchism he is talking about is different than the violent, brick-throwing (leftist) version of anarchism.

So, libertygold, is Ron Paul "one of his haters"?  A hater of himself?

----------


## Conza88

> It would appear from the latest video posted by Wesker that Ron Paul is, in fact a voluntarist, and is fine with the label of anarchist, so long as he can make it clear that the version of anarchism he is talking about is different than the violent, brick-throwing (leftist) version of anarchism.
> 
> So, libertygold, is Ron Paul "one of his haters"?  A hater of himself?


Precisely

----------


## kcchiefs6465

Once he started broadcasting Ron Paul Channel he really began speaking a lot more bluntly.

I was pointing out various episodes as they were coming out (and people were whining that Ron Paul is not an anarcho-capitalist, or that the things people post here might drive away conservatives).

Klamath might remember all of the transcripts I typed and posted that would have been chastised had I made the exact same point.

----------


## Conza88

https://www.facebook.com/Anarchast/?...7CS_mM&fref=nf

 @LibertyEagle - what say you?

----------


## Conza88

Can I get an answer - who changed the title of this thread? 

It was: *"Ron Paul re-confirms his voluntarism"* 

*BTW* 



Not photo-shopped...

----------


## PAF

Anarchapulco

February 2020

Acapulco, Mexico

https://anarchapulco.com

----------

