# Think Tank > Political Philosophy & Government Policy >  I'm done making excuses for the State

## Cutlerzzz

It seems as though every argument made for the state is wrong, and all of the arguments made against a voluntary society are based on straw man. 

Government, every where in the world, is full of nothing but evil men that commit the worst of crimes. I don't see why a monopoly based on violence can provide anything that the people cannot create voluntarily. 

A few years ago, when I first started reading about Paul and the Austrian School, I thought that anarchists were nothing but crazy, violent people, with backwards ideas, that were trying to fool us. I feel pretty stupid about that now. Most of the defenders of the state around these parts come off as insane ones now, in many cases. How many people here defend tariffs until they are blue in the face? We have people that outright defend Hitler and Gadaffi as human beings. If anything, the anarchists are easily the most sane people around here (there are lots of exceptions of course). It is really just a matter of getting over the label "anarchist". 

I could be ok with a government, provided it is funded voluntarily, respects secession, microsecession, and does not infringe on anyones rights. But I don't know if that is even possible, or could be called a government. 

Well, no more apologies from me, and no more contradictions either. I still don't like the way the word sounds, and should do more research on government, history, economics, and law, but I will not make a single excuse for the state from here on out.

----------


## Czolgosz

Once you experience and begin to understand Humanity you can figure the pros/cons of any form of government.

----------


## Travlyr

Are you up for a civil discussion?

Does the State benefit anybody? If so, who benefits?

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> Are you up for a civil discussion?
> 
> Does the State benefit anybody? If so, who benefits?


I always keep discussions civil, never break board rules, or launch personal attacks on anyone. Ever. 

I would say that the state benefits its cronies. That is about it.

----------


## Travlyr

How about property owners and state workers? They benefit.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> How about property owners and state workers? They benefit.


State workers fall under their cronies. I don't blame people who work for the government personally, they have to get by somehow, and don't generally stop to think about how they are living off of other people's stolen money. 

Property owners do not need the state, especially in the United States where geography makes an attack on American soil almost impossible. Property could be protected through voluntary means, either through a tiny voluntary government, or through private court systems.

----------


## Travlyr

Perfect voluntaryism is impossible, imo. Do you agree with that?

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> Perfect voluntaryism is impossible, imo. Do you agree with that?


Well, from the US's founding up until the Progressive Era, so roughly 1776-1900, the Federal Government operated with just an average of 2% of GNP. Is it unimaginable that that could not be donated on a voluntary basis, or done without government altogether through the private sector? 

By perfect voluntarism, do you mean that there will never be war, and there will be no crimes or any form of aggression? No, I don't believe that could happen. Do I believe we could get by without state mandates violence? Yes, I do, and I believe that it is worth a shot.

----------


## Travlyr

You are jumping the gun. Let's take it one step at a time. I agree with you that perfect voluntaryism is not possible, so the best we can do is less than perfect. Therefore relative voluntaryism is acceptable to both of us and the closer we can get to perfect the better. So far we are in agreement on that.

Next, humans need to eat, breathe, and drink in order to sustain life. There is abundant air, water, and land (to grow food), although good land is more scarce than water and air. Therefore, good land to grow food is desirable and the best land is the most desirable and will be fought for unless there is some order, right?

----------


## Echoes

I'd be an anarchist myself if i thought it wasnt impossible. There's *ZERO* chance it would work in todays world, too much hostility and very, very few ppl understand and respect private property. I think the most practical system that'd produce the least violence would be something similar to the articles of confederation except i'd go further and have a federal govt limited strictly to administrative duties, no power on force, security or military.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> You are jumping the gun. Let's take it one step at a time. I agree with you that perfect voluntaryism is not possible, so the best we can do is less than perfect. Therefore relative voluntaryism is acceptable to both of us and the closer we can get to perfect the better. So far we are in agreement on that.
> 
> Next, humans need to eat, breathe, and drink in order to sustain life. There is abundant air, water, and land (to grow food), although good land is more scarce than water and air. Therefore, good land to grow food is desirable and the best land is the most desirable and will be fought for unless there is some order, right?


There is a difference between sanctioned, legal, mandatory violence, and random criminal acts. I'm not ok with people stealing from each other. Perfect voluntarism might not be possible due to random outlaws, but that does not mean that forcing everyone in society into a coercive collective is moral or needed. 

I think it is evident that the state destroys order. By the states very natures, it is funded by taking away other people's property. How can it be trusted to defend anyone elses? When you factor in their monopoly status, and the fact that they are using other people's resources, it gets worse. Corruption is ineveitable, and because it is not voluntary, tyrants will ultimately arise to the top in order to enforce the laws onto people. It will just continue to push people down the road to serfdom.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> I'd be an anarchist myself if i thought it wasnt impossible. There's *ZERO* chance it would work in todays world, too much hostility and very, very few ppl understand and respect private property. I think the most practical system that'd produce the least violence would be something similar to the articles of confederation except i'd go further and have a federal govt limited strictly to administrative duties, no power on force, security or military.


Why don't you believe that it would work?

----------


## Czolgosz

I'm not an anarchist per se, but this vid makes a compelling argument.  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kPyrq6SEL0




This is another video, looks to be a part 1 for the aforementioned vid.  Another good listen 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khRkB...eature=related

----------


## Travlyr

> There is a difference between sanctioned, legal, mandatory violence, and random criminal acts. I'm not ok with people stealing from each other. Perfect voluntarism might not be possible due to random outlaws, but that does not mean that forcing everyone in society into a coercive collective is moral or needed. 
> 
> I think it is evident that the state destroys order. By the states very natures, it is funded by taking away other people's property. How can it be trusted to defend anyone elses? When you factor in their monopoly status, and the fact that they are using other people's resources, it gets worse. Corruption is ineveitable, and because it is not voluntary, tyrants will ultimately arise to the top in order to enforce the laws onto people. It will just continue to push people down the road to serfdom.


So the best land is not the most desirable in your opinion? Is that what you mean?

----------


## Travlyr

> I'm not an anarchist per se, but this vid makes a compelling argument.  
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kPyrq6SEL0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is another video, looks to be a part 1 for the aforementioned vid.  Another good listen 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khRkB...eature=related


Both video's miss the point of the purpose of the State. The State distributes land, water, and air rights in order to live. Then the government become the "Law of the Land" not the law of man.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> So the best land is not the most desirable in your opinion? Is that what you mean?


The state does not provide the best land. It takes land from other people by force.

----------


## Travlyr

> The state does not provide the best land. It takes land from other people by force.


Do you agree that the best most productive land will be fought over by two or more individuals?

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> Do you agree that the best most productive land will be fought over by two or more individuals?


There is no reason why a dispute over land would not be settled through voluntary exchange. If someone tried to steal it, he would be arrested.

However, I know that the state would seize the land in a heart beat, and give it to their favorite.

----------


## Echoes

> Why don't you believe that it would work?


Cuz we live in a bubble here at RPF, i know the stuff talked about here seems so logical and moral but in the real world the vast majority of ppl are utterly clueless. It would take a tremendous amount of education before i think society would be ready for anarchy...not even mentioning the global question, and forces that would threaten libertopia.

----------


## TER

The state is but a societal construct of men, a reflection of the people who have developed it and chosen to live in it.  When it becomes tyrannical, it is on account of sinful men who have consolidated power with the ability to do violence.  It is because they have consolidated power which gives them the ability to do violence and rule in tyranny.  Such movement towards growth, consolidation, and, sadly, tyranny, is the natural growth of governments made by fallen man.    Some have lasted for centuries, other for much less, but all of them failing at the end, a pattern which will continue until the end of the world.

The Constitution was developed in order to curtail such a regression of power from the people to the bureaucrats whose decisions and actions affect millions.  Such a limited role for government has succeeded and is the model we should follow.  BUT, such a model can only succeed and thrive when those people who have been chosen as the representatives of the people are honest and abide by the oaths they have taken, namely to defend the Constitution and vote and rule in accordance to it and the will of the people.  The change we need needs to ultimately find its way into those whom we choose to represent us.

----------


## Travlyr

> There is no reason why a dispute over land would not be settled through voluntary exchange. If someone tried to steal it, he would be arrested.


Never mind.

----------


## Travlyr

> The state is but a societal construct of men, a reflection of the people who have developed it and chosen to live in it.  When it becomes tyrannical, it is on account of sinful men who have consolidated power with the ability to do violence.  It is because they have consolidated power which gives them the ability to do violence and rule in tyranny.  Such movement towards growth, consolidation, and, sadly, the natural growth of governments made by fallen man.    Some have lasted for centuries, other for much less, but all of them failing at the end, a pattern which will continue until the end of the world.
> 
> The Constitution was developed in order to curtail such a regression of power from the people to the bureaucrats whose decisions and actions affect millions.  Such a limited role for government has succeeded and is the model we should follow.  BUT, such a model can only succeed and thrive when those people who have been chosen as the representatives of the people are honest and abide by the oaths they taken, namely to defend the Constitution and vote and rule in accordance to it and the will of the people.  The change we need needs to ultimately find its way into those whom we choose to represent us.


First and foremost the purpose of the State is to distribute land, water, and air. When that fact is accepted, then understanding of land law follows.

----------


## Travlyr

> Cuz we live in a bubble here at RPF, i know the stuff talked about here seems so logical and moral but in the real world the vast majority of ppl are utterly clueless. It would take a tremendous amount of education before i think society would be ready for anarchy...not even mentioning the global question, and forces that would threaten libertopia.


It is actually a misunderstanding of the purpose of the State because Mises.org rarely addresses that.

----------


## TER

> First and foremost the purpose of the State is to distribute land, water, and air. When that fact is accepted, then understanding of land law follows.


Agreed.  It is an essential function of the State.  Still, it is a human societal construct precisely to prevent anarchy, which is chaos and the dissolution of order, wherein the violence of force is not to maintain society but to maintain one's own self, even against all of society combined.

----------


## Travlyr

> Agreed.  It is an essential function of the State.  Still, it is a human societal construct precisely to prevent anarchy, which is chaos and the dissolution of order, wherein the violence of force is not to maintain society but to maintain one's own self, even against all of society combined.


Exactly correct. It is based on property rights and justice for violation of those rights along with natural rights.

----------


## Echoes

> It is actually a misunderstanding of the purpose of the State because Mises.org rarely addresses that.


The sole purpose of the State is to strip natural rights and consolidate power. Are you suggesting the State's fundamental function is to PROTECT OUR RIGHTS ? Nooo, the number one reason ppl desire a State is for security reasons, and are willing to trade liberty (rights) for it, just a matter of what degree ppl are comfortable with. Forgot the author of this quote but its so true..."the amount of tyranny we live under, is the amount we tolerate."

----------


## Travlyr

> The sole purpose of the State is to strip natural rights and consolidate power. Are you suggesting the State's fundamental function is to PROTECT OUR RIGHTS ? Nooo, the number one reason ppl desire a State is for security reasons, and are willing to trade liberty (rights) for it, just a matter of what degree ppl are comfortable with. Forgot the author of this quote but its so true..."the amount of tyranny we live under, is the amount we tolerate."


No that is wrong. It is not for security reasons. First and foremost, the purpose of the State is to distribute land, water, and air.

----------


## TER

> The sole purpose of the State is to strip natural rights and consolidate power. Are you suggesting the State's fundamental function is to PROTECT OUR RIGHTS ? Nooo, the number one reason ppl desire a State is for security reasons, and are willing to trade liberty (rights) for it, just a matter of what degree ppl are comfortable with. Forgot the author of this quote but its so true..."the amount of tyranny we live under, is the amount we tolerate."


No, the State's sole purpose as designed by the framers of this nation is to protect our lives, our inalienable rights bestowed upon us by the Creator, and the fruits of our labor.  The State plays a necessary role in this, for without it, then there is anarchy.  That the government is 'a dangerous servant' does not mean it does not serve, but that it must be restrained lest it follow the path of every government before it and fall away from the people and into the hands of corrupt tyrants.  This is why Thomas Jefferson believed that a revolution was probably necessary every generation or so in order to curtail the natural growth and corruption of government created by the actions of greedy men.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

I hate logical inconsistencies.  Unprovoked physical and/or coercive aggression is objectively, observably wrong and immoral, and logically inconsistent.  It is wrong and immoral because the individual is sovereign, and it is logically inconsistent because to engage in unprovoked physical and/or coercive aggression as a sovereign individual is to give explicit sanction to the same being done in return, which is paradoxical to the truth of individual sovereignty.  To exist, the state MUST engage in some degree of unprovoked physical and/or coercive aggression against individuals.  Therefore, the state is objectively, observably an immoral institution.

_I can abide a small state as obviously preferrable to a larger state_, but there is no logical or moral argument for it, as shown above.  Just as one cannot be "a little bit pregnant", it either is, or it is not.

----------


## Travlyr

> No, the State's sole purpose as designed by the framers of this nation is to protect our lives, our inalienable rights bestowed upon us by the Creator, and the fruits of our labor.  The State plays a necessary role in this, for without it, then there is anarchy.  That the government is 'a dangerous servant' does not mean it does not serve, but that it must be restrained lest it follow the path of every government before it and fall away from the people and into the hands of corrupt tyrants.  This is why Thomas Jefferson believed that a revolution was probably necessary every generation or so in order to curtail the natural growth and corruption of government created by the actions of greedy men.


I disagree.

That is the intended purpose of the Federation, not the State. The State holds deeds to property in order to publicly prove ownership and boundaries.

----------


## Wesker1982

> The State distributes land, water, and air rights in order to live.


As for the kindergarten [level] 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. - Hans Hoppe

It does not follow from the fact that the State distributes land,water, and air rights that only the State can provide such services.




> It would take a tremendous amount of education before i think society would be ready for anarchy.


If this is used as legitimate grounds to oppose Voluntaryism, you must also oppose limited government. We are about equally likely to achieve them.

I think it is at least a bit encouraging to imagine the slave abolitionists a 100 years or more before slavery was actually abolished. They knew there was a good chance they would never see the results of their efforts, but they still worked to abolish slavery because it was the right thing to do. I believe, especially with the internet, the truth will prevail. I don't know when, but I think it is only a matter of time. 




> ..not even mentioning the global question, and forces that would threaten libertopia.


There has been a lot of writings on "national" defense in a free society. A free society would be more than capable of defending itself. 

Also, I think it is unlikely that an educational revolution that would achieve a voluntary society would happen in isolation. The information and knowledge spread that would be necessary knows no boundaries.




> The State holds deeds to property in order to publicly prove ownership and boundaries.


It does not follow that only the State can do this.

----------


## Travlyr

> It does not follow from the fact that the State distributes land,water, and air rights that only the State can provide such services.


Yes, it does. It is the best method of order offered to the populace.




> It does not follow that only the State can do this.


What is the alternative?

When someone's Aunt Hilda dies without a will, then State takes control of her land and looks for heirs. If no heirs are found, then the State auctions the property to the highest bidder. That is a good and proper function of the State.

----------


## Jake Ralston

> There is no reason why a dispute over land would not be settled through voluntary exchange. If someone tried to steal it, he would be arrested.


Arrested by whom?

What happens when me and my buddies punk this "authority", whoop his ass and send him off limping?

What kind of message would such disrespect of authority send to the other voluntary citizens?

How long until people realize they can do whatever they want as long as they keep throwing beatdowns?

----------


## Travlyr

> As for the kindergarten [level] 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. - Hans Hoppe


There is something interesting about Hans Hoppe's career. He worked for the State and indeed retired from the State. While taking money from the State he was philosophizing and writing about Statelessness. Anyone every wonder why (besides the divide and conquer technique) the State would fund Statelessness philosophy?  Interestingly, Hoppe doesn't address the first and foremost reason for the development of the State - distribution of land and resources. Why?

----------


## Jake Ralston

> There is something interesting about Hans Hoppe's career. He worked for the State and indeed retired from the State. While taking money from the State he was philosophizing and writing about Statelessness. Anyone every wonder why (besides the divide and conquer technique) the State would fund Statelessness philosophy?  Interestingly, Hoppe doesn't address the first and foremost reason for the development of the State - distribution of land and resources. Why?


I don't know but you make a good point and bring up valid concerns about Hans Hoppe.

Now i'm not going to name names but there is a certain individual that quotes the guy very often, but fails to realize, as you just stated, that he advocates against the state using harsh language, but then behind everyone's back advocates and accepts money from the state.

This is the same type of crony political action we have in the White House right now.

----------


## Wesker1982

> Yes, it does. It is the best method of order offered to the populace.


Because it is the best method offered now, it does not follow that it is the best method period. 




> What is the alternative?


Questions like these are no different than when socialists cannot imagine how all schools could be private. "Sure we could privatize schools, but then poor children would be uneducated because greedy private schools would charge $1,000,000 per student a year bla bla."

Really, when you ask questions like this, it is like I am talking to a socialist. I know you have some knowledge about the free market, try using it. 

The alternative would be that this service would be provided through voluntary exchange, and provided more efficiently because it would not suffer from the lack of economic calculation. 




> *[When someone's Aunt Hilda dies without a will, then State takes control of her land and looks for heirs. If no heirs are found, then the State auctions the property to the highest bidder]* That is a good and proper function of the State.


Bolded = typical socialist false dichotomy (either the State takes care of this problem or the problem cannot be solved). Could you please debunk the economic calculation problem for me, and explain why a lack of pricing signals is a benefit to the economic calculation for this service? I would also be interested in learning why violent monopolies are more efficient at allocating resources than the market.






> _Title Registry_ (Bob Murphy)
> 
> In market anarchy, who would define property rights? If someone hands over the money to purchase a house, what guarantees does he have?
> 
> This is a complex issue, and I wont be able to give specifics, since the actual market solution would depend on the circumstances of the case and would draw on the legal expertise (far greater than mine) of the entire community.23* I can, however, offer some general remarks.
> 
> Whatever (if any) the abstract or metaphysical nature of property law, the purpose of public titles is quite utilitarian; they are necessary to allow individuals to effectively plan and coordinate their interactions with each other. Specialized firms (perhaps distinct from arbitration agencies) would keep records on the property titles, either for a specific area or group of individuals. Title registry would probably be accomplished through a complex, hierarchical web of such firms.
> 
> The fear of rogue agencies, unilaterally declaring themselves owner of everything, is completely unfounded. In market anarchy, the companies publicizing property rights would not be the same as the companies enforcing those rights. More important,competition between firms would provide true checks and balances. If one firm began flouting the community norms established and codified on the market, it would go out of business, just as surely as a manufacturer of dictionaries would go broke if its books contained improper definitions.
> ...







> In a laissez-faire society, there would be no government to pre-empt the field of registering deeds. Businesses in a free market would take over this function, since it is a salable service. These companies would keep records of titles and would probably offer the additional service of title insurance (a service already offered by specialized insurance companies today). Title insurance protects the insured against loss resulting from a defect in the title of the property he buys (as, for example, if the long-lost niece of a deceased former owner shows up and claims the property by inheritance). It would substantially reduce problems of conflicting claims, since title insurance companies would be unlikely to insure a title without first checking to make sure there was no conflict. In a free society, title insurance might also protect the insured against loss of his property due to aggression or fraud committed against him. In this case, the aggressor would be dealt with in the same manner as would any other aggressor (a subject which will be covered in Chapters 9 and 10).
> 
> There would probably be a plurality of companies competing in the field of title registration and insurance, so they would no doubt find it in their interest to maintain a computerized central listing of titles in the same way that other agencies now keep extensive files on the credit rating of consumers. In this way, they would be in the same relationship of cooperative competition as are present-day insurance companies.
> 
> Because they would have competition, title insurance companies would have to be extremely careful to maintain a good business reputation. No honest person would jeopardize the value of his property by registering it with a company which had a reputation for dishonest dealing. If he made use of a shady company, other individuals and firms would have doubts about the validity of his title and would be reluctant to buy his property or to loan money on it. In a totally free market, companies would usually act honestly because it would be in their interest to do so. (The question of dishonest companies will be dealt with in Chapter 11.)
> 
> *The Market for Liberty*

----------


## Travlyr

> Because it is the best method offered now, it does not follow that it is the best method period.


Agreed. But since it is the best we've got now, I'll stick with it until something better is offered.




> Questions like these are no different than when socialists cannot imagine how all schools could be private. "Sure we could privatize schools, but then poor children would be uneducated because greedy private schools would charge $1,000,000 per student a year bla bla."
> 
> Really, when you ask questions like this, it is like I am talking to a socialist. I know you have some knowledge about the free market, try using it. 
> 
> The alternative would be that this service would be provided through voluntary exchange, and provided more efficiently because it would not suffer from the lack of economic calculation. 
> 
> Bolded = typical socialist false dichotomy (either the State takes care of this problem or the problem cannot be solved). Could you please debunk the economic calculation problem for me, and explain why a lack of pricing signals is a benefit to the economic calculation for this service? I would also be interested in learning why violent monopolies are more efficient at allocating resources than the market.


I accept the fact that humans are social beings, and that while self-ownership is self-evident self-dependence is illusive. I personally have no problem with a small degree of socialism to facilitate helping the young, old, and indigent.

Edit: I will not bother with the economic calculation problem because I do not advocate State control of markets. Some violence is necessary in society in order to control those who are out of control.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> I'd be an anarchist myself if i thought it wasnt impossible. There's *ZERO* chance it would work in todays world, too much hostility and very, very few ppl understand and respect private property. I think the most practical system that'd produce the least violence would be something similar to the articles of confederation except i'd go further and have a federal govt limited strictly to administrative duties, no power on force, security or military.


That doesn't even make any sense either because there is also too much hostility, and very very few people understand and respect private property, so in your estimation why would you prefer a worse system, than the better system, when they both have the same practical problems of not enough adherents? It also doesn't make any sense because all Governments are inevitably going to become monstrous tyrannies. (See: Robert Higgs Crisis & Leviathan (Ratchet effect)). 

About as far as I will go to making 'due' with a State would be reminiscent of 14th and 15th Century Europa-City States. I could probably live with City-States. I guess as time goes on and you understand the State better, and human sociology, you come to the Jeffersonian position that every generation needs a revolution, and in time liberty cedes to tyranny. Understanding this, we should aim for the maximum amount of liberty to give us the greatest amount of time to enjoy it, and to make it harder for usurpers. With the State in place, the people who aim to achieve their authoritarian goals all ready have the institutions in place to do so. Why give them this?! It makes little sense, especially logically. 

*An expropriating property protector is a contradiction in terms. * 

The goal is to aim for a voluntary society. Any less and you have all ready succumbed to defeat and violated the basic tenets of liberty & Natural Law.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> There is something interesting about Hans Hoppe's career. He worked for the State and indeed retired from the State. While taking money from the State he was philosophizing and writing about Statelessness. Anyone every wonder why (besides the divide and conquer technique) the State would fund Statelessness philosophy?  Interestingly, Hoppe doesn't address the first and foremost reason for the development of the State - distribution of land and resources. Why?


Almost to a tee most libertarians use the Oppenheimer-Nock understanding of the origins of the State. It wasn't noble, or grand as you make it to be. It was simply that the robbers, pillagers, and otherwise criminals over time found it to be more efficient to stay put in one area and live off the labor of others instead of constantly roaming and being nomadic. Yes, you could say the State was developed for the purpose of distribution of land and resources; to the criminals, pillagers, looters, and robbers. The State anywhere and everywhere has always been a criminal racket, it's purpose to extract the resources, labor, and property from the productive to the parasitical. Why you defend such a heinous institution and class of people boggles the mind.




> "The State, completely in its genesis, essentially and almost completely during the first stages of its existence, is a social institution, forced by a victorious group of men on a defeated group, with the sole purpose of regulating the dominion of the victorious group over the vanquished, and securing itself against revolt from within and attacks from abroad. Teleologically, this dominion had no other purpose than the economic exploitation of the vanquished by the victors."
> 
> "No primitive state known to history originated in any other manner. [1] Wherever a reliable tradition reports otherwise, either it concerns the amalgamation of two fully developed primitive states into one body of more complete organisation, or else it is an adaptation to men of the fable of the sheep which made a bear their king in order to be protected against the wolf. But even in this latter case, the form and content of the State became precisely the same as in those states where nothing intervened, and which became immediately 'wolf states'." (p. 15) -- *Franz Oppenheimer*

----------


## Travlyr

> Almost to a tee most libertarians use the Oppenheimer-Nock understanding of the origins of the State. It wasn't noble, or grand as you make it to be. It was simply that the robbers, pillagers, and otherwise criminals over time found it to be more efficient to stay put in one area and live off the labor of others instead of constantly roaming and being nomadic. Yes, you could say the State was developed for the purpose of distribution of land and resources; to the criminals, pillagers, looters, and robbers. The State anywhere and everywhere has always been a criminal racket, it's purpose to extract the resources, labor, and property from the productive to the parasitical. Why you defend such a heinous institution and class of people boggles the mind.


For there is no better option that makes sense to me. Land ownership gives me the opportunity to raise my own food, build my own home, live peacefully without others trespassing on my property without recourse. A chance at liberty and prosperity in my lifetime.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> For there is no better option that makes sense to me. Land ownership gives me the opportunity to raise my own food, build my own home, live peacefully without others trespassing on my property without recourse. A chance at liberty.


You are a terribly unimaginative being. I feel some sorrow in my heart for such people. Here I let Bastiat talk through his grave:




> “Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”


Yes, you've all ready said you think Socialism is necessary to take money, property, and belongings from one individual to forcebly give to another. You are a socialist if you prescribe your belief to this -- it is only in what manner and propriety you wish to foist it upon society. You simply cannot fatham a free individual giving to help those in need, or that those in need would come together to form mutual aid societies, and other non-profit, charitable organizations. From this your lack of understanding history, is shown to be the culprit for your thought process. Do you also think Americans simply died on the streets prior to Herbert Hoover and FDR? This is such a comical belief system.

----------


## Travlyr

> You are a terribly unimaginative being. I feel some sorrow in my heart for such people. Here I let Bastiat talk through his grave:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you've all ready said you think Socialism is necessary to take money, property, and belongings from one individual to forcebly give to another. You are a socialist if you prescribe your belief to this -- it is only in what manner and propriety you wish to foist it upon society. You simply cannot fatham a free individual giving to help those in need, or that those in need would come together to form mutual aid societies, and other non-profit, charitable organizations. From this your lack of understanding history, is shown to be the culprit for your thought process. Do you also think Americans simply died on the streets prior to Herbert Hoover and FDR? This is such a comical belief system.


Au contraire ... you misread me. There is no need to feel sorry for me. I no doubt live a much more free life than you. I take nothing from the government, I no longer have to toil daily, and I am surrounded by beautiful loving individuals and family. I understand liberty like you only dream of. I chose the name Travlyr because I've enjoyed leisurely crossing the country making friends, visiting friends and family on the coasts, and rafting in rivers across America. No doubt there is much more to see and do, yet I am satisfied with what I have already seen and done.

You read and believe what you read. I live and enjoy my life. 

My only complaint is that counterfeiters have claimed control over my finances. When people again trade with each other with honest sound money, then I will have no more social issues at the forefront.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

So, to sum, you blissfully ignore the violence you advocate.

----------


## Travlyr

> So, to sum, you blissfully ignore the violence you advocate.


And you advocate no better option.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> And you advocate no better option.


Well, yes I do.  I advocate allowing free people to innovate and develop voluntary, non-violent solutions, in contrast to the command, centrally-dictated and coercive (inherently violent) solutions you _demand_.

----------


## Travlyr

> Well, yes I do.  I advocate allowing free people to innovate and develop voluntary, non-violent solutions, in contrast to the command, centrally-dictated and coercive (inherently violent) solutions you _demand_.


Then start a chip-in and advertise it in the New York Times.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Au contraire ... you misread me. There is no need to feel sorry for me. I no doubt live a much more free life than you.* I take nothing from the government, I no longer have to toil daily, and I am surrounded by beautiful loving individuals and family. I understand liberty like you only dream of. I chose the name Travlyr because I've enjoyed leisurely crossing the country making friends, visiting friends and family on the coasts, and rafting in rivers across America. No doubt there is much more to see and do, yet I am satisfied with what I have already seen and done.*
> 
> You read and believe what you read. I live and enjoy my life. 
> 
> My only complaint is that counterfeiters have claimed control over my finances. When people again trade with each other with honest sound money, then I will have no more social issues at the forefront.


This is called "free range slavery".  The slave does what is in the interests of the State because the State gives him just enough liberty to make him _think_ he is free.  It is the result of incremental usurpations of liberty not all at once, but over the span of many generations.

You toil(ed) throughout your life for worthless scraps of fiat money.  You did honest business while the regime robbed you blind through inflation and taxation.  (this is not an insult, btw...this happens to all of us except those who find a way to live "off the grid")

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Then start a chip-in and advertise it in the New York Times.


We note your consent.

----------


## Travlyr

> This is called "free range slavery".  The slave does what is in the interests of the State because the State gives him just enough liberty to make him _think_ he is free.  It is the result of incremental usurpations of liberty not all at once, but over the span of many generations.
> 
> You toil(ed) throughout your life for worthless scraps of fiat money.  You did honest business while the regime robbed you blind through inflation and taxation.  (this is not an insult, btw...this happens to all of us except those who find a way to live "off the grid")


No tags ... no labels. I toiled throughout my life for life's experience. I am sorry for you. You completely missed the point. Re-read the thread. I love my life, my friends, my family and my liberty.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> No tags ... no labels. I toiled throughout my life for life's experience. I am sorry for you. You completely missed the point. Re-read the thread. I love my life, my friends, my family and my liberty.


You advocate compulsory violence against others and yourself.  You do not love your liberty.

----------


## Travlyr

> You advocate compulsory violence against others and yourself.  You do not love your liberty.


Explain.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Explain.


Again?

----------


## Travlyr

> Again?


Yes, you made a completely irrational statement about me without any evidence. Explain yourself or STFU.

----------


## Working Poor

I think the world economy needs to get on the 12 steps and the people or the world need to agree on no more than 3 laws. Don't kill or steal and mind your own business.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Yes, you made a completely irrational statement about me without any evidence. Explain yourself or STFU.


Did I somehow misrepresent your position?  You very clearly advocate a logically inconsistent position of compulsory violence against others and yourself, as you yourself have clearly stated in this thread:




> I accept the fact that humans are social beings, and that while self-ownership is self-evident self-dependence is illusive. I personally have no problem with a small degree of socialism to facilitate helping the young, old, and indigent.


Liberty is the absence of unprovoked, compulsory physical and/or coercive violence.  

"STFU".

----------


## Travlyr

> I think the world economy needs to get on the 12 steps and the people or the world need to agree on no more than 3 laws. Don't kill or steal and mind your own business.


Certainly the best law I've ever heard is: "_Do Unto Others As They Do Unto You_." That would include all three of your laws. Even more than that the world economy currently is "controlled." That's what sucks. Economies just need to "happen" according to honest trade. A natural economy is much like Ron Paul Forums and the Internet in general. Say what you want to say, do what you do, and accept the consequences. Caveat Emptor. If you are honest, respectful, and provide value, then you'll keep your account and learn from your experiences. If not, then meet Cowlesy the BANHAMMER.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> No tags ... no labels. I toiled throughout my life for life's experience. I am sorry for you. You completely missed the point. Re-read the thread. I love my life, my friends, my family and my liberty.


No need to feel sorry.  At least I know that I am a slave (for the time being).  You have yet to realize it.  "There are none so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free." -Goethe

----------


## Travlyr

> Did I somehow misrepresent your position?  You very clearly advocate a logically inconsistent position of compulsory violence against others and yourself, as you yourself have clearly stated in this thread:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty is the absence of unprovoked, compulsory physical and/or coercive violence.  
> 
> "STFU".


Yes, Son of Misunderstanding Liberty. You do misrepresent my position. I have compassion and empathy for others who may be able to use my help. Your perfect liberty is too selfish for me.

----------


## Travlyr

> No need to feel sorry.  At least I know that I am a slave (for the time being).  You have yet to realize it.  "There are none so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free." -Goethe


Like I said. I enjoy my life in spite of the fact that I have had to live my life while thieves consistently stole my inherent wealth. You, will have a much harder time if you do not recognize the culprit of your enslavement. It is not enslavement of the State. It is,



> "Banking was conceived in iniquity and born in sin. Bankers own the Earth. Take it away from them but leave them the power to create money, and, with the flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again. Take this great power away from them and all great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for then this would be a better and happier world to live in. But, if you want to continue to be the slave of the bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let the bankers continue to create money and control credit." - Sir Josiah Stamp, President, Bank of England (2nd richest man in England)


Win or Pay. Your choice.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Yes, Son of Misunderstanding Liberty. You do misrepresent my position. I have compassion and empathy for others who may be able to use my help. Your perfect liberty is too selfish for me.


You don't say how I misrepresent your position.  You make assertions, which are unsubstantiated positions, such as " you have compassion and empathy for others who may be able to use my help."  Presumably you refer to the coercive power of the state as "your help".  We've suffered far long enough under the compassion of the likes of "your help".  The Great Society was sold under the same ad campaign, as was The New Deal.

In degree only do you differ from those great socialist sloganeers.  You're "a little bit pregnant".

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

I guess we can see that Travlyr cares little for those imprisoned in the name of the drug war, or the war on poverty, or the assassination of Americans, or the daily SWAT raids that kill innocent Americans, their dogs, and destroy their property, or the constant violations by the CIA, FBI, and NSA with the encroachment of the complete surveillance and Police State. He would be content in this situation if only at once, the Fed ceased to exist. Sure, it would be helpful, but it would just be one step among many. The fact is that it is not I who is the selfish one, but someone who acts in enlightened self-interest. I do not defend others liberty out of some altruism, but to make damned sure that my own liberty is not infringed upon. You however, act only in a state of myopic selfishness, unknowing that without defending the liberty of others, you yourself succumb to the tyranny that tramples you underfoot. You care little for the usurpations of others liberty, therefore you cannot be called someone who defends liberty. Period. 

Honestly if you are so content in this current situation, I do not know what to say, other than you are supporting the wrong man, the wrong ideals, and the wrong movement. We are revolutionaries. We have a vision.

----------


## Lisle16

The Founding Fathers recognized the State as a necessary evil, with its overriding role to be the national defense. The federal government was meant to unite the States through the maxim of _E plurubus unum_-"Out of many, we are one" (And vice versa). But in the hundreds of years since then, the federal government, through the expansion of the executive bureaucracy, approved by Congress and justified by the Supreme Court, has become a tyrant towards the citizens, States, and other nations. That is why a strict Constitutional government is not only desired, it is needed.

----------


## AGRP

> Perfect voluntaryism is impossible, imo. Do you agree with that?





> I'd be an anarchist myself if i thought it wasnt impossible. There's *ZERO* chance it would work in todays world, too much hostility and very, very few ppl understand and respect private property. I think the most practical system that'd produce the least violence would be something similar to the articles of confederation except i'd go further and have a federal govt limited strictly to administrative duties, no power on force, security or military.


There's one way to do it: MOVE.

Think about the philosophy at it's CORE.  

Look at those off shore cities and NH.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> The Founding Fathers recognized the State as a necessary evil, with its overriding role to be the national defense. The federal government was meant to unite the States through the maxim of _E plurubus unum_-"Out of many, we are one" (And vice versa). But in the hundreds of years since then, the federal government, through the expansion of the executive bureaucracy, approved by Congress and justified by the Supreme Court, has become a tyrant towards the citizens, States, and other nations. That is why a strict Constitutional government is not only desired, it is needed.


The Founding Fathers implemented quite a bit of tyranny. It was not just later generations.

----------


## Travlyr

> I guess we can see that Travlyr cares little for those imprisoned in the name of the drug war, or the war on poverty, or the assassination of Americans, or the daily SWAT raids that kill innocent Americans, their dogs, and destroy their property, or the constant violations by the CIA, FBI, and NSA with the encroachment of the complete surveillance and Police State. He would be content in this situation if only at once, the Fed ceased to exist. Sure, it would be helpful, but it would just be one step among many. The fact is that it is not I who is the selfish one, but someone who acts in enlightened self-interest. I do not defend others liberty out of some altruism, but to make damned sure that my own liberty is not infringed upon. You however, act only in a state of myopic selfishness, unknowing that without defending the liberty of others, you yourself succumb to the tyranny that tramples you underfoot. You care little for the usurpations of others liberty, therefore you cannot be called someone who defends liberty. Period. 
> 
> Honestly if you are so content in this current situation, I do not know what to say, other than you are supporting the wrong man, the wrong ideals, and the wrong movement. We are revolutionaries. We have a vision.


So you are an Austrian Economic Disciple eh? I thought Austrians were smarter than that. I thought you were smarter than that. You're just like funny money ... phony baloney.

Your ignorance is incredible. I am not going to help you or anyone else dismantle the State. You completely miss my point. You have no clue who I am but you talk $#@! anyway. Do you not read what others write at all? Do you not research before you wrongly accuse others of their position? I've advocated (Started Threads) for Legalizing Hemp, Separation of Money and State, Wealth Using Honest Sound Money, and the Fundamentals of Life. My positions are no secret. Never have I defended the modern day illegitimate government. I trust that the rule of law when enforced will liberate people who deal honestly with each other using sound money while respecting property and natural rights as prescribed by Dr. Ron Paul. Where the $#@! do you get the idea that I would support a police state? Police are not a constitutional organization. Where the $#@! do you get the idea I want anything to do with government agencies? I've written tons of times about the intrusions of government regulations which enslaves us and prevents us from engaging in business. You don't read that. You just bitch and moan like a spoiled child. Why? Because it takes too much of your valuable AED time to read? I've written many times about how the only function of government is:



> Liberalism, State and Government by Ludwig von Mises
> The Foundations of Liberal Policy
> 
>  Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints.
> 
> Liberalism is not anarchism, nor has it anything whatsoever to do with anarchism. The liberal understands quite clearly 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 of 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 the person who will not respect the lives, health, personal freedom, or private property of others to acquiesce in the rules of life in society. This is the function that the liberal doctrine assigns to the state: the protection of property, liberty, and peace.


Just a few hours ago I wrote how assassinations abhor me so I could never vote for any one but Paul, but you don't read. You falsely accuse without having any idea what you are talking about. No wonder so few people want to deal with anarchists. You Have No Respect At All. Your accusations are total crap.

I have read most of what Dr. Ron Paul has written and since I agree with his honest approach, then that is mostly what I advocate. He wants Americans to enjoy liberty, peace, and prosperity. So do I.

Ron Paul 2012!

*No One But Paul*

----------


## robert68

> ... I no doubt live a much more free life than you. I take nothing from the government, I no longer have to toil daily, and I am surrounded by beautiful loving individuals and family. *I understand liberty like you only dream of.* I chose the name Travlyr because I've enjoyed leisurely crossing the country making friends, visiting friends and family on the coasts, and rafting in rivers across America. No doubt there is much more to see and do, yet I am satisfied with what I have already seen and done...
> 
> You read and believe what you read. I live and enjoy my life...


With “liberty” defined only as you being content, by any means. The contented privilege classes of every society have their self centered “liberty” in the same way. Some people care about more than that.

----------


## Travlyr

> With “liberty” defined only as you being content, by any means. The contented privilege classes of every society have their self centered “liberty” in the same way. Some people care about more than that.


As do I.

----------


## Wesker1982

> Agreed. But since it is the best we've got now, I'll stick with it until something better is offered.


Yeah, since no other options are available now, I am sticking with it too. That does not mean I do not advocate that it be done another way. I would rather it be done without violence, even though I might never see it happen.

If you were alive before slavery was abolished, and you believed it would not be abolished any time in your life, would you advocate the abolition of slavery? Would you object to it on the grounds that "this is what we have now", or would you at least support the idea of it? 




> I accept the fact that humans are social beings.


So do I, which is why I object to the institution that facilitates and legalizes and legitimizes man's worst and most anti-social behaviors (theft, murder, kidnapping, etc).




> The State, then, is not simply a part of society. The brunt of this part of the present volume, in fact, is to demonstrate that the State is not, as most utilitarian free-market economists like to think, a legitimate social institution that tends to be bumbling and inefficient in most of its activities. On the contrary, the State is an inherently illegitimate institution of organized aggression, of organized and regularized crime against the persons and properties of its subjects.
> 
> Rather than necessary to society, it is a profoundly antisocial institution which lives parasitically off of the productive activities of private citizens. 
> 
> A common defense of the State holds that man is a "social animal," that he must live in society, and that individualists and libertarians believe in the existence of "atomistic individuals" uninfluenced by and unrelated to their fellow men. But no libertarians have ever held individuals to be isolated atoms; on the contrary, all libertarians have recognized the necessity and the enormous advantages of living in society, and of participating in the social division of labor. *The great non sequitur committed by defenders of the State, including classical Aristotelian and Thomist philosophers, is to leap from the necessity of society to the necessity of the State*.
> 
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard160.html





> In proving that mans nature is best fitted for a society, he believes that he has gone far to provide a rationale for the State. _But he has not done so in the slightest degree_, once we fully realize that the _State and society are by no means coextensive_. The contention of libertarians that the State is an antisocial instrument must first be refuted before such a _non sequitur_ can be allowed. 
> 
> http://mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap18...ate_Nature_Man


I am confused here: 




> Edit: I will not bother with the economic calculation problem because I do not advocate State control of markets.


??????




> *I personally have no problem with a small degree of socialism.*


Which is it? If you advocate the State to use its coercive monopoly to control the title registry market, then you *do* advocate the *State control of a market*, you *d**o* advocate *socialism*, and you *do* run into the calculation problem.




> Some violence is necessary in society in order to control those who are out of control.


Yeah, agreed. What I also hope you agree on is that it is not necessary (or justified) to initiate violence on peaceful and non-violent individuals.

----------


## Travlyr

> I am confused here: 
> 
> ??????
> 
> Which is it? If you advocate the State to use its coercive monopoly to control the title registry market, then you *do* advocate the *State control of a market*, you *d**o* advocate *socialism*, and you *do* run into the calculation problem.


Read slowly and carefully... 
I. _do. not. advocate_. State. control. of. markets. - emphasis on do not advocate. 
However, _personally_. I. have. no problem. with. a. small. degree. of. socialism. - emphasis on personal opinion. 




> Yeah, agreed. What I also hope you agree on is that it is not necessary (or justified) to initiate violence on peaceful and non-violent individuals.


If. you. carefully. read. what. I. write., then. you. would. already. know. that.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> It is really just a matter of getting over the label "anarchist".


See Sig.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> See Sig.


:thumbs:

Edit to add - I think instead of "anarchist" we should use _"back slappin' contingent"_.

----------


## RiseAgainst

Oh boy...

I believe one of the problems that this thread demonstrates among otherwise would be champions of liberty, is that they do not understand the true nature or definition of property and by extension it's rights afforded.  Titled land to be heired in perpetuity is an archaic construct of 'noble' classes used to preserve power over serfs.  In order to free yourself from the slave master you must free yourself from not only his physical chains, but his mental and lingual chains as well.  The only property that is just is that to which you are personally putting to active use.  When one clears a section of forest and builds herself a home from the harvested lumber, one can hardly argue her right to call this her property.  However, this does not give her property right over the adjoining 2,000 acres of forest and land as yet unmixed with human labor.  Nor does it give her right to abandon said property only to re-appear at an indeterminate time in the future and attempt to forcibly eject any would be new property users.  If we are ever to free ourselves from our current predicaments we must first be willing to release the trappings of a title based property system.

Freedom may not be easy, but it is right and moral.

----------


## Travlyr

> Oh boy...
> 
> I believe one of the problems that this thread demonstrates among otherwise would be champions of liberty, is that they do not understand the true nature or definition of property and by extension it's rights afforded.  Titled land to be heired in perpetuity is an archaic construct of 'noble' classes used to preserve power over serfs.  In order to free yourself from the slave master you must free yourself from not only his physical chains, but his mental and lingual chains as well.  The only property that is just is that to which you are personally putting to active use.  When one clears a section of forest and builds herself a home from the harvested lumber, one can hardly argue her right to call this her property.  However, this does not give her property right over the adjoining 2,000 acres of forest and land as yet unmixed with human labor.  Nor does it give her right to abandon said property only to re-appear at an indeterminate time in the future and attempt to forcibly eject any would be new property users.  If we are ever to free ourselves from our current predicaments we must first be willing to release the trappings of a title based property system.
> 
> Freedom may not be easy, but it is right and moral.


Then where would you call home if you went on extended vacation? Back to roaming, hunting, gathering and build yet another new home?

----------


## Wesker1982

> Read slowly and carefully... 
> I. _do. not. advocate_. State. control. of. markets. - emphasis on do not advocate.


Great. Voluntary markets for title registry databases ftw.

----------


## mczerone

> Yes, Son of Misunderstanding Liberty. You do misrepresent my position. I have compassion and empathy for others who may be able to use my help. Your perfect liberty is too selfish for me.


So you want to force me to pay a bunch of suits in D.C. to then give that money to people that they find worthy? Your selfishness is evident in the fact that you like the redistributive state, and you wish to force all your countrymen to be bound by this rule.

My "selfishness", on the other hand, is nothing but the desire to directly benefit the charity that I find worthy.  And to let you donate to what it is that you find worthy - including the provision of property defense firms that can better define and defend your rights than any hypothetical or real "state".

Would there be truly "selfish" people in a freed society?  Sure, but they would lose societal currency with their cohorts and would quickly suffer lest they conformed with a voluntarily defined level of "community involvement".

Try again, this argument fails to defend any state.

----------


## Travlyr

> Great. Voluntary markets for title registry databases ftw.


What is your competing offer?

----------


## Travlyr

> So you want to force me to pay a bunch of suits in D.C. to then give that money to people that they find worthy? Your selfishness is evident in the fact that you like the redistributive state, and you wish to force all your countrymen to be bound by this rule.
> 
> My "selfishness", on the other hand, is nothing but the desire to directly benefit the charity that I find worthy.  And to let you donate to what it is that you find worthy - including the provision of property defense firms that can better define and defend your rights than any hypothetical or real "state".
> 
> Would there be truly "selfish" people in a freed society?  Sure, but they would lose societal currency with their cohorts and would quickly suffer lest they conformed with a voluntarily defined level of "community involvement".
> 
> Try again, this argument fails to defend any state.


Start with the basics. Do you like to eat, drink, and breathe? This is not rhetorical. If so, then do you want to be dependent on others or yourself. Again these are very basic but honest questions. Please give me your honest answer.

----------


## mczerone

> Then where would you call home if you went on extended vacation? Back to roaming, hunting, gathering and build yet another new home?


You'd pay your normal security/defense agency to look after the place while your gone.  


I mean, this is one of the weakest "but how would..." scenario that I've ever seen.  Even today, with the state protection of property, you can lose your home to adverse possession after some subjectively determined amount of time, usually many years.  But if you go on vacation today, do you alert the cops or the neighbors to defend your home?

----------


## Travlyr

> You'd pay your normal security/defense agency to look after the place while your gone.  
> 
> 
> I mean, this is one of the weakest "but how would..." scenario that I've ever seen.  Even today, with the state protection of property, you can lose your home to adverse possession after some subjectively determined amount of time, usually many years.  But if you go on vacation today, do you alert the cops or the neighbors to defend your home?


This was a response to someone else. Please do not distort the facts. My question to you was:



> Do you like to eat, drink, and breathe? This is not rhetorical. If so, then do you want to be dependent on others or yourself. Again these are very basic but honest questions. Please give me your honest answer.

----------


## Travlyr

> What is your competing offer?


Wesker1982,
*Please present your competing offer.*

----------


## mczerone

> Start with the basics. Do you like to eat, drink, and breathe? This is not rhetorical. If so, then do you want to be dependent on others or yourself. Again these are very basic but honest questions. Please give me your honest answer.


First, replying in someone else's stead distorts no facts. Second, I was typing my response before I saw your reply.

To answer your question, though: I prefer a mix.  I prefer to depend on myself for those thing that I do well, and I depend on others for things that they can do for me with more value, even after compensating them.

Ideally, I would be self-sufficient and have no external wants.  But in this scarce world, we must all depend on others.

So my question to you is: would you prefer to depend on people who must vie for your patronage, or those who are, by monopoly privilage, are certain to receive your business for whatever price they ask?

----------


## Travlyr

> You'd pay your normal security/defense agency to look after the place while your gone.  
> 
> 
> I mean, this is one of the weakest "but how would..." scenario that I've ever seen.  Even today, with the state protection of property, you can lose your home to adverse possession after some subjectively determined amount of time, usually many years.  But if you go on vacation today, do you alert the cops or the neighbors to defend your home?


Do not Ass-U-Me. Straight talk. Answer the question. "Do you like to eat, drink, and breathe? If so, then do you wish to be in control or out of control?

----------


## Czolgosz



----------


## Travlyr

> First, replying in someone else's stead distorts no facts. Second, I was typing my response before I saw your reply.
> 
> To answer your question, though: I prefer a mix.  I prefer to depend on myself for those thing that I do well, and I depend on others for things that they can do for me with more value, even after compensating them.
> 
> Ideally, I would be self-sufficient and have no external wants.  But in this scarce world, we must all depend on others.
> 
> So my question to you is: would you prefer to depend on people who must vie for your patronage, or those who are, by monopoly privilage, are certain to receive your business for whatever price they ask?


My world is not a scarce world. I would rather eat quinoa than rice. I would rather wear hemp clothing than cotton or linen. I would rather travel the world in peace rather than violently. I will not pay the monopolist their ransom.

----------


## mczerone

> My world is not a scarce world. I would rather eat quinoa than rice. I would rather wear hemp clothing than cotton or linen. I would rather travel the world in peace rather than violently. I will not pay the monopolist their ransom.


Ok.

----------


## Seraphim

A monopoly on violence is the first and GRANDEST offence against liberty and private property. The second is a monopoly on "money" creation. 

The State is a self serving power structure that is INHERENTLY corrupt and if the State, if only for a moment, is just, will be overridden and beaten into submission to serve those willing to do anything to serve their own needs.

There is NO SUCH THING as society. It is an intectually dishonest construct that even the good support, not out of love of justice but supported through FEAR.

When you have no fear, the State and all forms of involuntary governance become UNECESSARY.

I do NOT need The State to protect my private property. I DO NOT need a majority rule government to GIVE ME my natural rights.

I will live in a constant state of PAIN before I submit to involuntary governance. I will be beaten, trashed and even BROKEN before my SELF EVIDENT rights are protected by violent monopoly.

I will NOT submit to intectually dishonest arguments based around FEAR.

$#@! FEAR. FEAR leads to HORRIBLE decisions.

I PREY on the aggressive. They treat us like GAME. In RESPONSE, I am a MONGOOSE. I CANNOT be defeated. Death, life, it's all the same. $#@! em. $#@! EM.

The most poisonous of creatures are WEAK. Their WEAKNESS drives their evil. It is their WEAKNESS OF HEART AND SOUL that is their demise. I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THERE IS A GOD OR NOT, BUT IT DOES NOT MATTER. 

Protecting the weak will be your salvation - God or not. 

The State is VENOM. A venom that courses through all institutions, all people and destroys the WILL to fight back.

The State IS violence. The State in ALL forms is DISEASE. A PLAGUE. SATAN's WORK.

But shhhhhhh don't listen to reason. We need to be governed...after all...who will protect us from the bad guys ?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Do not Ass-U-Me. Straight talk. Answer the question. "Do you like to eat, drink, and breathe? If so, then do you wish to be in control or out of control?


I like to eat, drink, and breathe.  I like to be in control.

----------


## Conza88

> I'd be an anarchist myself if i thought it wasnt impossible. There's *ZERO* chance it would work in todays world, too much hostility and very, very few ppl understand and respect private property. I think the most practical system that'd produce the least violence would be something similar to the articles of confederation except i'd go further and have a federal govt limited strictly to administrative duties, no power on force, security or military.

----------


## Travlyr

> I like to eat, drink, and breathe.  I like to be in control.


Thank you for the straight answer. I do too. Now, my solution to accomplish this goal may be different than yours. Here is how I approach achieving being in control of my food, water, and air.

I find property that is not being used. In 2011, I must buy it from the bankers which sucks because I should be able to buy it from an individual, but I digress on that point. I buy myself a little plot of land. Then I stake the corners with boundary pins so that everyone else in the world knows that I lay claim to that plot.

Then I dig a water well, fence part of it and raise animals to eat, fence more of it to raise a garden, and I build a house and garage for my comfort. I claim ownership of the land, improvements, food, and water. Since air is abundant, then my main concern is that others do not pollute the air that I breathe.

In this way, I am in control of my food, water, and housing. 

The State is created by my actions because I laid claim to my piece of the pie and when someone else wants to lay claim to my claim then a legal claim is better than the two of us getting into a Hatfield & McCoy battle.

----------


## RiseAgainst

> Thank you for the straight answer. I do too. Now, my solution to accomplish this goal may be different than yours. Here is how I approach achieving being in control of my food, water, and air.
> 
> I find property that is not being used. In 2011, I must buy it from the bankers which sucks because I should be able to buy it from an individual, but I digress on that point. I buy myself a little plot of land. Then I stake the corners with boundary pins so that everyone else in the world knows that I lay claim to that plot.
> 
> Then I dig a water well, fence part of it and raise animals to eat, fence more of it to raise a garden, and I build a house and garage for my comfort. I claim ownership of the land, improvements, food, and water. Since air is abundant, then my main concern is that others do not pollute the air that I breathe.
> 
> In this way, I am in control of my food, water, and housing. 
> 
> The State is created by my actions because I laid claim to my piece of the pie and when someone else wants to lay claim to my claim then a legal claim is better than the two of us getting into a Hatfield & McCoy battle.



As I said earlier, you are still trying to define your world from within the limits of that which you have been presented as a land serf.  You no more need to buy titled land from some unjust 'owner' than I need to buy the air I breathe from someone claiming likewise to be its owner.  Bringing such an absurd and irrelevant argument just shows how detached you are from any meaningful discussion of the origin and nature of just property and its rights thereby inclusive.

Then there is of course your defacto presumption that, setting aside your properties origination, only a criminal gang writ large could possibly protect it.  Do you have any rational data or arguments to back up your claim?  If you are to tell me that the state can provide this service through force better than a market can through voluntary exchange, then by logical extension why not the very food you purport to produce?  Why not clothing and shelter?  If you expect me to accept on blind faith and with no rational supporting data that the state can provide this service better than voluntary exchange then there must be something I am missing, there must be something truly magical and mystical about the state.  And if this is so, we should likely turn over all production along with the means to the state.  Clearly committees and lobbyists are a preferable and more efficient path to the satisfaction of individual needs than voluntary exchange and rational self interest...

----------


## Wesker1982

> Wesker1982,
> *Please present your competing offer.*


CHILL, lol. I wasn't on the forums at all last night after my last post.

But anyways, I don't know why you are asking this. We both object to State, i.e. violent, control of markets. I asked a couple of questions, and I didn't get all uptight when you didn't instantly answer them, and they were the main point of my post:




> _Yeah, since no other options are available now, I am sticking with it too. That does not mean I do not advocate that it be done another way. I would rather it be done without violence, even though I might never see it happen.
> 
> If you were alive before slavery was abolished, and you believed it would not be abolished any time in your life, would you advocate the abolition of slavery? Would you object to it on the grounds that "this is what we have now", or would you at least support the idea of it?_


You ignored this, which I didn't really mind since you admitted to objecting to State control of markets. That was good enough for me. But now you have diverted the attention (via red herring) from the critical part of my post. 

I expect you to either change the subject or ignore my answer, but whatever:

Right now the State violently monopolizes this service. My competing offer would be to allow people to opt out and hire competition. This is where I ask you to use whatever knowledge of the market you must have. If the violent monopoly were abolished for this service, no doubt that entrepreneurs, who would be more efficient due to the feedback mechanisms of the pricing system, would provide this service. 

It is like you are asking for an exact business model, but you should know that this is not a prerequisite for advocating voluntary markets. I mean, I would like to see you elaborate business models for all of the government functions violently monopolized now. And if you couldn't, it would be folly for anyone who even slightly understands how the voluntary market works to object to it on these grounds. 

If the mail isn't provided by a violent monopoly, how else would it be delivered? Can't give me an business model? I accept the answer that, no matter how it is provided, a violent monopoly is not necessary to deliver mail. Competition and profit would give entrepreneurs great incentive to come up with business models that would satisfy consumers way more efficiently than a violent monopoly, because if the service is poor, they lose money. I hope that the profit/loss incentive doesn't need a ton of explanation here. The profit/loss signal also helps with economic calculation, it makes possible efficiency that cannot be achieved with a violent monopoly. 

With that said, the actual model would look something like this:




> *Title Registry* (Bob Murphy)
> 
> In market anarchy, who would define property rights? If someone hands over the money to purchase a house, what guarantees does he have?
> 
> This is a complex issue, and I wont be able to give specifics, since the actual market solution would depend on the circumstances of the case and would draw on the legal expertise (far greater than mine) of the entire community.23* I can, however, offer some general remarks.
> 
> Whatever (if any) the abstract or metaphysical nature of property law, the purpose of public titles is quite utilitarian; they are necessary to allow individuals to effectively plan and coordinate their interactions with each other. Specialized firms (perhaps distinct from arbitration agencies) would keep records on the property titles, either for a specific area or group of individuals. Title registry would probably be accomplished through a complex, hierarchical web of such firms.
> 
> The fear of rogue agencies, unilaterally declaring themselves owner of everything, is completely unfounded. In market anarchy, the companies publicizing property rights would not be the same as the companies enforcing those rights. More important,competition between firms would provide true checks and balances. If one firm began flouting the community norms established and codified on the market, it would go out of business, just as surely as a manufacturer of dictionaries would go broke if its books contained improper definitions.
> ...


And:




> In a laissez-faire society, there would be no government to pre-empt the field of registering deeds. Businesses in a free market would take over this function, since it is a salable service. These companies would keep records of titles and would probably offer the additional service of title insurance (a service already offered by specialized insurance companies today). Title insurance protects the insured against loss resulting from a defect in the title of the property he buys (as, for example, if the long-lost niece of a deceased former owner shows up and claims the property by inheritance). It would substantially reduce problems of conflicting claims, since title insurance companies would be unlikely to insure a title without first checking to make sure there was no conflict. In a free society, title insurance might also protect the insured against loss of his property due to aggression or fraud committed against him. In this case, the aggressor would be dealt with in the same manner as would any other aggressor (a subject which will be covered in Chapters 9 and 10).
> 
> There would probably be a plurality of companies competing in the field of title registration and insurance, so they would no doubt find it in their interest to maintain a computerized central listing of titles in the same way that other agencies now keep extensive files on the credit rating of consumers. In this way, they would be in the same relationship of cooperative competition as are present-day insurance companies.
> 
> Because they would have competition, title insurance companies would have to be extremely careful to maintain a good business reputation. No honest person would jeopardize the value of his property by registering it with a company which had a reputation for dishonest dealing. If he made use of a shady company, other individuals and firms would have doubts about the validity of his title and would be reluctant to buy his property or to loan money on it. In a totally free market, companies would usually act honestly because it would be in their interest to do so. (The question of dishonest companies will be dealt with in Chapter 11.)
> 
> http://freekeene.com/files/marketforliberty.pdf


Or, basically, if the way the State does it now is profitable and efficient, free market models would imitate it. So if you are so confident that the State does it the best way possible, you should have no fear since if this is the case, the free market model would copy it.

----------


## Travlyr

> You'd pay your normal security/defense agency to look after the place while your gone.  
> 
> 
> I mean, this is one of the weakest "but how would..." scenario that I've ever seen.  Even today, with the state protection of property, you can lose your home to adverse possession after some subjectively determined amount of time, usually many years.  But if you go on vacation today, do you alert the cops or the neighbors to defend your home?


No, I don't ask my neighbors or law enforcement to watch my place. When I get back from extended vacation, if someone would try and homestead my home, all I have to do to prove that it is my home is go to my county seat and get the deed to prove ownership. That's it. Very efficient and almost free. Screw hiring a bunch of "protective agencies." Who needs em? What if I had a bad year and couldn't afford the security team? SOL? I'm not buying what your selling.

----------


## Travlyr

> As I said earlier, you are still trying to define your world from within the limits of that which you have been presented as a land serf.  You no more need to buy titled land from some unjust 'owner' than I need to buy the air I breathe from someone claiming likewise to be its owner.  Bringing such an absurd and irrelevant argument just shows how detached you are from any meaningful discussion of the origin and nature of just property and its rights thereby inclusive.
> 
> Then there is of course your defacto presumption that, setting aside your properties origination, only a criminal gang writ large could possibly protect it.  Do you have any rational data or arguments to back up your claim?  If you are to tell me that the state can provide this service through force better than a market can through voluntary exchange, then by logical extension why not the very food you purport to produce?  Why not clothing and shelter?  If you expect me to accept on blind faith and with no rational supporting data that the state can provide this service better than voluntary exchange then there must be something I am missing, there must be something truly magical and mystical about the state.  And if this is so, we should likely turn over all production along with the means to the state.  Clearly committees and lobbyists are a preferable and more efficient path to the satisfaction of individual needs than voluntary exchange and rational self interest...


Then I take it you do not like to be in control of your food, water, and housing. I do, so can you afford me that privilege?

----------


## RiseAgainst

> No, I don't ask my neighbors or law enforcement to watch my place. When I get back from extended vacation, if someone would try and homestead my home, all I have to do to prove that it is my home is go to my county seat and get the deed to prove ownership. That's it. Very efficient and almost free. Screw hiring a bunch of "protective agencies." Who needs em? What if I had a bad year and couldn't afford the security team? SOL? I'm not buying what your selling.


If by very efficient you mean brutally repressive, and by virtually free you mean astronomically expensive with no cinsumer check, then yep, you've basically nailed it.  Congrats!

----------


## RiseAgainst

> Then I take it you do not like to be in control of your food, water, and housing. I do, so can you afford me that privilege?


Using thugs with guns to enforce your will =/= in control of your property

I will always allow you to live in any manner you choose, including as a slave if that is your choice.  The only thing I ask is you allow me to live as I want, free from the initiation of violent aggression.  Are you so willing to return the courtesy to me?

----------


## Travlyr

> If by very efficient you mean brutally repressive, and by virtually free you mean astronomically expensive with no cinsumer check, then yep, you've basically nailed it.  Congrats!


Explain what you mean by brutally repressive and astronomically expensive in my description of a basic State below.




> Thank you for the straight answer. I do too. Now, my solution to accomplish this goal may be different than yours. Here is how I approach achieving being in control of my food, water, and air.
> 
> I find property that is not being used. In 2011, I must buy it from the bankers which sucks because I should be able to buy it from an individual, but I digress on that point. I buy myself a little plot of land. Then I stake the corners with boundary pins so that everyone else in the world knows that I lay claim to that plot.
> 
> Then I dig a water well, fence part of it and raise animals to eat, fence more of it to raise a garden, and I build a house and garage for my comfort. I claim ownership of the land, improvements, food, and water. Since air is abundant, then my main concern is that others do not pollute the air that I breathe.
> 
> In this way, I am in control of my food, water, and housing. 
> 
> The State is created by my actions because I laid claim to my piece of the pie and when someone else wants to lay claim to my claim then a legal claim is better than the two of us getting into a Hatfield & McCoy battle.

----------


## Travlyr

> Using thugs with guns to enforce your will =/= in control of your property
> 
> I will always allow you to live in any manner you choose, including as a slave if that is your choice.  The only thing I ask is you allow me to live as I want, free from the initiation of violent aggression.  Are you so willing to return the courtesy to me?


I'm not using thugs with guns to enforce my will. I don't have any idea what you are talking about.

----------


## RiseAgainst

> Explain what you mean by brutally repressive and astronomically expensive in my description of a basic State below.


I have already responded to said post.  You have failed to address said response.

If you would like me to help organize your thoughts for hou to better align with the discussion at hand, perhaps you could answer a few questions:

1. What authority does your 'state' have to 'protect' your 'property'?  

2. How is your 'state' funded?

3. What if I dont want to participate in your 'state'?

4. What if I want to compete with your 'state'?

----------


## RiseAgainst

> I'm not using thugs with guns to enforce my will. I don't have any idea what you are talking about.


Then you must clarify.  How exactly is your 'state' 'protecting' your 'property'?

----------


## Travlyr

> Then you must clarify.  How exactly is your 'state' 'protecting' your 'property'?


By keeping my properly recorded deed in a safe place and making laws which say something like, "You are a proud owner of land with boundaries W,X,Y,Z located in "My County, My Section, My Lot & Block" If anyone tries to take it away from you without due process, then you can go to your local County Clerk and get a copy of this duly recorded deed to prove ownership." That'll be a processing fee of $10 please (Tax).

That's how the State protects property.

----------


## Travlyr

> I have already responded to said post.  You have failed to address said response.
> 
> If you would like me to help organize your thoughts for hou to better align with the discussion at hand, perhaps you could answer a few questions:
> 
> 1. What authority does your 'state' have to 'protect' your 'property'?
> 
> 2. How is your 'state' funded?
> 
> 3. What if I dont want to participate in your 'state'?
> ...


How Rude.

1. Ratification.
2. Taxes
3. Don't. I couldn't care less about rude people.
4. Compete.

----------


## RiseAgainst

> By keeping my properly recorded deed in a safe place and making laws which say something like, "You are a proud owner of land with boundaries W,X,Y,Z located in "My County, My Section, My Lot & Block" If anyone tries to take it away from you without due process, then you can go to your local County Clerk and get a copy of this duly recorded deed to prove ownership." That'll be a processing fee of $10 please (Tax).
> 
> That's how the State protects property.


Um, your solution is a piece of paper?  What are you going to do, papercut them to death?

----------


## Travlyr

> Um, your solution is a piece of paper?  What are you going to do, papercut them to death?


No, I have a shotgun, pistol, and a rifle handy for that. The State does not, never did, and in fact, cannot, protect anyone or their property with guns. That's a myth. Protecting myself, my family, and my property is my job. The State backs me with laws to ferret out rights and wrongs.

----------


## RiseAgainst

> How Rude.
> 
> 1. Ratification.
> 2. Taxes
> 3. Don't. I couldn't care less about rude people.
> 4. Compete.


How un-thought provoking.

1. Force.
2. Force.
3. The complete undermining of subset (1).
4. The complete undermining of subset (1).

Your lack of knowledge regarding your own position, your inability to express anything more than one sentence, and your unwillingness to openly and honestly respond to any questions or challenges presented you grow tiresome.  If youre ever willing to have an actual discussion, Im listening.  But such is the problem with chest pounding statiats, just like might makes right, the loudest argument apparently is presumed qinner in their mind.

----------


## RiseAgainst

> No, I have a shotgun, pistol, and a rifle handy for that. The State does not, never did, and in fact, cannot, protect anyone or their property with guns. That's a myth. Protecting myself, my family, and my property is my job. The State back me with laws.


Logical inconsistencies escape your grasp at breakneck speed.

----------


## JackieDan

The difference between libertarianism and anarchism is that Libertarians believe that there must be a body that protects freedom and a strong national defence.

----------


## Travlyr

> The difference between libertarianism and anarchism is that Libertarians believe that there must be a body that protects freedom and a strong national defence.


Agree. That's why I don't take labels. I don't agree that the proper function of the State is to protect me. The proper function of the State is to set standards, distribute land and resources to individuals so that they can have a place to call home, allow individuals the right to mine, grow, or sew if the individual so desires, make necessary and proper laws, and provide justice for violations of rights.

----------


## RiseAgainst

> The difference between libertarianism and anarchism is that Libertarians believe that there must be a body that protects freedom and a strong national defence.


Correction, anarchy is libertarianism carried to its logical conclusion.  Statism is the justification of the initiation of violent force to prevent the initiation of violent force, a complete and total bastardization of the most core and fundamental principles of libertarianism.

----------


## Travlyr

> Logical inconsistencies escape your grasp at breakneck speed.


And you are consistently rude.

----------


## RiseAgainst

> And you are consistently rude.


I'd much prefer to be considered rude than to advocate the initiation of violent force to achieve my own ends.

----------


## Travlyr

> I'd much prefer to be considered rude than to advocate the initiation of violent force to achieve my own ends.


Let's see if you can answer a simple question...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3682437

Where is the violence and expense?

----------


## RiseAgainst

> Let's see if you can answer a simple question...
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3682437
> 
> Where is the violence and expense?


You'll pardon the abruptness, but the elementary nature of your inquiry leads me to only two possible conclusions.  One, you are so woefully unprepared and lacking basic foundational understanding of the subject matter that you will require mountainous prep work on my behalf in order that you may grasp any refutations; or two you know exactly how absurd your claims are but are being obtuse on purpose.

If you think for one second your $10 filing fee is the only thing funding your state you are sorely mistaken.  If you think that your shiny piece of paper means anything more than a steamy pile of horse excrement without the threat of violent force to back it up, you are sorely mistaken.  And if you think that any of this couldn't be provided for more efficiently, and most important voluntarily thriugh market, you are again sorely mistaken.

You would do well to do some light reading and self education prior to attempting to debate a subject matter you clearly do not grasp.  I am done banging my head into your brick wall.

----------


## Travlyr

> You'll pardon the abruptness, but the elementary nature of your inquiry leads me to only two possible conclusions.  One, you are so woefully unprepared and lacking basic foundational understanding of the subject matter that you will require mountainous prep work on my behalf in order that you may grasp any refutations; or two you know exactly how absurd your claims are but are being obtuse on purpose.
> 
> If you think for one second your $10 filing fee is the only thing funding your state you are sorely mistaken.  If you think that your shiny piece of paper means anything more than a steamy pile of horse excrement without the threat of violent force to back it up, you are sorely mistaken.  And if you think that any of this couldn't be provided for more efficiently, and most important voluntarily thriugh market, you are again sorely mistaken.
> 
> You would do well to do some light reading and self education prior to attempting to debate a subject matter you clearly do not grasp.  I am done banging my head into your brick wall.


Okay Mr. Rude Dude, your solution is? What?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Thank you for the straight answer. I do too. Now, my solution to accomplish this goal may be different than yours. Here is how I approach achieving being in control of my food, water, and air.
> 
> I find property that is not being used. In 2011, I must buy it from the bankers which sucks because I should be able to buy it from an individual, but I digress on that point. I buy myself a little plot of land. Then I stake the corners with boundary pins so that everyone else in the world knows that I lay claim to that plot.
> 
> Then I dig a water well, fence part of it and raise animals to eat, fence more of it to raise a garden, and I build a house and garage for my comfort. I claim ownership of the land, improvements, food, and water. Since air is abundant, then my main concern is that others do not pollute the air that I breathe.
> 
> In this way, I am in control of my food, water, and housing. 
> *
> The State is created by my actions because I laid claim to my piece of the pie and when someone else wants to lay claim to my claim then a legal claim is better than the two of us getting into a Hatfield & McCoy battle*.


That makes no sense.  If merely owning a piece of land constitutes a "state", then there are millions of "states" on this continent alone.  Further, one of the distinguishing factor of a State is that it interacts with other States (wage war, etc).  I don't think the folks down the street are going to start a literal war with each other.  

You're also at odds with the dictionary

----------


## Travlyr

> That makes no sense.  If merely owning a piece of land constitutes a "state", then there are millions of "states" on this continent alone.  Further, one of the distinguishing factor of a State is that it interacts with other States (wage war, etc).  I don't think the folks down the street are going to start a literal war with each other.  
> 
> You're also at odds with the dictionary


HB, it is not the fact that land ownership constitutes a State. It is the fact that laws are made because people lay claims to land to settle disputes. It is so people can enjoy peace, prosperity, and freedom by owning a piece of the pie. Stop resisting. Enjoy what God gives.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Thank you for the straight answer. I do too. Now, my solution to accomplish this goal may be different than yours. Here is how I approach achieving being in control of my food, water, and air.
> 
> I find property that is not being used. In 2011, I must buy it from the bankers which sucks because I should be able to buy it from an individual, but I digress on that point. I buy myself a little plot of land. Then I stake the corners with boundary pins so that everyone else in the world knows that I lay claim to that plot.
> 
> Then I dig a water well, fence part of it and raise animals to eat, fence more of it to raise a garden, and I build a house and garage for my comfort. I claim ownership of the land, improvements, food, and water. Since air is abundant, then my main concern is that others do not pollute the air that I breathe.
> 
> In this way, I am in control of my food, water, and housing. 
> 
> The State is created by my actions because I laid claim to my piece of the pie and when someone else wants to lay claim to my claim then a legal claim is better than the two of us getting into a Hatfield & McCoy battle.


I understand your justifications for the existence of a state.  

If your state does not demand a tribute payment in the form of a "tax", or some other form of involuntary fee, to fund its operations, and does not deny and actively suppress agencies which seek to compete with its operations, and does not attempt to coercively and/or forcefully impose rules and regulations of any kind on the sovereign individuals within it's grasp, I would not oppose it.

Would your state do any of these things?

----------


## Conza88

*Does the State Resolve or Create Conflict?                           * 



                                                                                                       ...Further, of the state, defined as “the  ultimate authority to which in a given territory no recourse to a higher  authority exists,” Radnitzky states, “that coercion is not a  characteristic that is implied in its definition. If (per impossibile)  the contract theory were a tenable theory, then the institution would  not be coercive and yet qualify as a state.” *Certainly, one is free in one’s definitions, but not all definitions are fruitful.*

According  to Radnitzky’s definition, for instance, the founder-proprietor of a  settlement - a gated community - would have to be considered a state,  because he decides about membership (inclusion and exclusion) and is the  ultimate authority in all settler-conflicts. However, the founder of a  community does not exact taxes, but he collects fees, contributions or  rents from his follow-settlers. And he does not pass laws (legislates)  regarding the property of other, but all settler-property is from the  outset subject to his ultimate jurisdiction.

Similarly, it is  conceivable that all private land owners in a given territory transfer  their land to one and the same person, for instance, in order to so  establish the ultimate authority which according to Hobbes is necessary  for peace. Thereby, they sink from the rank of an owner to that of a  renter. *Radnitzky would also term such a proprietor, established  in this way, a state. But why? It is contrary to common terminology and  hence confusing.*

*And which purpose would be  served, to label something entirely different with the same name: namely  an institution, which derives its status as ultimate authority neither  from an act of original appropriation nor from a real estate transfer on  the part of original appropriators?* It is this difference in  the genesis of the institution, that lets us speak of (coercive) taxes  and tribute and of laws and legislation instead of voluntarily paid  rents and accepted community standards and house rules. *Why not, in accordance with conventional speech, reserve the term state exclusively for the former (compulsory) institution?*

However,  regarding this (compulsory) state, then, this must be kept in mind:  that its institution is even then ‘unjust’, if (per impossible) it  rested on unanimous agreement. Consensus does not guarantee truth. *A  state-agreement is invalid, because it contradicts the nature of  things. At any given point in time (and absent any pre-stabilized  harmony), a scarce good can only have one owner. Otherwise, contrary to  the very purpose of norms, conflict is generated instead of avoided.*

Yet  multiple ownership regarding one and the same stock of goods is  precisely what state-agreement implies. The consenting parties did not  transfer all of their land to the state but consider themselves as free  land owners (not renters). Yet at the same time they appoint the state  as ultimate decision-maker concerning all territorial conflicts and thus  make him the owner of all land. *The price that must be paid for this ‘unjust’ - contrary to the nature of things - agreement is permanent conflict.*

Conflict  is not unavoidable but possible. However, it is nonsensical to consider  the institution of a state as a solution to the problem of possible  conflict, because it is precisely the institution of a state which first  makes conflict unavoidable and permanent.

----------


## Travlyr

> I understand your justifications for the existence of a state.  
> 
> If your state does not demand a tribute payment in the form of a "tax", or some other form of involuntary fee, to fund its operations, and does not deny and actively suppress agencies which seek to compete with its operations, and does not attempt to coercively and/or forcefully impose rules and regulations of any kind on the sovereign individuals within it's grasp, I would not oppose it.
> 
> Would your state do any of these things?


It is not my State. I merely described why States exist. It is evolutionary. States grow from that fundamental concept for various reasons. However, the claim that States are violent by their very existence has virtually no justification in reality. The concept of the State is beneficial to individuals for liberty, peace, and prosperity. For that very reason the State will never go away. Hate of the State is misplaced venom, and incessant effort to destroy the State is simply a divide and conquer tactic by the powers-that-be.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> It is not my State. I merely described why States exist. It is evolutionary. States grow from that fundamental concept for various reasons. However, the claim that States are violent by their very existence has virtually no justification in reality. The concept of the State is beneficial to individuals for liberty, peace, and prosperity. For that very reason the State will never go away. Hate of the State is misplaced venom, and incessant effort to destroy the State is simply a divide and conquer tactic by the powers-that-be.


Your opinion is that opposing the state is not a worthy enterprise.  That's fine.

I understand that it is not "your" state, but you do advocate for the existence of a state.

And so, with respect, you didn't answer my question:




> If your state does not demand a tribute payment in the form of a "tax", or some other form of involuntary fee, to fund its operations, and does not deny and actively suppress agencies which seek to compete with its operations, and does not attempt to coercively and/or forcefully impose rules and regulations of any kind on the sovereign individuals within it's grasp, I would not oppose it.
> 
> Would your state the state which you advocate do any of these things?

----------


## Travlyr

> Your opinion is that opposing the state is not a worthy enterprise.  That's fine.
> 
> I understand that it is not "your" state, but you do advocate for the existence of a state.
> 
> And so, with respect, you didn't answer my question:


It is not my State. We were all born into that societal construct. I don't have a problem with it because I like to be in control of my life. However, the violations you describe are unavoidable in life either with boundaries or not. If boundaries are not drawn, then Hatfield and McCoy battles ensue, if they are drawn, then taxes are necessary. Both scenarios are violent in that regard.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> It is not my State. We were all born into that societal construct. I don't have a problem with it because I like to be in control of my life. However, the violations you describe are unavoidable in life either with boundaries or not. If boundaries are not drawn, then Hatfield and McCoy battles ensue, if they are drawn, then taxes are necessary. Both scenarios are violent in that regard.


It is not a given that land feuds will occur.  We can presume that they may, or that they may even be likely, but they are not necessary for statelessness.  Furthermore, it has been shown that private enterprise _can_ offer services which make these conditions wholly impractical.

It IS a given that a state will "tax", suppress competition and impose rules since, as you say, they are necessary for a state to exist.  

Thank you for acknowledging that you advocate these things.

----------


## Wesker1982

> If boundaries are not drawn, then Hatfield and McCoy battles ensue, _if they are drawn,_ _then taxes are necessary._


Total _non sequitur_.

----------


## Travlyr

> It is not a given that land feuds will occur.  We can presume that they may, or that they may even be likely, but they are not necessary for statelessness.  Furthermore, it has been shown that private enterprise _can_ offer services which make these conditions wholly impractical.
> 
> It IS a given that a state will "tax", suppress competition and impose rules since, as you say, they are necessary for a state to exist.  
> 
> Thank you for acknowledging that you advocate these things.


No problem. But it is absolutely a given that land feuds would occur. That is part of the evolutionary process. The native Americans suffered greatly because they did not understand the State and absolutely refused to join. What did they end up with? Near genocide, then Reservations with boundaries ... which = State.

----------


## Travlyr

> Total _non sequitur_.


lol

----------


## Wesker1982

> lol


Why are taxes necessary for boundaries?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> No problem. But it is absolutely a given that land feuds would occur.


In your opinion, land feuds may occur.  I'm not aware of anyone having the ability to know the future other than God.  In the past, land feuds have occurred, and at times have not occurred.  




> That is part of the evolutionary process. The native Americans suffered greatly because they did not understand the State and absolutely refused to join. What did they end up with? Near genocide, then Reservations with boundaries ... which = State.


By _advocating_ for a state, one can say with 100% certainty that unprovoked coercive and physical violence against objectively sovereign individuals _will_ occur, as you acknowledge.  The presumption is that the violence will be minimal, under a minarchist system.  This has been shown by history to be a very temporary condition.  Furthermore - again - advocating "a little" violence is still advocating against the violation of the inherent, objective and observable sovereignty of individuals.  It's "a little" pregnant.

I'm reminded of the story attributed to Shaw, I believe, who was said to have propositioned a fine looking lady at a Parisian salon with sex for some-thousands of francs.  She agreed to his proposition; but then he asked her if she would for just a few francs.  "What kind of woman do you take me for!?", she sniffed.  "We've already established that, ma'dam... now we're just haggling over the price", he replied.

----------


## bolil

> I'd be an anarchist myself if i thought it wasnt impossible. There's *ZERO* chance it would work in todays world, too much hostility and very, very few ppl understand and respect private property. I think the most practical system that'd produce the least violence would be something similar to the articles of confederation except i'd go further and have a federal govt limited strictly to administrative duties, no power on force, security or military.


I can dig what your throwing down.  Just save the Marine Corps.

----------


## Travlyr

> In your opinion, land feuds may occur.  I'm not aware of anyone having the ability to know the future other than God.  In the past, land feuds have occurred, and at times have not occurred.  
> 
> 
> 
> By _advocating_ for a state, one can say with 100% certainty that unprovoked coercive and physical violence against objectively sovereign individuals _will_ occur, as you acknowledge.  The presumption is that the violence will be minimal, under a minarchist system.  This has been shown by history to be a very temporary condition.  Furthermore - again - advocating "a little" violence is still advocating against the violation of the inherent, objective and observable sovereignty of individuals.  It's "a little" pregnant.
> 
> I'm reminded of the story attributed to Shaw, I believe, who was said to have propositioned a fine looking lady at a Parisian salon with sex for some-thousands of francs.  She agreed to his proposition; but then he asked her if she would for just a few francs.  "What kind of woman do you take me for!?", she sniffed.  "We've already established that, ma'dam... now we're just haggling over the price", he replied.


It is interesting that people get on a soap box and claim, _"I live and participate in the State, but since I advocate the absence of the State, then I claim the moral high road."_ It's phony. You can get down from the soap box now. You are no more morally right than the rest of us who have to live in its tyranny. 

I understand why the State exists, I try to share my understanding with others. Even with all its warts, I try and point out how it can be beneficial for living free, peaceful, and prosperous lives. I also point out that it is the result of where we came from ... the evolution of societies and it is not going away. Like I said earlier, I don't mind it because I like to be in control of my life. My desire is to limit to no more than a night watchman style order.

But for some reason you have an incessant desire is to paint others as a violent creatures. Whatever floats your boat. When you can walk the talk, then you get the moral high road. Until then, you simply deny reality and point fingers.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> It is interesting that people get on a soap box and claim, _"I live and participate in the State, but since I advocate the absence of the State, then I claim the moral high road."_ It's phony. You can get down from the soap box now. You are no more morally right than the rest of us who have to live in its tyranny. 
> 
> I understand why the State exists, I try to share my understanding with others. Even with all its warts, I try and point out how it can be beneficial for living free, peaceful, and prosperous lives. I also point out that it is the result of where we came from ... the evolution of societies and it is not going away. Like I said earlier, I don't mind it because I like to be in control of my life. My desire is to limit to no more than a night watchman style order.
> 
> But for some reason you have an incessant desire is to paint others as a violent creatures. Whatever floats your boat. When you can walk the talk, then you get the moral high road. Until then, you simply deny reality and point fingers.


None of this attack on my character and brief synopsis of the evolution of the state does anything to change the fact that you positively advocate on behalf of an entity which cannot exist without intiating unprovoked violence against individuals.

----------


## RiseAgainst

Travlyr,

I walk the talk every day of my life, I initiate force on no one.  The only thing I ask in return is that you afford me the same courtesy.  If you choose not to afford me such a courtesy and insteas advocate a violent institution to satisfy your own personal desires, I will call you on it every time.  Like the national socialists in the immigration thread, you seem terrified to admit what you are and defend it.  If you believe using the force of a state to initiate violence to achieve your ends is the right thing to do then be PROUD to defend it.

I have a sneaking suspicion that somewhere deep inside both you and the national socialists know full well how wrong the ideas you promote are, but in your haste to meet immediate wants you use justification rather than principled and logical defense in an attempt to convince even yourself that what you advocate is right.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Travlyr,
> 
> I walk the talk every day of my life, I initiate force on no one.


Expect Travlyr to tell you that you as a prisoner must make a break for the fence.  That is walking the walk in his estimation.  So is getting shot in the back, apparently.  




> The only thing I ask in return is that you afford me the same courtesy.  If you choose not to afford me such a courtesy and insteas advocate a violent institution to satisfy your own personal desires, I will call you on it every time.  Like the national socialists in the immigration thread, you seem terrified to admit what you are and defend it.  If you believe using the force of a state to initiate violence to achieve your ends is the right thing to do then be PROUD to defend it.
> 
> I have a sneaking suspicion that somewhere deep inside both you and the national socialists know full well how wrong the ideas you promote are, but in your haste to meet immediate wants you use justification rather than principled and logical defense in an attempt to convince even yourself that what you advocate is right.


I think this is probably a pretty accurate suspicion.  Well said.  I've always granted that I recognize the "utilitarian" argument on behalf of the state, but this irrational, unsupportable denial of the inherent, objective morality of the philosophy of the anti-statist position gives credence to your view.

Again, well said.

----------


## Travlyr

Both the State and Stateless societies beget violence. The State having a monopoly on violence is preferable to competing violence, imo. The public state gives people opportunity to minimize the violence through participation in governance. i.e. "Ignoring the Constitution has proven to be more violent and tyrannical than obeying it. Assassinations, Police State, Military Industrial Complex, Regulations, Prohibitions, and Funny Money are all a result of people ignoring the rules of law.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Both the State and Stateless societies beget violence. The State having a monopoly on violence is preferable to competing violence, *imo*.


Except you advocate that "your opinion" is imposed on others through force.

----------


## Seraphim

Then why is that American history shows that the more heavily armed the GENERAL POPULACE (law abiding citizens/non aggressors) is, the LESS violence there is? That defines competing violence.

Even the so called Wild West was MUCH less violent than America is today.

US history is a prime example that competing "enforcement" leads to more peace.

Nothing is perfect, of course, we cannot eradicate violence...but I think the history of your own country shows that competing enforecement (the citizens!!) works best!!

Peace 




> Both the State and Stateless societies beget violence. The State having a monopoly on violence is preferable to competing violence, imo. The public state gives people opportunity to minimize the violence through participation in governance. i.e. "Ignoring the Constitution has proven to be more violent and tyrannical than obeying it. Assassinations, Police State, Military Industrial Complex, Regulations, Prohibitions, and Funny Money are all a result of people ignoring the rules of law.

----------


## Travlyr

> Then why is that American history shows that the more heavily armed the GENERAL POPULACE (law abiding citizens/non aggressors) is, the LESS violence there is? That defines competing violence.
> 
> Even the so called Wild West was MUCH less violent than America is today.
> 
> US history is a prime example that competing "enforcement" leads to more peace.
> 
> Nothing is perfect, of course, we cannot eradicate violence...but I think the history of your own country shows that competing enforecement (the citizens!!) works best!!
> 
> Peace


People in America respected the rule of law in days gone bye. That is what is missing in America today ... people ignore the Constitution.

----------


## Seraphim

Of course, but that correlation runs deep with the expanding of the State.




> People in America respected the rule of law in days gone bye. That is what is missing in America today ... people ignore the Constitution.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> People in America respected the rule of law in days gone bye. That is what is missing in America today ... people ignore the Constitution.


When was it ever followed?

----------


## Travlyr

> When was it ever followed?


The Constitution was followed fairly strictly prior to 1860. From then up until about 1930 it was not as closely followed, yet it still was the basis for rule of law. Cases in point: Senators were chosen by State legislatures; WWI was a declared war; Prohibition required a Constitutional Amendment; Gold & Silver was fully redeemable, etc. Certainly it wasn't followed to a T, but mostly the population revered the Constitution as the law of the land. 

Shortly after 1913 the international bankers, who plotted against the American people, performed a clever peaceful coup d'état against the United States government with their propaganda and trickery. On Sunday, the weekend before Christmas 1913 with 1/3 of Congress already on vacation, congress performed massive compromises between the House & Senate versions of the bill and barely passed it into law. President Wilson was taken by surprise and was not going to sign it, but they forced his hand on December 23, 1913 and the American people gave the bankers a fine Christmas present which would haunt their grandchildren and great-grandchildren 100 years later.

The American Constitution was officially and effectively subverted with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Once the bankers had control, they shortly thereafter ousted all Senators and Representatives who voted against them and installed their own puppets. Then the international oligarchy set out to build an empire by taking over the media outlets, educational institutions, enslaving the world deeply in debt, and warring on the world to advance their mercantilism for profit and control.

----------


## Conza88

[...] Okay.  So, it was all Wilson's fault. Before WW I, America was a shining city  on a hill. Wilson really set us on the wrong course.
 But wait. I think Lincoln is really the culprit here. For one, if the South had been allowed to secede, as was its right, or had won, World War I would not have turned out the way  it did. So: no Lincoln, no War Between the States, no WWI, no WWII.  (While we're at it, let's blame all the white slaveholders. They set in  motion a chain of events that led to the War Between the States, just so  they could have cheaper cotton.)

 Okay, but before 1861, America was _it_. It was as close to minarchy as the world has seen (never mind ancient Ireland). Thank God for our liberty-minded forefathers, Jefferson, Madison and crew.

 Hold on a second there. As Chantal Saucier has pointed out  in these pages, the growth of the American Empire might be dated to  Jefferson's unconstitutional expansion of empire with the Louisiana  Purchase in 1803. Had the unconstitutional Louisiana Purchase not taken  place, we might have avoided the War Between the States, WWI, WWII, _et seq_. Maybe I should take down the prints of Jefferson paintings on my office wall, oui?

On  second thought, I think the trouble started a little bit further back.  The Constitution as ratified in 1789 was fine as it was. Boy, what a  great achievement. But the Bill of Rights was added in 1791. If this had  not been done, then the so-called "incorporation doctrine"  — whereby the Fourteenth Amendment was held to "incorporate" most of  the rights listed in the Bill of Rights and apply them to the states —  probably would never have been invented. Thus, the erosion of federalism  caused by this federal seizure of power might never have happened, and  there would be stronger structural limits on federal action in place  today.

Who  am I kidding. The real trouble really started two years earlier. The  Framers in 1789 had already agreed to add a Bill of Rights, as the price  for ratification. I think I need to push it back a couple more years,  just to be safe — since the _real_ problem is that the federal convention called in 1787 merely to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation exceeded its mandate  by proposing a new Constitution. Which led, naturally, to the Bill of  Rights, the War Between the States, WWI, WWII, and the erosion of  federalism and hegemony of the central state. As Hoppe (_Democracy, the God that Failed_,  p. 272) notes, the Americans "not only did not let the inherited royal  institutions of colonies and colonial governments wither away into  oblivion; they reconstituted them within the old political borders in  the form of independent states, each equipped with its own coercive  (unilateral) taxing and legislative powers. While this would have been  bad enough, the new Americans made matters worse by adopting the  American Constitution and replacing a loose confederation of independent  states with the central (federal) government of the United States." We  would have been much better off under the old Articles of Confederation. We were just fine, until then. Yes, that was America's golden age: from 1776 to 1787.

Except  ... the transformation of the Union from confederation to federation,  and ultimately to centralized, dominant state, was nothing but a natural  result of the utopian idealism of the Declaration of Independence  in 1776. Why these guys thought they could cut the ties to the  traditional, monarchical, constitutional order and set up a new  political order imbued with the spirit of democracy in its stead, but  limit its growth with mere paper documents and platitudes is beyond me.  After all, it had never been done before. What was Jefferson thinking?[...]

----------


## Travlyr

It is not Wilson, Lincoln, Jefferson, or Hamilton who are to blame for our woes. They have all since passed on. Nothing is perfect in our world, but America was the land of opportunity for many people for generations ... a refuge from tyranny abroad. 

Counterfeiting is what enslaves. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 undermined the rule of law, and it legitimized the power to counterfeit for a small group of bankers who understood that mixing money with force is power. 

Counterfeiters are also at the heart of violence. The only way a counterfeiter can stay in power is to jail or kill competition because if anyone and everyone is allowed to counterfeit money, then nobody's counterfeit money is any good. Since a counterfeiter's monopoly is required to maintain power, then police are required to ferret out any competition ... hence the aggressive initiation of force.

When the power to create money out-of-nothing is taken from the _powers-in-charge_, then the wars end, people become liberated, and prosperity ensues for the people.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> It seems as though every argument made for the state is wrong, and all of the arguments made against a voluntary society are based on straw man. 
> 
> Government, every where in the world, is full of nothing but evil men that commit the worst of crimes. I don't see why a monopoly based on violence can provide anything that the people cannot create voluntarily. 
> 
> A few years ago, when I first started reading about Paul and the Austrian School, I thought that anarchists were nothing but crazy, violent people, with backwards ideas, that were trying to fool us. I feel pretty stupid about that now. Most of the defenders of the state around these parts come off as insane ones now, in many cases. How many people here defend tariffs until they are blue in the face? We have people that outright defend Hitler and Gadaffi as human beings. If anything, the anarchists are easily the most sane people around here (there are lots of exceptions of course). It is really just a matter of getting over the label "anarchist". 
> 
> I could be ok with a government, provided it is funded voluntarily, respects secession, microsecession, and does not infringe on anyones rights. But I don't know if that is even possible, or could be called a government. 
> 
> Well, no more apologies from me, and no more contradictions either. I still don't like the way the word sounds, and should do more research on government, history, economics, and law, but I will not make a single excuse for the state from here on out.


If you are interested in what's possible, then you can forget about anarchy ever becoming reality.  Believe me, I would love it if it was possible to coexist peacefully without government.  However, that will never be reality.  You need the state because the state is inevitable.  It's either a limited government or a tyrant.  Take your pick.  People will always need and want government in order to administrate things like agriculture.  If we lived in an anarchic society, people would never be able to leave their belongings for fear that it would be stolen.  There  would be no such thing as property.  People would not be as free to move about.  How many of you would feel comfortable leaving your wife and children to go overseas in an anarchic society?  In fact, how would you have planes?  The thing is, corporations and businesses are inevitable, and if we don't have a state that defends liberty, then the corporations will form a state that takes it away.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> There is a difference between sanctioned, legal, mandatory violence, and random criminal acts. I'm not ok with people stealing from each other. Perfect voluntarism might not be possible due to random outlaws, but that does not mean that forcing everyone in society into a coercive collective is moral or needed. 
> 
> I think it is evident that the state destroys order. By the states very natures, it is funded by taking away other people's property. How can it be trusted to defend anyone elses? When you factor in their monopoly status, and the fact that they are using other people's resources, it gets worse. Corruption is ineveitable, and because it is not voluntary, tyrants will ultimately arise to the top in order to enforce the laws onto people. It will just continue to push people down the road to serfdom.


You are entirely correct.  However, what you missed is that anarchy would just make it easier for this to happen.  It's just as susceptiblee, if not more so, to corruption than any other form of government.  When I say government, I mean self-government in reference to anarchy.  Just like the other forms, it won't last.  What makes you think that the state is so much more immoral than random acts of violence?  Is it because you can remain ignorant to random acts of violence when it doesn't affect you?  I think everyone deserves justice, and you're not going to get that through anarchy.  If you have private courts, they will turn into governments, probably with arbitrary rules, since they have a monopoly on the justice system. 

It's like yin and yang.  You have to have balance, and you can't get that through either extreme.  Ultimately, the only real solution is for people to be educated about their form of government.  If nobody knows or beleives in the system, then of course it will not last.  We have to make it last and keep a check on people who would try to gain power through government.  It is much easier, however, for these people to gain that power without a governmen, than if there were already a system in place, especially if it were based on such strict protection of people's rights.  

There were many things that the founding fathers had to compromise on that ended up screwing up the system, but it was by far the best so far.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I hate logical inconsistencies.  Unprovoked physical and/or coercive aggression is objectively, observably wrong and immoral, and logically inconsistent.  It is wrong and immoral because the individual is sovereign, and it is logically inconsistent because to engage in unprovoked physical and/or coercive aggression as a sovereign individual is to give explicit sanction to the same being done in return, which is paradoxical to the truth of individual sovereignty.  To exist, the state MUST engage in some degree of unprovoked physical and/or coercive aggression against individuals.  Therefore, the state is objectively, observably an immoral institution.
> 
> _I can abide a small state as obviously preferrable to a larger state_, but there is no logical or moral argument for it, as shown above.  Just as one cannot be "a little bit pregnant", it either is, or it is not.


Who says the individual is sovereign?  That's another moral construct that you just pulled out of nowhere.  You must have an objective moral arbitrator before you can have an objective moral standard that stands on its own.  You say property rights are moral because the individual is sovereign, but where does that idea come from?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You are a terribly unimaginative being. I feel some sorrow in my heart for such people. Here I let Bastiat talk through his grave:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you've all ready said you think Socialism is necessary to take money, property, and belongings from one individual to forcebly give to another. You are a socialist if you prescribe your belief to this -- it is only in what manner and propriety you wish to foist it upon society. You simply cannot fatham a free individual giving to help those in need, or that those in need would come together to form mutual aid societies, and other non-profit, charitable organizations. From this your lack of understanding history, is shown to be the culprit for your thought process. Do you also think Americans simply died on the streets prior to Herbert Hoover and FDR? This is such a comical belief system.


The problem is that you think you have a morally consistent view without a true definition of what is moral.  Do you really think people would care what you think is moral if there were no recourse for transgression?  You are far too imaginative in that you think people will somehow become moral beings and be nice to everyone else and follow the same moral standards without law and government.  People will always be greedy and immoral.  That is why we have the state in the first place.  Why you think this would be any different under an anarchist society is quite confusing.  If you can accept that people can be moral, then you can accept that government can be moral because it works to curtail injustice.  The problem is that you think the standards of injustice are a given and that they would exist if there were no force factor.  What makes it so much more moral to allow people to pillage and rape without legal recourse?  If people aren't restrained, then there is no morality.  That is, unless everyone subscribed to the same moral views.  We both know this will never happen.  In an anarchist society, people are never safe to leave their property lest they lose it.  They actually have LESS freedom than if there were law and order.  Anarchy would facilitate a monopoly on violence, not prevent it.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Who says the individual is sovereign?  That's another moral construct that you just pulled out of nowhere.  You must have an objective moral arbitrator before you can have an objective moral standard that stands on its own.  You say property rights are moral because the individual is sovereign, but where does that idea come from?


Moral relativism at RPF?  Hmph... 

I didn't just dream it up.  There's a pretty long tradition of individual sovereignty in Western thought.  But I'm with you - I don't abide arbitrary standards.  So, if the individual is not sovereign over his own life, then what earthly being is?  Who owns my life more than I do?  Who here on earth can take control of my brain, my heart, my actions?  It is objectively, observably so that the individual is sovereign.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> People will always be greedy and immoral.  That is why we have the state in the first place.


You mean "the state", populated by those greedy and immoral people, which has a socially-sanctioned monopoly on force?  

Why am I supposed to trust those greedy and immoral people with the pervasive, total power of "the state"?

----------


## CCTelander

> You mean "the state", populated by those greedy and immoral people, which has a socially-sanctioned monopoly on force?  
> 
> Why am I supposed to trust those greedy and immoral people with the pervasive, total power of "the state"?



Simple. The electorate are somehow much too debased and evil to be trusted to peacefully coexist with each other, but somehow, magically, they become near perfect angels once they're "educated" enough, and capable of choosing ONLY the good, upright, and moral people from among them to rule over them.

See how easy it is once you give up any pretense of reason or logic?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Oh boy...
> 
> I believe one of the problems that this thread demonstrates among otherwise would be champions of liberty, is that they do not understand the true nature or definition of property and by extension it's rights afforded.  Titled land to be heired in perpetuity is an archaic construct of 'noble' classes used to preserve power over serfs.  In order to free yourself from the slave master you must free yourself from not only his physical chains, but his mental and lingual chains as well.  The only property that is just is that to which you are personally putting to active use.  When one clears a section of forest and builds herself a home from the harvested lumber, one can hardly argue her right to call this her property.  However, this does not give her property right over the adjoining 2,000 acres of forest and land as yet unmixed with human labor.  Nor does it give her right to abandon said property only to re-appear at an indeterminate time in the future and attempt to forcibly eject any would be new property users.  If we are ever to free ourselves from our current predicaments we must first be willing to release the trappings of a title based property system.
> 
> Freedom may not be easy, but it is right and moral.


Moral according to who?  Where do you get your ideas of morality?  Is it not from your own conscious mind?  Simply because others will agree with you that a certain construct is moral, doesn't make it objective.  

Beside, anarchists ignore the fact that there will still be violence and stealing in an anarchic society.  You, too, advocate it because you advocate a system that allows people to believe what they are doing is perfectly fine.  Everything, in your view, is for one's own personal gain.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Moral according to who?  Where do you get your ideas of morality?  Is it not from your own conscious mind?  Simply because others will agree with you that a certain construct is moral, doesn't make it objective.


I can't believe you're such an relativist...




> Beside, anarchists ignore the fact that there will still be violence and stealing in an anarchic society.  You, too, advocate it because you advocate a system that allows people to believe what they are doing is perfectly fine.  Everything, in your view, is for one's own personal gain.


None of this is accurate.  None of it.  Advocates of statelessness do not ignore the fact that people are violent/immoral/etc.  They simply oppose institutionalizing it.  

We do not advocate violence.  If violence occurs in a stateless society, it is the responsibility of the individual who perpetrates it.  Advocates of the state wholly embrace violence and make it the foundation of their ideal society, as Travlyr showed us earlier in this thread.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> You are entirely correct.  However, what you missed is that anarchy would just make it easier for this to happen.  It's just as susceptiblee, if not more so, to corruption than any other form of government.  When I say government, I mean self-government in reference to anarchy.  Just like the other forms, it won't last.  What makes you think that the state is so much more immoral than random acts of violence?  Is it because you can remain ignorant to random acts of violence when it doesn't affect you?  I think everyone deserves justice, and you're not going to get that through anarchy.  If you have private courts, they will turn into governments, probably with arbitrary rules, since they have a monopoly on the justice system. 
> 
> It's like yin and yang.  You have to have balance, and you can't get that through either extreme.  Ultimately, the only real solution is for people to be educated about their form of government.  If nobody knows or beleives in the system, then of course it will not last.  We have to make it last and keep a check on people who would try to gain power through government.  It is much easier, however, for these people to gain that power without a governmen, than if there were already a system in place, especially if it were based on such strict protection of people's rights.  
> 
> There were many things that the founding fathers had to compromise on that ended up screwing up the system, but it was by far the best so far.


WOW! Beg the question much?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> 


How long do you think fatty would survive in an anarchist society?  His very existence is the heighth of hypocrisy.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I can't believe you're such an relativist...
> 
> 
> 
> None of this is accurate.  None of it.  Advocates of statelessness do not ignore the fact that people are violent/immoral/etc.  They simply oppose institutionalizing it.  
> 
> We do not advocate violence.  If violence occurs in a stateless society, it is the responsibility of the individual who perpetrates it.  Advocates of the state wholly embrace violence and make it the foundation of their ideal society, as Travlyr showed us earlier in this thread.


I'm not a relativist.  The point is that everything you think is moral is arbitrary without an objective source for that morality.  If it's just my word against yours, then there is no objective morality.  You can't expect others to care about your property rights or your self-ownership if they don't think those things are important enough to be upheld.  There are certainly people like this.  

What makes institutionalizing violence so bad?  Isn't it the violence and the murder and the stealing what's wrong?  The question is, how do you know that one has more than the other?  You don't.  Your immoral argument is invalid because 1) your view of morality comes only from you, and 2) You can't prove that your moral standards would be any more likely to thrive with or without the state.  Your whole statelessness position is basedon the idea that there would be less violence in an anarchist society, but what basis do you have for believing this?  Did you ever consider the idea that institutionalizing violence would prevent more violence than it creates?  

My point is that anarchy facilitates the institutionalization of violence because it does nothing to prevent it.  It is just as much susceptible to creeping tyranny as any other form of government.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> How long do you think fatty would survive in an anarchist society?  His very existence is the heighth of hypocrisy.


Now there's a great contribution to the thread.

Ron Paul happens to be an admirer of "fatty".  

Whenever I see this sort of empty vitriol against advocates of statelessness, I'll try to remember this great post from RiseAgainst:




> I have a sneaking suspicion that somewhere deep inside both you and the national socialists know full well how wrong the ideas you promote are, but in your haste to meet immediate wants you use justification rather than principled and logical defense in an attempt to convince even yourself that what you advocate is right.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You mean "the state", populated by those greedy and immoral people, which has a socially-sanctioned monopoly on force?  
> 
> Why am I supposed to trust those greedy and immoral people with the pervasive, total power of "the state"?


You refer to them as "those greedy and immoral people", which leads to my next point.  EVERYONE is greedy and immoral.  The Bible teaches that all are sinners and have fallen far short of perfect in the moral sense.  The whole earth is populated by greedy and immoral people.  How can you say the existence of a state is any more immoral than the existence of everyone else who does immoral things.  

However, if there is no objective source for morality, then there is no reason for others to respect your self-ownership except with the use of force.  That's why force is needed in any society.  There will always be immoral people.  Eliminating the state doesn't solve the problem.  

Furthermore, why would you assume that the people in government are so much more immoral than anyone else?  Another baseless assumption.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I'm not a relativist.  The point is that everything you think is moral is arbitrary without an objective source for that morality.  If it's just my word against yours, then there is no objective morality.  You can't expect others to care about your property rights or your self-ownership if they don't think those things are important enough to be upheld.  There are certainly people like this.


You've yet to address my claim regarding the objectivity of individual sovereignty.  Further, if everything is relative, then none of these philosophies are worth haggling over, nor is Ron Paul's campaign worth working for.  If nothing matters, then... nothing matters.  Who cares?  Shut up.    




> What makes institutionalizing violence so bad?


Really?  




> Isn't it the violence and the murder and the stealing what's wrong?  The question is, how do you know that one has more than the other?  You don't.  Your immoral argument is invalid because 1) your view of morality comes only from you, and 2) You can't prove that your moral standards would be any more likely to thrive with or without the state.  Your whole statelessness position is basedon the idea that there would be less violence in an anarchist society, but what basis do you have for believing this?  Did you ever consider the idea that institutionalizing violence would prevent more violence than it creates?


I guess it's pointless to debate with you, because even though I've already stated that I don't think that people would be less violent in an anarchist society than they are in a society with a state, you keep portraying that as my position.  Perhaps you'd be interested in debating with this guy, instead:






> My point is that anarchy facilitates the institutionalization of violence because it does nothing to prevent it.  It is just as much susceptible to creeping tyranny as any other form of government.


Anarchism isn't a form of government, and doesn't claim to prevent violence... it just doesn't institutionalize it.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> You refer to them as "those greedy and immoral people"


Uh, no.  You did. 

This is pointless...

----------


## CCTelander

> What makes institutionalizing violence so bad?



You might ask the QUARTER BILLION or so innocent people killed by government during the 20th Century alone, but you might have trouble getting a response.

All the "private" violence throughout history doesn't amount to a drop in that bucket.

----------


## Travlyr

> You might ask the QUARTER BILLION or so innocent people killed by government during the 20th Century alone, but you might have trouble getting a response.
> 
> All the "private" violence throughout history doesn't amount to a drop in that bucket.


Where did those vicious governments get their authority?

----------


## CCTelander

> Where did those vicious governments get their authority?



Sorry Trav but I'm not in any kind of mood to dance around with you. You're obviously not ready to face the fact that the position you advocate is morally inferior to the positions of those advocating a stateless society. Maybe you'll come around in time. Many of us have come from positions similar to your own. Time will tell.

The point of my previous post was simply this: While "private" violence certainly is something we should do our best to minimize, it can never hold a candle to the violence committed by governments. In fact, violence on a MASSIVE scale is pretty much the ONLY thing governments are good at.

----------


## Travlyr

> Sorry Trav but I'm not in any kind of mood to dance around with you. You're obviously not ready to face the fact that the position you advocate is morally inferior to the positions of those advocating a stateless society. Maybe you'll come around in time. Many of us have come from positions similar to your own. Time will tell.
> 
> The point of my previous post was simply this: While "private" violence certainly is something we should do our best to minimize, it can never hold a candle to the violence committed by governments. In fact, violence on a MASSIVE scale is pretty much the ONLY thing governments are good at.


Actually that is the whole point. The governments that killed 260 million people in the 20th century did not get Constitutional authority to do it. They used media lies and propaganda to control societies and war profiteer. The _powers-that-be_ consider themselves above the law. Anarchy.

This is why so many of us are working daily to return society back to the rule of law. We are working hard to stop their immoral shenanigans.

----------


## CCTelander

> And you advocate no better option.



He advocates a MUCH better option. Your obdurate refusal to recognize and acknowledge this in no way detracts from its factual nature.

----------


## CCTelander

> The Founding Fathers implemented quite a bit of tyranny. It was not just later generations.



Exactly. The idealized version of early America that most CONstitutionalists believe in is hopelessly naive and uninformed.

----------


## Travlyr

> Exactly. The idealized version of early America that most CONstitutionalists believe in is hopelessly naive and uninformed.


You mean the U.S. Constitution that does not authorize a police state, and says assassinations are illegal, real money is legal tender, and wars must be approved by congress. That Constitution? Certainly, as many have pointed out it is not perfect. But when we get enough people to enforce the rule of law upon the rulers of our day, then Americans (indeed people around the world) can once again enjoy, liberty, peace, and prosperity. We are presently nearing critical mass. It is too bad that we must fight the oligarchy, the media, and people who like to claim the "moral highroad."

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Actually that is the whole point. The governments that killed 260 million people in the 20th century did not get Constitutional authority to do it. They used media lies and propaganda to control societies and war profiteer. The _powers-that-be_ consider themselves above the law. Anarchy.
> 
> This is why so many of us are working daily to return society back to the rule of law. We are working hard to stop their immoral shenanigans.


"If we could only get people to just defend the damn Constitution!" - Travylr

"If we could only get people to just defend the damn NAP!" - Ancaps

----------


## noneedtoaggress

Now what does that mean.

Defend the Constitution from what? How?

Defend the NAP from what? How?



Which one is more likely to be sustainable?
Which one allows for more liberty? Who interprets the Constitution? Who interprets the NAP?
How are they funded under each system? Who do they claim authority over?

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> The powers-that-be consider themselves above the law. Anarchy.


You've got it exactly backwards:

----------


## Travlyr

> "If we could only get people to just defend the damn Constitution!" - Travylr


I never said that. Where the hell did you get that quote? You just make $#@! up and put my name on it? ... no respect.

Enforcing Constitutional rule of law is a much easier challenge than destroying the State.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

Actually, it isn't. "The state", like institutionalized slavery, is an idea. It's a pattern of interactions, not a beast that must be "destroyed".

The constitution, on the other hand, must constantly be defended from agents of the state (or people who act in the name of the concept of the state), who want to act outside of it while also interpreting it's meaning.

To "destroy" the state, it needs to be _de-legitimized_ in the minds of people who believe it to be just.

To uphold the constitution, against the state, it must be _legitimized_... to the state.


I think it was pretty obvious I was summarizing to point out that both sides require the same thing. The US was founded on constitutionalism and it's a part of the national culture and we're still seeing blatant disregard. Are you implying that constitutionalism can exist without people to defend it?

----------


## Travlyr

> Actually, it isn't. "The state", like institutionalized slavery, is an idea. It's a pattern of interactions, not a beast that must be "destroyed".
> 
> The constitution, on the other hand, must constantly be defended from agents of the state (or people who act in the name of the concept of the state), who want to act outside of it while also interpreting it's meaning.
> 
> To "destroy" the state, it needs to be _de-legitimized_ in the minds of people who believe it to be just.
> 
> To uphold the constitution, against the state, it must be _legitimized_... to the state.
> 
> 
> I think it was pretty obvious I was summarizing to point out that both sides require the same thing. The US was founded on constitutionalism and it's a part of the national culture and we're still seeing blatant disregard. Are you implying that constitutionalism can exist without people to defend it?


Not at all. I pointed out earlier that constitutional rule of law was respected and even revered by people as recently as 100 years ago. The powers-that-be had all the advantages at the time through secrecy and control of media, education, and the political process. They lost that advantage at the start of the 21st century. The Internet is the truth machine. 




> The Constitution was followed fairly strictly prior to 1860. From then up until about 1930 it was not as closely followed, yet it still was the basis for rule of law. Cases in point: Senators were chosen by State legislatures; WWI was a declared war; Prohibition required a Constitutional Amendment; Gold & Silver was fully redeemable, etc. Certainly it wasn't followed to a T, but mostly the population revered the Constitution as the law of the land. 
> 
> Shortly after 1913 the international bankers, who plotted against the American people, performed a clever peaceful coup d'état against the United States government with their propaganda and trickery. On Sunday, the weekend before Christmas 1913 with 1/3 of Congress already on vacation, congress performed massive compromises between the House & Senate versions of the bill and barely passed it into law. President Wilson was taken by surprise and was not going to sign it, but they forced his hand on December 23, 1913 and the American people gave the bankers a fine Christmas present which would haunt their grandchildren and great-grandchildren 100 years later.
> 
> The American Constitution was officially and effectively subverted with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Once the bankers had control, they shortly thereafter ousted all Senators and Representatives who voted against them and installed their own puppets. Then the international oligarchy set out to build an empire by taking over the media outlets, educational institutions, enslaving the world deeply in debt, and warring on the world to advance their mercantilism for profit and control.


I also pointed out that it is counterfeiting that enslaves people, and that counterfeiting is the source of the police state and aggressive violence.




> It is not Wilson, Lincoln, Jefferson, or Hamilton who are to blame for our woes. They have all since passed on. Nothing is perfect in our world, but America was the land of opportunity for many people for generations ... a refuge from tyranny abroad. 
> 
> Counterfeiting is what enslaves. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 undermined the rule of law, and it legitimized the power to counterfeit for a small group of bankers who understood that mixing money with force is power. 
> 
> Counterfeiters are also at the heart of violence. The only way a counterfeiter can stay in power is to jail or kill competition because if anyone and everyone is allowed to counterfeit money, then nobody's counterfeit money is any good. Since a counterfeiter's monopoly is required to maintain power, then police are required to ferret out any competition ... hence the aggressive initiation of force.
> 
> When the power to create money out-of-nothing is taken from the _powers-in-charge_, then the wars end, people become liberated, and prosperity ensues for the people.


Ron Paul points that out too. See sig.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Ron Paul points that out too. See sig.


You know what else Ron Paul said?




> "*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.*










> The Internet is the truth machine.


Yeah, but it doesn't work if you disregard ideas on grounds that they are 'heretical' to constitutionalism.

----------


## A Son of Liberty



----------


## Czolgosz

Your and my freedom will *always* require an adequate defense from those who strip us of it.  Welcome to Humanity.

The U.S. Constitution is/was an advancement in freedom for the individual.  I think it a worthwhile endeavor to restore it.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Your and my freedom will *always* require an adequate defense from those who strip us of it.  Welcome to Humanity.
> 
> The U.S. Constitution is/was an advancement in freedom for the individual.  I think it a worthwhile endeavor to restore it.


I don't think you'll find anyone here arguing against what you're saying.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> I don't think you'll find anyone here arguing against what you're saying.


Exactly... we just want to take that line of thought further and advocate _advancing individual freedom beyond it_.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You've yet to address my claim regarding the objectivity of individual sovereignty.  Further, if everything is relative, then none of these philosophies are worth haggling over, nor is Ron Paul's campaign worth working for.  If nothing matters, then... nothing matters.  Who cares?  Shut up.


  There you go.  If you don't like what people say, just tell them to shut up.  By the way, I have addressed your claim.  The fact that you are sovereign over yourself doesn't make it morally right for others to respect that sovereignty.  That is an arbitrary standard that you employ.  By the way, I have never said there is no such thing as morality.  I have said that you can't say one thing is moral and another isn't, if you don't have an objective source or arbitrator.  Facts don't determine morality.




> Really?


Yes, really.  What's so bad about institutionalizing violence if people are violent anyway?  Who's to say that the institution doesn't prevent more violence than it creates?  What makes you think the people in control of the institution are so much worse than others?




> I guess it's pointless to debate with you, because even though I've already stated that I don't think that people would be less violent in an anarchist society than they are in a society with a state, you keep portraying that as my position.  Perhaps you'd be interested in debating with this guy, instead:


You're against violence, but apparently you have no problem insulting someone's intelligence.  Another arbitrary moral standard.




> Anarchism isn't a form of government, and doesn't claim to prevent violence... it just doesn't institutionalize it.


What's so great about not institutionalizing violence?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Uh, no.  You did. 
> 
> This is pointless...


I have a hard time believing the point wasn't still valid.  Everyone is greedy and immoral, not just those in control of the government.  Saying statists advocate violence is just as valid as saying anarchists advocate violence, since violence would occur under both systems, and a monopoly on violence would also occur under both systems.  However, I see your game.  You're simply trying to avoid a debate by saying your time is better spent elsewhere.  What a great way to avoid getting cornered by logic.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You might ask the QUARTER BILLION or so innocent people killed by government during the 20th Century alone, but you might have trouble getting a response.
> 
> All the "private" violence throughout history doesn't amount to a drop in that bucket.


So that's what this is all about.  Some governments have been violent in the past, therefore all governments are inherently violent.  Good argument.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Sorry Trav but I'm not in any kind of mood to dance around with you. You're obviously not ready to face the fact that the position you advocate is morally inferior to the positions of those advocating a stateless society. Maybe you'll come around in time. Many of us have come from positions similar to your own. Time will tell.
> 
> The point of my previous post was simply this: While "private" violence certainly is something we should do our best to minimize, it can never hold a candle to the violence committed by governments. In fact, violence on a MASSIVE scale is pretty much the ONLY thing governments are good at.


I just love it when people act like their view is "morally superior."  I'll ask you again: according to whose moral standards?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> He advocates a MUCH better option. Your obdurate refusal to recognize and acknowledge this in no way detracts from its factual nature.


I'm sorry, but do you not realize that this is not based on facts?  Everything we are talking about here is philosophical conjecture.  Your view is not  factual, and your claim to the contrary does not make it so.  If it were based on facts, we would have examples of stateless societies.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> The Constitution was followed fairly strictly prior to 1860. From then up until about 1930 it was not as closely followed, yet it still was the basis for rule of law. Cases in point: Senators were chosen by State legislatures; WWI was a declared war; Prohibition required a Constitutional Amendment; Gold & Silver was fully redeemable, etc. Certainly it wasn't followed to a T, but mostly the population revered the Constitution as the law of the land. 
> 
> Shortly after 1913 the international bankers, who plotted against the American people, performed a clever peaceful coup d'état against the United States government with their propaganda and trickery. On Sunday, the weekend before Christmas 1913 with 1/3 of Congress already on vacation, congress performed massive compromises between the House & Senate versions of the bill and barely passed it into law. President Wilson was taken by surprise and was not going to sign it, but they forced his hand on December 23, 1913 and the American people gave the bankers a fine Christmas present which would haunt their grandchildren and great-grandchildren 100 years later.
> 
> The American Constitution was officially and effectively subverted with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Once the bankers had control, they shortly thereafter ousted all Senators and Representatives who voted against them and installed their own puppets. Then the international oligarchy set out to build an empire by taking over the media outlets, educational institutions, enslaving the world deeply in debt, and warring on the world to advance their mercantilism for profit and control.


The Founding Fathers create a Central Bank immediately after the Constitution was created, and we had two Central Banks up until 1937. We almost immediately had the Sedition Act, and other unlawful government restrictions on our rights as individuals. The Constitution was never followed. It has been violated since day one.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> If you are interested in what's possible, then you can forget about anarchy ever becoming reality.  Believe me, I would love it if it was possible to coexist peacefully without government.  However, that will never be reality.  You need the state because the state is inevitable.  It's either a limited government or a tyrant.  Take your pick.  People will always need and want government in order to administrate things like agriculture.  If we lived in an anarchic society, people would never be able to leave their belongings for fear that it would be stolen.  There  would be no such thing as property.  People would not be as free to move about.  How many of you would feel comfortable leaving your wife and children to go overseas in an anarchic society?  In fact, how would you have planes?  The thing is, corporations and businesses are inevitable, and if we don't have a state that defends liberty, then the corporations will form a state that takes it away.


Government administrated agriculture? 

State one reason why private companies are incapable of providing a police service.  




> It's like yin and yang. You have to have balance, and you can't get that through either extreme


That's like saying "we only need some rape, pillage, and murder".

There are no instances in history of a government respecting its people's rights.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You've got it exactly backwards:


No, that video actually says that government is the source of law, the ultimate arbitrator.  The Constitution is based on the idea that the law does not come from men, but from God, and even government is subject to that law.  If rights and laws come only from men, then there is no such thing as "morally wrong."  Your view is dangerous because it treats people as the ultimate arbitrators of morality.  You just take a few that you happen to agree with most people on and call it "morally correct" while condemning all other moral views.  If law is truly arbitrary, then it is completely fine for people to commit acts of aggression, as long as they don't see anything wrong with it.

----------


## torchbearer

the state as a voluntary association. can it be done? how about on the village level?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You know what else Ron Paul said?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree with Ron that the Constitution, BY ITSELF, is insufficient.  However, I disagree with him in that I don't think we will ever mature to that point.  Man is inherently evil.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> the state as a voluntary association. can it be done? how about on the village level?


I would support that.

----------


## mczerone

> No, I don't ask my neighbors or law enforcement to watch my place. When I get back from extended vacation, if someone would try and homestead my home, all I have to do to prove that it is my home is go to my county seat and get the deed to prove ownership. That's it. Very efficient and almost free. Screw hiring a bunch of "protective agencies." Who needs em? What if I had a bad year and couldn't afford the security team? SOL? I'm not buying what your selling.


"Very efficient and almost free".  Assertions need support, Travlyr.  I can make the argument that the current system, or indeed any "republican" system of land titles/defense is vastly inefficient, and they are definitely only "free" at the point of service - if even then.

Screw letting a single agency force allegiance to it for protection.  Who needs em?  What if they had a bad year and had a budget shortfall - and couldn't provide security for anyone but their most politically valued customers?  We're ALL SOL!  I'm unfortunately forced to buy what your selling.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> There you go.  If you don't like what people say, just tell them to shut up.  By the way, I have addressed your claim.  The fact that you are sovereign over yourself doesn't make it morally right for others to respect that sovereignty.  That is an arbitrary standard that you employ.  By the way, I have never said there is no such thing as morality.  I have said that you can't say one thing is moral and another isn't, if you don't have an objective source or arbitrator.  Facts don't determine morality.


LOL The "shut up" was euphemistic of your relativistic position.  I wasn't telling you to shut up.  

Violating one person's sovereignty practically invalidates the sovereignty of the violator, you see?  




> Yes, really.  What's so bad about institutionalizing violence if people are violent anyway?  Who's to say that the institution doesn't prevent more violence than it creates?  What makes you think the people in control of the institution are so much worse than others?


First, I do not hold that all people are violent.  Some people are violent, some are not.  Creating an institution in society with socially-sanctioned monopoly on violence will attract the violent people, as a matter of course.  You therefore give broad power to the violent people in society, rather than keeping their sociopathology localized.  




> You're against violence, but apparently you have no problem insulting someone's intelligence.  Another arbitrary moral standard.


What does being against violence and insulting a person have to do with each other?  To what could "another arbitrary moral standard" possibly refer, I wonder?  

By the by, I wasn't insulting your intelligence.  I was suggesting that you were arguing with that STRAWMAN, not me.  8-|





> What's so great about not institutionalizing violence?


Uh... nothing.  Forget it.  Don't worry about it.

LOL

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Saying statists advocate violence is just as valid as saying anarchists advocate violence, since violence would occur under both systems, and a monopoly on violence would also occur under both systems.


Incorrect.  Violence is inherent to the state, as even the statists admit.  To advocate for the state is to advocate for violence, however diminished those advocates think it might be.  On the other hand, even if I grant that violence may be a consequence of statelessness, violence is not inherent to statelessness, but may be a consequence.  To say that advocates of statelessness advocate violence is like to say that advocates of automobiles are advocates of vehicular homicide.  Non sequitor.




> However, I see your game.  You're simply trying to avoid a debate by saying your time is better spent elsewhere.  What a great way to avoid getting cornered by logic.


It's quaint that you think you've brought logic to this debate, when it has been strawmen and non sequitors, in fact.  "My game" is that it is exasperating having a discussion with someone who thinks these tactics are logical.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Government administrated agriculture? 
> 
> State one reason why private companies are incapable of providing a police service.  
> 
> 
> 
> That's like saying "we only need some rape, pillage, and murder".
> 
> There are no instances in history of a government respecting its people's rights.


No, that's like saying we only need some force of violence to counteract other force of violence.  If you believe you have a right to defend your property with violence if necessary, I don't think you will argue with this.  You are staying in this system voluntarily.  Why not move away?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> So that's what this is all about.  Some governments have been violent in the past, therefore all governments are inherently violent.  Good argument.


Even the immovable Travlyr grants that the state is inherently violent.  

Hell, I thought we'd established that as a given here.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Exactly... we just want to take that line of thought further and advocate _advancing individual freedom beyond it_.


:thumbs:

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> No, that's like saying we only need some force of violence to counteract other force of violence.  If you believe you have a right to defend your property with violence if necessary, I don't think you will argue with this.  You are staying in this system voluntarily.  Why not move away?


No, that's like saying we only need some unprovoked violence to counteract as-of-yet unsubstantiated violence.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> "Very efficient and almost free".  Assertions need support, Travlyr.  I can make the argument that the current system, or indeed any "republican" system of land titles/defense is vastly inefficient, and they are definitely only "free" at the point of service - if even then.
> 
> Screw letting a single agency force allegiance to it for protection.  Who needs em?  What if they had a bad year and had a budget shortfall - and couldn't provide security for anyone but their most politically valued customers?  We're ALL SOL!  I'm unfortunately forced to buy what your selling.


Well said.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Government administrated agriculture? 
> 
> State one reason why private companies are incapable of providing a police service.  
> 
> 
> 
> That's like saying "we only need some rape, pillage, and murder".
> 
> There are no instances in history of a government respecting its people's rights.


What I don't get is how he can't see that his position/viewpoint holds no consistent check against the state whatsoever.  There is no justification according to his view for keeping the state out of any aspect of any individual's life.

Which is kind of... ironic... don'tcha think?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> LOL The "shut up" was euphemistic of your relativistic position.  I wasn't telling you to shut up.  
> 
> Violating one person's sovereignty practically invalidates the sovereignty of the violator, you see?


No, it doesn't.  The person who does the violence believes his sovereignty is valid and the other person's is not.  You first say that, because people are sovereign, that is the way it morally ought to be.  I can think of a million things that are that ought not to be that way.  

Then, you go and say that, all of a sudden, you go and say that invalidating one person's sovereignty automatically applies to everyone else.  Why should this morally be true?




> First, I do not hold that all people are violent.  Some people are violent, some are not.  Creating an institution in society with socially-sanctioned monopoly on violence will attract the violent people, as a matter of course.  You therefore give broad power to the violent people in society, rather than keeping their sociopathology localized.


That's an interesting theory, but there is no reason to say this means we should invalidate all governments, rather than subject all governments to the rule of law.  






> What does being against violence and insulting a person have to do with each other?  To what could "another arbitrary moral standard" possibly refer, I wonder?  
> 
> By the by, I wasn't insulting your intelligence.  I was suggesting that you were arguing with that STRAWMAN, not me.  8-|


My point is that you cannot claim one thing is moral and another is not just because you believe it to be so unless that morality comes from an absolute source.  Otherwise, all morality is arbitrary, and there is no reason to condemn anyone else if their moral beliefs don't match yours.  This is one of the most obvious philosophical truths, and yet people are willingly ignorant of it and claim they are morally superior, even though they don't believe in absolute morality other than their own.  In fact, if you follow that belief, you are imposing your own moral beliefs on others, and if you act violently to defend your property through violence, then you are guilty of aggressing against someone based on arbitrary moral standards and imposing your will on them.




> Uh... nothing.  Forget it.  Don't worry about it.
> 
> LOL


What was that if not insulting my intelligence?  There is nothing inherently wrong with institutionalizing violence.  It's just that you respond to your own knee jerk reactions and don't listen to other people's points of view.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Incorrect.  Violence is inherent to the state, as even the statists admit.  To advocate for the state is to advocate for violence, however diminished those advocates think it might be.  On the other hand, even if I grant that violence may be a consequence of statelessness, violence is not inherent to statelessness, but may be a consequence.  To say that advocates of statelessness advocate violence is like to say that advocates of automobiles are advocates of vehicular homicide.  Non sequitor.
> 
> 
> 
> It's quaint that you think you've brought logic to this debate, when it has been strawmen and non sequitors, in fact.  "My game" is that it is exasperating having a discussion with someone who thinks these tactics are logical.


Yeah, that's what everyone says when they're trying to get out of a debate.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> No, that's like saying we only need some force of violence to counteract other force of violence.  If you believe you have a right to defend your property with violence if necessary, I don't think you will argue with this.  You are staying in this system voluntarily.  Why not move away?


Defending myself is not the same thing as being robbed and told the money might go towards protecting whatever they don't take.

----------


## Travlyr

> Even the immovable Travlyr grants that the state is inherently violent.


I also think it is a petty argument, and I demonstrated that every stateless society in the past has been violent as well.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> No, that's like saying we only need some unprovoked violence to counteract as-of-yet unsubstantiated violence.


You can move if you don't want to pay taxes.  Also, it is conceivable that government oculd be funded voluntarily.  That would be preferrable.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> What I don't get is how he can't see that his position/viewpoint holds no consistent check against the state whatsoever.  There is no justification according to his view for keeping the state out of any aspect of any individual's life.
> 
> Which is kind of... ironic... don'tcha think?


How do you figure?  Note that I believe in absolute morality.  You, it seems, do not.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Actually, it isn't. "The state", like institutionalized slavery, is an idea. It's a pattern of interactions, not a beast that must be "destroyed".
> 
> The constitution, on the other hand, must constantly be defended from agents of the state (or people who act in the name of the concept of the state), who want to act outside of it while also interpreting it's meaning.
> 
> To "destroy" the state, it needs to be _de-legitimized_ in the minds of people who believe it to be just.
> 
> To uphold the constitution, against the state, it must be _legitimized_... to the state.
> 
> 
> I think it was pretty obvious I was summarizing to point out that both sides require the same thing. *The US was founded on constitutionalism and it's a part of the national culture and we're still seeing blatant disregard.* Are you implying that constitutionalism can exist without people to defend it?


Incorrect.  Constitutionalism didn't exist for more than a decade after the "official" beginning of the United States.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> What's so bad about institutionalizing violence if people are violent anyway?


I will never understand how anyone can think (because people are evil, blood-thirsty savages) that putting one group of evil, blood-thirsty savages in charge of all the other evil, blood-thirsty savages will do anything but magnify & amplify evil, blood-thirsty savagery.




> Who's to say that the institution doesn't prevent more violence than it creates?


Maybe the residents/occupants of Dresden, Nagasaki & Hiroshima, Aushwitz and the "Gulag Archipelago" are to say. If they could. To name just a few millions.




> What makes you think the people in control of the institution are so much worse than others?


History does, for one thing - to wit, the massive misery, suffering, death & destruction for which those people "in control of the institution" have demonstrably been responsible.
Peaceful, productive people tend not to seek power over others. They're too busy doing other usefully non-violent things &/or haven't the interest or temperament.
Sociopaths & parasites, on the other hand, have no such compunctions. The institution of a monopoly on the use of force is catnip to such people.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> How do you figure?  Note that I believe in absolute morality.  You, it seems, do not.


SoL, in my experience, does believe in absolute morality-and that a bunch of people in costumes calling themselves Agents of The State are not above said morality.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I will never understand how anyone can think (because people are evil, blood-thirsty savages) that putting one group of evil, blood-thirsty savages in charge of all the other evil, blood-thirsty savages will do anything but magnify & amplify evil, blood-thirsty savagery.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the residents/occupants of Dresden, Nagasaki & Hiroshima, Aushwitz and the "Gulag Archipelago" are to say. If they could. To name just a few millions.
> 
> 
> History does, for one thing - to wit, the massive misery, suffering, death & destruction for which those people "in control of the institution" have demonstrably been responsible.
> Peaceful, productive people tend not to seek power over others. They're too busy doing other usefully non-violent things &/or haven't the interest or temperament.
> Sociopaths & parasites, on the other hand, have no such compunctions. The institution of a monopoly on the use of force is catnip to such people.


"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Occam's Banana again."  IOU a +rep

----------


## Seraphim

> *I will never understand how anyone can think (because people are evil, blood-thirsty savages) that putting one group of evil, blood-thirsty savages in charge of all the other evil, blood-thirsty savages will do anything but magnify & amplify evil, blood-thirsty savagery.*
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the residents/occupants of Dresden, Nagasaki & Hiroshima, Aushwitz and the "Gulag Archipelago" are to say. If they could. To name just a few millions.
> 
> 
> History does, for one thing - to wit, the massive misery, suffering, death & destruction for which those people "in control of the institution" have demonstrably been responsible.
> Peaceful, productive people tend not to seek power over others. They're too busy doing other usefully non-violent things &/or haven't the interest or temperament.
> Sociopaths & parasites, on the other hand, have no such compunctions. The institution of a monopoly on the use of force is catnip to such people.


The bolded is so dead on. Nice man.

I find that it follow that same logic as AN EYE FOR AN EYE MAKES THE WHOLE WORLD BLIND.

You can`t cure aggression with aggression.

You can, however, stop A LOT of aggression with empowered DEFENCE. I doubt you`ll try to punch me if you know I`ll fight back and KNOW HOW TO. Me punching you BEFORE you punch me however...solves nothing...it makes it worse!!!

Good post.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> No, it doesn't.  The person who does the violence believes his sovereignty is valid and the other person's is not.  You first say that, because people are sovereign, that is the way it morally ought to be.  I can think of a million things that are that ought not to be that way.


He can think whatever he wants.  What his actions say about his philosophy is that he does not hold that he is a sovereign.  Note this is the philosophy subforum.  




> Then, you go and say that, all of a sudden, you go and say that invalidating one person's sovereignty automatically applies to everyone else.  Why should this morally be true?


I said that if a person violates someone else's sovereignty, that violator tacitly invalidates his own.  Not sure where you're getting that it automatically applies to everyone else.




> That's an interesting theory, but there is no reason to say this means we should invalidate all governments, rather than subject all governments to the rule of law.


You mean like the "rule of law" the American government is subject to?  How's that workin out?






> My point is that you cannot claim one thing is moral and another is not just because you believe it to be so unless that morality comes from an absolute source.  Otherwise, all morality is arbitrary, and there is no reason to condemn anyone else if their moral beliefs don't match yours.  This is one of the most obvious philosophical truths, and yet people are willingly ignorant of it and claim they are morally superior, even though they don't believe in absolute morality other than their own.  In fact, if you follow that belief, you are imposing your own moral beliefs on others, and if you act violently to defend your property through violence, then you are guilty of aggressing against someone based on arbitrary moral standards and imposing your will on them.


My belief opposition to the state is grounded in my belief in God.




> What was that if not insulting my intelligence?  There is nothing inherently wrong with institutionalizing violence.  It's just that you respond to your own knee jerk reactions and don't listen to other people's points of view.


It was an expression of frustration, not an attack on your intelligence... You're a little sensitive to that, it seems.  


You've spent most of this thread arguing with strawmen, so you'll have to excuse me if I find the rest of that paragraph a tad ironic...

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Yeah, that's what everyone says when they're trying to get out of a debate.


Lol

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> No, that video actually says that government is the source of law, the ultimate arbitrator.  The Constitution is based on the idea that the law does not come from men, but from God, and even government is subject to that law.


You're claiming that the video is antithetical to natural rights (rights come from God/Nature/Creator) when it's not. You mixed up a lot of concepts in that post. The constitution is based on natural rights, but it also violates them.




> Your view is dangerous because it treats people as the ultimate arbitrators of morality. You just take a few that you happen to agree with most people on and call it "morally correct" while condemning all other moral views.


This is what you're doing with the constitution though. You're saying "I got a bunch of my buddies and we think it's OK to steal from tax you under the threat of violence to fund our government".




> If law is truly arbitrary...


What? Who made this assertion?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Except you advocate that "your opinion" is imposed on others through force.


You, too, advocate that your opinion is imposed on others by force.  You arbitrarily decide that your idea of morality allows you to act violently against others who attempt to steal your property and that your idea of morality is better than theirs.  You then decide that your arbitrary decision gives you the right to kill or maim a person who would have killed or maimed you.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Then why is that American history shows that the more heavily armed the GENERAL POPULACE (law abiding citizens/non aggressors) is, the LESS violence there is? That defines competing violence.
> 
> Even the so called Wild West was MUCH less violent than America is today.
> 
> US history is a prime example that competing "enforcement" leads to more peace.
> 
> Nothing is perfect, of course, we cannot eradicate violence...but I think the history of your own country shows that competing enforecement (the citizens!!) works best!!
> 
> Peace


Competing arms is not competing violence.  The wild west also had a lot less people.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Incorrect.  Constitutionalism didn't exist for more than a decade after the "official" beginning of the United States.


Touché. But either way it's been a significant part of the "heritage" of American national culture, which is what I was getting at.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> You, too, advocate that your opinion is imposed on others by force.  You arbitrarily decide that your idea of morality allows you to act violently against others who attempt to steal your property and that your idea of morality is better than theirs.  You then decide that your arbitrary decision gives you the right to kill or maim a person who would have killed or maimed you.


Self defense is not an arbitrary concept, as I've shown. Besides I've not claimed that I have the right to enact violence against aggressors...

At no point have the advocates of statelessness remotely suggested that our philosophy be imposed on society as you do.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> [...] Okay.  So, it was all Wilson's fault. Before WW I, America was a shining city  on a hill. Wilson really set us on the wrong course.
>  But wait. I think Lincoln is really the culprit here. For one, if the South had been allowed to secede, as was its right, or had won, World War I would not have turned out the way  it did. So: no Lincoln, no War Between the States, no WWI, no WWII.  (While we're at it, let's blame all the white slaveholders. They set in  motion a chain of events that led to the War Between the States, just so  they could have cheaper cotton.)
> 
>  Okay, but before 1861, America was _it_. It was as close to minarchy as the world has seen (never mind ancient Ireland). Thank God for our liberty-minded forefathers, Jefferson, Madison and crew.
> 
>  Hold on a second there. As Chantal Saucier has pointed out  in these pages, the growth of the American Empire might be dated to  Jefferson's unconstitutional expansion of empire with the Louisiana  Purchase in 1803. Had the unconstitutional Louisiana Purchase not taken  place, we might have avoided the War Between the States, WWI, WWII, _et seq_. Maybe I should take down the prints of Jefferson paintings on my office wall, oui?
> 
> On  second thought, I think the trouble started a little bit further back.  The Constitution as ratified in 1789 was fine as it was. Boy, what a  great achievement. But the Bill of Rights was added in 1791. If this had  not been done, then the so-called "incorporation doctrine"   whereby the Fourteenth Amendment was held to "incorporate" most of  the rights listed in the Bill of Rights and apply them to the states   probably would never have been invented. Thus, the erosion of federalism  caused by this federal seizure of power might never have happened, and  there would be stronger structural limits on federal action in place  today.
> 
> ...


Wow, what a lot of verbal diahrrea.  Do you realize that, by following your logic, we should never exist, since our existence is what caused all this?  If we had never existed, none of this would happen, therefore we are morally obligated to kill ourselves.  Great going, champ.  You've figured it out.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Wow, what a lot of verbal diahrrea.  Do you realize that, by following your logic, we should never exist, since our existence is what caused all this?  If we had never existed, none of this would happen, therefore we are morally obligated to kill ourselves.  Great going, champ.  You've figured it out.


Do you consider yourself the US government?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I will never understand how anyone can think (because people are evil, blood-thirsty savages) that putting one group of evil, blood-thirsty savages in charge of all the other evil, blood-thirsty savages will do anything but magnify & amplify evil, blood-thirsty savagery.


Because the rule of law makes each of those groups of evil, blood-thirsty savages a check on the other.  It's when a nation ignores the rule of law (anarchy) that the real evil, blood-thirsty savagery begins.  Tyrants adopt anarchy by pronouncing themselves above the law.




> Maybe the residents/occupants of Dresden, Nagasaki & Hiroshima, Aushwitz and the "Gulag Archipelago" are to say. If they could. To name just a few millions.


They do not speak for all states, only theirs.  Theirs followed a rule of anarchy for the ruling class.  If anarchy is allowed to exist, then this will continue.  There will still be monopolies of violence in charge.  However, the rule of law helps check against that.  




> History does, for one thing - to wit, the massive misery, suffering, death & destruction for which those people "in control of the institution" have demonstrably been responsible.
> Peaceful, productive people tend not to seek power over others. They're too busy doing other usefully non-violent things &/or haven't the interest or temperament.
> Sociopaths & parasites, on the other hand, have no such compunctions. The institution of a monopoly on the use of force is catnip to such people.


See my second response.  Monopolies on violence will always exist.  The rule of law is the only respite.  Of course humans will never be perfect, but that doesn't mean they will be any less evil or any more perfect under anarchy.  In fact, anarchy is what has allowed a lot of state violence.  Only when the state recognizes that the law exists above and beyond the state is there truly a society that does not exist in a state of anarchy.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> He can think whatever he wants.  What his actions say about his philosophy is that he does not hold that he is a sovereign.  Note this is the philosophy subforum.


His actions don't say anything about what he believes unless you first give your impression of it.  He can believe in his own sovereignty and not others.  It does not logically follow that, because he believes your sovereignty is not valid, that his is not valid, either.  Don't you see how arbitrary it is for you to say that your view is morally upright and nobody else's is?




> I said that if a person violates someone else's sovereignty, that violator tacitly invalidates his own.  Not sure where you're getting that it automatically applies to everyone else.


Can you explain how he tacitly invalidates his own?  You are suggesting that, since he believes YOUR sovereignty is valid, that he also believes HIS sovereignty is invalid.  That is a non-sequitur.  It does not logically follow that, because he does not respect yours, he does not respect his.  It also does not logically follow that, because he does not respect yours, he invalidates his own.  




> You mean like the "rule of law" the American government is subject to?  How's that workin out?


Much better than anarchy ever will.  Hence, the reason no anarchical society has ever existed.






> My belief opposition to the state is grounded in my belief in God.


Then why didn't you say so?  We could have bypassed that whole lecture on arbitrary morality if you had specified that your morality comes from an absolute source, God.  However, God also recognized that there are legitimate forms of violence.  




> It was an expression of frustration, not an attack on your intelligence... You're a little sensitive to that, it seems.


I still hold that it was an implicit attack on my intelligence.  So what if I am sensitive to it?  I don't think it's a valid way to debate.




> You've spent most of this thread arguing with strawmen, so you'll have to excuse me if I find the rest of that paragraph a tad ironic...


Whatever...

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Do you consider yourself the US government?


Indeed, I do.  We all are.  My logic in my last post is sound, regardless.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Lol


and by "Lol", you mean "touche".

----------


## Conza88

> Wow, what a lot of verbal diahrrea.  Do you realize that, by following your logic, we should never exist, since our existence is what caused all this?  If we had never existed, none of this would happen, therefore we are morally obligated to kill ourselves.  Great going, champ.  You've figured it out.


Ad hominem + Non sequitur. 

Difference between nation and nation state. Methodological individualism, check it out bro.

----------


## ClayTrainor

Is Limited Government an Oxymoron?




@4:20

*Interviewer:* ...Where are you on limited government or anarchy?

*Tom Woods:* Well, Dennis, you know, for years I was one of these people, "we gotta return to what the founding fathers thought, we gotta get back to the tenth amendment, we gotta return to the constitution!" and you know, as the years go on and you observe this government, and how utterly removed it is from the government we were intended to have.  After awhile you start wondering... maybe I am chasing a unicorn?  maybe there is no such thing. * Maybe, if you say, this institution has a monopoly on the power to tax and a monopoly on the power to initiate violence, but it will simply restrain itself to a few itemized tasks, I mean, it seems to me to be unrealistic. * 

Moreover, I think there's a moral question here.  If we're going to believe that there's certain moral principles everybody has to observe, why are those moral principles abandoned when you apply them to government?  So, for example, you and I can't steal, but the government can steal and call it taxation.  You and I can't kidnap people, the government can kidnap people and call it military conscription. And it just goes on and on and on.  *If we believe in absolute standards of morality, the government always fails...*

I would recommend going to google and reading the essay by Rothbard called "anatomy of the state".  You'll never look at the world the same again.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Indeed, I do.  We all are.  My logic in my last post is sound, regardless.


Actually it's not sound regardless.

If a government agent kills a "citizen" do you consider it suicide?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Actually it's not sound regardless.
> 
> If a government agent kills a "citizen" do you consider it suicide?


What does that have to do with anything?  Of course it's not suicide.  What I said was that humans are all the cause of this, therefore, we should not exist and are morally obligated to kill ourselves by the very same logic used in the post I was responding to.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

Wow. Ok, let's try this again.

If your neighbor walks into your house and kills you, is that just "us" killing "ourselves"?

Can your neighbors actions be blamed on me (or you, yourself)?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Is Limited Government an Oxymoron?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @4:20
> 
> *Interviewer:* ...Where are you on limited government or anarchy?
> 
> ...


It's funny how some people think minarchism is unrealistic when it has been achieved to a very relevant extent, albeit shortly, while anarchism has never existed, and this is all of a sudden not considered "chasing a unicorn".  Believe me, I would love it if we were able to peacefully coexist without government, but I think Tom Woods has it backwards.  Anarchism limits freedom more than our government does now.  If anyone truly wanted to own their land and their property, they wouldn't be able to travel like we do today, for fear that everything they owned would be stolen.  Would you feel comfortable leaving your wife and kids behind to go overseas in a stateless society?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Wow. Ok, let's try this again.
> 
> If your neighbor walks into your house and kills you, is that just "us" killing "ourselves"?
> 
> Can your neighbors actions be blamed on me (or you, yourself)?


All men and women are sinners.  Therefore, we are all responsible for this mess and should not exist and are obligated to kill ourselves.  I'm just taking the logic of the post I was responding to to its logical conclusion.

I never said one person killing another was the same thing as killing themselves.  Where do you get that from?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Ad hominem + Non sequitur. 
> 
> Difference between nation and nation state. Methodological individualism, check it out bro.


See: difference between Jefferson and state.  Jefferson does not equal the state.  The state is a concept.

Also, how did you get an ad hominem attack out of that?  I never attacked your character in order to say your logic was faulty.  I was 100% focused on your faulty logic.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> All men and women are sinners.


Because I didn't realize _that_ was your premises, and I don't agree with it.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Because I didn't realize _that_ was your premises, and I don't agree with it.


Actually, my premises were the same as in the post I was responding to.  

He made the claim that, because WWII wouldn't have turned out the way it did without the Constitution, that the Constitution was at fault.  He was taking a stream of events and following it back to the Constitution in order to say the Constitution was at fault.  I simply took it a bit further by saying, if humans didn't exist, WWII never would have happened, so we are all at fault and are all morally obligated to kill ourselves just as he asserts the Constitution is at fault, and therefore, we should abolish it.  It's the exact same logic taken to its conclusion.  That was my whole point, not that we should actually kill ourselves.  I was hoping you would see the sarcasm.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

So you are saying that you are the same actor as Stalin?

Stalin did some bad stuff therefore since he is a human and you are also a human you should be punished for his crimes, or that you're "morally obliged to X" over the acts he carried out?

----------


## ClayTrainor

> It's funny how some people think minarchism is unrealistic when it has been achieved to a very relevant extent, albeit shortly, while anarchism has never existed, and this is all of a sudden not considered "chasing a unicorn".


The US "limited government" experiment, like all governmental experiments before and after it, began growing and breeding corruption the moment it was established.  

Alexander Hamilton successfully argued that the CONstitution could be used to create the first national Bank of the United States.  George Washington forced whiskey producers to give more money to the Federal government to finance Hamiltons National debt plan.  John Adams passed the Alien and Sedition acts into law which basically made it illegal to say bad things about the Government.  Jefferson and his blatantly unconstitutional Louisana Purchase, where he even decided to allow slavery in the acquired territory. etc. etc. etc.

Over time it the US "Limited Government" experiment has resulted in arguably the largest state in* world history. * 




> Anarchism limits freedom more than our government does now.


lol.  This illustrates the point of the quote in my signature quite nicely.




> If anyone truly wanted to own their land and their property, they wouldn't be able to travel like we do today, for fear that everything they owned would be stolen.


That's a straw-man, and in no way addresses your previous assertion about anarchy.

With regards to property protection services, Like Ron Paul, I think they are best left to the marketplace.

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

*"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 255*




> Would you feel comfortable leaving your wife and kids behind to go overseas in a stateless society?


Depends on the many conditions and factors of the area I'd be leaving them in.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Believe me, I would love it if we were able to peacefully coexist without government, but I think Tom Woods has it backwards.


*People* CAN peacefully coexist.  Governments are mere organizations of *people* who happen to have a legal monopoly on the right to initiate force on other people within a geographic region. Initiating the use of force is immoral.  It is an act which results in destruction and war, not prosperity and peace.*  It is the opposite of peacefully co-existing.*

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> The US "limited government" experiment, like all governmental experiments before and after it, began growing and breeding corruption the moment it was established.  
> 
> Alexander Hamilton successfully argued that the CONstitution could be used to create the first national Bank of the United States.  George Washington forced whiskey producers to give more money to the Federal government to finance Hamiltons National debt plan.  John Adams passed the Alien and Sedition acts into law which basically made it illegal to say bad things about the Government.  Jefferson and his blatantly unconstitutional Louisana Purchase, where he even decided to allow slavery in the acquired territory. etc. etc. etc.
> 
> Over time it the US "Limited Government" experiment has resulted in arguably the largest state in* world history. * 
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  This illustrates the point of the quote in my signature quite nicely.
> ...


It's not a straw man because I'm telling you what would happen, not what you are advocating.  You need to at least get your logical fallacies right if I am to take you seriously.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> So you are saying that you are the same actor as Stalin?
> 
> Stalin did some bad stuff therefore since he is a human and you are also a human you should be punished for his crimes, or that you're "morally obliged to X" over the acts he carried out?


You still fail to see the sarcasm.  I KNOW it's a non-sequitur.  That was the whole point.  I was extending the logic proposed in the post I was responding to to expose the absurdity of that argument.  I even told you I was not actually saying we should kill ourselves and that it was sarcasm, and you are still acting like I was serious.  What is your problem?

----------


## ClayTrainor

..

----------


## ClayTrainor

> It's not a straw man because I'm telling you what would happen, not what you are advocating.



I thought you might be right here, but I had to check it over.  Tell me where I'm wrong. 

Here is the structure of a straw man argument...




> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
> 
> *1*. *Person A has position X (tom woods anarchy)
> 2. Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. 
> 3. Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.*


..



> Believe me, I would love it if we were able to peacefully coexist without government, *but I think Tom Woods has it backwards*.


Anyways...

Are you going to address any of the fundamental points I made, or are we going to focus on the definition of a straw-man?




> If anyone truly wanted to own their land and their property, they wouldn't be able to travel like we do today, for fear that everything they owned would be stolen.


My response should've been...




> That's a baseless assertion. You don't need a state to protect and insure property. Like Ron Paul, I believe security and property protection services are best left to the marketplace, not the government.
> 
> "The government is _incapable_ of doing what it's supposed to do. A job like the provision of security is something best left to private institutions." -*Liberty Defined, page 288
> 
> *"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 255*


My car was actually vandalized when I went on vacation a few years ago. In a society with a state, imagine that! I told the cops about it and all they did was fill out a report. *They didn't protect my property*, they never found the vandals (didn't even try), and never gave me any kind of restitution or justice. My private insurance company on the other hand at least covered the damages and protected me from what would've otherwise been a huge financial setback. 

In a free-market, there would be demand for property protection services, and organizations would form to supply that demand and they would be very interested protecting and insuring your property and family when you're away on vacation or whatever. Their entire business reputation would depend on doing this job effectively.




> You need to at least get your logical fallacies right if I am to take you seriously.


You don't even seem to take Tom Woods seriously on this topic, so how can I ever expect you to take me seriously?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I thought you might be right here, but I had to check it over.  Tell me where I'm wrong. 
> 
> Here is the structure of a straw man argument...
> 
> 
> ..
> 
> 
> Anyways...
> ...


No, the point of a straw man is that I have to make an assertion about the other person's beliefs in regard to what they are advocating.  I never said position Y was any part of Tom Woods' beliefs about anarchy.  You can't generalize it to mean I said something about anarchy that was false just because you believe it's false.

And you're right.  I don't take Tom Woods seriously on this topic, so you shouldn't expect me to take you seriously as long as you present invalid arguments against the state.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> No, the point of a straw man is that I have to make an assertion about the other person's beliefs in regard to what they are advocating.


You made the initial assertion that Tom Woods' position on Anarchy was "backwards".  In the very next sentence you made a claim about Anarchism... "Anarchism limits freedom more than our government does now."

You were either straw-manning Tom Woods' position on anarchy or making baseless assertions based on nothing but what Anarchy means in your own head.  Either way, it's not a very good argument.




> I never said position Y was any part of Tom Woods' beliefs about anarchy.


Okay... so, you're just asserting that Tom Woods' position on anarchy is backwards, without presenting any kind of supporting argument.  Gotcha.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You made the initial assertion that Tom Woods' position on Anarchy was "backwards".  In the very next sentence you made a claim about Anarchism... "Anarchism limits freedom more than our government does now."
> 
> You were either straw-manning Tom Woods' position on anarchy or making baseless assertions based on nothing but what Anarchy means in your own head.  Either way, it's not a very good argument.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay... so, you're just asserting that Tom Woods' position on anarchy is backwards, without presenting any kind of supporting argument.  Gotcha.


No, I gave evidence.  It's the fact that minarchism has actually existed, and anarchism hasn't, and yet he claims minarchism is "chasing a unicorn."  To me, that sounds backwards.

And may I just clarify that none of this is based on facts.  It's all philosophical conjecture.  You think anarchism would be better, even though you have no facts to back this up.  You believe it only so you can claim some moral highroad, even though you have no way of knowing if it would actually be better.  I don't believe it's inconsistent to believe there is some legitimate force, but you arbitrarily believe that anarchy is more morally consistent because it matches your view of morality.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> And you're right.  I don't take Tom Woods seriously on this topic,


I hope you reconsider that one day.  Challenge yourself, watch that video I posted, and try to take him seriously for the duration.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> It's the fact that minarchism has actually existed, and anarchism hasn't, and yet he claims minarchism is "chasing a unicorn."  To me, that sounds backwards.


There has never been a limited government, only small governments which* always* beget bigger governments.

----------


## ClayTrainor

just noticed ur edit 




> And may I just clarify that none of this is based on facts.  It's all philosophical conjecture.


Facts cannot be properly understood until philosophy is properly applied. 




> You think anarchism would be better, even though you have no facts to back this up. You believe it only so you can claim some moral highroad, even though you have no way of knowing if it would actually be better.


"better" is subjective.  The question of morality is objective.  It's about whether or not something is right or wrong, not better or worse. 




> I don't believe it's inconsistent to believe there is some legitimate force,


Neither do I.  Self-Defence, or the defence of an innocent are good examples of when the use of force can be justified and is consistent with the Non-Aggression Principle.  The* initiation* of force against other people, on the other hand, *is* logically inconsistent with the non-aggression principle.




> but you arbitrarily believe that anarchy is more morally consistent because it matches your view of morality.


I accept Anarchy as a logical conclusion of a consistent application of the principles of Non-Aggression and Self-Ownership.   No man *ought* to have the right to rule (use force) over another man who has committed no aggressive crime, regardless of what organization they work for or costume they wear.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> His actions don't say anything about what he believes unless you first give your impression of it.  He can believe in his own sovereignty and not others.  It does not logically follow that, because he believes your sovereignty is not valid, that his is not valid, either.  Don't you see how arbitrary it is for you to say that your view is morally upright and nobody else's is?  
> 
> Can you explain how he tacitly invalidates his own?  You are suggesting that, since he believes YOUR sovereignty is valid, that he also believes HIS sovereignty is invalid.  That is a non-sequitur.  It does not logically follow that, because he does not respect yours, he does not respect his.  It also does not logically follow that, because he does not respect yours, he invalidates his own.


Again, he can think or believe anything he wants.  By violating the sovereignty of another individual, he tacitly holds that his sovereignty may be violated, logically.  Individual sovereignty - self-ownership - is observable.  It's not up for speculation.  Violating the rights of other individuals implies a "might makes right" philosophy.  If an individual holds that might makes right, then on a logically consistent basis, he holds that a more mighty person would be right to violate his individual sovereignty.  Again, then, since individual sovereignty is observable, his initiation of force against another individual implies that he is not sovereign of his life, and holds a logically inconsistent view.




> Much better than anarchy ever will.  Hence, the reason no anarchical society has ever existed.


This is the political philosophy subform, not the political practicality subforum.




> Then why didn't you say so?


Because my faith is my own.  I don't typically advertise it.  




> We could have bypassed that whole lecture on arbitrary morality if you had specified that your morality comes from an absolute source, God.  However, God also recognized that there are legitimate forms of violence.


On which day did God create a class of earthly beings with authority over the rest of his Creation, including human beings?  A man cannot serve two masters.




> I still hold that it was an implicit attack on my intelligence.


With apologies, then.  I did not intend to insult your intelligence.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> and by "Lol", you mean "touche".


Here's where, if I were Travlyr, I would flip out and accuse you of putting words in my mouth... 

No, by LOL I mean, "lol, if I were trying to get out of debating you I would, you know, avoid this thread and stop replying...

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Indeed, I do.  We all are.  My logic in my last post is sound, regardless.


Your logic is not sound.  We are not the US government.  We are individuals.  

Explain to me how I am the US government.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Because the rule of law makes each of those groups of evil, blood-thirsty savages a check on the other.


"Rule of Law" does not and can not do any such thing. Rule of Law is an abstract conceptual structure concerning the identification & proper implementation of the principles of justice. As such, it can not "make" anyone do anything. What you are referring to is not Rule of Law, but the forcible imposition (by a select group of people upon everyone else) of "rules" called "laws."

So, to repeat my original point: Granting your view that people are essentially evil & violent, I am utterly baffled as to how you think these "rules" called "laws" (given that they must be created & enforced by evil & violent people) can ever even remotely approximate anything satisfying the principles of justice & the Rule of Law.

Your argument along this line - and all other variations of Madison's claim that government is necessary because "men are not angels" - is tantamount to declaring that the only way to promote & ensure sanity is to put the inmates in charge of the asylum. This is by far the worst and most absurd, disappointing & contradictory of all arguments against anarchism.

"People are bad ... so we need to put bad people in charge." 




> It's when a nation ignores the rule of law (anarchy) that the real evil, blood-thirsty savagery begins.  Tyrants adopt anarchy by pronouncing themselves above the law.


You are equivocating. You invalidly conflate "Anarchy" with "Rule of Lawlessness."

A "State" is an agency that enforces on it's own behalf a monopoly on the use of force.
Anarchy is the absence of such an agency. _Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else_.

As I said above, Rule of Law is an abstract conceptual structure  concerning the identification & proper implementation of the principles of justice.
Rule of Lawlessness is not a conceptual structure - it is merely the negation, abrogration or corruption of Rule of Law.

To claim that tyrants adopt Anarchy is _prima facie_ absurd - they manifestly *do not* abolish the state.

 Rather, they use the  State apparatus to manifest Rule of Lawlessness for their  own parasitical purposes.
That is what you are talking about - and that is NOT Anarchy.

(NOTE: I am NOT claiming that Rule of Lawlessness cannot occur under Anarchy - it can.)




> They do not speak for all states, only theirs.  Theirs followed a rule of anarchy for the ruling class.  If anarchy is allowed to exist, then this will continue.  There will still be monopolies of violence in charge.  However, the rule of law helps check against that.


Non-responsive. None of this has anything to do with my reply to your original question.

You asked, "Who's to say that the institution [of the State] doesn't prevent more violence than it creates?"
(What does who "they [...] speak for" have to do with anything? If you were just going to dismiss the (blindingly obvious) answer, why did you ask the question?)

I cited (just a few very recent) examples that highlight the absurdity of claiming that the State prevents more violence than it creates. *It manifestly & demonstrably does not.*
The historical evidence for this is so vastly overwhelming that it is impossible to take seriously any suggestion to the contrary.

Regarding "Theirs followed a rule of anarchy for the ruling class.": Again, no. The State-ruling elites engage in Rule of Lawlessness, NOT Anarchy (which is absence of the State).

As for "... the rule of law helps check ...": This is more hand-waving ala "putting bad people in charge will put a check on bad people." As I noted at the top, Rule of Law does not magically enforce itself.




> See my second response.  Monopolies on violence will always exist.  The rule of law is the only respite.  Of course humans will never be perfect, but that doesn't mean they will be any less evil or any more perfect under anarchy.  In fact, anarchy is what has allowed a lot of state violence.


Rule of Law, whenever it has been entrusted to the State, has always been corrupted & perverted into Rule of Lawlessness. It always will be.

This is inevitable, as a consequence of the nature of the State as the pre-eminent monopolizer & initializer of force in society.
As a result of this nature, the State acts as a magnet for sociopaths & parasites - while acting as a repellent to those who are peaceful & productive.

Hence, the (eventual) advent of Rule of Lawlessness under any State is assured.

Re: "anarchy is what has allowed a lot of state violence" - if there is a State, then there is not Anarchy. *X cannot be not-X*.




> Only when the state recognizes that the law exists above and beyond the  state is there truly a society that does not exist in a state of  anarchy.


Given your equivocation of Anarchy with Rule of Lawlessness, what you are saying here amounts to: "When Rule of Lawlessness does not prevail, Rule of Lawlessness does not prevail."
I can only respond to this with: "Redundant assertion is redundant."

----------


## Travlyr

> It seems as though every argument made for the state is wrong, and all of the arguments made against a voluntary society are based on straw man. 
> 
> Government, every where in the world, is full of nothing but evil men that commit the worst of crimes. I don't see why a monopoly based on violence can provide anything that the people cannot create voluntarily.


It is land ownership that creates the State. Once a land claim is made and boundaries are posted, then rules against others invading or violating the landowner's rights becomes law. Stateless societies are unable to own land. What is the fascination with hunter/gatherer living? Personally, I much prefer to have a permanent home.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> You still fail to see the sarcasm.  I KNOW it's a non-sequitur.  That was the whole point.  I was extending the logic proposed in the post I was responding to to expose the absurdity of that argument.  I even told you I was not actually saying we should kill ourselves and that it was sarcasm, and you are still acting like I was serious.  What is your problem?


"My" problem is that you still seem to think you have a valid point.

The Ipad exists because Apple Inc. was established in the 1970s and they were manufactured several decades later. 

According to you that statement is absurd and the logical conclusion of it is: 'Apple Inc was established by "humanity" therefore all humans deserve Ipads, because "we" manufactured them.'

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Stateless societies are unable to own land.


Why?




> What is the fascination with hunter/gatherer living?


??

----------


## Travlyr

> Why?


That is by definition. Laying claim to land defines the State. Laws of the land become necessary to prevent disputes ending in violence.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

What is the difference between "property" and "the State"?

----------


## noneedtoaggress

You're saying laying claim to private property establishes "the State"?

----------


## RiseAgainst

Mares eat oats and does eat oats and little lambs eat ivy...

----------


## Travlyr

> You're saying laying claim to private property establishes "the State"?


Laying ownership claim to land establishes a State.

----------


## Travlyr

> What is the difference between "property" and "the State"?


Property is something owned. A double bacon cheeseburger is property. Land owned is property. The State is formed when land claims are made and rules affecting that land are made. Laws of the land.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

Who controls the property? The state or the land owner?

----------


## noneedtoaggress

What if people decide that the "law of the land" is the non-aggression principle? Does that mean "the State" is the NAP?

----------


## Travlyr

> Who controls the property? The state or the land owner?


That is subjective. In my opinion, a landowner should have total control over the land he owns as well as responsibility to not infringe on anyone else. The State should be the default owner.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> The State should be the default owner.


Why? What gives the state the right to own land by default?

----------


## Travlyr

> What if people decide that the "law of the land" is the non-aggression principle? Does that mean "the State" is the NAP?


Perhaps, but I don't see how that would work. Maybe you can figure out how taxation can be non-aggressive.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Perhaps, but I don't see how that would work. Maybe you can figure out how taxation can be non-aggressive.


Why is taxation necessary?

----------


## Travlyr

> Why? What gives the state the right to own land by default?


Because a representative government can be set up to determine the laws of the land so that everyone that wants a say has a say in how it works. It is the most fair way to distribute land, imo.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

How is that more fair than homesteading?

----------


## Travlyr

> Why is taxation necessary?


Maybe taxation is not necessary. Perhaps people will work for free.

----------


## Travlyr

> How is that more fair than homesteading?


If you lay claim to boundaries, then a State is formed, right?

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Maybe taxation is not necessary. Perhaps people will work for free.


Why must land be distributed that way? What about homesteading the land? What gives them the authority to claim ownership over it?

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> If you lay claim to boundaries, then a State is formed, right?


But I can only lay claim to property that I mix labor with. I can't just claim Rhode Island.

----------


## Travlyr

> But I can only lay claim to property that I mix labor with.


What is wrong with owning the land and hiring help to work the land? 




> I can't just claim Rhode Island.


Why not? Are you afraid of a fight?

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> What is wrong with owning the land and hiring help to work the land?


Nothing. I find an unowned plot of land and I start a farm, then later as the original and proper owner of the land I can hire people to tend to it.





> Why not? Are you afraid of a fight?


What? For the same reason I don't want to steal from a store owner or own slaves. It's not just to claim the right to control of something that's not yours. You're saying "Might makes right" when it comes to land ownership.

----------


## Travlyr

> Nothing. I find an unowned plot of land and I start a farm, then later as the original and proper owner of the land I can hire people to tend to it.


Then, are you are okay with the State?




> What? For the same reason I don't want to steal from a store owner or own slaves. It's not just to claim the right to control of something that's not yours. You're saying "Might makes right" when it comes to land ownership.


No. I ask you why you could not own Rhode Island. I thought you were going to try and take something that did not belong to you because you said, "I can't just claim Rhode Island." You can claim whatever you want, it makes no difference to me but I thought you might want to know that others already own it and will defend their property.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Then, are you are okay with the State?


I'm not okay with arbitrary claims to land.




> No. I ask you why you could not own Rhode Island. I thought you were going to try and take something that did not belong to you because you said, "I can't just claim Rhode Island." You can claim whatever you want, it makes no difference to me but I thought you might want to know that others already own it and will defend their property.


Might makes right, but only when it comes to land ownership? Why don't we use this model for other forms of property?

----------


## Travlyr

> I'm not okay with arbitrary claims to land.


 The State is not an arbitrary distributer of land. So I ask again, are you okay with the State?



> Might makes right, but only when it comes to land ownership?


I never said that. You did. I disagree that "might makes right" is moral.



> Why don't we use this model for other forms of property?


Because rule of law is a more civilized way to interact with each other.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> The State is not an arbitrary distributer of land. So I ask again, are you okay with the State?


What gives the State the right to claim ownership of a territory? Might?




> I never said that. You did. I disagree that "might makes right" is moral.


Then why does "the State" have a legitimate claim on the land that I homestead and build a farm on?




> Because rule of law is a more civilized way to interact with each other.


And the Non-Aggression Principle is the law that should be adopted if people want to live in a more civilized, prosperous, and free society.

----------


## Travlyr

> What gives the State the right to claim ownership of a territory?


When a land claim is made, then that landowner makes rules to keep others from invading. If two or more landowners get together and agree on rules, then a "State" is formed and State rules/laws are made. 




> Might?


 I'm not sure what is your fascination with "Might". Please explain. 




> Then why does "the State" have a legitimate claim on the land that I homestead and build a farm on?


If a landowner dies without leaving heirs, then a civilized way to redistribute that land is for the State to take ownership by default and auction it rather than just let people fight over it.

Your State may, or may not lay claim. To me it seems like the most civilized way to handle disputes. Yet, that would be up to the inhabitants of that particular State.




> And the Non-Aggression Principle is the law that should be adopted if people want to live in more civilized society.


Most people believe that taxation is by definition aggressively violent, so unfortunately I do not see how land ownership and NAP are compatible. Perhaps you do.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> When a land claim is made, then that landowner makes rules to keep others from invading. If two or more landowners get together and agree on rules, then a "State" is formed and State rules/laws are made.


What gives them the right to claim that land? Is it arbitrary? Anyone can just claim land as long as they have the might to back it up?




> I'm not sure what is your fascination with "Might". Please explain.


You're telling me they have a legitimate claim to the land because they can keep invaders out. Might makes right. If I apply this to your body, I have a legitimate claim to your body if you can't put up a fight against me and are legitimately my slave.

I'm saying that to legitimately claim land it must be homesteaded. I'm saying that an individual obtains property by mixing land with labor or trading with others voluntarily, rather than pointing a gun and saying "this is mine now".




> If a landowner dies without leaving heirs, then a civilized way to redistribute that land is for the State to take ownership by default and auction it rather than just let people fight over it.


So essentially the State just wins the fight by default because might makes right.




> Most people believe that taxation is by definition aggressively violent, so unfortunately I do not see how land ownership and NAP are compatible. Perhaps you do.


Because I can hire someone to defend the land and property I've homesteaded and traded with others without them forcing me to pay them.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to noneedtoaggress again.


Well said, nnta.  Keep making the point for the audience.  Unfortunately, Travlyr has already expressed his comfort with the "might makes right" philosophy, but hopefully decent folks reading the thread will recognize the inherent moral-bankruptcy of the position.

----------


## Travlyr

> What gives them the right to claim that land?


That is the argument. Stateless (no right to own land) vs. State (the right to own land). I believe the State offers the most compassionate way to live, so I that claim ownership of land is appropriate and the most civilized way to live.




> Is it arbitrary?


It is not arbitrary anymore. States have been formed for centuries.




> Anyone can just claim land as long as they have the might to back it up?


No, property owners have their land deeds publicly recorded at their county clerk's office. Stealing land is against the law and quite difficult thanks to the order of the State.




> You're telling me they have a legitimate claim to the land because they can keep invaders out. Might makes right. If I apply this to your body, I have a legitimate claim to your body if you can't put up a fight against me and are legitimately my slave.


You can try if you like, but I will defend myself, and, fair warning, I have guns.




> I'm saying that to legitimately claim land it must be homesteaded. I'm saying that an individual obtains property by mixing land with labor or trading with others voluntarily, rather than pointing a gun and saying "this is mine now".


I too would like to see the States re-implement the homestead act on a lottery style basis.




> So essentially the State just wins the fight by default because might makes right.


The State wins the fight because most people in the world would rather own land than roam the world searching for food.




> Because I can hire someone to defend the land and property I've homesteaded and traded with others without them forcing me to pay them.


You can hire someone if you wish. I do not wish to pay someone to "hold" my property for me while I'm away. The State holds title at the county building so that owners don't have to constantly defend it. Go on vacation as long as you wish, come back, live... _Home Sweet Home._

----------


## Travlyr

> Well said, nnta.  Keep making the point for the audience.  Unfortunately, Travlyr has already expressed his comfort with the "might makes right" philosophy, but hopefully decent folks reading the thread will recognize the inherent moral-bankruptcy of the position.


Land ownership is morally bankrupt? Didn't you tell me that you are a land owner?

The rest of your post is not true. The "might makes right" is noneedtoaggress' fascination, not mine. If you can read, then do. It is documented.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> You can try if you like, but I will defend myself, and, fair warning, I have guns.


Understanding that we are discussing philosophies here, you must realize that you could not reasonably object if I come along with more guns, subdue you, and take your property.




> You can hire someone if you wish. I do not wish to pay someone to "hold" my property for me while I'm away. The State holds title at the county building so that owners don't have to constantly defend it. Go on vacation as long as you wish, come back, live... _Home Sweet Home._


But you see, you *do* pay someone to hold your property; and according to what you advocate, regardless of your expenditure and/or preference, you're not afforded the opportunity to choose the entity which defends your property or handles your paperwork...

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Land ownership is morally bankrupt? Didn't you tell me that you are a land owner?


"It does not follow", Travlyr... non-sequitor.  




> The rest of your post is not true. The "might makes right" is noneedtoaggress' fascination, not mine.


We all realize that you don't think so; unfortunately that doesn't make it so...

----------


## Travlyr

> Understanding that we are discussing philosophies here, you must realize that you could not reasonably object if I come along with more guns, subdue you, and take your property.


I will defend myself against aggressors such as you. Yet, this kind of proves the point that the organization of the State is less violent than Anarchy. Me, as a defender of the State, and now defender of my person, and you as an Anarchist seeking to destroy me and steal my property. But even if you did destroy me, my property deed is still recorded at the State house and my children and grandchildren can bring the Sheriff to reclaim what is rightfully theirs.




> But you see, you *do* pay someone to hold your property; and according to what you advocate, regardless of your expenditure and/or preference, you're not afforded the opportunity to choose the entity which defends your property or handles your paperwork...


It is a small price to pay to pass my rightful property to my heirs.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> That is the argument. Stateless (no right to own land) vs. State (the right to own land). I believe the State offers the most compassionate way to live, so I that claim ownership of land is appropriate and the most civilized way to live.


Why can't I own land in a stateless society? I've homesteaded my right to own land by mixing my labor with it. Why can't I hire someone to defend my right to that land?




> It is not arbitrary anymore. States have been formed for centuries.


So what? Stealing has existed for centuries, does that mean it's a legitimate way to obtain property?

Slavery had existed for centuries, does that mean it's legitimate to own another human as property under threat of force?




> No, property owners have their land deeds publicly recorded at their county clerk's office. Stealing land is against the law and quite difficult thanks to the order of the State.


Why is it "the state's land" in the first place?

If I homestead some unclaimed property out in the boondocks, and a group of people claiming to be "the state" come and force me to live under their jurisdiction and claim the right to lay down the "law of the land" because they have more guns than I do, does that make their claim legitimate?




> You can try if you like, but I will defend myself, and, fair warning, I have guns.


So do I, and I have a bunch of friends with guns and we want to use you for slave labor. If you put up resistance we're gonna kill you. Collectively we have more guns so that gives us the right to claim your body as our property. You can call us "your government" if it makes it feel more legitimate for you.




> I too would like to see the States re-implement the homestead act on a lottery style basis.


I never said that I wanted "States" to implement anything. They violate the principles of homesteading by claiming the right to control those who live in their "jurisdiction" by force. They don't homestead land, they claim control of a territory by force and then tax people to support themselves.




> The State wins the fight because most people in the world would rather own land than roam the world searching for food.


No, it 'wins' because you conflate "the State" with "land ownership", and you believe that "might makes right" when it comes to land ownership is fair and civilized.




> You can hire someone if you wish. I do not wish to pay someone to "hold" my property for me while I'm away. The State holds title at the county building so that owners don't have to constantly defend it. Go on vacation as long as you wish, come back, live... _Home Sweet Home._


You are paying. Not only are you paying for defense of your property, but you're forced to pay for other things that would benefit the state... things like using violence against brown people on the other side of the world who have nothing to do with you so that the State can expand it's influence and control.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I will defend myself against aggressors such as you. Yet, this kind of proves the point that the organization of the State is less violent than Anarchy. Me, as a defender of the State, and now defender of my person, and you as an Anarchist seeking to destroy me and steal my property. But even if you did destroy me, my property deed is still recorded at the State house and my children and grandchildren can bring the Sheriff to reclaim what is rightfully theirs.
> 
> 
> It is a small price to pay to pass my rightful property to my heirs.


:LOL: We've reached the end of our discussion, Trav... As I prepared my response to this, I realized it would have been exactly what I said in my previous post.  You refuse to address legitimate questions in your position; it's apparent it's a case of either obdurancy or foolishness... whichever it is, it's your problem, of course.

----------


## Travlyr

> Why can't I own land in a stateless society?


Because it is the ownership of land that creates the State. Stateless Landownership = Oxymoron

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Because it is the ownership of land that creates the State. Stateless Landownership = Oxymoron


Can I own anything without the state?

----------


## Travlyr

> Can I own anything without the state?


Self-ownership is inherent. If you lay a claim to a double bacon cheeseburger and eat it before a bully takes it away from you... I would call that ownership, wouldn't you?

----------


## noneedtoaggress

What if someone claims ownership over me and proceeds to beat me until I do what they say, do you consider that a legitimate right to control?

----------


## Travlyr

> What if someone claims ownership over me and proceeds to beat me until I do what they say, do you consider that a legitimate right to control?


Dude, if it comes to that, I'm going out with "_guns a blazing_." You can do whatever you want.

----------


## CCTelander

> Because it is the ownership of land that creates the State. Stateless Landownership = Oxymoron



I just know I'll regret asking this, but how exactly do you figure that? By what contorted logic does your statement make even the tiniest bit of sense?

----------


## Travlyr

> I just know I'll regret asking this, but how exactly do you figure that? By what contorted logic does your statement make even the tiniest bit of sense?


When land is claimed, then the landowner makes rules to keep invaders from taking it away from him, trampling on his property, etc. When two or more landowners make a claim to land and make rules jointly, then a "State" is formed with rules/laws and representation.

----------


## hazek

> Perfect voluntaryism is impossible, imo. Do you agree with that?


I still can't decide if I agree or disagree with that statement. IMO I'd like to see how an society where everyone, and I mean everyone is armed with a gun and a rifle would look like.

I agree with the statement if there are a lot of people who aren't armed and can't defend themselves. But what if everyone was?

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Dude, if it comes to that, I'm going out with "_guns a blazing_." You can do whatever you want.


That's not what I asked. You're avoiding the question.

If someone has the ability to overtake you by force, does that give them legitimate ownership over you? Does that give them the _right_ to control your body? Are their actions _legitimate_?

If the bully grabs the cheeseburger I made or paid for and eats if before I get a chance, does he legitimately own it? If he eats it, is that ok? Was it _rightly_ his?

----------


## Travlyr

> I still can't decide if I agree or disagree with that statement. IMO I'd like to see how an society where everyone, and I mean everyone is armed with a gun and a rifle would look like.
> 
> I agree with the statement if there are a lot of people who aren't armed and can't defend themselves. But what if everyone was?


Then "Quick Draw McGraw" would rule.

----------


## hazek

> Then "Quick Draw McGraw" would rule.


Cause gunfights are always duels right? C'mon man, I think better of you then to reply with something like that.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Then "Quick Draw McGraw" would rule.


Except "Quick Draw McGraw" only has 6 bullets, and there's a town full of other gun owners who would rather he not go around trying to claim that he can rule other people.

----------


## Travlyr

> That's not what I asked. You're avoiding the question.


The answer was quite clearly, "No, I would not." I would defend myself to the death, and I would let you do whatever it is that you do.




> If someone has the ability to overtake you by force, does that give them legitimate ownership over you?


A lot of people have that ability and I do not submit to them. So again, "No."




> Does that give them the _right_ to control your body?


No.



> Are their actions _legitimate_?


No.



> If the bully grabs the cheeseburger I made or paid for and eats if before I get a chance, does he legitimately own it?


If there are no laws against it, I say he does. If there is a law against it, then I say he doesn't.




> If he eats it, is that ok?


It is fine by me because it wasn't my cheeseburger.




> Was it _rightly_ his?


If there is a law against him taking it from you, it is not rightly his. If there is no law against it, then what right do you have to complain?

Did you have a point to this dribble?

----------


## noneedtoaggress

Why is it okay for someone to use force to take control of the cheeseburger you made, but not take control of your body?

----------


## Travlyr

> Cause gunfights are always duels right? C'mon man, I think better of you then to reply with something like that.


Okay. In a perfect world everybody would be sitting around the campfire singing "Kumbaya."

Truly, we do not live in a perfect world. Not everyone is ever going to be armed, the kids, the old, the passive, and indigent. Unfortunately, perfect voluntaryism is impossible in this world. The best we can do is relative voluntaryism.

----------


## Travlyr

> Why is it okay for someone to use force to take control of the cheeseburger you made, but not take control of your body?


They cannot take my cheeseburger, or my body, because I defend myself against aggressors. If you don't want them to take it away from you then you should defend yourself as well.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> They cannot take my cheeseburger, or my body, because I defend myself against aggressors. If you don't want them to take it away from you then you should defend yourself as well.


I'm not talking about whether you can defend yourself or not. If you don't have the ability to defend yourself:

Is it _right_ for someone to use force to enslave you? Is it _right_ for someone to use force to expropriate a cheeseburger you made?

----------


## Travlyr

> I'm not talking about whether you can defend yourself or not. If you don't have the ability to defend yourself:
> 
> Is it _right_ for someone to use force to enslave you? Is it _right_ for someone to use force to expropriate a cheeseburger you made?


No, like I said earlier, "Might Does Not Make Right." That is why we have laws.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

Then why does "might make right" when it comes to land ownership?

----------


## Travlyr

> Then why does "might make right" when it comes to land ownership?


Huh?
Owning land is a good thing if you wish to live a free life, be in control of your resources, and stay warm & dry. Where does the "might makes right" scenario come into play?

----------


## noneedtoaggress

You're saying people come to legitimately own land by claiming it as under their jurisdiction and backing it up by force.

I'm saying people come to legitimately own land by homesteading it. They then have the _right to defend this ownership_ through the use of force.

----------


## Travlyr

> You're saying people come to legitimately own land by claiming it as under their jurisdiction and backing it up by force.


I did not say that.




> I'm saying people come to legitimately own land by homesteading it.


Okay, then what happens when you go on vacation and someone else moves in?

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Okay, then what happens when you go on vacation and someone else moves in?


You kick them out?

----------


## Travlyr

> I'm saying people come to legitimately own land by homesteading it. They then have the _right to defend this ownership_ through the use of force.


What happens when your neighbor sneaks up at night and moves your boundary pins? Or drills an angular well and takes water from your well? Or digs on your property and removes a vein of silver?

----------


## Travlyr

> You kick them out?


Lolz... might makes right. Sheesh.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Lolz... might makes right. Sheesh.


Not at all.

Self ownership + mixing labor with land = ownership of property. You have the right to defend that property from invasion.

If I built a home on some land, leaving for vacation doesn't mean I abandoned the property.

----------


## Travlyr

> Not at all.
> 
> Self ownership + mixing labor with land = ownership of property. You have the right to defend that property from invasion.


You live in 2011. Properties are already owned. If you try and squat property in the 21st century, you are attempting an act of theft. Is that what you are talking about?




> If I built a home on some land, leaving for vacation doesn't mean I abandoned the property.


How do you prove ownership?

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> You live in 2011. Properties are already owned. If you try and squat property in the 21st century, you are attempting an act of theft. Is that what you are talking about?


What do you mean "properties are already owned"? Why am I trying to squat on someone's property? Has it been abandoned?




> How do you prove ownership?


It's only necessary if there's a dispute over it. In which case we can take it to court. I may have registered it with a reputable agency who provides that as a service or perhaps documented my right to the property in some other way.

----------


## Travlyr

> What do you mean "properties are already owned"?


At least in America, property is owned either by an individual, legal entity, the State, or the Feds. There is very little, if any, abandoned property to homestead without someone's permission.




> Why am I trying to squat on someone's property? Has it been abandoned?


I am not aware of any abandoned property available for homesteading.




> It's only necessary if there's a dispute over it. In which case we can take it to court. I may have registered it with a reputable agency who provides that as a service or perhaps documented my right to the property in some other way.


Right now that reputable agency is the State. Someday they may get competition in the title registry business, but until then contact your county clerk's office.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> At least in America, property is owned either by an individual, legal entity, the State, or the Feds. There is very little, if any, abandoned property to homestead without someone's permission.


But is that state "ownership" _legitimate_?




> Right now that reputable agency is the State. Someday they may get competition in the title registry business, but until then contact your county clerk's office.


Uh. Yeah. I know. And of course it's the most "reputable" agency, when it's the only one on the market (and then goes off and allows for things like eminent domain). The point of voluntaryism as a movement is to bring about that competition by convincing people that we don't need a state monopoly in X service.

----------


## RiseAgainst

"Its the way it is, so shut up and like it."

Convincing argument Travlyr.  You have the debate skills of a two year old, or Joseph Goebbels.  Just stick your finger in your ears and keep repeating yourself over and over and over and over...

Every anarchist I know, myself included, sat in your shoes at one point, repeating the same old justifications for violence.  Those who decide to open their minds and objectively look at the facts all come to the same conclusion.  Those who don't seek comfort from the propoganda department (Rush, OReilly, Beck, Hannity, Maddow, Olberman, Matthews, et al) who chants the justifications over and over for their amusement.

----------


## RiseAgainst

By the by Travlyr, other than your unjustly appropriated 'land titles' by the noble class, 94% of earths land is unused and ripe for homesteading.

----------


## Travlyr

> "Its the way it is, so shut up and like it."
> 
> Convincing argument Travlyr.  You have the debate skills of a two year old, or Joseph Goebbels.  Just stick your finger in your ears and keep repeating yourself over and over and over and over...
> 
> Every anarchist I know, myself included, sat in your shoes at one point, repeating the same old justifications for violence.  Those who decide to open their minds and objectively look at the facts all come to the same conclusion.  Those who don't seek comfort from the propoganda department (Rush, OReilly, Beck, Hannity, Maddow, Olberman, Matthews, et al) who chants the justifications over and over for their amusement.


You don't have to be an $#@!, RiseAgainst. Ron Paul, Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, and many others understood the concept of a State. Just because you don't doesn't give you the moral high road.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

*&*

----------


## Travlyr

> "Its the way it is, so shut up and like it."
> 
> Convincing argument Travlyr.  You have the debate skills of a two year old, or Joseph Goebbels.  Just stick your finger in your ears and keep repeating yourself over and over and over and over...
> 
> Every anarchist I know, myself included, sat in your shoes at one point, repeating the same old justifications for violence.  Those who decide to open their minds and objectively look at the facts all come to the same conclusion.  Those who don't seek comfort from the propoganda department (Rush, OReilly, Beck, Hannity, Maddow, Olberman, Matthews, et al) who chants the justifications over and over for their amusement.


Yeah, because stooping to attacking your opponent rather than the substance of the debate is so mature. The violence of our day comes from the counterfeiters. Counterfeiters must have a monopoly in order to keep their power, so they hire a team of police to aggressively ferret out any competition and either jail them or kill them. Their inflation tax methodically steals the wealth from everyone else which impoverishes people who are not insiders. Did it ever dawn on you that the police state did not come into being until the time of the "greenback?" 

But of course you _"Holier Than Thou" "We're More Moral Than You" "Uppty Ups"_ cannot discern or focus on that basic knowledge ... even after Ron Paul, Murray Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises, and the people with the debating skills of "two year olds" point it out specifically to you.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

Uh, we agree with you about the money issue, partner. You're just not taking it far enough because you consider it the core issue.

The "violence of _any_ day", comes from... _the initiation of violence_.

----------


## Travlyr

> Uh, we agree with you about the money issue, partner. You're just not taking it far enough because you consider it the core issue.
> 
> The "violence of _any_ day", comes from... _the initiation of violence_.


Well you do have to admit that it is easier to stop counterfeiters from counterfeiting than it is to rebuild all of society, right? You can end the fed with a stroke of a pen. It is going to take generations of re-education to convince everyone that statelessness is better than land ownership.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Well you do have to admit that it is easier to stop counterfeiters from counterfeiting than it is to rebuild all of society, right? You can end the fed with a stroke of a pen. It is going to take generations of re-education to convince everyone that statelessness is better than land ownership.


...he says as the established order cracks and crumbles around him.

The internet is the truth machine. You said it yourself.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

Besides, I'm not talking about timelines anyway.

I'm certainly down with ending the fed as soon as possible.

----------


## RiseAgainst

> Yeah, because stooping to attacking your opponent rather than the substance of the debate is so mature. The violence of our day comes from the counterfeiters. Counterfeiters must have a monopoly in order to keep their power, so they hire a team of police to aggressively ferret out any competition and either jail them or kill them. Their inflation tax methodically steals the wealth from everyone else which impoverishes people who are not insiders. Did it ever dawn on you that the police state did not come into being until the time of the "greenback?" 
> 
> But of course you _"Holier Than Thou" "We're More Moral Than You" "Uppty Ups"_ cannot discern or focus on that basic knowledge ... even after Ron Paul, Murray Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises, and the people with the debating skills of "two year olds" point it out specifically to you.


Feel free to show me where Rothbard agrees with you and disagrees with me:




> I 
>                 have been ruminating recently on what are the crucial questions 
>                 that divide libertarians. Some that have received a lot of attention 
>                 in the last few years are: anarcho-capitalism vs. limited government, 
>                 abolitionism vs. gradualism, natural rights vs. utilitarianism, 
>                 and war vs. peace. But I have concluded that as important as these 
>                 questions are, they dont really cut to the nub of the issue, 
>                 of the crucial dividing line between us.
> Let 
> ...

----------


## A Son of Liberty

Wonderful.  Thank you for posting.

People have commented to me that I should be wary, as my hate of the state will "eat me alive".  I'd begun to wonder if they were right.  Rothbard reminds me that it is a perfectly natural, normal and appropriate reaction to such a vicious, violent and pervasive yet largely hidden enemy of the human race.  

I'm a radical, in as much as I do not believe that it is okay to advocate that even just a little mandatory violence is okay.

----------


## nayjevin

> I think it is at least a bit encouraging to imagine the slave abolitionists a 100 years or more before slavery was actually abolished. They knew there was a good chance they would never see the results of their efforts, but they still worked to abolish slavery because it was the right thing to do. I believe, especially with the internet, the truth will prevail. I don't know when, but I think it is only a matter of time.


Thank you for this.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> There has never been a limited government, only small governments which* always* beget bigger governments.


You know, I believe you and I have many of the same beliefs about the tendency of government to grow.  It's just that I realize this would happen with or without a government already in place.  

I'm writing my senior seminar on why we should abolish the central bank from an individual freedom perspective.  I believe that, if we did not have a central bank, that government would never get as out of control as it has.  You just need to identify the correct source of the problem.  Without the ability to issue credit, the government would never be able to become as big as it has now.  I am going to propose, in my paper, a way to incentivize the system so that central banks are guarded against.  

I believe the main cause of our disagreements is that you believe people would somehow be more virtuous without government.  I think it's inevitable that a monopoly on violence and power will be created by those who have the means, whether they are a private or public entity.  It's not government that's the problem, it's the people that try to use it for their own benefit, and guess what, those people will still be around in a stateless society ready to take advantage of people.  We would be so much less free because anarchy always leads to chaos.  That's what we've always seen when a government is overthrown.  Either a new one arises in its place, usually more violent than the last, or there is chaos and people will not be able to do anything except guard their property.

We have many of the same views about government, we just disagree on what the root cause is, and what the most practical solution is.  Getting rid of the state is not practical, so with all due respect, Tom Woods has it completely backwards.  Anarchy is "chasing a unicorn".

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> just noticed ur edit 
> 
> 
> 
> Facts cannot be properly understood until philosophy is properly applied. 
> 
> 
> 
> "better" is subjective.  The question of morality is objective.  It's about whether or not something is right or wrong, not better or worse. 
> ...


How can you claim morality is objective when you don't believe in an ultimate source for that morality?  Wouldn't that make it subjective, since it depends on the person, and doesn't come from outside of them?  You can't be an atheist and claim objective moral righteousness at the same time.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Again, he can think or believe anything he wants.  By violating the sovereignty of another individual, he tacitly holds that his sovereignty may be violated, logically.  Individual sovereignty - self-ownership - is observable.  It's not up for speculation.  Violating the rights of other individuals implies a "might makes right" philosophy.  If an individual holds that might makes right, then on a logically consistent basis, he holds that a more mighty person would be right to violate his individual sovereignty.  Again, then, since individual sovereignty is observable, his initiation of force against another individual implies that he is not sovereign of his life, and holds a logically inconsistent view.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the political philosophy subform, not the political practicality subforum.
> 
> 
> 
> Because my faith is my own.  I don't typically advertise it.  
> ...


That is a non-sequitur.  He could believe he is special and that he has the right to invade other people's property, while they don't have the right to invade his.  Beside, everything would be might-makes-right in anarchy.  It's just a matter of who gets the monopoly because it WILL happen.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Your logic is not sound.  We are not the US government.  We are individuals.  
> 
> Explain to me how I am the US government.


For the last freaking time!  I exp[lained this already.  I was not ACTUALLY saying that we are obligated to kill ourselves.  I know it's logically inconsistent, but I was using that as an example to show how absurd that poster's logic was by saying the US Constitution can be blamed for WWII.  Is the US Constitution Hitler?  NO! You people seriously need a sense of irony and sarcasm.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> "My" problem is that you still seem to think you have a valid point.
> 
> The Ipad exists because Apple Inc. was established in the 1970s and they were manufactured several decades later. 
> 
> According to you that statement is absurd and the logical conclusion of it is: 'Apple Inc was established by "humanity" therefore all humans deserve Ipads, because "we" manufactured them.'


No, that's not the point.  The whole point of my post was to expose the absurdity of the same argument used by the poster I was responding to.  Of course, you wouldn't want to admit his argument was flawed, since he believes in anarchy.  It is so funny how you fail to see that I made that post for no other reason than to expose faulty logic.  I was, in no way, saying that the logic used was "a good point."  In fact, I was doing the complete opposite.  I was saying it sarcastically, meaning I didn't really mean it, in order to expose how the poster I was responding to was using the same logic to say that the Constitution was at fault for WWII.

Just... wow.

----------


## Wesker1982

> then the corporations will form a state that takes it away.


This isn't going to happen in a society that was persuaded to abolish the State. If the State were violently abolished without people understanding the nature of the problem, then there is a good chance they would seek another State. We do not advocate violent overthrow. 

_You could try to start a revolution, but thats extremely dangerous, and wont make things any better in a society full of people who dont understand the nature of the problem._ - Doug Casey 




> However, what you missed is that anarchy would just make it easier for this to happen.


When the State is criminal, too many people are brainwashed into thinking it is legitimate. There is absolutely no way that a private group of criminals would been seen as legitimate by society. 

_If the Metropolitan Police Force should become gangsters and exact tribute, then the rest of society could flock to the Prudential, Equitable, etc., police forces who could band together to put them down. And this contrasts vividly with the State. If a group of gangsters should capture the State apparatus, with its monopoly of coercive weapons, there is nothing at present that can stop themshort of the immensely difficult process of revolution. In a libertarian society there would be no need for a massive revolution to stop the depredation of gangster-States; there would be a swift turning to the honest police forces to check and put down the force that had turned bandit._

_And, indeed, what is the State anyway but organized banditry? What is taxation but theft on a gigantic, unchecked, scale? What is war but mass murder on a scale impossible by private police forces? What is conscription but mass enslavement? Can anyone envision a private police force getting away with a tiny fraction of what States get away with, and do habitually, year after year, century after century?_

_There is another vital consideration that would make it almost impossi*ble for an outlaw police force to commit anything like the banditry that modern governments practice. One of the crucial factors that permits governments to do the monstrous things they habitually do is the sense of legitimacy on the part of the stupefied public. The average citizen may not likemay even strongly object tothe policies and exactions of his government. But he has been imbued with the ideacarefully indoctrinated by centuries of governmental propagandathat the gov*ernment is his legitimate sovereign, and that it would be wicked or mad to refuse to obey its dictates. It is this sense of legitimacy that the State's intellectuals have fostered over the ages, aided and abetted by all the trappings of legitimacy: flags, rituals, ceremonies, awards, constitutions, etc. A bandit gangeven if all the police forces conspired together into one vast gangcould never command such legitimacy. The public would consider them purely bandits; their extortions and tributes would never be considered legitimate though onerous "taxes," to be paid automatically. The public would quickly resist these illegiti*mate demands and the bandits would be resisted and overthrown. Once the public had tasted the joys, prosperity, freedom, and efficiency of a libertarian, State-less society, it would be almost impossible for a State to fasten itself upon them once again. Once freedom has been fully enjoyed, it is no easy task to force people to give it up._








*But Wouldn't Warlords Take Over?*

*Is statism needed to protect against corporate monopolies?*
*Creating Monopolies That Control Us*
*Tom Woods on Free Market Monopolies*
*But Won't Big Business will dominate the free market?*

*The most important attempt in this century to rebut anarchism and to justify the State fails totally and in each of its parts.*




> What makes you think that the state is so much more immoral than random acts of violence?


It is not necessarily more immoral, but the acts of violence are on a massive scale and people are fooled into accepting the false dichotomy of either have to accept the mass atrocities of the State, or suffer from chaos and lawlessness. 




> Beside, anarchists ignore the fact that there will still be violence and stealing in an anarchic society.


lol wut? Are you referring to Voluntaryists as Anarchists? Maybe some anarcho-communists believe this, but you aren't talking to them.




> Hence, the reason no anarchical society has ever existed.


This isn't true.


Medieval Iceland and the Absence of Government by Thomas Whiston
The Mild, Mild West by John Tierney
An American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The Not So Wild, Wild West by Terry L. Anderson and P.J. Hill
Ireland's Success with the Free Market and Anarchism from _For a New Liberty_, I think.
Property Rights In Celtic Irish Law by Joseph R. Peden
Pennsylvania's Anarchist Experiment: 1681-1690 by Murray Rothbard added 6/16/11
The Jurisprudence Of Polycentric Law by Tom W. Bell (includes Historical examples of polycentric legal systems) added 9/01/11
Law _Prior_ to the State (Polycentric Law) by Tom W. Bell added 9/01/11
Customary Legal Systems with Voluntary Enforcement & The Rise of Authoritarian Law by Bruce L. Benson (from The Enterprise of Law) added 9/04/11
Voluntaryism and Protective Agencies in Historical Perspective by Carl Watner added 9/14/11
The English Experience With Private Protection by Roderick T. Long added 9/28/11





> If anyone truly wanted to own their land and their property, they wouldn't be able to travel like we do today, for fear that everything they owned would be stolen.


Just like Ron Paul, we believe private institutions would do a much better job at defending people and property than a coercive monopoly. 




> I believe the main cause of our disagreements is that you believe people would somehow be more virtuous without government.


Not exactly. What we maintain is that whatever the degree of good or evil in society, adding a coercive monopoly will make it worse. Again, check out Bob Murphy's _But Won't Warlords Take Over?_ article.




> I think it's inevitable that a monopoly on violence and power will be created by those who have the means, whether they are a private or public entity.


No one accepts Voluntaryism before overcoming this objection. It is usually the first thing analyzed. This objection has been debunked for decades.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> What gives the State the right to claim ownership of a territory? Might?
> 
> 
> 
> Then why does "the State" have a legitimate claim on the land that I homestead and build a farm on?
> 
> 
> 
> And the Non-Aggression Principle is the law that should be adopted if people want to live in a more civilized, prosperous, and free society.


Try telling that to my buddy over here.  He's bigger than you, smarter than you, and thinks he is more special.  He does not follow the non-agression principle.  

Your adherence to the non-aggression principle is arbitrary.  However, you believe others should follow it as well, so you are forcing your views on others whether or not you believe in the state.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> :LOL: We've reached the end of our discussion, Trav... As I prepared my response to this, I realized it would have been exactly what I said in my previous post.  You refuse to address legitimate questions in your position; it's apparent it's a case of either obdurancy or foolishness... whichever it is, it's your problem, of course.


Or maybe you're just running out of legitimate arguments to make?  

No, it couldn't be that because you can never be wrong.

----------


## Wesker1982

BF3 comes out and this thread explodes. Conspiracy!

----------


## CCTelander

> BF3 comes out and this thread explodes. Conspiracy!



In my estimation, our time would be much better spent playing BF3, than arguing with some in this thread.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> I believe the main cause of our disagreements is that *you believe people would somehow be more virtuous without government.*


PaulConventionWV, you don't understand the anarchist's arguments at all. You're consistently proving this. You only think you understand our position, but you don't. At all.




> *I think* it's inevitable that a monopoly on violence and power will be created by those who have the means, whether they are a private or public entity.


Based on what?

How will this be achieved in an anarchocapitalist society?




> It's not government that's the problem, *it's the people that try to use it for their own benefit*, and guess what, those people will still be around in a stateless society ready to take advantage of people.


How do you prevent this?

Why does it matter if "those people" will be around in a stateless society when they have no state apparatus to flock to?




> We would be so much less free because anarchy always leads to chaos.  That's what we've always seen when a government is overthrown.  Either a new one arises in its place, usually more violent than the last, or there is chaos and people will not be able to do anything except guard their property.


You don't understand the anarchist argument. Anarchy = Lawlessness according to you. Period. You don't need to look into it any more because that's that and that's final. It's just a waste of time to understand. You're even ignoring the fact that the vast majority revolutions take place to institute a new government, not to abolish the state.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> No, that's not the point.  The whole point of my post was to expose the absurdity of the same argument used by the poster I was responding to.  Of course, you wouldn't want to admit his argument was flawed, since he believes in anarchy.  It is so funny how you fail to see that I made that post for no other reason than to expose faulty logic.  I was, in no way, saying that the logic used was "a good point."  In fact, I was doing the complete opposite.  I was saying it sarcastically, meaning I didn't really mean it, in order to expose how the poster I was responding to was using the same logic to say that the Constitution was at fault for WWII.
> 
> Just... wow.


I get that you were trying to sarcastically criticize that post, my point was that it wasn't actually an applicable criticism.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Your adherence to the non-aggression principle is arbitrary.  However, you believe others should follow it as well, so you are forcing your views on others whether or not you believe in the state.


What in the world are you going on about? You really, really, really, don't understand _anything_ we're talking about at all, do you?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Wonderful.  Thank you for posting.
> 
> People have commented to me that I should be wary, as my hate of the state will "eat me alive".  I'd begun to wonder if they were right.  Rothbard reminds me that it is a perfectly natural, normal and appropriate reaction to such a vicious, violent and pervasive yet largely hidden enemy of the human race.  
> 
> I'm a radical, in as much as I do not believe that it is okay to advocate that even just a little mandatory violence is okay.


What does moral absolutism usually get you in the world?  What good is it to be "morally pure" if it doesn't benefit you and those around you?  

Also, why doesn't anyone give me a definition of morality?  All they say is that their view is the most morally consistent, but I don't see why this would be true.  You're just using arbitrary standards for morality in order to establish yours as the best.  If I thought the state was more effective at justice, then I would be more morally inclined to support the state.  However, you arbitrarily decide that anything mandatory is evil and immoral, even when others object to your premises for saying that.  The worst thing is that no anarchist ever says why his or her view is more moral.  After they are given reasons why some people think they are wrong, they respond with "I believe that would not be true in an anarchist society."  Oh, that's great, brother.  So, I'm supposed to just believe you just because you think you know how an anarchy would work.  

The comparison to slavery is that anarchy is light years more hopeless, and light years less immoral.  However, by your standards, you consider it to be the same thing just because force must be used at SOME point.  That is absolutely nothing like the slavery of 19th century.  You should know better.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> PaulConventionWV, you don't understand the anarchist's arguments at all. You're consistently proving this. You only think you understand our position, but you don't. At all.


Suit yourself.




> How?


A better question is "how not?"  It's because people who have the means will always try to create a ruthless state where there was none.  Whoever wins out will crush the rest and declare authority.  It's much easier for those with ulterior motives to establish a state than to overthrow a system that is already in place, especially it is governed by the rule of law, in a system that is incentivized so that people want to protect their inalienable rights so that their own are not violated.  There is no such incentive in an anarchy.  Also, you might want to take into account that governments have always existed.  What makes you think someone won't try to take power if they can?  It is fairly easy to convince the people that they need what they have to offer and eventually make them dependent.




> How do you prevent this?
> 
> Why does it matter if "those people" will be around in a stateless society when they have no state apparatus to flock to?


See above^^^




> You don't understand the anarchist argument. Anarchy = Lawlessness according to you. Period. You don't need to look into it any more because that's that and that's final. It's just a waste of time to understand. You're even ignoring the fact that the vast majority revolutions take place to institute a new government, not to abolish the state.


That is actually my point.  People want a revolution because they want themselves and people like them to be in power.  You can't prevent this with anarchy.  If you think the whole world is somehow going to be convinced to take your flowery vision of moral absolutism, I have three words for you: chasing a unicorn.  It is simply ironic that Tom Woods would use these words when it is clear that he is the one hoping for some vast moral upheaval of the social order that has been around since the beginning of time.  It's not a matter of law vs. lawlessness.  It's a matter of WHOSE law you are following.  You can't expect people to have the same moral standards as you in an anarchy.  Not everyone is going to want to agree to the same laws.  You want to have your cake and eat it, too.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> What in the world are you going on about? You really, really, really, don't understand _anything_ we're talking about at all, do you?


I understand perfectly.  Your adherence to the non-aggression principle is arbitrary.  If you try to defend yourself from your attacker, you have established this arbitrary rule in your head where it's okay for you to kill him because he was attacking you first.  Therefore, you would be forcing your view of morality on him.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I get that you were trying to sarcastically criticize that post, my point was that it wasn't actually an applicable criticism.


How so?  In the same way that you are not the US government, the US Constitution is not Hitler, and was not the cause of WWII.  That's what he was trying to say.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> A better question is "how not?"  It's because people who have the means will always try to create a ruthless state where there was none.  Whoever wins out will crush the rest and declare authority.  It's much easier for those with ulterior motives to establish a state than to overthrow a system that is already in place, especially it is governed by the rule of law, in a system that is incentivized so that people want to protect their inalienable rights so that their own are not violated.  There is no such incentive in an anarchy.  Also, you might want to take into account that governments have always existed.  What makes you think someone won't try to take power if they can?  It is fairly easy to convince the people that they need what they have to offer and eventually make them dependent.










> See above^^^





> That is actually my point.  People want a revolution because they want themselves and people like them to be in power.  You can't prevent this with anarchy.  If you think the whole world is somehow going to be convinced to take your flowery vision of moral absolutism, I have three words for you: chasing a unicorn.  It is simply ironic that Tom Woods would use these words when it is clear that he is the one hoping for some vast moral upheaval of the social order that has been around since the beginning of time.  It's not a matter of law vs. lawlessness.  It's a matter of WHOSE law you are following.  You can't expect people to have the same moral standards as you in an anarchy.  Not everyone is going to want to agree to the same laws.  You want to have your cake and eat it, too.

----------


## Travlyr

> Feel free to show me where Rothbard agrees with you and disagrees with me:


Can you think for yourself?

Feel free to prove that anarchism and land ownership are possible simultaneous conditions.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> 


I hope you don't expect me watch 90 minutes of video every time you respond.  Why can't you make your point without having someone else say it in an hour-long presentation?

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Can you think for yourself?
> 
> Feel free to prove that anarchism and land ownership are possible simultaneous conditions.


I homestead land. I claim to rightfully own it. I protect it.

----------


## Seraphim

Under our current conditions it is not.

Conceivably, however, if humanity does in fact mature to a certain point - private property could simply be an ingrained "way of life" in which title deeds can be swapped/shared/sold/bought with noneed for an involuntary state to provide protection for the property owners.

I think a lot of the so called "anarchists" here are not anarchists...but VOLUNTARISTS.

I'm fine with government - but let's keep it voluntary...that's how a peacful society will be built. There are many examples throughout history that demonstrate that local governance works best. Local governance is almost always voluntary and is certainly MUCH MUCH easier to deal with than Federal governance which is never voluntary.

We don't want no government. We want Stateless governance...big difference...it is NOT a semantic game.




> Can you think for yourself?
> 
> Feel free to prove that anarchism and land ownership are possible simultaneous conditions.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> I hope you don't expect me watch 90 minutes of video every time you respond.  Why can't you make your point without having someone else say it in an hour-long presentation?


Are you actually going to consider anything I say?

----------


## CCTelander

> Are you actually going to consider anything I say?



Well, he hasn't thus far, so I don't think the odds are that good.

----------


## CCTelander

> Can you think for yourself?
> 
> Feel free to prove that anarchism and land ownership are possible simultaneous conditions.



In your estimation, would I be able to own a pet rock in an anarchic society?

----------


## Travlyr

> I homestead land. I claim to rightfully own it. I protect it.


The rules you make to protect your land affects everyone else including family members, tenants, trespassers, and to a lesser extent society in general as every land owner will define the rules differently.

----------


## Travlyr

> In your estimation, would I be able to own a pet rock in an anarchic society?


Only while it is in your possession.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

What's your point? The rules I make for my cheeseburger work the same way.

That's what property is all about.

I don't have the right to control someone else's cheeseburger, though, simply on the basis that I can use force to expropriate it from their control or force them to use it the ways I believe it should be used.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Only while it is in your possession.


So... only the state can provide property. And property can only be used in ways the state says is appropriate, and it can take it away if people find that to be in the best interests of "society".

And you call this "ownership"?

----------


## CCTelander

> Only while it is in your possession.



I dispute your claim that I'd only own it while in my possession. If I justly acquire something I own it until I willingly give up my claim to ownership, regardless of whether or not anyone else honors my right to ownership. If this is not true, then, in point of fact, I cannot own a pet rock even WITH a state, since there are still those about who would dishonor my claim and unjustly appropriate my property.

----------


## Travlyr

> Under our current conditions it is not.
> 
> Conceivably, however, if humanity does in fact mature to a certain point - private property could simply be an ingrained "way of life" in which title deeds can be swapped/shared/sold/bought with noneed for an involuntary state to provide protection for the property owners.
> 
> I think a lot of the so called "anarchists" here are not anarchists...but VOLUNTARISTS.
> 
> I'm fine with government - but let's keep it voluntary...that's how a peacful society will be built. There are many examples throughout history that demonstrate that local governance works best. Local governance is almost always voluntary and is certainly MUCH MUCH easier to deal with than Federal governance which is never voluntary.
> 
> We don't want no government. We want Stateless governance...big difference...it is NOT a semantic game.


If the world was perfect, then yes. I doubt that will ever come to fruition. The point for our day is that the State can once again produce a relatively voluntary society. We can achieve a much less tyrannical society in our lifetimes, even this decade, simply by allowing people to labor & trade with each other honestly without penalty. When a return to honest sound money (competing currencies) again become the focus for liberty, then freedom, peace, and prosperity become the order of the day. i.e. It was a very important concept at the founding of the republic.

----------


## Seraphim

A perfect world is not needed (it's not even possible).

An evolved understanding of liberty, human nature and logic would suffice.

Could take a million years though :P.




> If the world was perfect, then yes. I doubt that will ever come to fruition. The point for our day is that the State can once again produce a relatively voluntary society. We can achieve a much less tyrannical society in our lifetimes, even this decade, simply by allowing people to labor & trade with each other honestly without penalty. When a return to honest sound money (competing currencies) again become the focus for liberty, then freedom, peace, and prosperity become the order of the day. i.e. It was a very important concept at the founding of the republic.

----------


## Travlyr

> I dispute your claim that I'd only own it while in my possession. If I justly acquire something I own it until I willingly give up my claim to ownership, regardless of whether or not anyone else honors my right to ownership. If this is not true, then, in point of fact, I cannot own a pet rock even WITH a state, since there are still those about who would dishonor my claim and unjustly appropriate my property.


If you have a receipt then you can prove ownership and get restitution through lawful process. If there are no laws verifying ownership conditions, then you can claim ownership over anything without proof, and so can I.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> When a return to honest sound money (competing currencies) again become the focus for liberty, then freedom, peace, and prosperity become the order of the day. i.e. It was a very important concept at the founding of the republic.


I think we just need to bring the military home. Then liberty, peace and prospertity will be the order of the day (compared to what we have now). I don't think we really need to go so far as to dismantle the fed.

Prove to me that money would exist without the fed. The fed issues money and that's how we have real money. Without the fed you could only have a bunch of people issuing competing metal trinkets or something like that, but that's not real land own... money.

----------


## Travlyr

> I homestead land. I claim to rightfully own it. I protect it.


Thank you for proving that anarchy and land ownership are possible simultaneous conditions. Unfortunately, each landowner making their own laws is chaotic because there is no way to understand your rules, my rules, the neighbor's rules, and 100 million ruler's rules if they are not consistent.

For example, what if Big Joe stops with an army to claim that it is rightfully his? How do you settle the dispute?

----------


## noneedtoaggress

I mean if we don't centralize the money then how will people trade? It will be chaos. No one will know what is real money and what isn't. We need money to be provided by the Fed. Your argument is absurd, Travylr.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> For example, what if Big Joe stops with an army to claim that it is rightfully his? How do you settle the dispute?


You mean like the state taking my land over "eminent domain"?

You mean like having my wealth drained through taxes on nearly everything I do, see, hear and produce?

----------


## Seraphim

Anarchy is not lawlessness. It is society with no RULERS, not no rules.




> Thank you for proving that anarchy and land ownership are possible simultaneous conditions. Unfortunately, each landowner making their own laws is chaotic because there is no way to understand your rules, my rules, the neighbor's rules, and 100 million ruler's rules if they are not consistent.
> 
> For example, what if Big Joe stops with an army to claim that it is rightfully his? How do you settle the dispute?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Are you actually going to consider anything I say?


Likewise to you.  I was just hoping you wouldn't try to bore me to death to prove your point.  I think you are quite capable of saying your point without giving me a ninety minute presentation to watch.

----------


## RiseAgainst

> Can you think for yourself?
> 
> Feel free to prove that anarchism and land ownership are possible simultaneous conditions.


Wow, you can't even follow your OWN conversation, let alone the depth of thought that is swirling around you.

You made the assertion that Rothbard somehow agreed with you and disagreed with me.  I provided you with HIS words, feel free to point out where your assertion is true.

Ad hominem fail.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> A perfect world is not needed (it's not even possible).
> 
> An evolved understanding of liberty, human nature and logic would suffice.
> 
> Could take a million years though :P.


Your use of "evolved" and "maturation" troubles me.  You are basically admitting that you think people must become more moral as a whole for anarchy to be possible.  This isn't based on anything.  Humanity isn't going to "evolve" the way you think it might.  Dreaming for a society in which everyone is willing to accept the same rules and everyone is "morally pure" and mature enough to cooperate is chasing a unicorn, in the famous words of Tom Woods.  Oh, what irony.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Likewise to you.  I was just hoping you wouldn't try to bore me to death to prove your point.  I think you are quite capable of saying your point without giving me a ninety minute presentation to watch.


I spent about a page and a half trying to explain to you why your "sarcastic" criticism of a post was not a valid criticism. You just want to argue about how "anarchy is impossible". You don't care about learning about the opposition's arguments, so why should I bother?

You're not asking what we think or why we think what we do. You're telling us what we believe and attacking it based on your own presuppositions.

You get a video.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Your use of "evolved" and "maturation" troubles me.  You are basically admitting that you think people must become more moral as a whole for *abolition of slavery* to be possible.  This isn't based on anything.  Humanity isn't going to "evolve" the way you think it might.  Dreaming for a society in which everyone is willing to accept the same rules and everyone is "morally pure" and mature enough to cooperate is chasing a unicorn, in the famous words of Tom Woods.  Oh, what irony.



Oh, what irony!

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You mean like the state taking my land over "eminent domain"?
> 
> You mean like having my wealth drained through taxes on nearly everything I do, see, hear and produce?


Way to avoid the question.  That's always what it comes down to.  We see a potential problem with anarchy and you blame it on the state again.

----------


## Seraphim

What?

So it's not reasonable to think advancement is possible?

Last I checked human history is rife with advancement - albeit slow.

Come on man...




> Your use of "evolved" and "maturation" troubles me.  You are basically admitting that you think people must become more moral as a whole for anarchy to be possible.  This isn't based on anything.  Humanity isn't going to "evolve" the way you think it might.  Dreaming for a society in which everyone is willing to accept the same rules and everyone is "morally pure" and mature enough to cooperate is chasing a unicorn, in the famous words of Tom Woods.  Oh, what irony.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

Oh, what irony!

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Way to avoid the question.  That's always what it comes down to.  We see a potential problem with anarchy and you blame it on the state again.






And the point was that the state _doesn't actually prevent that from happening. It is precisely that happening._

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Anarchy is not lawlessness. It is society with no RULERS, not no rules.


The question is still valid.  How do you settle the dispute?  Do you really think every single person is going to agree on the same rules?  In your dream world, everyone has to agree on the same standards, and all you have to do is tell them that you are right and that's how everyone will come to terms.  World's problems are a thing of the past.  Religious disputes?  Never happen.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *Your adherence to the non-aggression principle is arbitrary.*


False.  The non-aggression axiom is derived from observation of human action.  It is no more arbitrary than laws (common or otherwise) against theft.  It is the allocation of power to a government that is arbitrary. (Observe the history of governments in history, and you'll notice the reasoning for allocating powers to states or governments is done at the whims of those at the levers of power.  Ask "why have a standing army when it has been a tool of tyranny throughout history?"  and the Constitutionalist's answer is some variant of "just because we like it that way".  The same applies to everything else the regime does.

----------


## Seraphim

Did you not read my other post?

Local governance is the best governance. It has a high correlation with voluntarism.

Is the concept of private arbitration and local voluntary government courts so difficult to wrap your head around? The USA used to be very much like that, lol... 




> The question is still valid.  How do you settle the dispute?  Do you really think every single person is going to agree on the same rules?  In your dream world, everyone has to agree on the same standards, and all you have to do is tell them that you are right and that's how everyone will come to terms.  World's problems are a thing of the past.  Religious disputes?  Never happen.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Way to avoid the question.  That's always what it comes down to.  We see a potential problem with anarchy and you blame it on the state again.


As opposed to what? Someone seeing a potential problem with statism and you blaming it on anarchy?




> It's  when a nation ignores the rule of law (anarchy) that the real evil,  blood-thirsty savagery begins.
> ...
> Tyrants adopt anarchy by pronouncing  themselves above the law.
> ...
> They do not speak for all states, only theirs.  Theirs followed a rule  of anarchy for the ruling class.  If anarchy is allowed to exist, then  this will continue.
> ...
> In fact, anarchy is what has allowed a lot of  state violence.
> ...
> Only when the state recognizes that the law exists  above and beyond the state is there truly a society that does not exist  in a state of anarchy.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The question is still valid.  How do you settle the dispute?  *Do you really think every single person is going to agree on the same rules?*


*
* No, that's why individuals must come to agreements among each other voluntarily.



> In your dream world, everyone has to agree on the same standards



Actually, this is your dream world.  One doesn't even have to be an anarchist to see this.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Oh, what irony!


You like your pet example.  I have already shown why slavery is not comparable to the state.  Just because they meet some of the same descriptions, doesn't mean they are the same thing.  I could do that with anything.  Abolition didn't happen because people were morally "evolved".  There is nothing good about slavery, whereas there are very useful functions of the state with minimal force.  Slaves are economically inefficient.  Just because the STATE abolished slavery, doesn't mean people are magically evolving into more moral beings, and that's ignoring the issue of who determines what's moral.

Here's the thing: given that you think this moral maturation must happen for anarchy to work, you must only get A MAJORITY people to agree that SLAVERY is wrong in order to abolish it.  In order to abolish the state, you must get ALMOST EVERYONE to agree on ALMOST EVERYTHING.  Even that doesn't guarantee that what people agree on will be right, or even favorable to you.  It's nothing like slavery, so you can stop using that meme.

----------


## Travlyr

> I think we just need to bring the military home. Then liberty, peace and prospertity will be the order of the day (compared to what we have now). I don't think we really need to go so far as to dismantle the fed.


The Federal Reserve System is designed to steal from you every day of your life, your father's life and perhaps your grandfather's life. That is what they do and have been doing since 1914. It is the inflation tax.




> "Banking was conceived in iniquity and born in sin. Bankers own the Earth. Take it away from them but leave them the power to create money, and, with the flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again. Take this great power away from them and all great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for then this would be a better and happier world to live in. But, if you want to continue to be the slave of the bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let the bankers continue to create money and control credit." - Sir Josiah Stamp, President, Bank of England (2nd richest man in England)





> Prove to me that money would exist without the fed. The fed issues money and that's how we have real money. Without the fed you could only have a bunch of people issuing competing metal trinkets or something like that, but that's not real land own... money.


No problem. Money is a medium of exchange.
Food is money. It is high quality money in small quantities, in larger quantities it becomes problematic because it will spoil. Few people will trade anything of value for rotten eggs.Labor is money. I have many times traded my skills for food and other products of value.Paper is money. Paper officially stamped and declared money by the power's that be can be traded.Electronic money exists by declaration.Land is money.
High quality money is better than low quality money and it is defined by high quality characteristics:
Durable - Will not rot, burn, or vanish in thin air.Desirable - People want it and will accept it in payment for goods and/or servicesDivisible - Can make both large and small purchasesPortable - Easily carriedScarce - Maintains value according to the immutable laws of supply and demand
Electronic money is easily destroyed by those who hold it. Irredeemable paper money loses its value as more and more of it saturates the economy (inflation tax). Precious metals meet all the characteristics of high value money.

The central bank is the source of your slavery and the violent police state. The modern banking system is complicit in that process. In order to prosper in society today, a bank account is essential. Banks require your social security number, your name, address, phone, email and a copy of a state issued ID. They hold your money hostage and make loans to whoever they deem worthy. They keep records of your income and trades. They use it against you to verify your position in life and collect the appropriate amount of taxes from you. If you lie to your government, your banker will squeal on you, and then they can throw you in jail, and indeed they do.

Honest sound money can be kept at home. The amount of money you make is between you and your employer. Nobody else has to know how much you make, who or where you spend it, and stealing it through inflation is virtually impossible. Honest sound money is liberating and that is the point Ron Paul makes in my signature line.

----------


## Travlyr

> Anarchy is not lawlessness. It is society with no RULERS, not no rules.


Explain to me how 100 million people making their own rules about their land would not be chaotic.

----------


## Travlyr

> You mean like the state taking my land over "eminent domain"?
> 
> You mean like having my wealth drained through taxes on nearly everything I do, see, hear and produce?


Do you mean that you cannot answer that question?

----------


## CCTelander

> I think we just need to bring the military home. Then liberty, peace and prospertity will be the order of the day (compared to what we have now). I don't think we really need to go so far as to dismantle the fed.
> 
> *Prove to me that money would exist without the fed. The fed issues money and that's how we have real money. Without the fed you could only have a bunch of people issuing competing metal trinkets or something like that, but that's not real land own... money.*



Bravo!

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to noneedtoaggress again."

----------


## Travlyr

> Wow, you can't even follow your OWN conversation, let alone the depth of thought that is swirling around you.
> 
> You made the assertion that Rothbard somehow agreed with you and disagreed with me.  I provided you with HIS words, feel free to point out where your assertion is true.
> 
> Ad hominem fail.


Rothbard does not address the benefits the State provides. Don't you find that at least a little bit curious?

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Abolition didn't happen because people were morally "evolved".  *There is nothing good about slavery, whereas there are very useful functions of the state with minimal force.  Slaves are economically inefficient.  Just because the STATE abolished slavery, doesn't mean people are magically evolving into more moral beings, and that's ignoring the issue of who determines what's moral.*


Actually, people believed slavery was necessary for a modern economy at the time. People have to want to abolish slavery before the state can even do anything about it.

I'm not saying people "magically evolved into more moral beings". I'm saying that people have become more moral due to understanding economics and the nature of liberty better.

The state is economically inefficient. Period. The free market can provide services better than a coercive monopoly.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Do you mean that you cannot answer that question?


Nope, I mean:




> And the point was that the state _doesn't actually prevent that from happening. It is precisely that happening._

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> The Federal Reserve System is designed to steal from you every day of your life, your father's life and perhaps your grandfather's life. That is what they do and have been doing since 1914. It is the inflation tax.


So? We need taxes, otherwise we wouldn't have a government and we need government so we can own land and have liberty.

----------


## Seraphim

The Universe is chaos - embrace it.

Is it not feasible that you and the farmer down the road exchange in a peaceful way? Does the involuntary State need to exist in order for people to coordinate production and trade? Is it not feasible that families and communities stick together to protect each other and hold outsiders accountable? 




> Explain to me how 100 million people making their own rules about their land would not be chaotic.

----------


## Travlyr

> So? We need taxes, otherwise we wouldn't have a government and we need government so we can own land and have liberty.


No, government is a result of land ownership so that laws of the land are consistent and not chaotic. Taxes are necessary because people should not be expected to work for free. Land ownership is good because people can have a home, grow their own food, and keep private if they wish.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

It's not the result of land ownership though. I thought we already got past that.

edit: the state is not the result of land ownership.

----------


## Travlyr

> The Universe is chaos - embrace it.
> 
> Is it not feasible that you and the farmer down the road exchange in a peaceful way? Does the involuntary State need to exist in order for people to coordinate production and trade? Is it not feasible that families and communities stick together to protect each other and hold outsiders accountable?


All chaos is not created equal. The State can be, should be, and is relatively voluntary when people trade with each other honestly without penalty.

Hate of the State is misplaced hate.

----------


## CCTelander

> It's not the result of land ownership though. I thought we already got past that.



In my experience, you NEVER really get past much of anything with Trav. Even when his arguments are thoroughly debunked he falls right back on them as if nothing had happened.

----------


## Travlyr

> It's not the result of land ownership though. I thought we already got past that.
> 
> edit: the state is not the result of land ownership.


The State is the result of land ownership. That is WHY they are called "Laws of the Land."

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> All chaos is not created equal. The State can be, should be, and is relatively voluntary when people trade with each other honestly without penalty.
> 
> Hate of the State is misplaced hate.


No, the State is not "relatively voluntary", the actions you're speaking of are called _free markets_.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> The State is the result of land ownership. That is WHY they are called "Law of the Land."


I homestead land. I claim my right to own it. I protect it by voluntarily paying for protection.

----------


## Travlyr

> In my experience, you NEVER really get past much of anything with Trav. Even when his arguments are thoroughly debunked he falls right back on them as if nothing had happened.


What have you fully debunked?

----------


## Travlyr

> I homestead land. I claim my right to own it. I protect it by voluntarily paying for protection.


And when you make rules concerning your land you create a State, by definition, whether you like it or not.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

Does it matter? Debunking the state is heresy.

----------


## Seraphim

Right...we are advocating VOLUNTARY States. Not involuntary ones. Is that distinction really so assanine?




> And when you make rules concerning your land you create a State, by definition, whether you like it or not.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> And when you make rules concerning your land you create a State, by definition, whether you like it or not.


Do I create a state when I walk around owning my body?

----------


## CCTelander

> What have you fully debunked?



Who said *I* had debunked anything. Nor do I have to have done so to have observed said behavior on your part over and over again.

----------


## Travlyr

> Do I create a state when I walk around owning my body?


You create a State when you lay claim to land and make rules concerning that land --- "Law of the Land."

----------


## CCTelander

> Do I create a state when I walk around owning my body?



Of course you do. And by minding your own business and using force only in response to force you're "forcing" others to adopt the NAP.

This thread moved WAY beyond ridiculous about 20 pages ago.

----------


## Travlyr

> Right...we are advocating VOLUNTARY States. Not involuntary ones. Is that distinction really so assanine?


Yes, it is because people advocate "Hate of the State", "Statelessness", "Anti-State", and other such metaphors which distort the debate.

It is a clever "_divide and conquer_" tactic to keep the debate off the counterfeiters who are seriously aggressively violent with their hired thugs in uniform.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> You create a State when you lay claim to land and make rules concerning that land --- "Law of the Land."


What do you call the rules I make concerning my hamburger?

----------


## Travlyr

> What do you call the rules I make concerning my hamburger?


I don't know. What do you call it?

----------


## CCTelander

> What do you call the rules I make concerning my hamburger?



"Law of the Hamburger."

You've now created a fast food franchise.

----------


## Wesker1982

> Oh, what irony!


Thanks! I was wondering what thread I posted this in:




> As for logic, well the ancap would realize that their society is bound to be run over by ruthless dictators where they were either destroyed or someone came to power.


This is very basic and obvious objection that has been discussed ad nauseam. No one has accepted Voluntaryism who first did not think of this objection and then figure out why it is not a problem. It really is the very first thing one has to understand before they accept Voluntaryism. Rothbard responded to this objection decades ago (I think Linda and Morris Tannehill even before that), and *it has been ignored because no one can refute it.* 

Corrupt Defense Agencies and Courts (1973)
Warring Defense Agencies Objection
But Wouldn't Warlords Take Over?
Warring Defense Agencies and Organized Crime (1970) 
Conflict Resolution in a Free Society
Warlord Dictator Objection

Also, *Ron Paul advocates the private production of all defense services* (this is _very_ clear). *I wonder why he is so foolish to ignore that obviously one of these private defense agencies would turn criminal and take over the world*. Or maybe he has concluded that having all the power concentrated into *one coercive monopoly is much more dangerous* than decentralized voluntarily funded defensive services.




> If you can't see that it's not going to last and is nothing more than a hopeless pipe dream, then you need your head examined.


If you can persuade people on a large enough scale to accept lasting limited government, you have a society ready to do without coercive monopolies.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3629820

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> I don't know. What do you call it?


Anarchy.

----------


## Travlyr

> The Federal Reserve System is designed to steal from you every day of your life, your father's life and perhaps your grandfather's life. That is what they do and have been doing since 1914. It is the inflation tax.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No problem. Money is a medium of exchange.
> Food is money. It is high quality money in small quantities, in larger quantities it becomes problematic because it will spoil. Few people will trade anything of value for rotten eggs.Labor is money. I have many times traded my skills for food and other products of value.Paper is money. Paper officially stamped and declared money by the power's that be can be traded.Electronic money exists by declaration.Land is money.
> High quality money is better than low quality money and it is defined by high quality characteristics:
> Durable - Will not rot, burn, or vanish in thin air.Desirable - People want it and will accept it in payment for goods and/or servicesDivisible - Can make both large and small purchasesPortable - Easily carriedScarce - Maintains value according to the immutable laws of supply and demand
> ...


Bumping for comments.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

Already did.




> Uh, we agree with you about the money issue, partner. You're just not taking it far enough because you consider it the core issue.
> 
> The "violence of _any_ day", comes from... _the initiation of violence_.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I spent about a page and a half trying to explain to you why your "sarcastic" criticism of a post was not a valid criticism. You just want to argue about how "anarchy is impossible". You don't care about learning about the opposition's arguments, so why should I bother?
> 
> You're not asking what we think or why we think what we do. You're telling us what we believe and attacking it based on your own presuppositions.
> 
> You get a video.


It turns out after that page and a half that I was right.  Of course, you would never want to admit that an anarchist could be guilty of imperfect logic, since it's pretty much necessary for you to think that humanity can evolve to this higher state of consciousness that will allow them to dismantle the state and live peacefully with one another.  

I have asked quite a few questions that you gave no valid answer to.  If you want to give me a video, fine, but don't expect me to take you seriously if you can't say things by yourself and instead have to constantly refer to your favorite talking head (I wonder if they would be morally evolved enough over the rest to establish what rules you will have..hmm..).

You know who else thought they were morally evolved?   Almost every tyrant in history.

----------


## CCTelander

> You know who else thought they were morally evolved?   Almost every tyrant in history.



Guilt by association? What did you get tired of straw men?

----------


## noneedtoaggress

The problem is not the state! The state is property! The state is life itself! Criticizing the Constitution is heresy!

It must be the Fed. The Fed is the source of "the violence of our day" and slavery! Those anarchocapitalists/voluntaryists are barking up the wrong tree when they talk that heresy stuff. Ron Paul knows all about it, he's the champion of the constitution... except when he says that stuff that's critical about the constitution... but that's heresy and Ron has enough common sense to understand the state like I do, so I'll just ignore that stuff.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> False.  The non-aggression axiom is derived from observation of human action.  It is no more arbitrary than laws (common or otherwise) against theft.  It is the allocation of power to a government that is arbitrary. (Observe the history of governments in history, and you'll notice the reasoning for allocating powers to states or governments is done at the whims of those at the levers of power.  Ask "why have a standing army when it has been a tool of tyranny throughout history?"  and the Constitutionalist's answer is some variant of "just because we like it that way".  The same applies to everything else the regime does.


Demonstrate to me how it's not arbitrary, as well as how laws against theft are not arbitrary.  It's mere existence as a moral principle does not prove that it cannot be arbitrarily accepted or rejected.  If I don't believe in following the non-aggression principle, you would have to engage in a tautology in order to keep arguing that I'm still subject to it.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> It turns out after that page and a half that I was right.


How so?




> Of course, you would never want to admit that an anarchist could be guilty of imperfect logic, since it's pretty much necessary for you to think that humanity can evolve to this higher state of consciousness that will allow them to dismantle the state and live peacefully with one another.


"Humanity" isn't even an entity that exists in the real world, and I never said anything about "evolving into a higher state of consciousness". I said people need to be educated about free markets and liberty. I don't know how many times I have to explain this.




> I have asked quite a few questions that you gave no valid answer to.  If you want to give me a video, fine, but don't expect me to take you seriously if you can't say things by yourself and instead have to constantly refer to your favorite talking head (I wonder if they would be morally evolved enough over the rest to establish what rules you will have..hmm..).
> 
> You know who else thought they were morally evolved?   Almost every tyrant in history.


Why are you here? Do you want to discuss the position we advocate or do you just want to argue about how anarchy is chaos by definition and debunk ideas we don't even hold.

Seriously.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Actually, people believed slavery was necessary for a modern economy at the time. People have to want to abolish slavery before the state can even do anything about it.
> 
> I'm not saying people "magically evolved into more moral beings". I'm saying that people have become more moral due to understanding economics and the nature of liberty better.
> 
> The state is economically inefficient. Period. The free market can provide services better than a coercive monopoly.


So what if they believed that?  The fact is that slaves don't work hard.  They may seem beneficial to the few who enjoy the prestige and comfort of having them, but they will always lose in the market, even if it is only semi-free.  The state, on the other hand...

Uh-huh, and tell me why what you just said isn't the same thing as "magically evolved into more moral beings".  I have already demonstrated why slaves are economically inefficient.  You are trying to have your cake and eat it, too.  You can't tell me that slavery is somehow a result of moral understanding and NOT the market, while the state IS economically inefficient even though the market has failed to remove it.  You can't have it both ways.

Coercive monopolies will exist in either society.  EVERY form of government, including self-government will break down for that reason.  The only thing we can do, and the only option we have, is to control the effects.  Madison said this about factions as well.  There are some things for which you can only control the effects.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

Oh, what irony!

You haven't given me any reason to suspect that you are going to take what we say into consideration, so don't be surprised if I refrain from responding further.

Spinning in circles is getting tiring.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Demonstrate to me how it's not arbitrary, as well as how laws against theft are not arbitrary.  It's mere existence as a moral principle does not prove that it cannot be arbitrarily accepted or rejected.  If I don't believe in following the non-aggression principle, you would have to engage in a tautology in order to keep arguing that I'm still subject to it.


1) why do I have to "prove" the self-evident? 2) what constitutes "proof" to you?  I'm not going to continue to sit here and type out evidence if you're just going to say "that's not good enough!" or some such BS.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Oh, what irony!
> 
> You haven't given me any reason to suspect that you are going to take what we say into consideration, so don't be surprised if I refrain from responding further.
> 
> Spinning in circles is getting tiring.


+a zillion

----------


## nayjevin

> Corrupt Defense Agencies and Courts (1973)
> Warring Defense Agencies Objection
> But Wouldn't Warlords Take Over?
> Warring Defense Agencies and Organized Crime (1970) 
> Conflict Resolution in a Free Society
> Warlord Dictator Objection


What is this I don't even

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> So you are an Austrian Economic Disciple eh? I thought Austrians were smarter than that. I thought you were smarter than that. You're just like funny money ... phony baloney.


Am I the only one who thought this insult was hysterically bad?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Oh, what irony!
> 
> You haven't given me any reason to suspect that you are going to take what we say into consideration, so don't be surprised if I refrain from responding further.
> 
> Spinning in circles is getting tiring.


You're getting tired of your own logical inconsistency.  Maybe you'll grow out of it some day.  

As for your link, I fail to see how that's ironic.  I was talking about OWS people not being receptive to our ideas.  I think I'm pretty receptive.  You just fail to convince anyone since you leave so many questions unanswered and expect us to take it on faith that the whole world will have this magical moral revolution that makes everyone have the same ideas and not want to fight.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> 1) why do I have to "prove" the self-evident? 2) what constitutes "proof" to you?  I'm not going to continue to sit here and type out evidence if you're just going to say "that's not good enough!" or some such BS.


I'm willing to consider your arguments.  The fact is, you keep saying that self-ownership is a fact.  This is true, but it's still your own arbitrary choice to follow it or not.  The mere existence of a logical axiom doesn't prove that it is objectively, morally right to follow that axiom.  I asked that question knowing you couldn't provide such proof because it is logically impossible for a logical axiom to be absolutely morallly right without an absolute source for said axiom.  Its existence doesn't make it morally absolute.  And if it's not absolute, it's arbitrary.

----------


## Travlyr

> Am I the only one who thought this insult was hysterically bad?


Likely. Yet, you may have some "cute" little cheerleaders who will +rep you for your distortions. Nonetheless, facts are facts. You are a socialist disguising yourself as an Austrian economist.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Am I the only one who thought this insult was hysterically bad?



hahahhahahahahahahahahahah

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> hahahhahahahahahahahahahah


Way to pick up the slack, cheerleader.

----------


## Travlyr

> hahahhahahahahahahahahahah


Cheerleader #1

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> You're getting tired of your own logical inconsistency.  Maybe you'll grow out of it some day.
> 
> As for your link, I fail to see how that's ironic.  I was talking about OWS people not being receptive to our ideas.  I think I'm pretty receptive.  You just fail to convince anyone since you leave so many questions unanswered and expect us to take it on faith that the whole world will have this magical moral revolution that makes everyone have the same ideas and not want to fight.


It's ironic because you're acting hypocritically. You claim to be receptive, but have you even considered the _possibility_ that statelessness might be viable? Be honest with me.

Why are you here in this thread discussing this right now? It's pretty apparent that you're not here to engage in discussing the viability of an anarchist society or what one might look like.

No you have already made up your mind, and you're not interested in understanding anything beyond that. You are no different. no. different. from the OWS protesters that you criticized. Period.

I never said there would be a "magical moral revolution that makes everyone have the same ideas". You are being disingenuous, hypocritical, and you're trolling the anarchists because you're not looking to actually discuss anything other than how much "anarchy means chaos" to you.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> The fact is, you keep saying that self-ownership is a fact.  This is true, but it's still your own arbitrary choice to follow it or not.


Self-ownership is axiomatic, a self-evident truth.  To claim you can choose to "not follow it" involves a performative contradiction, since you must exercise self-ownership in order to perform an action.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Way to pick up the slack, cheerleader.





> Cheerleader #1


What Travlyr said was hysterical.  Throw as many ad-hom bombs as you want.

----------


## Travlyr

> What Travlyr said was hysterical.  Throw as many ad-hom bombs as you want.


Lead Cheerleader

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Lead Cheerleader


I'm a Cheerleader for liberty.  You're a Cheerleader for the state.

----------


## ClayTrainor

Rothbard sums up virtually all of these Anarchy vs. Statism debates with one simple quote...

"The great non sequitur committed by defenders of the State,... is to leap from the necessity of society to the necessity of the State." - Murray Rothbard

----------


## noneedtoaggress

Heresy!

----------


## Travlyr

Of course, Rothbard never talks about how land ownership benefits individuals. What is it about Rothbard worshipers that they never ask the obvious questions?

----------


## Travlyr

> Heresy!


Cheerleader #2

Did you give Clay a +rep?

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Of course, Rothbard never talks about how land ownership benefits individuals. What is it about Rothbard worshipers that they never ask the obvious questions?


you mean ones like this:




> So... only the state can provide property. And property can only be used in ways the state says is appropriate, and it can take it away if people find that to be in the best interests of "society".
> 
> And you call this "ownership"?

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Of course, Rothbard never talks about how land ownership benefits individuals.


huh?  You're seriously claiming Rothbard has* NEVER* commented on landownership rights with regards to the individual?




> What is it about Rothbard worshipers that they never ask the obvious questions?


Rothbard worshippers, like Ron Paul?

"In a multitude of ways, Rothbard's work has given not only me but all of us the ammunition we need to fight for the American dream of liberty and prosperity for all mankind." - Ron Paul

----------


## Travlyr

> you mean ones like this:


Yeah. Like that. Why is it so hard to understand that when you lay claim to property it affects the rest of us? Your rules may, or may not, be acceptable to the rest of us. Man is not an Island.

----------


## Travlyr

> huh?  You're seriously claiming Rothbard has* NEVER* commented on landownership rights with regards to the individual?
> 
> 
> 
> Rothbard worshippers, like Ron Paul?
> 
> "In a multitude of ways, Rothbard's work has given not only me but all of us the ammunition we need to fight for the American dream of liberty and prosperity for all mankind." - Ron Paul


No, I said he never talks about the benefits of the State.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Yeah. Like that. Why is it so hard to understand that when you lay claim to property it affect the rest of us? Your rules may, or may not, be acceptable. Man is not an Island.


You're joking right?

The reason we have property is precisely due to the reason that goods are scarce. OF COURSE it affects everyone, that's the point of property in the first place. To reduce conflict by determining use-rights of scarce goods. Come on, man.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> No, I said he never talk about the benefits of the State.


What?  No you didn't.

Here's a direct quote of what you said.




> Of course, Rothbard never talks about how* land ownership* benefits individuals.


The word state was not mentioned once.  And the following quote should give you some insight as to why Rothbard doesn't talk about the supposed "benefits" of a state.

"The state is a gang of thieves writ large" - Murray Rothbard

----------


## Travlyr

> What?  No you didn't.
> 
> Here's a direct quote of what you said.
> 
> 
> 
> The word state was not mentioned once.  And the following quote should give you some insight as to why Rothbard doesn't talk about the supposed "benefits" of a state.
> 
> "The state is a gang of thieves writ large" - Murray Rothbard


Unfortunately, that will be Rothbard's undoing. He was a great economist, and a failed philosopher. In order to effectively argue, then both the benefit and the detriment of the argument must be addressed.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> What?  No you didn't.
> 
> Here's a direct quote of what you said.


You must not have been keeping track. Travylr here defines "the state" as "land laws" and the source of property.

----------


## Travlyr

> You must not have been keeping track. Travylr here defines "the state" as "land laws" and the source of property.


Present your definition.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Unfortunately, that will be Rothbard's undoing. He was a great economist, and a failed philosopher.


I wonder if Ron Paul would agree with that?

"In a multitude of ways, Rothbard's work has given not only me but all of us the ammunition we need to fight for the American dream of liberty and prosperity for all mankind." - Ron Paul




> In order to effectively argue, then both the benefit and the detriment of the argument must be addressed.


What are the benefits of theft?

----------


## Travlyr

> I wonder if Ron Paul would agree with that?
> 
> "In a multitude of ways, Rothbard's work has given not only me but all of us the ammunition we need to fight for the American dream of liberty and prosperity for all mankind." - Ron Paul


I hold tons of respect for Murray N. Rothbard as an economist. Nobody is perfect. His "Hate of the State" is not his best work. "The Mystery of Banking" by Murray Rothbard is excellent.




> What are the benefits of theft?


The benefits of theft are obvious if you can get away with it. The benefits of the State are obvious as well. As a result of land ownership, the State exists - The right to own land is liberating for food, water, housing, peace, and prosperity ... for life.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> The benefits of theft are obvious if you can get away with it.


*Only* for the thief, at the* involuntary expense* of his victims.




> The benefits of the State are obvious as well.


*Only* for those who have the greatest connections to the state, at the *involuntary* *expense* of its victims.




> As a result of land ownership, the State exists -


Are you saying... The land I own *is* a state?




> The right to own land is liberating for food, water, housing, peace, and prosperity ... for life.


The right to private property, including land, is good for all those things.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I hold tons of respect for Murray N. Rothbard as an economist. Nobody is perfect. His "Hate of the State" is not his best work. "The Mystery of Banking" by Murray Rothbard is excellent.


I don't believe for a second that you've actually read his books.

----------


## Travlyr

> *Only* for the thief, at the* involuntary expense* of his victims.


Sure enough.




> *Only* for those who have the greatest connections to the state, at the *involuntary* *expense* of its victims.


Baloney. That is the privilege that counterfeiters enjoy. The State is much different. The State is formed because people claim ownership of land and make rules accordingly.




> Are you saying... The land I own *is* a state?


If you make rules about the land you own, then yes, your laws of the land constitute a State.




> The right to private property, including land, is good for all those things.


That only exists if there are rules that apply to everyone who is affected by your claim.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> You must not have been keeping track. Travylr here defines "the state" as "land laws" and the source of property.


Too bad Ron Paul seems to accept Rothbardian definition...

"*I wanted to see the brilliant writings of theoreticians such as Rothbard translated into practical political action.* To my surprise there was a strong constituency for these views, and I was elected to four terms. Even a person familiar with only a small part of the vast work Rothbard has produced during his career knows his attitude towards politics. *Like Mises, he labels the State as the "social apparatus of violent oppression."*. - Ron Paul

----------


## Travlyr

> I don't believe for a second that you've actually read his books.


I don't care what you believe. You should read his writings too. They are enlightening. 
"The Mystery of Banking" by Murray N. Rothbard.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Sure enough.


Okay, so theft is bad.




> Baloney. That is the privilege that counterfeiters enjoy. The State is much different.


Is taxation theft?  




> If you make rules about the land you own, then yes, your laws of the land constitute a State.


So, when you use the term "state", you're really just using it as synonymous with "private property ownership"?




> That only exists if there are rules that apply to everyone who is affected by your claim.


and if a state (say the us government) rejects my claim to my private property?

----------


## robert68

> I don't care what you believe. You should read his writings too. They are enlightening. 
> "The Mystery of Banking" by Murray N. Rothbard.


He wanted fractional reserve banking outlawed.

----------


## Travlyr

> Okay, so theft is bad.
> 
> 
> 
> Is taxation theft?  
> 
> 
> 
> So, when you use the term "state", you're really just using it as synonymous with "private property ownership"?
> ...


What definition of "State" do you use?

----------


## Travlyr

> He wanted fractional reserve banking outlawed.


And central banking as well.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I don't care what you believe.


And you shouldn't.  But yea... i don't buy for a second that you've read a single Rothbard book, therefore your recommendation is pretty useless to me. 




> You should read his writings too. They are enlightening. 
> "The Mystery of Banking" by Murray N. Rothbard.


I have read me some Rothbard, and intend to continue doing so.  Like Ron Paul, I accept the Rothbardian definition of the state and taxation and recognize him as one of the most important thinkers in history.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> What definition of "State" do you use?


Answer my questions and I'll answer yours.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I have read me some Rothbard, and intend to continue doing so.  Like Ron Paul, I accept the Rothbardian definition of the state and taxation and recognize him as one of the most important thinkers in history.


Srsly?  Rothbard's description of the State seems to be quite different than yours (see Anatomy Of The State).  

Rothbard is pretty much on the same page as Bourne there^^.  Bourne said, "The State is the country acting as a political unit, it is the group  acting as a repository of force, determiner of law, arbiter of justice.  International politics is a power politics because it is a relation of  States and that is what States infallibly and calamitously are, huge  aggregations of human and industrial force that may be hurled against  each other in war. When a country acts as a whole in relation to another  country, or in imposing laws on its own inhabitants, or in coercing or  punishing individuals or minorities, it is acting as a State. The  history of America as a country is quite different from that of America  as a State. In one case it is the drama of the pioneering conquest of  the land, of the growth of wealth and the ways in which it was used, of  the enterprise of education, and the carrying out of spiritual ideals,  of the struggle of economic classes. But as a State, its history is that  of playing a part in the world, making war, obstructing international  trade, preventing itself from being split to pieces, punishing those  citizens whom society agrees are offensive, and collecting money to pay  for all." (from "The State")

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Srsly?  Rothbard's description of the State seems to be quite different than yours (see Anatomy Of The State).


please elaborate.

----------


## Travlyr

> And you shouldn't.  But yea... it don't buy for a second that you've read a single Rothbard book, therefore your recommendation is pretty useless to me. 
> 
> 
> 
> I have read me some Rothbard, and intend to continue doing so.  Like Ron Paul, I accept the Rothbardian definition of the state and taxation and recognize him as one of the most important thinkers in history.


I read Rothbard's "The Mystery of Banking" right after I read Ron Paul's "The Revolution: A Manifesto."
Obviously you haven't bothered to read either.

----------


## Travlyr

> Answer my questions and I'll answer yours.


Ask away.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Ask away.


I already asked.  Are you even reading my posts?

----------


## Travlyr

> I already asked.  Are you even reading my posts?


What question do you want me to answer?

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I read Rothbard's "The Mystery of Banking" right after I read Ron Paul's "The Revolution: A Manifesto."
> Obviously you haven't bothered to read either.


I read the Manifesto front to back.  I haven't read the mystery of banking, but I have read plenty of Rothbard and it's pretty clear that you either misrepresent or misunderstand his positions on multiple occasions, so I really have trouble believing that you've actually read any of his work.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> What question do you want me to answer?


Where you see a "?" after my words.  That means it's a question, and I'm asking for a response.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> please elaborate.


My bad, I was thinking of Bourne (sorry):
The State is the country acting as a political unit, it is the group  acting as a repository of force, determiner of law, arbiter of justice.  International politics is a power politics because it is a relation of  States and that is what States infallibly and calamitously are, huge  aggregations of human and industrial force that may be hurled against  each other in war. When a country acts as a whole in relation to another  country, or in imposing laws on its own inhabitants, or in coercing or  punishing individuals or minorities, it is acting as a State. The  history of America as a country is quite different from that of America  as a State. In one case it is the drama of the pioneering conquest of  the land, of the growth of wealth and the ways in which it was used, of  the enterprise of education, and the carrying out of spiritual ideals,  of the struggle of economic classes. But as a State, its history is that  of playing a part in the world, making war, obstructing international  trade, preventing itself from being split to pieces, punishing those  citizens whom society agrees are offensive, and collecting money to pay  for all."-The State

See how this is different than Trav's and Rev9's understanding of it?  They make the case that the state "is us", but in reality the State exists separate from "us" as a parasite and tyrannical force.

----------


## Travlyr

> I read the Manifesto front to back.  I haven't read the mystery of banking, but I have read plenty of Rothbard and it's pretty clear that you either misrepresent or misunderstand his positions on multiple occasions, so I really have trouble believing that you've actually read any of his work.


Is it difficult for you to understand how a counterfeiter steals from you on a daily basis? If not, then stop the silly nonsense of "Hate the State" & all taxation is theft. If so, then why are you not on a daily mantra of "End The Fed?"

----------


## Travlyr

> Where you see a "?" after my words.  That means it's a question, and I'm asking for a response.


Post #?

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Srsly?  Rothbard's description of the State seems to be quite different than yours (see Anatomy Of The State).  
> 
> Rothbard is pretty much on the same page as Bourne there^^.  Bourne said, "The State is the country acting as a political unit, it is the group  acting as a repository of force, determiner of law, arbiter of justice.  International politics is a power politics because it is a relation of  States and that is what States infallibly and calamitously are, huge  aggregations of human and industrial force that may be hurled against  each other in war. When a country acts as a whole in relation to another  country, or in imposing laws on its own inhabitants, or in coercing or  punishing individuals or minorities, it is acting as a State. The  history of America as a country is quite different from that of America  as a State. In one case it is the drama of the pioneering conquest of  the land, of the growth of wealth and the ways in which it was used, of  the enterprise of education, and the carrying out of spiritual ideals,  of the struggle of economic classes. But as a State, its history is that  of playing a part in the world, making war, obstructing international  trade, preventing itself from being split to pieces, punishing those  citizens whom society agrees are offensive, and collecting money to pay  for all." (from "The State")


How is that not just a longer-winded version of saying the state is a "social apparatus of violent oppression."???

----------


## Travlyr

> My bad, I was thinking of Bourne (sorry):
> The State is the country acting as a political unit, it is the group  acting as a repository of force, determiner of law, arbiter of justice.  International politics is a power politics because it is a relation of  States and that is what States infallibly and calamitously are, huge  aggregations of human and industrial force that may be hurled against  each other in war. When a country acts as a whole in relation to another  country, or in imposing laws on its own inhabitants, or in coercing or  punishing individuals or minorities, it is acting as a State. The  history of America as a country is quite different from that of America  as a State. In one case it is the drama of the pioneering conquest of  the land, of the growth of wealth and the ways in which it was used, of  the enterprise of education, and the carrying out of spiritual ideals,  of the struggle of economic classes. But as a State, its history is that  of playing a part in the world, making war, obstructing international  trade, preventing itself from being split to pieces, punishing those  citizens whom society agrees are offensive, and collecting money to pay  for all."-The State
> 
> See how this is different than Trav's and Rev9's understanding of it?  They make the case that the state "is us", but in reality the State exists separate from "us" as a parasite and tyrannical force.


Do you deny that the State distributes land and resources?

----------


## Travlyr

> My bad, I was thinking of Bourne (sorry):
> The State is the country acting as a political unit, it is the group  acting as a repository of force, determiner of law, arbiter of justice.  International politics is a power politics because it is a relation of  States and that is what States infallibly and calamitously are, huge  aggregations of human and industrial force that may be hurled against  each other in war. When a country acts as a whole in relation to another  country, or in imposing laws on its own inhabitants, or in coercing or  punishing individuals or minorities, it is acting as a State. The  history of America as a country is quite different from that of America  as a State. In one case it is the drama of the pioneering conquest of  the land, of the growth of wealth and the ways in which it was used, of  the enterprise of education, and the carrying out of spiritual ideals,  of the struggle of economic classes. But as a State, its history is that  of playing a part in the world, making war, obstructing international  trade, preventing itself from being split to pieces, punishing those  citizens whom society agrees are offensive, and collecting money to pay  for all."-The State
> 
> See how this is different than Trav's and Rev9's understanding of it?  They make the case that the state "is us", but in reality the State exists separate from "us" as a parasite and tyrannical force.


BTW... Welcome cheerleader #3

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Is it difficult for you to understand how a counterfeiter steals from you on a daily basis?


No.




> If not, then stop the silly nonsense of "Hate the State" & all taxation is theft.


Silly nonsense? lol

"Taxation is theft" - Ron Paul (on multiple occasions)

"I believe that all taxation is theft" - Andrew Napolitano




> If so, then why are you not on a daily mantra of "End The Fed?"


I'm all for ending counterfeiting operations.

----------


## Travlyr

> No.
> 
> 
> 
> Silly nonsense? lol
> 
> "Taxation is theft" - Ron Paul (on multiple occasions)
> 
> "I believe that all taxation is theft" - Andrew Napolitano
> ...


Did you have a question?

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Do you deny that the State distributes land and resources?


No... I deny that it *ought to* distribute land and resources.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Did you have a question?


Yea, I did, and u cited them, failed to answer them, and proceeded to instead ask a question of your own.  I asked you to answer my question first, and you're acting like they're difficult to locate or something.  They aren't difficult to find, but i suppose if you're not actually reading my posts before you respond, you might find it difficult.

----------


## Travlyr

> No... I deny that it *ought to* distribute land and resources.


Right. Yet, it is the distribution of land and resources which liberate. You claim to advocate liberty but deny the resources to individuals to accomplish that goal.

----------


## Travlyr

> Yea, I did, and u cited them, failed to answer them, and proceeded to instead ask a question of your own.  I asked you to answer my question first, and you're acting like they're difficult to locate or something.  They aren't difficult to find, but i supposed if you're not actually reading my posts before you respond, you might find it difficult.


What question? Post #?

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Right. Yet, it is the distribution of land and resources which liberate.


I believe wealth ought to be distributed by free-markets, not governments.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> What question? Post #?


You shouldn't need me to tell you this, unless of course, you're not even reading my posts.  You cited my questions only a few posts ago.

----------


## Travlyr

> I believe wealth ought to be distributed by free-markets, not governments.


So you have no question? You accused me of not answering your question but you don't remember it? Can you direct me to it? What is the post #?

----------


## Travlyr

> You shouldn't need me to tell you this, unless of course, you're not even reading my posts.  You cited my questions only a few posts ago.


Just ask.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Just ask.


I already did.  I'm losing interest, because I suspect you don't even read what I write.

----------


## Travlyr

> You shouldn't need me to tell you this, unless of course, you're not even reading my posts.  You cited my questions only a few posts ago.


Okay. Yes, I consider you head cheerleader.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Okay. Yes, I consider you head cheerleader.


Cool! like i said...

I'm a cheerleader for liberty free-markets, and you're a cheerleader for the state.

----------


## Travlyr

> Cool! like i said...
> 
> I'm a cheerleader for liberty free-markets, and you're a cheerleader for the state.


I fully support an individual's right to own land, for sure. It is liberating.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Originally Posted by Travlyr
> 
> 
> If not, then stop the silly nonsense of "Hate the State" & all taxation is theft.
> 
> 
> Silly nonsense? lol
> 
> "Taxation is theft" - Ron Paul (on multiple occasions)
> ...

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I fully support an individual's right to own land, for sure. It is liberating.


As do I.

----------


## nayjevin

land rightfully obtained

----------


## ClayTrainor

> land rightfully obtained


That's the key right there.

----------


## Travlyr

> land rightfully obtained


What does that mean? The State conquered the lands centuries ago. Now in 2011, the bankers own the land. Did the State rightfully obtain it? Did the bankers rightfully obtain it? Please elaborate.

----------


## CCTelander

> I already did.  I'm losing interest, because I suspect you don't even read what I write.



Either that or he's incapable of comprehending what we write. Personally, I think he's just dismissing any arguments that don't comport with his own preconceived ideas. It's the more charitable conclusion.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> How is that not just a longer-winded version of saying the state is a "social apparatus of violent oppression."???


Well, it's basically the same thing, but more articulate.  I find that articulation is necessary sometimes because people who aren't so well-read on this subject as you and I (like Trav) don't "get" the simple explanation.  Plus, it's important to distinguish a State from voluntary government.  I'm sure you would agree that it's so bad if group A in Pennsylvania forms their own government and everyone therein consents to it.  In the case of a voluntary (and moral, rational) government, people decide for themselves if they want to be governed and one generation cannot enslave the next with laws, debt, etc.

----------


## Travlyr

> Either that or he's incapable of comprehending what we write. Personally, I think he's just dismissing any arguments that don't comport with his own preconceived ideas. It's the more charitable conclusion.


No Clay is full of it. He misread what I wrote, then he falsely claimed that I did not answer his question. I answered it directly just two posts later. He is an empty suit seeking attention.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3695055

----------


## Travlyr

> Well, it's basically the same thing, but more articulate.  I find that articulation is necessary sometimes because people who aren't so well-read on this subject as you and I (like Trav) don't "get" the simple explanation.  Plus, it's important to distinguish a State from voluntary government.  I'm sure you would agree that it's so bad if group A in Pennsylvania forms their own government and everyone therein consents to it.  In the case of a voluntary (and moral, rational) government, people decide for themselves if they want to be governed and one generation cannot enslave the next with laws, debt, etc.


Again, do you deny that the State distributes land and resources?

----------


## Travlyr

> Either that or he's incapable of comprehending what we write. Personally, I think he's just dismissing any arguments that don't comport with his own preconceived ideas. It's the more charitable conclusion.


Welcome - Cheerleader #4

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> What does that mean? The State conquered the lands centuries ago. Now in 2011, the bankers own the land. Did the State rightfully obtain it? Did the bankers rightfully obtain it? Please elaborate.


If I may butt into this conversation-banks as we know them get the power to take land via special privileges granted by the government.  Also, people conquered the land, not the government.  Until people settled the territories, all there was was untamed wilderness.  Government is simply too dumb to do all that.

----------


## CCTelander

> Welcome - Cheerleader #4



Apparently somebody needs their diaper changed. They're acting a bit cranky.

----------


## Travlyr

> If I may butt into this conversation-banks as we know them get the power to take land via special privileges granted by the government.  Also, people conquered the land, not the government.  Until people settled the territories, all there was was untamed wilderness.  Government is simply too dumb to do all that.


Banks do not get their authority from government. Where in the U.S. Constitution does it allow for fiat money?

----------


## ClayTrainor

> No Clay is full of it. He misread what I wrote, then he falsely claimed that I did not answer his question. I answered it directly just two posts later. He is an empty suit seeking attention.


*Baseless* slander and personal attacks. (typical travlyr behavior)  reported to mods.  If they don't respond in any way, I will take that as a hint that I am not welcome here any more and will cease and desist posting here in the future.




> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3695055


That's not the question that I claimed you avoided, and you know it....

Chronological order




> Originally Posted by Travlyr
> 
> 
> If you make rules about the land you own, then yes, your laws of the land constitute a State.
> 
> 
> So, when you use the term "state", you're really just using it as synonymous with "private property ownership"?
> 
> 
> ...

----------


## Travlyr

> Apparently somebody needs their diaper changed. They're acting a bit cranky.


That is dumb. Your intelligence is showing.

----------


## CCTelander

> That is dumb. Your intelligence is showing.

----------


## CCTelander

> *Baseless* slander and personal attacks. (typical travlyr behavior)  reported to mods.  If they don't respond in any way, I will take that as a hint that I am not welcome here any more and *will cease and desist posting here in the future*.



Don't do that, man. Just ignore the idiots and move on to another thread.

----------


## Travlyr

> *Baseless* slander and personal attacks. (typical travlyr behavior)  reported to mods.  If they don't respond in any way, I will take that as a hint that I am not welcome here any more and will cease and desist posting here in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not the question that I claimed you avoided, and you know it....
> 
> Chronological order


Baloney. I answered your question with a question for clarification just two posts later. You want me to answer you without understanding what you mean? That's BS.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I answered your question with a question for clarification just two posts later.


Dude, the first question I asked you in the post you cited was




> So, when you use the term "state", you're really just using it as synonymous with "private property ownership"?


I was asking *YOU* to clarify how you were using the term state*. * And then you respond by essentially asking me the same question!




> What definition of "State" do you use?


So I simply said, answer me first, and you never did and pretended like you had no idea what I was asking, and then proceeded to personally attack me, and state that I'm "full of it".




> You want me to answer you without understanding what you mean? That's BS.


No, I wanted you to explain to me what you mean.

----------


## CCTelander

Neg reppin me now Trav? Wow, that really hurt man. NOT.

Quit acting like such a tool, will ya?

----------


## Travlyr

> Don't do that, man. Just ignore the idiots and move on to another thread.


More cheerleading with nothing important to add. Maybe you should have the head cheerleader *Star*

----------


## Travlyr

> Neg reppin me now Trav? Wow, that really hurt man. NOT.
> 
> Quit acting like such a tool, will ya?


Personal attacks earn - rep.

----------


## CCTelander

> More cheerleading with nothing important to add. Maybe you should have the head cheerleader *Star*



And you have a wonderful evening too, Trav. 

Grow up.

----------


## Travlyr

> Dude, the first question I asked you in the post you cited was
> 
> 
> 
> I was asking *YOU* to clarify how you were using the term state*. * And then you respond by essentially asking me the same question!
> 
> 
> 
> So I simply said, answer me first, and you never did and pretended like you had no idea what I was asking, and then proceeded to personally attack me, and state that I'm "full of it".
> ...


Let's try this again. What definition do you use for the word "State"?

----------


## nayjevin

> What does that mean?


'land rightfully obtained' means land that was not acquired immorally.  We can approximate objective morality on the issue of property rights by examining the set of potential means of acquisition.  Theft, voluntary purchase, conquest, discovery.  I say two of those are moral.  What say you?




> The State conquered the lands centuries ago.


Semantics issue: individuals conquered/exerted control/built fences/worked the land.  'States' or 'forms of government' have claimed authority over a monopoly of protecting those boundaries at various levels and in various ways.  Individuals have given this monopoly on protection over to governmental agencies and entities willingly at times and in some cases, unwillingly at times and in some cases.  Where do we go from here?




> Now in 2011, the bankers own the land.


Do they?  Another semantics issue:  What degree of ownership, if any, can I claim on a house currently under loan contract?  Does private ownership exist while property taxes exist?




> Did the State rightfully obtain it? Did the bankers rightfully obtain it? Please elaborate.


Do the actions of individuals long dead affect otherwise rightful acquisitions today?

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Let's try this again. What definition do you use for the word "State"?


It really is like you don't even read my posts...




> I answered your question with a question for clarification just two posts later.


So this brings me back to....




> Answer my questions and I'll answer yours.


But really... don't bother. I'm done with you.  You've already harshly slandered me and attacked me personally based on either a lie or a misunderstanding. Either way, You seem to have no intention of apologizing for it, and I can only conclude that you dont  have any respect for me or anything I say.  I'm not even convinced that you're actually reading my posts.  

I no longer have any interest in trying to have a conversation with you.  I'm not sure why I ever did, to be honest.

Best of luck in the future.  You'll never be receiving a response from me again.

----------


## Travlyr

> 'land rightfully obtained' means land that was not acquired immorally.  We can approximate objective morality on the issue of property rights by examining the set of potential means of acquisition.  Theft, voluntary purchase, conquest, discovery.  I say two of those are moral.  What say you?


Voluntary purchase and discovery are moral methods of obtaining property. Yet, when the Europeans "discovered" America the land was already "owned" but not claimed as a rightful possession. That is the difference between statelessness and the state, imo. That is all water under the bridge. The State won out. Now, voluntary purchases are the only valid moral transfers.




> Semantics issue: individuals conquered/exerted control/built fences/worked the land.  'States' or 'forms of government' have claimed authority over a monopoly of protecting those boundaries at various levels and in various ways.  Individuals have given this monopoly on protection over to governmental agencies and entities willingly at times and in some cases, unwillingly at times and in some cases.  Where do we go from here?


Representative government was originally designed to "represent" the wishes of the land owners. That was a valid method for making laws of the land because those represented had a direct say in the issues that were important to them. That changed over time and the most notable change was in 1913 when the U.S. Constitution was subverted by bankers. So, first and foremost we must stop the central bankers from inflating the currency and respect the rule of law. Then amendments can be made to reflect what is important to society in the 21st century.




> Do they?  Another semantics issue:  What degree of ownership, if any, can I claim on a house currently under loan contract?  Does private ownership exist while property taxes exist?


Owners equity is a facade based on inflated dollars, yet the State is the owner and the lender is in second position until the mortgage is paid in full. Nonetheless, bankers do not truly own the earth, they just think they do. The inflated money supply makes it virtually impossible to purchase land without the assistance of a banker's loan for most people. Yet, the bankers have not followed the rule of land law, so their land titles are not valid.  It will be interesting to see what happens to land in the near future. If the State taxes the land, then the State is the ultimate owner. It is my opinion that individuals should not be taxed for their land ownership privileges. 




> Do the actions of individuals long dead affect otherwise rightful acquisitions today?


Affect, yes. Direct, I don't think so. The living should be in charge of their own actions. The decisions we make should be ours and ours alone.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> Likely. Yet, you may have some "cute" little cheerleaders who will +rep you for your distortions. Nonetheless, facts are facts. You are a socialist disguising yourself as an Austrian economist.


The statist just negged me, a voluntarist, and called me a socialist? I think that Travlyr is having yet another fit. What is your reason for calling me a statist? My opposition to governments banning politically unpopular firms and protectionism. Brilliant.

It's laughable that you're accusing anyone of pretending to be an Austrian Economist. You reject what the vast majority of the modern Austrian School stands for, and has stood for for decades now. If it were not for Anarchist, you would have no idea what the Austrian School even is. A few weeks ago you even said that there is no need for banking in a modern economy. You have no remote understanding of Austrian Economics. 

In the neg you sent me, you said "It did quiet AED. Perhaps you can learn from his mistakes?". I don't think that you quieted AEF, one of the boards smartest posters, who knows more about Austrian Economics, History, and Libertarian Philosophy than all but two or three people on this board. I think that dumbfounded is more like it. You provided no substantive argument. Virtually all of your posts are just spouting off low level cliches, like "Anarchy would not work", "The Federal Reserve prints money out of thin air". The idea that you know more about Austrian Economics than AED is hysterical.

----------


## Travlyr

> The statist just negged me, a voluntarist, and called me a socialist? I think that Travlyr is having yet another fit. What is your reason for calling me a statist? My opposition to governments banning politically unpopular firms and protectionism. Brilliant.
> 
> It's laughable that you're accusing anyone of pretending to be an Austrian Economist. You reject what the vast majority of the modern Austrian School stands for, and has stood for for decades now. If it were not for Anarchist, you would have no idea what the Austrian School even is. A few weeks ago you even said that there is no need for banking in a modern economy. You have no remote understanding of Austrian Economics. 
> 
> In the neg you sent me, you said "It did quiet AED. Perhaps you can learn from his mistakes?". I don't think that you quieted AEF, one of the boards smartest posters, who knows more about Austrian Economics, History, and Libertarian Philosophy than all but two or three people on this board. I think that dumbfounded is more like it. You provided no substantive argument. Virtually all of your posts are just spouting off low level cliches, like "Anarchy would not work", "The Federal Reserve prints money out of thin air". The idea that you know more about Austrian Economics than AED is hysterical.


Personal attacks on me earn a - rep. What did you expect? Now, when you call me a statist, keep in mind that I follow the teachings of Ron Paul, Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek and I support the constitutional republic and rule of law.

Socialists argue for socialism -- WalMart's destruction of Mom & Pop shops by giving Walmart special incentives and tax breaks that the Mom & Pop shops don't get, then that is socialist redistribution of wealth and central planning. That is why I linked to your socialist claim.

A laissez-faire free-market favors no one and lets the market decide. I don't know if that is the Austrian position, but it is mine. I have never claimed to know more about Austrian Economics than anyone. What I know for a fact is that the American society as a whole was much wealthier in the 50's and 60's prior to President Nixon taking the dollar off of the gold standard. I lived through it. Central banking steals wealth from the taxpayer and gives it to the central planners. That is how and why governments grow.

I also know that Ron Paul argues for competing currencies because it liberates societies. He has repeatedly introduced legislation to achieve that goal. Indeed he talks about central banking and how central planning doesn't work and he never argues publicly for the destruction of the state as do you.

This thread proves that your focus is to attack the State. Yet, when I pointed out that the State exists because land claims are made, not one anarchist has yet admitted that indeed their position is destruction of land ownership. I don't read it from Rothbard, Hoppe, or any other literature. AED has hinted at it along with the long gone LFoD, yet few anarchists make their position clear. I arrived at that conclusion after many months of trying to learn what anarchism was all about. Now I'm looking for someone to give me some straight talk.

So now I ask you. It appears that the NAP is not compatible with land ownership because land claims initiate the need for land laws which introduce the need for taxation. Is it your goal to put an end to individual land ownership? If so, then why is that better than letting people live in their own home on their own land? If not, then how do you justify claiming each individual making-up their own laws of the land is preferable to laws made by elected representatives that apply to all?

And one final question. Given the fact that the central banks creating money out of nothing is counterfeiting, and that in order for a counterfeit organization to keep their power, then they must hire a team of police, aggressively seek competitors, and destroy them by jailing or killing them. The initiation of force from their actions is much more blatant, aggressive, and violent, than the minimal taxation that the existence of a "night watchman state" (constitutional republic) requires. So why is the focus of the NAP not first on the aggressive, destructive, violent, counterfeiters and their police powers?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

Just thought I'd pop back in and say hai guyz!

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Either that or he's incapable of comprehending what we write. Personally, I think he's just dismissing any arguments that don't comport with his own preconceived ideas. It's the more charitable conclusion.


How about persnally, I think you're just patting each other on the back for being good anarchists.  What a douche-fest.

As if you didn't have any biases or preconceived notions...

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Apparently somebody needs their diaper changed. They're acting a bit cranky.


How does a warm welcome to a cheerleader make him cranky?  

I mean, you ARE a cheerleader.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Don't do that, man. Just ignore the idiots and move on to another thread.


No, the IDIOTS are the people walking up and down this thread acting like they're the absolute $#@! and patting each other on the back for all their moral highness.  It's simply disgusting seeing all you coming around here acting like nobody can hold a candle to your moral perfection and grand intelligence.  There's always a group of people who think THEY are the best and the most intelligent, the most EVOLVED.  That's probably what Hitler thought, too.  

Oh, and anybody who responds in aa less than polite manner is lauded, meanwhile slandering from them goes by unnoticed.  What sick $#@!s anarchists are.  I can't imagine being a part of your society, and I doubt I would want to.  The  vitriol around here makes me want to never be an anarchist.  So much for my moral evolution.  Anarchy can rot in hell.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

I was slandered and insulted and lied about by heavenlyboy34 in the private jails thread, but apparently, no anarchists cared about that.  However, when Travlyr gets a little testy in this thread, it's like high treason and he's childishly reported by Clay.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

Dude, Clay, if you really wanted the question answered, you would just give a little reminder of the question instead of beating around the bush like you are.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> No, the IDIOTS are the people walking up and down this thread acting like they're the absolute $#@! and patting each other on the back for all their moral highness.  It's simply disgusting seeing all you coming around here acting like nobody can hold a candle to your moral perfection and grand intelligence.  There's always a group of people who think THEY are the best and the most intelligent, the most EVOLVED.  That's probably what Hitler thought, too.
> 
> Oh, and anybody who responds in aa less than polite manner is lauded, meanwhile slandering from them goes by unnoticed.  What sick $#@!s anarchists are.  I can't imagine being a part of your society, and I doubt I would want to.  The  vitriol around here makes me want to never be an anarchist.  So much for my moral evolution.  Anarchy can rot in hell.


Give me a break... you poor guy, you.  Every manner of insult is thrown around this forum at the anti-statist folks for nothing more than holding a philosophy which some folks such as yourself cannot even manage to grasp is so closely related to the philosophy that you hold that they could share organs.  We peaceably respect the wishes of the mods and owners to keep our anti-state comments here in the philosophy subforum so as to not upset the apparently delicate sensibilities of those who tremble and quake at the mere mention of the word, "anarchy".  

We advocate a logically consistent, wholly natural, respectful, non-violent and voluntary order of society.  None of us are ever going to force you to espouse it, let alone live under it (which is more than can be said for the likes of you), but we sure would appreciate - when you voluntarily engage us in conversation - if you would kindly respond to what we actually are saying about anti-statism, rather than your preconceived notions of it.  

I don't doubt that slings and arrows have been launched in your direction, but dry up your tears about it and grow up - it's nothing worse than what goes on around here on a normal basis... and yet I've never seen anyone foreswear an entire freaking philosophy just because a few folks got frustrated.  

Everything you belly-ache about how the anti-statists behave can be said about you folks.  You guys often run around these threads behaving the exact same way.  No doubt Yosemite Sam will be along any minute now to give all us of the back-slappin' contingent a good talkin' to, and all the so-called minarchists will be whoopin' it up and dishing out +reps.  

Hurray.  Another failed thread.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Dude, Clay, if you really wanted the question answered, you would just give a little reminder of the question instead of beating around the bush like you are.


Nonsense.  Travlyr was VERY CLEARLY prevaricating.

----------


## Wesker1982

> What is this I don't even


???




> Of course, Rothbard never talks about how land ownership benefits individuals.


LOL WUT? FYI, he dedicated a lot of his work to defending property rights, theories on land ownership, etc. I suggest actually reading his work on property rights before making baseless assertions. 




> Yet, it is the distribution of land and resources which liberate. You claim to advocate liberty but deny the resources to individuals to accomplish that goal.


This is either delusional or dishonest. Claiming that because we don't want the State to provide a service means not wanting the service provided at all, does not follow. I have to wonder if you really believe this. If you actually believe this, then you are seriously lost on this whole conversation. 

*They might as well accuse us of wishing men not to eat, because we object to the cultivation of corn by the State.* - Frederic Bastiat 




> Again, do you deny that the State distributes land and resources?


Do you deny that slaves picked cotton? If you object to them providing this service, does that mean you don't want cotton? Serious question. 

No one denies that the violent monopoly known as the State provides this service as of now. The service is desired, but it should be provided by the market, not a violent monopoly. 

You repeat that same question ad nauseam, almost as if it is actually a good point or some sort of good argument. I have no idea what the source of your obsession with this argument is, but it is really weak. 




> Yet, when I pointed out that the State exists because land claims are made, not one anarchist has yet admitted that indeed their position is destruction of land ownership.


Because it is *not true*. The market would provide this service, thus land ownership would not be destroyed. 




> land claims initiate the need for land laws which introduce the need for taxation.


There is no reason why this cannot be funded voluntarily.

----------


## CCTelander

> Give me a break... you poor guy, you.  Every manner of insult is thrown around this forum at the anti-statist folks for nothing more than holding a philosophy which some folks such as yourself cannot even manage to grasp is so closely related to the philosophy that you hold that they could share organs.  We peaceably respect the wishes of the mods and owners to keep our anti-state comments here in the philosophy subforum so as to not upset the apparently delicate sensibilities of those who tremble and quake at the mere mention of the word, "anarchy".  
> 
> We advocate a logically consistent, wholly natural, respectful, non-violent and voluntary order of society.  None of us are ever going to force you to espouse it, let alone live under it (which is more than can be said for the likes of you), but we sure would appreciate - when you voluntarily engage us in conversation - if you would kindly respond to what we actually are saying about anti-statism, rather than your preconceived notions of it.  
> 
> I don't doubt that slings and arrows have been launched in your direction, but dry up your tears about it and grow up - it's nothing worse than what goes on around here on a normal basis... and yet I've never seen anyone foreswear an entire freaking philosophy just because a few folks got frustrated.  
> 
> Everything you belly-ache about how the anti-statists behave can be said about you folks.  You guys often run around these threads behaving the exact same way.  *No doubt Yosemite Sam will be along any minute now to give all us of the back-slappin' contingent a good talkin' to, and all the so-called minarchists will be whoopin' it up and dishing out +reps.* 
> 
> Hurray.  Another failed thread.



THAT'S what this thread has been missing! A visit from old Sam. Just doesn't seem the same without him!

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> No, the IDIOTS are the people walking up and down this thread acting like they're the absolute $#@! and patting each other on the back for all their moral highness.  It's simply disgusting seeing all you coming around here acting like nobody can hold a candle to your moral perfection and grand intelligence.  There's always a group of people who think THEY are the best and the most intelligent, the most EVOLVED.  That's probably what Hitler thought, too.  
> 
> Oh, and anybody who responds in aa less than polite manner is lauded, meanwhile slandering from them goes by unnoticed.  What sick $#@!s anarchists are.  I can't imagine being a part of your society, and I doubt I would want to.  The  vitriol around here makes me want to never be an anarchist.  So much for my moral evolution.  Anarchy can rot in hell.


Yep. See, _this_ is my point.

*This is why you're here. It's not to evaluate the viability of a philosophy at all. It's not to discuss whether statelessness is possible or not. This is all about you. Your emotional reaction to the way you perceive people. You couldn't care less about understanding and discussing the philosophy, could you?*

Oh, what irony!

You're acting like a hypocrite. How are you acting _any_ differently from those wall streeters you criticized now?

 "mweh, i don't like those anarchists people they are so full of themselves. i'm gonna teach em a lesson about 'anarchy'. they must not have their heads on straight if they can't see it's impossible and then they are so high and mighty about it." 

You never cared about having an honest discussion about the philosophy, did you? You aren't here to talk about it. You're here cause you find "the anarchists" annoying, aren't you?




> Don't be surprised if they act with animosity toward your ideas because you can't automatically assume that they will be open to them just because you have so much confidence in your persuasion abilities. Some people really just aren't open to it.


Uh huh.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Present your definition.


For what purpose? You ignore 90% of my responses anyway and I'm getting tired of going in circles. I don't particularly get the feeling that you're very genuine either.

----------


## Travlyr

> For what purpose? You ignore 90% of my responses anyway and I'm getting tired of going in circles. I don't particularly get the feeling that you're very genuine either.


Straight forward honest question - What is your understanding of the definition of the State?

----------


## Travlyr

> ???
> 
> 
> 
> LOL WUT? FYI, he dedicated a lot of his work to defending property rights, theories on land ownership, etc. I suggest actually reading his work on property rights before making baseless assertions. 
> 
> 
> 
> This is either delusional or dishonest. Claiming that because we don't want the State to provide a service means not wanting the service provided at all, does not follow. I have to wonder if you really believe this. If you actually believe this, then you are seriously lost on this whole conversation. 
> ...


Taking multiple conversations out of context and replying like this is disingenuous and proves that you are more interested in distorting the conversation than discussing it. Part of this was in response to something ClayTrainor posted, part in response to HeavenlyBoy, and bits and pieces from a response to Cutlerzzz. It is an effective way to obfuscate the conversation but it is not honest.

If you want an honest discussion, then I'm up for that. But this kind of bull$#@! totally distorts the points I was making. Also, it is curious that you would ignore the most important questions that I asked Cutlerzzz.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

It's not that I don't think that was an honest question there, brother. I'm just getting tired of discussing things with you because I don't think you're being honest with yourself, first and foremost.

Sorry.

----------


## Travlyr

> Nonsense.  Travlyr was VERY CLEARLY prevaricating.


Baloney. ClayTrainor claimed that I did not respond to his question. So I ask him to repeat it. He wouldn't do it. So went back through the thread, found a question, answered it, then he claimed I answered the wrong question. I don't know why he cannot articulate his understanding of the State. When I asked again, he went off into a rant about how he is mistreated and still never responded. After getting multiple neg reps from Clay because he disagrees with me, I welcome his offer to stay out of the debate.

FWIW: The understanding of the definition of the State is fundamental to this thread.

----------


## Travlyr

> It's not that I don't think that was an honest question there, brother. I'm just getting tired of discussing things with you because I don't think you're being honest with yourself, first and foremost.
> 
> Sorry.


So you don't know what is your understanding of the definition of the State?

----------


## Travlyr

> Give me a break... you poor guy, you.  *Every manner of insult is thrown around this forum at the anti-statist folks for nothing more than holding a philosophy which some folks such as yourself cannot even manage to grasp is so closely related to the philosophy that you hold that they could share organs.*  We peaceably respect the wishes of the mods and owners to keep our anti-state comments here in the philosophy subforum so as to not upset the apparently delicate sensibilities of those who tremble and quake at the mere mention of the word, "anarchy".  
> 
> We advocate a logically consistent, wholly natural, respectful, non-violent and voluntary order of society.  None of us are ever going to force you to espouse it, let alone live under it (which is more than can be said for the likes of you), but we sure would appreciate - when you voluntarily engage us in conversation - if you would kindly respond to what we actually are saying about anti-statism, rather than your preconceived notions of it.  
> 
> I don't doubt that slings and arrows have been launched in your direction, but dry up your tears about it and grow up - it's nothing worse than what goes on around here on a normal basis... and yet I've never seen anyone foreswear an entire freaking philosophy just because a few folks got frustrated.  
> 
> Everything you belly-ache about how the anti-statists behave can be said about you folks.  You guys often run around these threads behaving the exact same way.  No doubt Yosemite Sam will be along any minute now to give all us of the back-slappin' contingent a good talkin' to, and all the so-called minarchists will be whoopin' it up and dishing out +reps.  
> 
> Hurray.  Another failed thread.


Statelessness vs. State are not similar philosophies. Some people might even call them exact opposites. Indeed I do.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

That's not what I said, was it?

----------


## CCTelander

> That's not what I said, was it?



And he has the unmitigated gall to accuse Wesker1982 of being "disingenuous."

----------


## Travlyr

> That's not what I said, was it?


No it is not what you said, but my question is a reasonable question in a thread titled: I'm done making excuses for the State

That seems to be at the heart of the disagreement in the thread. I made my claim that a State is formed when land claims are made and boundaries are drawn because land law immediately follows and taxation seems to me like a reasonable way to pay for the work required to record land deeds.

Do you agree with my definition?

----------


## Travlyr

> And he has the unmitigated gall to accuse Wesker1982 of being "disingenuous."


He took bits and pieces of my conversation with multiple participants and distorted my points. That's disingenuous.

What does your response have to do with?: I'm done making excuses for the State

----------


## RiseAgainst

This thread should be nominated for an academy award.  I laughed, I cried, its a veritable grand tour of human emotions.

The only thread that rivals it was the epic circle debate with the Zeitgeister who employed the exact tactics if Travlyr.

----------


## fisharmor

> This thread proves that your focus is to attack the State. Yet, when I pointed out that the State exists because land claims are made, not one anarchist has yet admitted that indeed their position is destruction of land ownership. I don't read it from Rothbard, Hoppe, or any other literature. AED has hinted at it along with the long gone LFoD, yet few anarchists make their position clear. I arrived at that conclusion after many months of trying to learn what anarchism was all about. Now I'm looking for someone to give me some straight talk.


*
http://tinyurl.com/6gy9lll*

Read.

In medieval Ireland's stateless legal system, legal distinctions were made between the free and the unfree.  
The primary difference between the two classes was *ownership of land*.
The free class was further stratified by the amount of property owned.

Some of us aren't just spouting theory: we're looking at historical examples of stateless societies.
Private land ownership exists in quite a few historical stateless societies.

I am an anarchist, and it is not my purpose to destroy land ownership.
You can not rightly claim that the state must exist to secure land ownership.

----------


## Travlyr

> No, the IDIOTS are the people walking up and down this thread acting like they're the absolute $#@! and patting each other on the back for all their moral highness.  It's simply disgusting seeing all you coming around here acting like nobody can hold a candle to your moral perfection and grand intelligence.  There's always a group of people who think THEY are the best and the most intelligent, the most EVOLVED.  That's probably what Hitler thought, too.  
> 
> Oh, and anybody who responds in aa less than polite manner is lauded, meanwhile slandering from them goes by unnoticed.  What sick $#@!s anarchists are.  I can't imagine being a part of your society, and I doubt I would want to.  The  vitriol around here makes me want to never be an anarchist.  So much for my moral evolution.  Anarchy can rot in hell.





> Yep. See, _this_ is my point.
> 
> *This is why you're here. It's not to evaluate the viability of a philosophy at all. It's not to discuss whether statelessness is possible or not. This is all about you. Your emotional reaction to the way you perceive people. You couldn't care less about understanding and discussing the philosophy, could you?*
> 
> Oh, what irony!
> 
> You're acting like a hypocrite. How are you acting _any_ differently from those wall streeters you criticized now?
> 
>  "mweh, i don't like those anarchists people they are so full of themselves. i'm gonna teach em a lesson about 'anarchy'. they must not have their heads on straight if they can't see it's impossible and then they are so high and mighty about it." 
> ...


Paul is exactly right. You prove it by changing his name from PaulConventionWV to HypocriticalWV. That is more demonstration that lack of respect and honesty in discussion is what you do. Furthermore, you backslapping cheerleaders are proving you don't understand your own philosophy enough to articulate it.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> No it is not what you said, but my question is a reasonable question in a thread titled: I'm done making excuses for the State
> 
> That seems to be at the heart of the disagreement in the thread. I made my claim that a State is formed when land claims are made and boundaries are drawn because land law immediately follows and taxation seems to me like a reasonable way to pay for the work required to record land deeds.
> 
> Do you agree with my definition?


Travlyr, you don't get it, do you?

I really don't see a reason to even respond to you at this point. You haven't shown me that you're willing to take us seriously at all. IMHO, I don't even feel like you're being honest with yourself. Why should I attempt to discussing things with you? What do you think this is going to solve? You're going to define things the way you want to define them to support your worldview about how the state is beneficial and the federal reserve is the problem. You don't want to criticize the state fundamentally. You don't. I highly suspect my answering that question or any further responses will result in absolutely nothing but you ignoring most of what I say. We've gone in circles here before already.

----------


## Travlyr

> *
> http://tinyurl.com/6gy9lll*
> 
> Read.
> 
> In medieval Ireland's stateless legal system, legal distinctions were made between the free and the unfree.  
> The primary difference between the two classes was *ownership of land*.
> The free class was further stratified by the amount of property owned.
> 
> ...


Thank you for a reasonable response. Years ago before the population of the world reached billions, land boundaries were not as important as they are today. It is my contention that clearly defined land boundaries became more important to the world's inhabitants around the 17th to 18th centuries. 

And I do not claim that the State must exist to secure land ownership. I claim that land ownership boundaries and the land laws created to prove land ownership define the State. Not the other way around.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Paul is exactly right. You prove it by changing his name from PaulConventionWV to HypocriticalWV. That is more demonstration that lack of respect and honesty in discussion is what you do. Furthermore, you backslapping cheerleaders are proving you don't understand your own philosophy enough to articulate it.


Did you actually _read_ what statements of his I was quoting when I put that in the quote box?

----------


## Travlyr

> Travlyr, you don't get it, do you?
> 
> I really don't see a reason to even respond to you at this point. You haven't shown me that you're willing to take us seriously at all. IMHO, I don't even feel like you're being honest with yourself. Why should I attempt to discussing things with you? What do you think this is going to solve? You're going to define things the way you want to define them to support your worldview about how the state is beneficial and the federal reserve is the problem. You don't want to criticize the state fundamentally. You don't. I highly suspect my answering that question or any further responses will result in absolutely nothing but you ignoring most of what I say. We've gone in circles here before already.


The definition of a State is a reasonable question that no one seems to want to answer.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

It's not that no one wants to answer it (and others already have). I'd love to answer it if I thought it would lead to _anything_ productive. I don't. 
I don't see the point in discussing things with you anymore. You want to take another circular spin around the block? No thanks, I've been on this ride too long already.

"No one" wants to answer you anymore because you don't take what we say seriously.

----------


## Travlyr

> It's not that no one wants to answer it. I'd love to answer it if I thought it would lead to _anything_ productive. I don't. 
> I don't see the point in discussing things with you anymore. You want to take another circular spin around the block? No thanks, I've been on this ride too long already.
> 
> "No one" wants to answer you anymore because you don't take what we say seriously.


Here is what I suspect since no one will answer it. I suspect that you know my definition is right. Furthermore I suspect that stateless philosophy will be exposed for necessarily eliminating land ownership in order to conform to the NAP.

It is tough to admit. I don't blame you for not answering.

----------


## fisharmor

> Thank you for a reasonable response. Years ago before the population of the world reached billions, land boundaries were not as important as they are today. It is my contention that clearly defined land boundaries became more important to the world's inhabitants around the 17th to 18th centuries.


Then I offer again the stateless example of Kowloon Walled City in Hong Kong, which until its destruction in the early 1990s was the most densely populated patch of Earth ever.
The government of Hong Kong paid compensation to about 33,000 residents and businesses in the process of getting them out.  Who were they compensating?  33,000 different collectives, or identifiable property owners?




> And I do not claim that the State must exist to secure land ownership. I claim that land ownership boundaries and the land laws created to prove land ownership define the State. Not the other way around.


Great, then you're on our side.
If you define stateless Ireland, which had a system of law and land ownership, as a "state", and we define it as "anarchy", why do we hate each other?  It's the same thing.

I define the state as a monopoly claim on the use of violence within a geographical area.
Brehon law was not a state under my definition, because it was an entirely voluntary system.  
But it apparently was a state under your definition.

----------


## Becker

> Here is what I suspect since no one will answer it. I suspect that you know my definition is right. Furthermore I suspect that stateless philosophy will be exposed for necessarily eliminating land ownership in order to conform to the NAP.
> 
> It is tough to admit. I don't blame you for not answering.


I think I agree.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Here is what I suspect since no one will answer it.


Except this is not the case. Other people have answered this. I haven't, and I've given you my reasons why. You can pretend that it's because you're right and I'm wrong all you want. I don't find you a genuine person to discuss this with. If you were we wouldn't be here _55 pages_ later talking about this.




> I suspect that you know my definition is right. Furthermore I suspect that stateless philosophy will be exposed for necessarily eliminating land ownership in order to conform to the NAP.
> 
> It is tough to admit. I don't blame you for not answering.


And I suspect you're trying to entice me into continuing to argue with you.

----------


## CCTelander

> Except this is not the case. Other people have answered this. I haven't, and I've given you my reasons why. You can pretend that it's because you're right and I'm wrong all you want. I don't find you a genuine person to discuss this with. If you were we wouldn't be here _55 pages_ later talking about this.
> 
> 
> 
> And I suspect you're trying to entice me into continuing to argue with you.



Obvious Troll is obvious.

----------


## RiseAgainst

> Here is what I suspect since no one will answer it. I suspect that you know my definition is right. Furthermore I suspect that stateless philosophy will be exposed for necessarily eliminating land ownership in order to conform to the NAP.
> 
> It is tough to admit. I don't blame you for not answering.


Yep, lol.  You nailed it!  Hundreds of years of philosophical debate and works by some of histories greatest minds and its all been debunked by Travlyrs definition of 'I buy land therefore the state is.'

/epicrolleyes

----------


## Travlyr

> Then I offer again the stateless example of Kowloon Walled City in Hong Kong, which until its destruction in the early 1990s was the most densely populated patch of Earth ever.
> The government of Hong Kong paid compensation to about 33,000 residents and businesses in the process of getting them out.  Who were they compensating?  33,000 different collectives, or identifiable property owners?
> 
> 
> 
> Great, then you're on our side.
> If you define stateless Ireland, which had a system of law and land ownership, as a "state", and we define it as "anarchy", why do we hate each other?  It's the same thing.
> 
> I define the state as a monopoly claim on the use of violence within a geographical area.
> ...


From simple research, it seems that the Triads were in charge. Kowloon Walled City

I do believe people should be able to live like that if they wish. Personally, I wouldn't want anything to do with it.

Thanks for your definition as well. IMO, the monopoly claim on the use of violence is a result of land law which is necessitated by defining land boundaries. So yes, while I am not interested in taking any tags, it seems that my definition of the State and your definition of Stateless are the same.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> It's not that no one wants to answer it (and others already have). I'd love to answer it if I thought it would lead to _anything_ productive. I don't. 
> I don't see the point in discussing things with you anymore. You want to take another circular spin around the block? No thanks, I've been on this ride too long already.
> 
> "No one" wants to answer you anymore because you don't take what we say seriously.


Please don't waste anymore energy on trying to deal with Trav.  You'll drive yourself crazy (as well as feed his trolling).

----------


## Travlyr

> Please don't waste anymore energy on trying to deal with Trav.  You'll drive yourself crazy (as well as feed his trolling).


One more dig eh? Is it because you don't have anything important to contribute? Counterfeiters aggressively steal, cage, and kill people but you focus on destruction of the State which most of you cannot even define. And then you call me a troll. Sheesh. 

Is it because I advocate the teachings of Ron Paul, Ludwig von Mises, and the rule of law which does not allow for assassinations, funny money, or undeclared wars?  Interesting. Very interesting.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> "*I wanted to see the brilliant writings of theoreticians such as Rothbard translated into practical political action.* To my surprise there was a strong constituency for these views, and I was elected to four terms. Even a person familiar with only a small part of the vast work Rothbard has produced during his career knows his attitude towards politics. *Like Mises, he labels the State as the "social apparatus of violent oppression."*. - Ron Paul





> "Governments by their very nature, notoriously compete with liberty, *even when the stated purpose for establishing a particular government is to protect liberty.*" - Ron Paul, Introduction to Liberty Defined





> "*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.*





> MHD: "What do you say to people who advocate for self-government rather than a return to the Constitution? Just like ..."
> 
> Ron Paul: "Great. Fine. *And I think that's really what my goal is.*"





> *"Taxation is theft"* - Ron Paul


Yawn.

----------


## RiseAgainst

> One more dig eh? Is it because you don't have anything important to contribute? Counterfeiters aggressively steal, cage, and kill people but you focus on destruction of the State which most of you cannot even define. And then you call me a troll. Sheesh.


You continue to repeat this little bit of propoganda as though you are trying to infer that anarchists believe in central banking and fiat money.  Could you please point out to me where any anarchist here, or any anarchist philosopher anywhere has advocated such a thing?  You have called yourself a laissez faire capitalist, I can show you many in that camp who do advocate just these things, including the Godfather himself Milton Freidman.




> Is it because I advocate the teachings of Ron Paul, Ludwig von Mises, and the rule of law which does not allow for assassinations, funny money, or undeclared wars?  Interesting. Very interesting.


You advocate nothing of the sort.  For if you truly understood von Mises you would not be ignoring his own words when he lauded Rothbards works as the logical successor to his own, pickung up where he left off.  Interesting to note also that you have dropped Rothbard from your list after unsuccessfully trying to claim he supported your view of a legitimate state.  Perhaps you should drop by Mises.org and let me know how the namesake institution of the man suppprts your theories.

But alas, in the end the Mises', Rothbard's, Hoppe's, Menken's, Woods' et al of this world are mere intellectual lightweights compared to the mighty Travlyr, right?

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Dude, Clay, if you really wanted the question answered, you would just give a little reminder of the question instead of beating around the bush like you are.


I lost interest in having my questions answered by him when it started to seem like he wasn't even reading my posts.

It was already* extremely obvious* what questions I was referring to, he even cited them in one of his posts, lol.    Travlyr proceeded to pretend like he doesn't know what I was talking about, then he flatout lied about answering them, and proceeded to simply attack me personally based on those lies.

Oh well... ye backclappin' minarchists will be blackslappin' minarchists.

----------


## RiseAgainst

> Yawn.


You forgot the most important one:

"Government is the enemy of liberty." ~ Ron Paul, CPAC 2010

----------


## ClayTrainor

Hey Paul...




> Originally Posted by PaulConventionWV
> 
> 
> The fact is, you keep saying that self-ownership is a fact. This is true, but it's still your own arbitrary choice to follow it or not.
> 
> 
> Self-ownership is axiomatic, a self-evident truth. To claim you can choose to "not follow it" involves a performative contradiction, since you must exercise self-ownership in order to perform an action.


Did I clear it up for you?  You never responded, so I'm not sure.  Do you accept Self-Ownership as Axiomatic?

----------


## robert68

For the new and relatively new members, Travlyr has done this before in very long threads on this subject.

----------


## Becker

> Hey Paul...
> 
> 
> 
> Did I clear it up for you?  You never responded, so I'm not sure.  Do you accept Self-Ownership as Axiomatic?


I think I can accept anything as axiomatic

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Here is what I suspect since no one will answer it. I suspect that you know my definition is right. Furthermore I suspect that stateless philosophy will be exposed for necessarily eliminating land ownership in order to conform to the NAP.
> 
> It is tough to admit. I don't blame you for not answering.


Bunk, and you know it.  It's not like this is the first time we've tried to have a discussion on this topic, Trav.  You're well-aware that the state has been defined by the anti-statist side.  You are yet again being disingenuous.  I'm not responding for you - I'm responding to the poor folks who may have wandered into this thread and through some misfortune presume that you are making some kind of actual point.

As NNTA said,




> It's not that no one wants to answer it. I'd love to answer it if I thought it would lead to anything productive. I don't. 
> I don't see the point in discussing things with you anymore. You want to take another circular spin around the block? No thanks, I've been on this ride too long already.
> 
> *"No one" wants to answer you anymore because you don't take what we say seriously.*

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Yep, lol.  You nailed it!  Hundreds of years of philosophical debate and works by some of histories greatest minds and its all been debunked by Travlyrs definition of 'I buy land therefore the state is.'
> 
> /epicrolleyes


lol  :thumbs:

/back-slappin'

----------


## CCTelander

> Bunk, and you know it.  It's not like this is the first time we've tried to have a discussion on this topic, Trav.  You're well-aware that the state has been defined by the anti-statist side.  You are yet again being disingenuous.  I'm not responding for you - I'm responding to the poor folks who may have wandered into this thread and through some misfortune presume that you are making some kind of actual point.
> 
> As NNTA said,



He's moved well beyond disingenuous into flat out mendacity as far as I'm concerned. He KNOWS he's been given definitions of the state by almost every anarchist/voluntaryist on this friggin' board, yet he continues to FALSELY claim that he hasn't.

ETA: Oh damn! There I go bein' a "backslapper" again!

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I think I can accept anything as axiomatic


Please Elaborate.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Statelessness vs. State are not similar philosophies. Some people might even call them exact opposites. Indeed I do.


There's very little distance between the very small state you advocate and the stateless society the anti-state folks in this thread advocate.  It's only your short-coming if you think that what you advocate and what we advocate are "exact opposites".

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Please Elaborate.


Careful what you ask for...

----------


## Travlyr

> There's very little distance between the very small state you advocate and the stateless society the anti-state folks in this thread advocate.  It's only your short-coming if you think that what you advocate and what we advocate are "exact opposites".





> *Liberalism is not anarchism, nor has it anything whatsoever to do with anarchism.* The liberal understands quite clearly 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 of 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 the person who will not respect the lives, health, personal freedom, or private property of others to acquiesce in the rules of life in society. This is the function that the liberal doctrine assigns to the state: the protection of property, liberty, and peace. - Ludwig von Mises


I am not alone in my understanding of the differences.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> He's moved well beyond disingenuous into flat out mendacity as far as I'm concerned. He KNOWS he's been given definitions of the state by almost every anarchist/voluntaryist on this friggin' board, yet he continues to FALSELY claim that he hasn't.
> 
> ETA: Oh damn! There I go bein' a "backslapper" again!


Well if that ain't the confusticatinest, most nonsensicalest, bunch of hogslop that's ever been perpetrated on this here board!  The lot of ya should be rounded up and shipped off to a back-slappin' shangri-la, unicorn-infested anarcho-island with every last miserable copy of _For a New Liberty_!  Yer embracing a fairy-tale, and if it takes every last can of verbal whoop-ass I have I swear I'll finally beat it inter yer brains!  


Warmest Regards,
A Son of Liberty

----------


## CCTelander

> Well if that ain't the confusticatinest, most nonsensicalest, bunch of hogslop that's ever been perpetrated on this here board!  The lot of ya should be rounded up and shipped off to a back-slappin' shangri-la, unicorn-infested anarcho-island with every last miserable copy of _For a New Liberty_!  Yer embracing a fairy-tale, and if it takes every last can of verbal whoop-ass I have I swear I'll finally beat it inter yer brains!  
> 
> 
> Warmest Regards,
> A Son of Liberty



LMAO!!!

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I am not alone in my understanding of the differences.


I missed the part where Mises called liberalism and anarchism "exact opposites".  

Do you understand how this whole philosophy thing is supposed to work, Trav?

----------


## Becker

> Please Elaborate.


i just meant, whatever you say, as long as you say 'it's axiomatic' or "contingent on...." I have no problem hearing you out. and no reason to disagree.

if you say "my axiom is that 2+3 = 6" I can accept it, as long as we are on the same page, that it's merely axiomatic, based on a new axiom not accepted by most people.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

Oh my... are we about to get another lesson in moral relativism?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *I missed the part where Mises called liberalism and anarchism "exact opposites". * 
> 
> Do you understand how this whole philosophy thing is supposed to work, Trav?


It's because he doesn't.  In his book "Liberalism", he doesn't even touch on anarchism.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> I am not alone in my understanding of the differences.


YAWN.

----------


## ClayTrainor

hmmm...  I wonder how mises defined the state? 

"*I wanted to see the brilliant writings of theoreticians such as Rothbard translated into practical political action.* To my surprise there was a strong constituency for these views, and I was elected to four terms. Even a person familiar with only a small part of the vast work Rothbard has produced during his career knows his attitude towards politics. *Like Mises, he labels the State as the "social apparatus of violent oppression."*. - Ron Paul

"State and government are the social apparatus of violent coercion and repression." - Mises

----------


## Travlyr

> I missed the part where Mises called liberalism and anarchism "exact opposites".


I understand in your world that Stateless = State. In my world they are opposites.

Definition of STATELESS - 1: having no state



> Do you understand how this whole philosophy thing is supposed to work, Trav?


I am beginning to understand. First, you must ignore word definitions and make stuff up. Then when you don't make any sense because you cannot articulate a position you do not understand, then you criticize your opponent, call them a troll, post pictures of people face palming, and cheer others on by backslapping your buddies who do not understand it either. Then you claim the moral high road and say "Win!"

----------


## ClayTrainor

> i just meant, whatever you say, as long as you say 'it's axiomatic' or "contingent on...." I have no problem hearing you out. and no reason to disagree.
> 
> if you say "my axiom is that 2+3 = 6" I can accept it, as long as we are on the same page, that it's merely axiomatic, based on a new axiom not accepted by most people.


Your equation is false because you fail to acknowledge mathematical axioms. 

In order to solve a math problem there are axiomatic truths that must be respected to determine whether the equation is true or false.  This is the difference between the objective nature of mathematics and writing random symbols down on pages to mean anything, like you have just done.

----------


## Becker

> Your equation is false because you fail to acknowledge mathematical axioms.


it is only false based on what you've accepted as axioms so far. 





> In order to solve a math problem there are axiomatic truths that must be respected to determine whether the equation is true or false.  This is the difference between the objective nature of mathematics and writing random symbols down on pages to mean anything, like you have just done.


both require axioms, so once accepted, everything would be fine. 

there's nothing wrong with switching the symbols 5 and 6 and making complete sense of math as we know it, it's just not what we've been used to.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

Oh good - we ARE about to get another lesson in moral relativism!

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> *In my world* they are opposites.


In "my world" none of those Ron Paul quotes really happened. In "my world", Mises is describing the same argument I'm having.

\\



It can be your world too, for just $49.95 a day (tax agents are already on their way).

Welcome to TravlyrTown, where fact becomes fiction and fiction becomes fantasy - the most amazing place on earth. 
Remember folks, ignorance... is bliss.

_Heretics will be prosecuted._

----------


## fisharmor

> From simple research, it seems that the Triads were in charge. Kowloon Walled City


Well, if you follow the link, you don't even have to scroll down....
"From the 1950s to the 1970s, it was controlled by Triad*s"*
and then
" In 1987, the Walled City contained 33,000"
and then
"demolition began in March 1993"

You can't link to an article that shows that the Triads were *not* in control of the place during the time of its highest population, which population I was using as an argument to show that property rights were enforced without being subjugated involuntarily, and then insinuate that my argument is invalid because Triad control is equivalent to a state.




> I do believe people should be able to live like that if they wish. Personally, I wouldn't want anything to do with it.


So, you agree that I should be able to live without an entity claiming a monopoly on the use of violence in my locality?  I wish to live "like that", which is, as far as anyone can tell, how they lived for 20 years.




> Thanks for your definition as well. IMO, the monopoly claim on the use of violence is a result of land law which is necessitated by defining land boundaries. So yes, while I am not interested in taking any tags, it seems that my definition of the State and your definition of Stateless are the same.


Only I'm giving you examples of where that monopoly wasn't developed.  I can show you examples of stateless societies (under my definition) which have land law, which means that you have your order reversed - the state exists first, and then imposes land law.
In fact, this is *exactly* what happened in both examples I offered.
In the Ireland PDF there are details about why, exactly, the Irish hate the English so much: the English were $#@!ing up their laws.
Ireland was finally "state-ized" for good when Cromwell marched in and systematically executed 14% of the population.
KWC was finally "state-ized" when HK marched in and forcibly removed the last people they couldn't buy out, and then they bulldozed the place.
Both had systems of property ownership.  They preexisted their current statist form.
Therefore property ownership exists before the state, not as a consequence of it.

If anarchy doesn't work, it's not for any reason you ever list.
It doesn't work because neighboring states won't tolerate it.
The nature of the state is violence and subjugation.  
The state has no interest in land laws or any other law - it only has interest in slavery, rape, torture, war, and death.
These are its only tools.  When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

I know I'm nothing but a nail.  I know that any state, no matter what form, is never going to see me differently.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> it is only false based on what you've accepted as axioms so far.


It doesn't matter whether I've accepted them, they are still universally true.  Mathematics is an objective concept rooted in axiomatic principles, and the subjective opinions of human beings don't change the universally true nature of axioms.




> there's nothing wrong with switching the symbols 5 and 6 and making complete sense of math as we know it, it's just not what we've been used to.


There's been many different symbols used by many different cultures in mathematics, and still are today.  Roman Numerals and the Decimal system to name the 2 more popular ones. The use of different symbols, does not change the axioms they are rooted in, otherwise it simply has nothing to do with math.  




> This is the difference between the objective nature of mathematics  and writing random symbols down on pages to mean anything, like you have  just done.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I understand in your world that Stateless = State. In my world they are opposites.
> 
> Definition of STATELESS - 1: having no state


This list of what you understand, Trav, seems to be short, and disappointing... :ahem:




> I am beginning to understand. First, you must ignore word definitions and make stuff up. Then when you don't make any sense because you cannot articulate a position you do not understand, then you criticize your opponent, call them a troll, post pictures of people face palming, and cheer others on by backslapping your buddies who do not understand it either. Then you claim the moral high road and say "Win!"


We're discussing philsophy, here.  Merriam-Websters is a handy tool in an 8th grade English class, but not particularly operative when it comes to discussing and discovering underlying truths.  This is understandably an area in which you struggle.  Perhaps we'd all be better served with a more equipped defender of the state?  

Maybe you could recommend one?  Because repeating unsubstantiated assertions and ignoring arguments - tactics you employ - serves your position poorly.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Self-ownership is axiomatic, a self-evident truth.  To claim you can choose to "not follow it" involves a performative contradiction, since you must exercise self-ownership in order to perform an action.


You can acknowledge the existence of an axiomatic truth and still not respect it.  It has nothing to do with how true it is.  That still doesn't make it objectively morally right to respect self-ownership.  If it's not objectively right, it's only a subjective decision to respect self-ownership of others, making it arbitrary.

----------


## Travlyr

> This list of what you understand, Trav, seems to be short, and disappointing... :ahem:
> 
> 
> 
> We're discussing philsophy, here.  Merriam-Websters is a handy tool in an 8th grade English class, but not particularly operative when it comes to discussing and discovering underlying truths.  This is understandably an area in which you struggle.  Perhaps we'd all be better served with a more equipped defender of the state?  
> 
> Maybe you could recommend one?  Because repeating unsubstantiated assertions and ignoring arguments - tactics you employ - serves your position poorly.


A review your posts demonstrate mostly criticism of others with very little, if any, substance to the debate. It shows that you have weak arguments, very little understanding of the subject at hand, and proves what I said, just a bunch of bull$#@!, backslapping, cheerleading, stupid picture posting, and then claims of superiority and moral perfection.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> You can acknowledge the existence of an axiomatic truth and still not respect it.


You can't solve mathematical equations without respect for logical axioms and You can't solve moral problems without respect for logical axioms.  They are objective concepts, not subjective.




> It has nothing to do with how true it is.


So... do you acknowledge self-ownership as true but also respect it?  or do you just acknowledge it as true but don't respect it?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Give me a break... you poor guy, you.  Every manner of insult is thrown around this forum at the anti-statist folks for nothing more than holding a philosophy which some folks such as yourself cannot even manage to grasp is so closely related to the philosophy that you hold that they could share organs.  We peaceably respect the wishes of the mods and owners to keep our anti-state comments here in the philosophy subforum so as to not upset the apparently delicate sensibilities of those who tremble and quake at the mere mention of the word, "anarchy".  
> 
> We advocate a logically consistent, wholly natural, respectful, non-violent and voluntary order of society.  None of us are ever going to force you to espouse it, let alone live under it (which is more than can be said for the likes of you), but we sure would appreciate - when you voluntarily engage us in conversation - if you would kindly respond to what we actually are saying about anti-statism, rather than your preconceived notions of it.  
> 
> I don't doubt that slings and arrows have been launched in your direction, but dry up your tears about it and grow up - it's nothing worse than what goes on around here on a normal basis... and yet I've never seen anyone foreswear an entire freaking philosophy just because a few folks got frustrated.  
> 
> Everything you belly-ache about how the anti-statists behave can be said about you folks.  You guys often run around these threads behaving the exact same way.  No doubt Yosemite Sam will be along any minute now to give all us of the back-slappin' contingent a good talkin' to, and all the so-called minarchists will be whoopin' it up and dishing out +reps.  
> 
> Hurray.  Another failed thread.


I can prove that you're wrong on all counts.  

For one, there was an anarchy discussion going on in General Politics just the other day, and I regularly see people talk about it outside this forum, even when it had not been brought up before.  

Secondly, you're not always very respectful.  Yesterday, one of you chaps called me a troll without any substantiation or provocation.  You know what we call people who make claims without substantiation?  Liars.  How respectful and morally upright is that?

Thirdly, there you go getting on your high horse again, talking about how morally upright you are for advocating anarchy.  You don't know half the stuff you claim to know because it's all theoretical, and I have demonstrated before that your so-called "morals" are arbitrary standards you chose to follow.  You're stating an absolute belief in something  neither you nor anyone else has absolute knowledge of.  

It's also ironic that you talk about the "so-called minarchists... whoopin' it up and dishing out +reps" when that's what you people have been doing for the past 15 pages.  No doubt it will earn you another one.

----------


## Becker

> It doesn't matter whether I've accepted them, they are still universally true.


You and I don't agree on what axiom means then. you have to accept axioms, nothing is universally true on its own. 




> Mathematics is an objective concept rooted in axiomatic principles, and the subjective opinions of human beings don't change the universally true nature of axioms.


correct, your opinion won't change the axioms, but you can freely accept or reject them.




> There's been many different symbols used by many different cultures in mathematics, and still are today.  Roman Numerals and the Decimal system to name the 2 more popular ones. The use of different symbols, does not change the axioms they are rooted in, otherwise it simply has nothing to do with math.


so then you concede 2+3 = 6 is not wrong, just wrong according to how you are using symbols normally.

----------


## Becker

> You can't solve mathematical equations without respect for logical axioms and You can't solve moral problems without respect for logical axioms.  They are objective concepts, not subjective.


You can have logical axioms perfectly consistent, though different than what you've normally accepted. 




> So... do you acknowledge self-ownership as true but also respect it?  or do you just acknowledge it as true but don't respect it?


I don't acknowledge either

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You can't solve mathematical equations without respect for logical axioms and You can't solve moral problems without respect for logical axioms.  They are objective concepts, not subjective.
> 
> 
> 
> So... do you acknowledge self-ownership as true but also respect it?  or do you just acknowledge it as true but don't respect it?


Let's say I acknowledge it as true but don't respect it.  I personally actually do, but it would be easy to imagine someone who doesn't.  Just because you are obviously the owner of your own body, it does not make it morally right for everyone to be subject to payback for not respecting it.  Who decides that someone has to respect the non-agression principle?  It is very easy to imagine someone who thinks they are special and that they can claim they own themselves and still not respect the slef-ownership of others.  There has to be an absolute source for morality in order for it to not be arbitrary.  

What's more, just because you think something is moral, it doesn't mean it should apply to everyone else.  

You are right that you can't solve mathematical equations without respect for logical axioms, but who says we are trying to solve anything?  There is no absolute goal in figuring out morality if there is no absolute source for the morality and an explanation of why those rules apply to everyone.  You can't just sit down and think about it enough to where you've figured out absolute morality like some kind of equation.  It has to come from outside of you and beyond the material world.  Even if you say it comes from logic, where does logic come from?  You are tacitly admitting that logic is not material, and that there is an absolute source, and yet you are not willing to admit that there is an absolute source because that might imply that that absolute source has some rules you don't approve of.  Yes, you know where I'm going.  

The only possible source of absolute morality is an all-knowing, all-powerful God.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> A review your posts demonstrate mostly criticism of others with very little, if any, substance to the debate. It shows that you have weak arguments, very little understanding of the subject at hand, and proves what I said, just a bunch of bull$#@!, backslapping, cheerleading, stupid picture posting, and then claims of superiority and moral perfection.


Your link produced nothing.  Not that it matters to me.  YOU AND I both know that YOU AND I have explored this topic both to your intellectual limits and to the limits of my patience.  If you think you're making some kind of point, I'm very happy for you, but YOU AND I both know very well that our discussion here began quite civil, and has ended not as a consequence of resolution, but because of your inabilities, or your insincerity.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> You and I don't agree on what axiom means then.


If we disagree, one of us is wrong.  I wonder who it is? 




> correct, your opinion won't change the axioms, but you can freely accept or reject them.


Therefore the axioms are universally true, regardless of the subjective opinions of individuals.




> so then you concede 2+3 = 6 is not wrong, just wrong according to how you are using symbols normally.


It is wrong according to the decimal number system.  It is wrong according to the hexadecimal number system.  It is wrong according to the roman numeral system.  You would have to create a new number system and define your symbols according to logical axioms, otherwise you're not really doing math you're just writing things down and asserting them as true.




> This is the difference between the objective nature of mathematics  and  writing random symbols down on pages to mean anything, like you have   just done.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I can prove that you're wrong on all counts.  
> 
> For one, there was an anarchy discussion going on in General Politics just the other day, and I regularly see people talk about it outside this forum, even when it had not been brought up before.


I personally have not seen the folks on the anti-state side of this particular thread engage in anarchist discussions out in the general forums.  If they have, and against the clear wishes of the owner and mods, then I would say that is inappropriate.  I can say again that I have neither engaged in it myself, nor witnessed any of the folks who've frequented this thread do so.  




> Secondly, you're not always very respectful.  Yesterday, one of you chaps called me a troll without any substantiation or provocation.  You know what we call people who make claims without substantiation?  Liars.  How respectful and morally upright is that?


Given your proclivity for hyper-sensitivity, I'd believe it when I saw it... :shrug:




> Thirdly, there you go getting on your high horse again, talking about how morally upright you are for advocating anarchy.  You don't know half the stuff you claim to know because it's all theoretical,


Philosophical.  Welcome to the subforum.  




> and I have demonstrated before that your so-called "morals" are arbitrary standards you chose to follow.


You've done nothing of the sort.  In fact, you've been shown that they are not arbitrary standards by myself and quite more adeptly by Clay, whose post you very conveniently choose to ignore.  As Trav would say, "I don't blame you"; though in this case, the phrase is apt.  




> You're stating an absolute belief in something  neither you nor anyone else has absolute knowledge of.


This is you, holding your hands to your ears, shouting, "LA LA LA!"  




> It's also ironic that you talk about the "so-called minarchists... whoopin' it up and dishing out +reps" when that's what you people have been doing for the past 15 pages.  No doubt it will earn you another one.


Is it ironic?  Then, presumably, somewhere in this paragraph I must have indicated that only you minarchists are guilty of this behavior, whereas we anti-statists are not:




> Everything you belly-ache about how the anti-statists behave can be said about you folks. You guys often run around these threads behaving the exact same way. No doubt Yosemite Sam will be along any minute now to give all us of the back-slappin' contingent a good talkin' to, and all the so-called minarchists will be whoopin' it up and dishing out +reps.


Won't you kindly show us where?  

Or - MAYBE - you read what you want to read, not what is actually written...?  Nah...

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Let's say I acknowledge it as true but don't respect it.


Than your opinion on topics related to property rights is irrational, in the same way someones opinion on mathematics is irrational if they don't respect mathematical axioms.




> I personally actually do, but it would be easy to imagine someone who doesn't.


They would be willfully and knowingly ignoring a universal truth about reality, and therefore would be engaging in irrational thinking.




> Just because you are obviously the owner of your own body, it does not make it morally right for everyone to be subject to payback for not respecting it.  Who decides that someone has to respect *the non-agression principle*?


I thought we were talking about self-ownership? Let's establish one axiom at a time. 




> It is very easy to imagine someone who thinks they are special and that they can claim they own themselves and still not respect the slef-ownership of others.  There has to be an* absolute* source for morality in order for it to not be arbitrary.


That's why it's important to have respect for logical axioms in order to have rational input on the topic of morality. Axioms are* absolutely* true statements about reality.





> You are right that you can't solve mathematical equations without respect for logical axioms, but who says we are trying to solve anything?


With regards to morality, we are trying to solve the problem of "what is moral/immoral human behaior?", and this strongly is related to property rights, which are inherent in our nature as demonstrated by the axiom of self-ownership.




> There is no absolute goal in figuring out morality if there is no absolute source for the morality and an explanation of why those rules apply to everyone.


Thus, Logical axioms must be acknowledged *AND* respected in order to solve moral problems.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> With regards to morality, we are trying to solve the problem of "what is moral/immoral human behaior?", and this strongly is related to property rights, which are inherent in our nature as demonstrated by the axiom of self-ownership.


To clarify...

You're right to say the self-ownership axiom on its own doesn't solve  the moral problem, but it is an important aspect as it is the axiomatic  foundation of all property rights.  On its own it says nothing of what* ough*t to be, just what* is*.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Well if that ain't the confusticatinest, most nonsensicalest, bunch of hogslop that's ever been perpetrated on this here board!  The lot of ya should be rounded up and shipped off to a back-slappin' shangri-la, unicorn-infested anarcho-island with every last miserable copy of _For a New Liberty_!  Yer embracing a fairy-tale, and if it takes every last can of verbal whoop-ass I have I swear I'll finally beat it inter yer brains!  
> 
> 
> Warmest Regards,
> A Son of Liberty


LMAO! +rep

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> LMAO! +rep


back-slapper.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Your link produced nothing.  Not that it matters to me.  YOU AND I both know that YOU AND I have explored this topic both to your intellectual limits and to the limits of my patience.  If you think you're making some kind of point, I'm very happy for you, but YOU AND I both know very well that our discussion here began quite civil, and has ended not as a consequence of resolution, but because of your inabilities, or your insincerity.


Yup, it's always the other guy whose intellect is lacking, testing your "patience" as if you were some kind of perfect teacher whose pupil refuses to learn.  You are simply incapable of getting off your high horse, aren't you?  

It's always the other guy's problems and inabilities, while your reasoning is a shining beacon on a hill.  Uh-huh, ok.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Yup, it's always the other guy whose intellect is lacking, testing your "patience" as if you were some kind of perfect teacher whose pupil refuses to learn.  You are simply incapable of getting off your high horse, aren't you?  
> 
> It's always the other guy's problems and inabilities, while your reasoning is a shining beacon on a hill.  Uh-huh, ok.


You're commenting on this as though you have perspective on the relationship between Travlyr and I; that's pretty apparently all my post referred to.  Am I to assume that you've taken the time to research each engagement between Trav and I?  Or are you (again) - MAYBE - reading what you want to, and not what is written?  Please - keep doing this.  You're making it easier, and easier still to expose your tactics... 

You were saying something about high-horses...?  How's the view from up there?

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> As for logic, well the ancap would realize that their society is bound to be run over by ruthless dictators where they were either destroyed or someone came to power. If you can't see that it's not going to last and is nothing more than a hopeless pipe dream, then you need your head examined. 
> 
> *The arrogance and the vitriol is just blinding from these people.*





> No, the IDIOTS are the people walking up and down this thread acting like they're the absolute $#@! and patting each other on the back for all their moral highness. It's simply disgusting seeing all you coming around here acting like nobody can hold a candle to your moral perfection and grand intelligence. There's always a group of people who think THEY are the best and the most intelligent, the most EVOLVED. *That's probably what Hitler thought, too.* 
> 
> Oh, and anybody who responds in aa less than polite manner is lauded, meanwhile slandering from them goes by unnoticed. What sick $#@!s anarchists are. I can't imagine being a part of your society, and I doubt I would want to. The vitriol around here makes me want to never be an anarchist. So much for my moral evolution. *Anarchy can rot in hell.*





> Don't be surprised if they act with animosity toward your ideas because you can't automatically assume that they will be open to them just because you have so much confidence in your persuasion abilities. Some people really just aren't open to it.


...

----------


## CCTelander

> ...



The irony seems to be lost on some people.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I personally have not seen the folks on the anti-state side of this particular thread engage in anarchist discussions out in the general forums.  If they have, and against the clear wishes of the owner and mods, then I would say that is inappropriate.  I can say again that I have neither engaged in it myself, nor witnessed any of the folks who've frequented this thread do so.


Well, I have.  Noneedtoaggress is one of them.




> Given your proclivity for hyper-sensitivity, I'd believe it when I saw it... :shrug:


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ad-idea./page2




> Philosophical.  Welcome to the subforum.


No, it's also theoretical because you have absolutely no basis for thinking it could work other than in your own mind.




> You've done nothing of the sort.  In fact, you've been shown that they are not arbitrary standards by myself and quite more adeptly by Clay, whose post you very conveniently choose to ignore.  As Trav would say, "I don't blame you"; though in this case, the phrase is apt.


It's a long thread, perhaps I missed one, but not on purpose.  If there is a question you want answered, I will answer it.  However, I think it's pretty self-evident that these standards cannot be moral absolutes by themselves.  Nothing can be called "moral" by its mere attributes or existence.  We have to place a value, and that shared value is where morality comes from.  Nothing can be said to be ABSOLUTELY moral unless it was declared so by an absolute universal authority.  Otherwise, it's just human minds placing subjective value on it, and that, by definition, is arbitrary.  




> This is you, holding your hands to your ears, shouting, "LA LA LA!"


This is baffling to me.  What in my post suggested that I was doing that in any way?  Do you actually have absolute knowledge of it?  Because I'm pretty sure what I said there was self-evidently true.




> Is it ironic?  Then, presumably, somewhere in this paragraph I must have indicated that only you minarchists are guilty of this behavior, whereas we anti-statists are not:


Then why did you specify minarchists in the post I was referring to?  I never claimed that you claimed never to have done it, only that it was somehow chauvinistic of us to engage in that practice in the theoretical future, while you are the ones who have beeen doing it.  It just seemed weird that you would even point that out.




> Won't you kindly show us where?  
> 
> Or - MAYBE - you read what you want to read, not what is actually written...?  Nah...


I have not seen where we "run around these threads behaving the exact same way".  Won't you kindly show us?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> ...


If you dish it out, you have to be able to take a little.  I never said I was perfect, only that you pretend you are.

----------


## fisharmor

> No, it's also theoretical because you have absolutely no basis for thinking it could work other than in your own mind.


I guess I'm on your block list.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You're commenting on this as though you have perspective on the relationship between Travlyr and I; that's pretty apparently all my post referred to.  Am I to assume that you've taken the time to research each engagement between Trav and I?  Or are you (again) - MAYBE - reading what you want to, and not what is written?  Please - keep doing this.  You're making it easier, and easier still to expose your tactics... 
> 
> You were saying something about high-horses...?  How's the view from up there?


What I said stands.  You'll never admit fault, except in the most trivial of circumstances, where your absolute knowledge of right vs. wrong cannot be tarnished.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I never said I was perfect, *only that you pretend you are.*


Than you are just attacking a straw man.  

No one here is pretending to be perfect.  Some of us are defending axioms which are objectively/perfectly true, but I doubt anyone here would regard themselves as perfect individuals.  Humans are imperfect beings, and we're all human.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I guess I'm on your block list.


Uh... what?  Just admit you have almost nothing to go on.  Sure, you'll cite a few temporary quasi-stateless societies, but the burden of proof here is so high, and the situation in each of these societies so different, that it might as well be completely speculative.  Keep in mind that we are in a completely different day and age now.  You have absolutely no reason to believe that we could go from here to there from where we are now.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> If you dish it out, you have to be able to take a little.  I never said I was perfect, only that you pretend you are.


No, I don't. And this isn't the first time you've incorrectly attempted to describe me or my views. You have some sort of emotional issues that you're attributing to a concept of me that you hold. You consistently try and tell me what I believe and then attack me for it.

If you dish it out, you have to be able to take a little? Like this?:




> *No, the IDIOTS* are the people walking up and down this thread acting like they're the absolute $#@! and patting each other on the back for all their moral highness. It's simply disgusting seeing all you coming around here acting like nobody can hold a candle to your moral perfection and grand intelligence. There's always a group of people who think THEY are the best and the most intelligent, the most EVOLVED. *That's probably what Hitler thought, too.* 
> 
> Oh, and anybody who responds in aa less than polite manner is lauded, meanwhile slandering from them goes by unnoticed. What sick $#@!s anarchists are. I can't imagine being a part of your society, and I doubt I would want to. The vitriol around here makes me want to never be an anarchist. So much for my moral evolution.* Anarchy can rot in hell.*


"I don't like you guys based on the not-very-accurate perceptions of you that I hold. F- you, and F Anarchy!"




> Don't be surprised if they act with animosity toward your ideas because you can't automatically assume that they will be open to them just because you have so much confidence in your persuasion abilities. Some people really just aren't open to it.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> You'll never admit fault, except in the most trivial of circumstances, where your absolute knowledge of right vs. wrong cannot be tarnished.


Personally, It can be a struggle to admit when I'm wrong and can take me some time, since I, like most people, tend to invest my ego in ideas that I feel are important and pertinent.  That being said, My positions have changed drastically over the last few years and I don't doubt I'll have to correct some of my positions in the future* if/*when I discover reason and evidence that contradicts them.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Than you are just attacking a straw man.  
> 
> No one here is pretending to be perfect.  Some of us are defending axioms which are objectively/perfectly true, but I doubt anyone here would regard themselves as perfect individuals.  Humans are imperfect beings, and we're all human.


No axiom can stand on its own.  You're giving it a subjective moral judgment and saying everyone should have the same values as you.  It's called the is-ought fallacy.  Just because something is, doesn't mean it ought to be that way.  Saying that the self-ownership or non-aggression principle ought to bind everyone to some moral code is placing subjective value judgments on those things.  Morality is prescriptive, not descriptive, so there is no equation you can use to say something is objectively moral.  That can only come from an absolute universal authority.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> No axiom can stand on its own.


By definition, they do.  They are* self-evident.*  They do not require acceptance to be true.  They are true regardless of the subjective valuations of human beings.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> You're giving it a subjective moral judgment and saying everyone should have the same values as you.  It's called the is-ought fallacy.


...



> To clarify...
> 
> You're right to say the self-ownership axiom on its own doesn't solve   the moral problem, but it is an important aspect as it is the axiomatic   foundation of all property rights.  On its own it says nothing of what* ough*t to be, just what* is*.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

Without God, no sense can be made of reality. Life, consciousness and the orderly laws of nature are evidences of a supreme, intelligent being.

Would you agree with that, PCWV?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> No, I don't. And this isn't the first time you've incorrectly attempted to describe me or my views. You have some sort of emotional issues that you're attributing to a concept of me that you hold. You consistently try and tell me what I believe and then attack me for it.
> 
> If you dish it out, you have to be able to take a little? Like this?:
> 
> 
> 
> "I don't like you guys based on the not-very-accurate perceptions of you that I hold. F- you, and F Anarchy!"


Yes, that's what I said, and I'm not apologizing.  The arrogance of you people is astounding, so I feel fine for engagin in a little bit of it, myself.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Without God, no sense can be made of reality. Life, consciousness and the orderly laws of nature are evidences of a supreme, intelligent being.
> 
> Would you agree with that, PCWV?


Yes, that's basically what I've been saying in response to the "My argument for anarchy is morally right!" assertion.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Yes, that's what I said, and I'm not apologizing.  The arrogance of you people is astounding, so I feel fine for engagin in a little bit of it, myself.


If we disagree, one of us is wrong. 




> I mentioned the importance of logic to CS IQ. I believe it is equally  important to libertarian philosophy. From my observation, libertarians  tend to think that all political questions can be answered with an  almost mathematical certitude. There is no such thing as “a friendly  disagreement” in mathematics. *If two mathematicians disagree, then one  is mistaken. Similarly, if two libertarians disagree, each asserts that  the other is either operating from a false assumption or has a flaw in  his logic. I think nonlibertarians are really turned off by this,  particularly because it comes across as obnoxious and egotistical. But  libertarians seem to thrive on it. The community has a kind of  intellectual-warrior ethos.*

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Yes, that's basically what I've been saying in response to the "My argument for anarchy is morally right!" assertion.


So... axioms can stand on their own?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> ...


So, what's your argument?  Why do you support anarchy if you can't demonstrate it to be morally right?  That's the one assertion by many anarchists that has stuck out to me.  How can anyone claim an absolute "right" to something, such as property, if there is no moral basis for that right?

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Why do you support anarchy if you can't demonstrate it to be morally right?


First of all, the conversation we're supposed to be having is about the nature of self-ownership, not morality as a whole.  I requested to focus on this, before moving on to other axioms.  I'll answer your question though.

I don't support anarchy as any particular end I wish to achieve, I accept it as the logical consequence of the consistent application of the Non-Aggression and Self-Ownership axioms.  Anarchy, to me, is a constant state of nature and contrary to popular belief, governments don't get us out of Anarchy, they merely exist within it.




> How can anyone claim an absolute "right" to something, such as property, if there is no moral basis for that right?


Self-Ownership is a recognition of what* is*, not necessarily what *ought* to be.  Since it is universally true, it must be accepted to rationally discuss what *ought* to be.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> So... axioms can stand on their own?


I see where you're going, and to cut you off, yes, it's circular.  In order to assert that logic even has any meaning to the point where we can use it, we have to have a starting point, and the absolute source of logic must be circular because there is nothing to which it can be held accountable.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> First of all, the conversation we're supposed to be having is about the nature of self-ownership, not morality as a whole.  I requested to focus on this, before moving on to other axioms.  I'll answer your question though.
> 
> I don't support anarchy as any particular end I wish to achieve, I accept it as the logical conclusion of the consistent application of the Non-Aggression and Self-Ownership axioms.


 But aren't you asserting that those axioms can be deemed morally superior to the state-sanctioned violence we see today?  You have to have a basis for saying one is better than the other.




> Self-Ownership is a recognition of what* is*, not necessarily what *ought* to be.  Since it is universally true, it must be accepted to rationally discuss what *ought* to be.


That's not necessarily true.  What is does not necessarily have any bearing on what ought to be.  Where do your laws come from if you don't have any basis for saying what ought to be?

It has to be morally right in order to claim that anyone should have a right to it.

----------


## fisharmor

> Uh... what?  Just admit you have almost nothing to go on.  Sure, you'll cite a few temporary quasi-stateless societies, but the burden of proof here is so high, and the situation in each of these societies so different, that it might as well be completely speculative.  Keep in mind that we are in a completely different day and age now.  You have absolutely no reason to believe that we could go from here to there from where we are now.


Uh... dude, you just used the living constitution argument.
I guess you should give up on constitutionalism, because it's not that way now, it hasn't been for some time, any examples we can find of it working in modern times aren't America, and it's a completely different day and age than when the founders lived.

Also, I like how you apply "temporary" to a society that existed from before recorded time, lasted a minimum of 1000 years, and withstood multiple invasions.
I'm really not surprised that things break down so quickly when discussing these things....

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> By definition, they do.  They are* self-evident.*  They do not require acceptance to be true.  They are true regardless of the subjective valuations of human beings.


Even the self-evident isn't necessarily objectively true.  That requires that we rely on our senses and our logic as accurate.  In other words, there must be a reason why it is true.  As we must trust our sense of logic to even have a discussion, I'll accept that.  However, what I was getting at is that subjective valuation is required before something can be deemed morally upright.  It may be true, but that doesn't mean it's morally right.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> But aren't you asserting that those axioms can be deemed morally superior to the state-sanctioned violence we see today?


Non-aggression is morally superior the initiation of aggression, yes.




> You have to have a basis for saying one is better than the other.


 Let me guess... Because I don't have faith in the existence of some kind of all-powerful and all-knowing superdude?




> That's not necessarily true.


Self-Ownership is the fundamental property right inherent in our nature.  You, as an individual, *naturally* have exclusive control over your mind and body.  It is inalienable.  It is necessarily true, and must be acknowledged in order to have a rational discussion on morality.




> Where do your laws come from* if you don't have any basis for saying what ought to be?*


Your question contains a false assertion. (in bold)  I have a basis for what ought to be, what i'm saying is that self-ownership on its own does not establish that.

To answer the part of your question that isn't loaded...  I regard laws as universal truths whose content are set by nature.




> ][/B]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law
> 
> *Natural law*, or the *law of nature* (Latin: _lex naturalis_), is any system of law which is purportedly determined by nature, and thus universal.

----------


## fisharmor

> So, what's your argument?  Why do you support anarchy if you can't demonstrate it to be morally right?  That's the one assertion by many anarchists that has stuck out to me.  How can anyone claim an absolute "right" to something, such as property, if there is no moral basis for that right?


Not that you care, or will pay attention, but...
...I don't concern myself with the moral superiority of anarchy.
I concern myself with the moral evil of the state.
If I can not claim the moral superiority of anarchy, fine... but do you seriously claim the state to be morally superior?
Of all this talk about axioms, I don't remember seeing anyone address the axiom that the only power the state wields is violence.
Every action the state takes boils down to force.  Period.  You can't name one action the state takes that doesn't.
That is the morality that we are decrying.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Even the self-evident isn't necessarily objectively true.


True, but Axioms are self-evident* and* Universally true, by definition.  It would be in your interest to read into Austrian Economics, before making more assertions about the nature of axioms.  The foundation of Austrian Economics is the Human Action Axiom.

  To try and disprove human action requires a human to act, and therefore validates the axiom. Human Action is axiomatic* because it is self-evident and universally true*, which essentially means it cannot be challenged without engaging in a logical contradiction.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Uh... dude, you just used the living constitution argument.
> I guess you should give up on constitutionalism, because it's not that way now, it hasn't been for some time, any examples we can find of it working in modern times aren't America, and it's a completely different day and age than when the founders lived.
> 
> Also, I like how you apply "temporary" to a society that existed from before recorded time, lasted a minimum of 1000 years, and withstood multiple invasions.
> I'm really not surprised that things break down so quickly when discussing these things....


No, this is nothing like the living document theory.  I am saying you have no reason to believe anarchy is possible in this time and age.  However, the values in the Constitution are true across all ages.  It's a practical vs. ethical argument.  I am saying the supreme law of the land is good regardless of what year it is, but I don't necessarily have to believe that any certain thing can be practical in any given year.  I believe anarchy is impractical.  You can believe otherwise, but my main point is that you have no reason to believe it is practical in this day and age.  You have to admit it would be hard to go from here to there.  Regardless, my argument had nothing to do with the living document theory.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Axioms are self-evident* and* Universally true, by definition.  It would be in your interest to read into Austrian Economics, before making more assertions about the nature of axioms.  The foundation of Austrian Economics is the Human Action Axiom.
> 
>   To try and disprove human action requires a human to act, and therefore validates the axiom. Human Action is axiomatic* because it is self-evident and universally true*, which essentially means it cannot be challenged without engaging in a logical contradiction.


For further clarification see...



> http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Axiomatic_deductive_method
> 
> *Axiomatic deductive* is a method of reasoning whereby one begins with a few axioms *(self-evident truths)* and from there uses the deductive method of logic to further the arguments. The validity of the arguments are based on making proper use of the rules of logic,  while valid arguments are only guaranteed to be true if the axioms are  themselves true. The aximotic deductive method is commonly used in math,  science, as well as within the Austrian School of Economics by economists such as Hans-Hermann Hoppe

----------


## ClayTrainor

> You can believe otherwise, but my main point is that you have no reason to believe it is practical in this day and age.


Can't that same argument apply to the Constitution?

"*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

"Governments by their very nature, notoriously compete with liberty, *even when the stated purpose for establishing a particular government is to protect liberty.*" - Ron Paul, Introduction to Liberty Defined

"Government is the enemy of liberty" - Ron Paul @ CPAC

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> No, this is nothing like the living document theory.  I am saying you have no reason to believe anarchy is possible in this time and age.  However, the values in the Constitution are true across all ages.  It's a practical vs. ethical argument.  I am saying the supreme law of the land is good regardless of what year it is, but I don't necessarily have to believe that any certain thing can be practical in any given year.  I believe anarchy is impractical. * You can believe otherwise, but my main point is that you have no reason to believe it is practical in this day and age.*  You have to admit it would be hard to go from here to there.  Regardless, my argument had nothing to do with the living document theory.


The same can be said of Constitutionalism.  I don't know what makes you think that "the values in the Constitution are true across all ages".  The Constitution is a value-free document.  Try reading it.  It makes no value judgements whatsoever.  This is one of the reasons Constitutionalism fails, too.  It has no moral core, and its nature is left up to the whims of mere mortal men with far too much centralized power.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> "*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
> 
> "Governments by their very nature, notoriously compete with liberty, *even when the stated purpose for establishing a particular government is to protect liberty.*" - Ron Paul, Introduction to Liberty Defined
> 
> "Government is the enemy of liberty" - Ron Paul @ CPAC


I'd thought of quoting Spooner, but that's probably even more appropriate at this time.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I'd thought of quoting Spooner, but that's probably even more appropriate at this time.




Nothign wrong with posting a Spooner quote.  Ron Paul also has mad respect for the spoon-man 

*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_.

*All of Spooner's writings are worthy of study.*"                         




@6:10

"*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 poin*t."

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Nothign wrong with posting a Spooner quote.  Ron Paul also has mad respect for the spoon-man 
> 
> *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_.
> 
> *All of Spooner's writings are worthy of study.*"                         
> 
> 
> ...


Well now!  This is compelling-makes me really want to get a copy of "Liberty Defined"!

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Can't that same argument apply to the Constitution?
> 
> "*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
> 
> "Governments by their very nature, notoriously compete with liberty, *even when the stated purpose for establishing a particular government is to protect liberty.*" - Ron Paul, Introduction to Liberty Defined
> 
> "Government is the enemy of liberty" - Ron Paul @ CPAC


Perhaps, but I don't believe it's obsolete.  As Ron Paul said, we've only tried this for a very short time, and I don't think these principles should be subject to time.  I still think it's the most practical option we have.  You must realize, I'm not very optomistic when it comes to government, either.  Revolutions are usually inevitable, but they need to happen.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> The same can be said of Constitutionalism.  I don't know what makes you think that "the values in the Constitution are true across all ages".  The Constitution is a value-free document.  Try reading it.  It makes no value judgements whatsoever.  This is one of the reasons Constitutionalism fails, too.  It has no moral core, and its nature is left up to the whims of mere mortal men with far too much centralized power.


Are you kidding?  The Constitution most certainly has a moral core.  It is based on the idea that no human being can rise above the law, and no government  can do so, either.  The Constitution grants "rights" to people against the government.  Rights are value-laden.  They have a moral principle attached, saying that people are allowed certain things, no matter what the majority says, and that it's right that they should have these things.  

There are four basic things outlawed in the Constitution, and one of them is counterfeiting money.  They had to attach a value to the free market to even consider writing such a freedom and free market-oriented document.

----------


## Travlyr

> Perhaps, but I don't believe it's obsolete.  As Ron Paul said, we've only tried this for a very short time, and I don't think these principles should be subject to time.  I still think it's the most practical option we have.  You must realize, I'm not very optomistic when it comes to government, either.  Revolutions are usually inevitable, but they need to happen.


For Sure. Ignoring the U.S. Constitution has been good for the warmongers, the counterfeiters, and the police state. It is not a perfect document by any means, but the rule of law is important.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Perhaps, but I don't believe it's obsolete.  As Ron Paul said, we've only tried this for a very short time, and I don't think these principles should be subject to time.  I still think it's the most practical option we have.  You must realize, I'm not very optomistic when it comes to government, either.  Revolutions are usually inevitable, but they need to happen.


It's not just a matter of obsolescence (it is designed to be obsolete)-it simply isn't moral or necessary, and never was.  It was just a way that the power elite of the time concentrated power for themselves-and fooled the masses into believing it to be liberating.  (remember, Jefferson was in France at the time it was drafted, and he likely would have strongly opposed it had he been present, from what we know about his opinions of centralized government)

----------


## Occam's Banana

> It's not just a matter of obsolescence (it is designed to be obsolete)-it simply isn't moral or necessary, and never was.  It was just a way that the power elite of the time concentrated power for themselves-and fooled the masses into believing it to be liberating.  (remember, Jefferson was in France at the time it was drafted, and he likely would have strongly opposed it had he been present, from what we know about his opinions of centralized government)


If I recall my history correctly, NO ONE who was known to be likely to have serious, strenuous objections to the (secret) proceedings that created the Constitution was present at those proceedings.
Most notable among the absentees: Thomas Jefferson & Patrick Henry.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Are you kidding?  The Constitution most certainly has a moral core.*  It is based on the idea that no human being can rise above the law, and no government  can do so, either.  The Constitution grants "rights" to people against the government.  Rights are value-laden.  They have a moral principle attached, saying that people are allowed certain things, no matter what the majority says, and that it's right that they should have these things. * 
> 
> There are four basic things outlawed in the Constitution, and one of them is counterfeiting money.  They had to attach a value to the free market to even consider writing such a freedom and free market-oriented document.


1) that's not a "moral core"-it's just an opinion.  2) even the most naive Constitutionalists will admit that rights come from God, not the Constitution.  Rights are not naturally moral.  In 1787, slavery was considered "moral" by most people, and slave ownership a "right".  You are confusing "rights" and "privileges", a common mistake made by those who don't have a moral core.

If you read the Constitution, the source of morality is the government (supposedly vicariously through the electorate, but we know that power does what it wants).  You're right that some things are "outlawed" in the Constitution.  However, there are numerous legal ways around that, including but not limited to the Amendment process.  The amendment process is how the income tax and prohibition came to be legal and "moral".

ETA: remember that John Adams wrote "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."  This should tell you that any morality that can be had in a Constitutionalism regime comes from "The People", not the document itself or the regime. (political power tends to attract the worst elements of a society, not the best)

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> If I recall my history correctly, NO ONE who was known to be likely to have serious, strenuous objections to the (secret) proceedings that created the Constitution was present at those proceedings.
> Most notable among the absentees: Thomas Jefferson & Patrick Henry.


You don't recall your history correctly.  There were plenty of people even aside from the Anti-Federalists who were aware of the dangers of the Constitution.  You would be peeved too if the members of the convention (elected to amend the Articles of Confederation) came back instead with a whole new document instead, which they were not authorized to create.

*Conspiracy in Philadelphia*
 "...The book's                  thesis is, even for me, controversial. I provide 400+ pages of                  evidence that the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was in fact                  an illegal coup d'état. The participants knew this. This is why                  they took a lifetime oath of secrecy, walked upstairs to the second                  floor of the State House (so that eavesdroppers could not report                  what was going on), closed the doors, and hammered out the design                  for a replacement government. Newspaper reporters were excluded.                  

These men                  had been authorized by Congress and by several state legislatures                  only to revise the Articles of Confederation (1781), but not replace                  them. Knowing full well that they planned to replace the Articles                  with a new form of government, the leaders of the Convention nevertheless                  agreed to the terms laid down by the state legislatures, and then                  went off to Philadelphia to begin the first stage of a political                  revolution."

Read the entire book "Conspiracy In Philadelphia" here.  The contents therein are:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Chapter 1: The Theological Origins of the U.S. Constitution . . . 15
Chapter 2: Renewed Covenant or Broken Covenant? . . . . . . . . . 95
Chapter 3: The Strategy of Deception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Chapter 4: From Coup to Revolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
Chapter 5: “We the People”: From Vassal to Suzerain to Serf . 255
Chapter 6: A New National Covenant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313
Appendix A: Rushdoony on the Constitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345
Appendix B: Shays’ Rebellion: Legend and Reality . . . . . . . . . 387
Appendix C: Philadelphia’s Other Constitutional Convention . 405
Appendix D: Freemasons in the American Revolution . . . . . . . 417
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422

----------


## Occam's Banana

> You don't recall your history correctly.  There were plenty of people even aside from the Anti-Federalists who were aware of the dangers of the Constitution.  You would be peeved too if the members of the convention (elected to amend the Articles of Confederation) came back instead with a whole new document instead, which they were not authorized to create.


I don't get it. What you are saying jibes perfectly with what I posted. What is it I am not recalling correctly?

Please re-read my post. I think you've misunderstood it.




> If I recall my history correctly, NO ONE  who was known to be likely to have serious, strenuous objections to the  (secret) proceedings that created the Constitution was present at those  proceedings. Most notable among the absentees: Thomas Jefferson & Patrick Henry.

----------


## Travlyr

> You don't recall your history correctly.  There were plenty of people even aside from the Anti-Federalists who were aware of the dangers of the Constitution.  You would be peeved too if the members of the convention (elected to amend the Articles of Confederation) came back instead with a whole new document instead, which they were not authorized to create.


The real danger came when the Constitution was subverted. The national banking acts of 1863 & 1864 come to mind as well as the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Again, the U.S. Constitution is not a perfect document... indeed it has many problems... but ignoring it has allowed assassinations of citizens, theft through inflation, and the military-industrial-complex to thrive at the expense of the citizens. Your enslavement is a result of what you advocate... ignoring the rule of law.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

edit: dupe post

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I don't get it. What you are saying jibes perfectly with what I posted. What is it I am not recalling correctly?
> 
> Please re-read my post. I think you've misunderstood it.


Nope, I understood it.  What you are not recalling correctly is this _"NO ONE  who was known to be likely to have serious, strenuous objections  to the  (secret) proceedings that created the Constitution was present  at those  proceedings."_  I showed this to be incorrect in my previous post.  The "NO ONE" part of your claim is the most incorrect part, but the rest is incorrect as well.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Nope, I understood it.  What you are not recalling correctly is this _"NO ONE  who was known to be likely to have serious, strenuous objections  to the  (secret) proceedings that created the Constitution was present  at those  proceedings."_  I showed this to be incorrect in my previous post.  The "NO ONE" part of your claim is the most incorrect part, but the rest is incorrect as well.


Hmmm. OK. I think I see the source of the misunderstanding.

You say you identified my error in you previous post. In that post you said:




> You don't recall your history correctly.   There were plenty of people even aside from the Anti-Federalists who  were aware of the dangers of the Constitution.


Yes, I know. I did not claim that no one at the proceedings that drafted the Constitution had doubts regarding the document (or what would become known as "Federalism"). In fact, I wasn't addressing the Constitution (or Federalism/Anti-Federalism) at all. My statement addressed _the secret nature of the proceedings_ that created the Constitution. That secrecy put the convention's meetings under taint of _coup d'etat_. (The attendees were sworn to secrecy for the duration of the convention, the windows of the room in which they met were papered over, etc.)

What I claimed in my post was that there was no one in attendance who had serious objections to the closed & underhanded manner in which the deed was done.

Patrick Henry, true patriot he, objected - he famously "smelled a rat" when he was informed of the plan to amend the Articles of Confederation. But he did not attend. And Thomas Jefferson was unable to attend (he was in France & too far away to make any objections in a timely manner).

As a result, Americans knew nothing of what had happened until after Franklin announced the convention's _fait accompli_ with his famous "We have given you a Republic - if you can keep it!"




> You would be peeved too  if the members of the convention (elected to amend the Articles of  Confederation) came back instead with a whole new document instead,  which they were not authorized to create.


Not only would I be peeved about it - I *am* peeved about it. 
I have often wished that Patrick Henry or Samuel Adams *had* attended - with some judicious "leaks," American (and world) history might be quite different!

If there were any in attendance at the convention who *did* have serious qualms over the "smoke-filled-room" nature of the proceedings (but went along with them anyway), I should like to know who they were - so I can induct them into my personal Hall of Shame.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Well, I have.  Noneedtoaggress is one of them.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ad-idea./page2
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's also theoretical because you have absolutely no basis for thinking it could work other than in your own mind.
> ...


Nope.  I'm done... 

I should have heeded my own observation pages ago when I said discussing anything with the likes of you and Trav is pointless.

Feel free to presume that this is some kind of victory for you... Ignorance, as they say, is bliss.

----------


## Travlyr

> Hmmm. OK. I think I see the source of the misunderstanding.
> 
> You say you identified my error in you previous post. In that post you said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know. I did not claim that no one at the proceedings that drafted the Constitution had doubts regarding the document (or what would become known as "Federalism"). In fact, I wasn't addressing the Constitution (or Federalism/Anti-Federalism) at all. My statement addressed _the secret nature of the proceedings_ that created the Constitution. That secrecy put the convention's meetings under taint of _coup d'etat_. (The attendees were sworn to secrecy for the duration of the convention, the windows of the room in which they met were papered over, etc.)
> 
> What I claimed in my post was that there was no one in attendance who had serious objections to the closed & underhanded manner in which the deed was done.
> ...


A very interesting and thoughtful response. Isn't that why the "Bill of Rights" were added? I am curious as to why "We The People" of the 21st century have such a difficult time righting some of the wrongs in our lives. As far as I am concerned, a proper governing body would be completely transparent, fully recorded, and open for examination at all times.

----------


## fisharmor

> No, this is nothing like the living  document theory.  I am saying you have no reason to believe anarchy is  possible in this time and age.  However, the values in the Constitution  are true across all ages.  It's a practical vs. ethical argument.  I am  saying the supreme law of the land is good regardless of what year it  is, but I don't necessarily have to believe that any certain thing can  be practical in any given year.  I believe anarchy is impractical.  You  can believe otherwise, but my main point is that you have no reason to  believe it is practical in this day and age.  You have to admit it would  be hard to go from here to there.  Regardless, my argument had nothing  to do with the living document theory.


You can believe whatever you wish.
*You* are the person who has injected belief into this conversation in the last couple pages.
I do not _believe_ that anarchy is a workable system - I have made a *rational judgment* based on historical evidence and sound reasoning.
I  am not claiming that going from here to there will be easy: we have,  after all, interested parties like you to convince that shoving guns in  everyone's faces isn't the best way to accomplish civil society.

And  I didn't say that your argument had something to do with living  document theory: your argument _IS_ living document theory.
This is introductory logic.
You've  applied the exact same rationale toward your rejection of anarchist  ideas that living document theorists apply to the constitution.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Yes, that's what I said, and I'm not apologizing.  The arrogance of you people is astounding, so I feel fine for engagin in a little bit of it, myself.


Do you think the OWS people you criticized thought the same thing? Think about it?

What's the deal? When have I ever called you "Hitler" or an IDIOT or a "sick $#@!"? I said that you were acting hypocritically but can you tell me that you weren't? (and initially I didn't even do that, I simply pointed out the irony in the quotes I posted. I only even started saying so after you put me in a position where I had to explain to you why it was ironic.).

What's with the hatred? What is it that made things so personal? We're here to be critical of ideas and you're running around calling everyone a full-of-themselves jackass and basically showing that you have far less interest in ideas than your interest in how _you perceive the attitudes of a group of people_. Whether that's us or the OWS people, and all the while you're committing the exact things you're accusing people of doing as the source of your animosity.

And this is after criticizing the OWS people for not being open to ideas... well what happens to people when they're not open to ideas? How did they react to Adam?

And as far as that thread goes:



> The funny thing is it was your response to Ron Paul's name being mentioned in a segment where Adam advocated voluntaryism on his own YouTube show that prompted this entire thread to turn into what it has.


I was responding to LibertyEagle and Trav, and merely _clarifying_ that Adam was promoting ancap on his show. Then the thread exploded because a handful of vehement anti-ancaps kept pushing it further.

What is the deal, man? Where's all this animosity coming from? You seem to have a real chip on your shoulder over the way you perceive us as a group.

_How is this any different from the OWS people you were criticizing in that thread_?

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Don't be surprised if they *PaulConventionWV* act*s* with animosity toward your ideas *[anarchocapitalism]* because you can't automatically assume that they will be open to them just because you have so much confidence in your persuasion abilities *[confidence in their case]*. Some people *PaulConventionWV* really just aren't *isn't* open to it.


You've basically made this case here. You're not concerned about discussing the ideas as much as you're concerned with "digging in" to some anarchists, because you see them as obnoxious and full of themselves because they are confident in their case, right?






> No, the IDIOTS are the people walking up and down this thread acting like they're the absolute $#@! and patting each other on the back for all their moral highness. It's simply disgusting seeing all you coming around here acting like nobody can hold a candle to your moral perfection and grand intelligence. There's always a group of people who think THEY are the best and the most intelligent, the most EVOLVED. That's probably what Hitler thought, too. 
> 
> Oh, and anybody who responds in aa less than polite manner is lauded, meanwhile slandering from them goes by unnoticed. What sick $#@!s anarchists are. I can't imagine being a part of your society, and I doubt I would want to. The vitriol around here makes me want to never be an anarchist. So much for my moral evolution. Anarchy can rot in hell.


"I don't care what you have to say, you're all sick $#@!s who think you're better than everyone else."

right?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Nope.  I'm done... 
> 
> I should have heeded my own observation pages ago when I said discussing anything with the likes of you and Trav is pointless.
> 
> Feel free to presume that this is some kind of victory for you... Ignorance, as they say, is bliss.


Will do.  It's not like you're ever going to have any success anyway.  Face it, anarchy is never going to happen.  I live in the real world, and you're free to go around chasing unicorns if you want.  You're not just wrong, you're irrelevant.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Will do.  It's not like you're ever going to have any success anyway.  Face it, anarchy *Ron Paul's ideas are* never going to happen.  I live in the real world, and you're free to go around chasing unicorns if you want.  You're not just wrong, you're irrelevant.


How is what you're doing different?

----------


## Travlyr

> How is what you're doing different?


If you are not a Ron Paul supporter, then why are you here?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You can believe whatever you wish.
> *You* are the person who has injected belief into this conversation in the last couple pages.
> I do not _believe_ that anarchy is a workable system - I have made a *rational judgment* based on historical evidence and sound reasoning.
> I  am not claiming that going from here to there will be easy: we have,  after all, interested parties like you to convince that shoving guns in  everyone's faces isn't the best way to accomplish civil society.
> 
> And  I didn't say that your argument had something to do with living  document theory: your argument _IS_ living document theory.
> This is introductory logic.
> You've  applied the exact same rationale toward your rejection of anarchist  ideas that living document theorists apply to the constitution.


I'm sorry, but it's not living document theory, at all.  That's just a lie.  Living document theory holds that beliefs and morals change over time, calling for different laws.  Living document theory is talking about what we have right now being inadequate in the future.  I'm talking about something we've never had not being practical.  

Beside, it's clearly not living document theory because, um, I'm not talking about the Constitution.  Living document theory only applies to the Constitution.  You can't even compare something that talks about the inadequacy of a certain form of government to an argument for the inadequacy of no government.  Apples and oranges.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> If you are not a Ron Paul supporter, then why are you here?


Who said I wasn't? Where are you getting that?

----------


## Travlyr

> Who said I wasn't? Where are you getting that?


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3699112

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> How is what you're doing different?


I honestly don't care.  You're irrelevant.  The fact that we have someone like Ron Paul is a testament to what we can do in the real world to effect real change.  You can go out and yell about anarchy until you're blue in the face, and nothing is going to happen.  Ron Paul, however, has changed the course of a nation.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3699112







> Originally Posted by *OWS protesters*


again?

----------


## Travlyr

> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3699112


In that quote, at first you said that a Ron Paul presidency is never going to happen. Then you edited it to say, "Ron Paul's ideas are"

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> In that quote, at first you said that a Ron Paul presidency is never going to happen. Then you edited it to say, "Ron Paul's ideas are"


Yes, and the "_OWS protesters_" as the originator of the quote was there the whole time. I changed that phrase because the ideas he espouses are even more important than his presidency, and will last whether he even wins that office or not. And even if I hadn't put OWS as the originator of the quote in the quote box why would that have to have been my view? I had already pointed out several times that I was comparing his statements to anti-paul sentiments.

You're just looking for any way to drag me through the dirt. Why?

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> I honestly don't care.  You're irrelevant.  The fact that we have someone like Ron Paul is a testament to what we can do in the real world to effect real change.  You can go out and yell about anarchy until you're blue in the face, and nothing is going to happen.  Ron Paul, however, has changed the course of a nation.


What's the problem? Why are you so angry?

----------


## CCTelander

> Yes, and the "_OWS protesters_" as the originator of the quote was there the whole time. And even if it hadn't been why would that have to have been my view? I had already pointed out several times that I was comparing his statements to typical anti-paul sentiments.
> 
> You're just looking for any way to drag me through the dirt. Why?



Because that's they way he rolls?

----------


## noneedtoaggress

I find it a disingenuous way of attacking me.

----------


## Travlyr

> Because that's they way he rolls?


I have spent thousands of dollars and many hours of time promoting Ron Paul. It sucks to watch anarchists work to undermine his campaign.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

Oh, so that's what the deal is. We're wasting your money?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> What's the problem? Why are you so angry?


No problem.  I just realized that the difference between you and me is that I live in the real world, and you don't.  Therefore, debates on this subject are pretty much meaningless because it doesn't matter what ideas I have about anarchy.  I will never be able to bring those ideas to fruition.  While you sit there and dream up a new argument for anarchy, I'm actually changing things in the world by getting my political science degree and getting a job in the public sector.  Anarchy is just a pipe dream, and any discussion on it is purely hypothetical.  It's like global warming.  I really don't have to waste my energy arguing about global warming if I know it's not actually going to happen.  Sometimes I engage in such arguments for the hell of it, but treating it as if it's actually relevant is giving the anarchists and the global warming proponents too much to feed on.  Since it's not going to affect my ability to make change in the world, I need not act like your ideas about it actually matter.

----------


## CCTelander

> I have spent thousands of dollars and many hours of time promoting Ron Paul. It sucks to watch anarchists work to undermine his campaign.



Funny, RP himself EMBRACES we anarchists warmly. You, on the other hand, never miss an opportunity to tell lies about us.

----------


## Travlyr

> Funny, RP himself EMBRACES we anarchists warmly. You, on the other hand, never miss an opportunity to tell lies about us.


Ron Paul is the Champion of the Constitution. You call it the CONstitution. It's bull$#@!.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> I'm actually changing things in the world by getting my political science degree and getting a job in the public sector.


Do you think this has anything to do with how you view us? Could this have anything to do with how your issues with the anarchists are so personal?

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Ron Paul is the Champion of the Constitution. You call it the CONstitution. It's bull$#@!.


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3696826

?

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> "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


Doesn't this essentially call the Constitution a con? That it's incapable of fulfilling it's proposed purpose?

----------


## nayjevin

The purely theoretical discussions of the underpinnings of freedom philosophy are important for those skeptics who like to see the logical basis prior to acceptance of a philosophy.

The pragmatic activism is important for those who wish to experience a tangible degree of positive change.

The bickering is for the lulz

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> No problem.  I just realized that the difference between you and me is that I live in the real world, and you don't.  Therefore, debates on this subject are pretty much meaningless because it doesn't matter what ideas I have about anarchy.  I will never be able to bring those ideas to fruition.  While you sit there and dream up a new argument for anarchy, I'm actually changing things in the world by getting my political science degree and getting a job in the public sector.  Anarchy is just a pipe dream, and any discussion on it is purely hypothetical.  It's like global warming.  I really don't have to waste my energy arguing about global warming if I know it's not actually going to happen.  Sometimes I engage in such arguments for the hell of it, but treating it as if it's actually relevant is giving the anarchists and the global warming proponents too much to feed on.  Since it's not going to affect my ability to make change in the world, I need not act like your ideas about it actually matter.





> "Ideas are the only things that count, and politicians are, for the most part, pretty much irrelevant," - Ron Paul


What do you think of the above quote?

Do you think your pursuit of a political science degree and future aspirations might affect the way you approach ancap?

Do you think it might color the way you perceive ancap proponents and their arguments? Am I _really_ a "sick $#@!"?
Does this have anything to do with how angry you are at us?

What makes the ancap argument similar to the global warming, other than the fact that you've already made a decision about "where you stand on the issue"?

If you "engage arguments for the hell of it", but don't "treat it as if it's relevant", aren't you just trolling? What is the purpose of discussing it?

Do you think there might be underlying reasons for the way you perceive us and our ideas? Do you see this as an attack on your beliefs, goals, and future?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> No problem.  I just realized that the difference between you and me is that I live in the real world, and you don't.  Therefore, debates on this subject are pretty much meaningless because it doesn't matter what ideas I have about anarchy.


Wait a tick... We're discussing this in the *political philosophy* subforum of a discussion board.  Both of my feet are very firmly planted in the real world, which is the reason I am actively working on behalf of Ron's campaign on a grassroots level, am active in Campaign for Liberty, and follow political news like a junkie.  

However, the point of this subforum, judging by it's title, is to discuss political philosophy.  Just because some of us here in this discussion are advocating a poltical philosophy that we're unlikely to see realized in "the real world" does not mean that we do not live in it.  Frankly, WE are also unlikely to see a minarchist political philosophy realized in the real world, either, even though WE are not only advocating it but out there actively trying to bring it to fruition.  

Anarchists recognize an inherent, intrinsic logical inconsistency in any political philosophy which advocates the existence of a state - from totalitarianism to minarchism: if all men are created equal, then no man or men may rule over another man or men.  

This is a philosophical viewpoint.  I doubt any of us here have any delusions that we're actually going to establish an anarchist society without first having passed through a minarchist society.  




> I will never be able to bring those ideas to fruition.


You're almost as unlikely to bring your ideas to fruition, too.  




> While you sit there and dream up a new argument for anarchy, I'm actually changing things in the world


Don't you think we are, too?  Do you think we just sit here on the internet waiting for folks like yourself to antagonize?  WE ARE OUT THERE, TOO.  




> Since it's not going to affect my ability to make change in the world, I need not act like your ideas about it actually matter.


Wow... you know, you really sound like you'll make a very good bureaucrat, based on my experiences with them.  Good luck to you...

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Ron Paul is the Champion of the Constitution. You call it the CONstitution. It's bull$#@!.


EVERYONE HAS TO AGREE ON EVERYTHING.  

YOU THERE!  GET BACK IN LINE!  SHUT YOUR MOUTH, SERF!

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I have spent thousands of dollars and many hours of time promoting Ron Paul. It sucks to watch *anarchists work to undermine his campaign*.


LOL  Tom Woods is working to undermine Ron's campaign... 

Interesting theory, Trav.

----------


## Travlyr

I realize that I have failed to properly communicate my concerns. So, I will try again and hopefully do a better job.

I know a lot of land owners and a lot of senior citizens. Not one of them that I know will vote for an anarchist for president. Painting Ron Paul as an anarchist undermines his campaign.

I couldn't care less what political philosophy people individually claim. But if you folks, or the _powers-that-be_, are successful at painting Ron Paul as an anarchist, it's a deal killer for the Republican primary voters that I know who have voted Republican all their life.

----------


## Becker

> No problem.  I just realized that the difference between you and me is that I live in the real world, and you don't.  Therefore, debates on this subject are pretty much meaningless because it doesn't matter what ideas I have about anarchy.  I will never be able to bring those ideas to fruition.  While you sit there and dream up a new argument for anarchy, I'm actually changing things in the world by getting my political science degree and getting a job in the public sector.  Anarchy is just a pipe dream, and any discussion on it is purely hypothetical.  It's like global warming.  I really don't have to waste my energy arguing about global warming if I know it's not actually going to happen.  Sometimes I engage in such arguments for the hell of it, but treating it as if it's actually relevant is giving the anarchists and the global warming proponents too much to feed on.  Since it's not going to affect my ability to make change in the world, I need not act like your ideas about it actually matter.


you took it out of me

----------


## Becker

> I realize that I have failed to properly communicate my concerns. So, I will try again and hopefully do a better job.
> 
> I know a lot of land owners and a lot of senior citizens. Not one of them that I know will vote for an anarchist for president. Painting Ron Paul as an anarchist undermines his campaign.
> 
> I couldn't care less what political philosophy people individually claim. But if you folks, or the _powers-that-be_, are successful at painting Ron Paul as an anarchist, it's a deal killer for the Republican primary voters that I know who have voted Republican all their life.


watch these people tell you that its not about winning this rigged election, while promoting a money bomb. 

which one is it people? are we serious about this election or not?

----------


## nayjevin

> I realize that I have failed to properly communicate my concerns. So, I will try again and hopefully do a better job.
> 
> I know a lot of land owners and a lot of senior citizens. Not one of them that I know will vote for an anarchist for president. Painting Ron Paul as an anarchist undermines his campaign.
> 
> I couldn't care less what political philosophy people individually claim. But if you folks, or the _powers-that-be_, are successful at painting Ron Paul as an anarchist, it's a deal killer for the Republican primary voters that I know who have voted Republican all their life.


To what extent do you view this as a problem?

In other words, how many people do you suppose have given up on voting for Ron Paul because of this thread?

FWIW, I agree with the principle of what you are saying in this post to an extent.  If I have beliefs unpopular with those who would appreciate Dr. Paul, I feel it a responsibility to either suspend any activism toward that end, or engage in it elsewhere.  But I also believe the threat of allowing people to speak their minds, even when it might turn off potential supporters, is commonly over-estimated.

I feel the crux of disagreement is often as to what the goal is.  For those who embrace anarcho-capitalism, or even 'pure' anarchism, there is a tendency toward aversion to political activism.  This often is reflected in a greater value being placed on educating principles than on getting votes.  On the other hand, there tends to be more value placed on pragmatism among the more politically active.

I say so long as it remains relatively peaceful, and we make it part of our duty to remind folks each post should reflect first and foremost on the person posting it (see my signature) I think it'll work out.

I'm glad to have folks who take the time to speak what they believe is true, and I'm glad to have others remind them that prudence does not always dictate brutal truth.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I realize that I have failed to properly communicate my concerns. So, I will try again and hopefully do a better job.
> 
> I know a lot of land owners and a lot of senior citizens. Not one of them that I know will vote for an anarchist for president. Painting Ron Paul as an anarchist undermines his campaign.
> 
> I couldn't care less what political philosophy people individually claim. But if you folks, or the _powers-that-be_, are successful at painting Ron Paul as an anarchist, it's a deal killer for the Republican primary voters that I know who have voted Republican all their life.


Then petition the owners of this site to shut us up.  We're allowed to discuss our political philosophy here in this sub-forum, according to the owners of this site.  

The fact remains, regardless of your feelings or their decisions, that anarchists actively support, encourage and promote Ron Paul for president of the United States.  He doesn't seem to mind... in fact, he seems to wholly embrace it.  There seems to be far more detrimental facets to his campaign - indeed - than a few random anarchist cranks such as us at a website only roughly associated with him.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> To what extent do you view this as a problem?
> 
> In other words, how many people do you suppose have given up on voting for Ron Paul because of this thread?
> 
> FWIW, I agree with the principle of what you are saying in this post to an extent.  If I have beliefs unpopular with those who would appreciate Dr. Paul, I feel it a responsibility to either suspend any activism toward that end, or engage in it elsewhere.  But I also believe the threat of allowing people to speak their minds, even when it might turn off potential supporters, is commonly over-estimated.
> 
> I feel the crux of disagreement is often as to what the goal is.  For those who embrace anarcho-capitalism, or even 'pure' anarchism, there is a tendency toward aversion to political activism.  This often is reflected in a greater value being placed on educating principles than on getting votes.  On the other hand, there tends to be more value placed on pragmatism among the more politically active.
> 
> I say so long as it remains relatively peaceful, and we make it part of our duty to remind folks each post should reflect first and foremost on the person posting it (see my signature) I think it'll work out.
> ...


Lovely.  Very well said.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Doesn't this essentially call the Constitution a con? That it's incapable of fulfilling it's proposed purpose?


No, that means the Constitution, by itself, holds no intrinsic ability.  Only the people have that ability.  Laws are only as good as the public's ability and willingness to make sure they aren't broken.  The pont of that sentence isn't to say the Constitution will never work.  The point is to say its ability is determined by the public's education on how it works and what its purpose is for that purpose to be fulfilled.  It's like saying a bike is only ever useful if you actually use it.  It's not the bike itself, it's what you do with it.  I thought this was pretty obvious, since he puts the word "itself" in there.  It's like George Bush saying the Constitution is "just a piece of paper."  Nobody on this forum would actually disagree with that sentence in its essence.  The force of law doesn't come from the paper itself.  It comes from the people's ability to understand and protect the ideals portrayed by it.  This understanding is pretty clear from Ron Paul's use of the word "itself".

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> What do you think of the above quote?
> 
> Do you think your pursuit of a political science degree and future aspirations might affect the way you approach ancap?
> 
> Do you think it might color the way you perceive ancap proponents and their arguments? Am I _really_ a "sick $#@!"?
> Does this have anything to do with how angry you are at us?
> 
> What makes the ancap argument similar to the global warming, other than the fact that you've already made a decision about "where you stand on the issue"?
> 
> ...


No, I'm not trolling.  The beliefs I present are genuine.  As for Ron Paul's quote, he understands that ideas are the driving force behind politics.  However, that doesn't mean you can dream up just any idea you want and say it's relevant.  It actually has to have some connection with the real world.  He says ideas are all that matter because ideas are truly what shapes policy.  However, I think you're reading a little too much into it.  He said ideas are ALL that matter, not that ALL ideas matter.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> No, I'm not trolling. The beliefs I present are genuine.


Yes, but _why are you engaging in this conversation_? You've already stated that *you don't care about the ideas* and that *you're here because you dislike the way you perceive the attitude of a group of people and you like arguing with them*...

Isn't that trolling a group?




> However, that doesn't mean you can dream up just any idea you want and say it's relevant.


What does this mean? Are you saying I 'dreamed up' anarchocapitalism? I didn't just arbitrarily come to this board and start spouting my mouth off about something I made up.




> However, I think you're reading a little too much into it. He said ideas are ALL that matter, not that ALL ideas matter.


I never said "all ideas matter" either. You do realize how closely the ideas we're talking about are related to RP, right?

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> No, that means the Constitution, by itself, holds no intrinsic ability.  Only the people have that ability.  Laws are only as good as the public's ability and willingness to make sure they aren't broken.  The pont of that sentence isn't to say the Constitution will never work.  *The point is to say its ability is determined by the public's education on how it works and what its purpose is for that purpose to be fulfilled.*  It's like saying a bike is only ever useful if you actually use it.  It's not the bike itself, it's what you do with it.  I thought this was pretty obvious, since he puts the word "itself" in there.  It's like George Bush saying the Constitution is "just a piece of paper."  Nobody on this forum would actually disagree with that sentence in its essence.  The force of law doesn't come from the paper itself.  It comes from the people's ability to understand and protect the ideals portrayed by it.  This understanding is pretty clear from Ron Paul's use of the word "itself".


How is this different from when you were accusing me of wanting a "magical moral revolution", when I said the same thing about the NAP?

What about the fact that Ron Paul seems to think highly of about Lysander Spooner's arguments, do you think it's possible that Ron might consider the prospect of vigilant constitutionalism unlikely to work "in the real world"?:




> "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."
> 
> "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_."

----------


## Travlyr

> To what extent do you view this as a problem?
> 
> In other words, how many people do you suppose have given up on voting for Ron Paul because of this thread?
> 
> FWIW, I agree with the principle of what you are saying in this post to an extent.  If I have beliefs unpopular with those who would appreciate Dr. Paul, I feel it a responsibility to either suspend any activism toward that end, or engage in it elsewhere.  But I also believe the threat of allowing people to speak their minds, even when it might turn off potential supporters, is commonly over-estimated.
> 
> I feel the crux of disagreement is often as to what the goal is.  For those who embrace anarcho-capitalism, or even 'pure' anarchism, there is a tendency toward aversion to political activism.  This often is reflected in a greater value being placed on educating principles than on getting votes.  On the other hand, there tends to be more value placed on pragmatism among the more politically active.
> 
> I say so long as it remains relatively peaceful, and we make it part of our duty to remind folks each post should reflect first and foremost on the person posting it (see my signature) I think it'll work out.
> ...


It is a huge problem across the Midwest. Farmers & ranchers specifically will shy away from voting for an anarchist. Fed, State, County, Township, and City workers have no reason to vote for an anarchist for president as well.

It is less of a problem here on the forums because this thread is not searchable online, and some of us have decided to defend Ron Paul against false labels. If someone decides to come to Ron Paul Forums to learn more about Ron, then they find that he is not an anarchist because of those of us who defend his honor. It sucks to have to do it, but until the votes come in, I'll be on it like stink on a hog.

It is very sad to me that people (Hoppe specifically) labeled Ludwig von Mises an anarchist after he died. Myself, I don't like labels. If Mises wanted to claim the anarchist label, then he would have done that while he was alive. If Ron Paul wants to be remembered as an anarchist, then he should take that label while he is alive. It is disingenuous for people to pin labels on others especially after they can no longer defend themselves.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> To what extent do you view this as a problem?
> 
> In other words, how many people do you suppose have given up on voting for Ron Paul because of this thread?
> 
> FWIW, I agree with the principle of what you are saying in this post to an extent.  If I have beliefs unpopular with those who would appreciate Dr. Paul, I feel it a responsibility to either suspend any activism toward that end, or engage in it elsewhere.  But I also believe the threat of allowing people to speak their minds, even when it might turn off potential supporters, is commonly over-estimated.
> 
> I feel the crux of disagreement is often as to what the goal is.  For those who embrace anarcho-capitalism, or even 'pure' anarchism, there is a tendency toward aversion to political activism.  This often is reflected in a greater value being placed on educating principles than on getting votes.  On the other hand, there tends to be more value placed on pragmatism among the more politically active.
> 
> I say so long as it remains relatively peaceful, and we make it part of our duty to remind folks each post should reflect first and foremost on the person posting it (see my signature) I think it'll work out.
> ...


Good thoughts to take into account.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> It is a huge problem across the Midwest. Farmers & ranchers specifically will shy away from voting for an anarchist. Fed, State, County, Township, and City workers have no reason to vote for an anarchist for president as well.
> 
> It is less of a problem here on the forums because this thread is not searchable online, and some of us have decided to defend Ron Paul against false labels. If someone decides to come to Ron Paul Forums to learn more about Ron, then they find that he is not an anarchist because of those of us who defend his honor. It sucks to have to do it, but until the votes come in, I'll be on it like stink on a hog.
> 
> It is very sad to me that people (Hoppe specifically) labeled Ludwig von Mises an anarchist after he died. Myself, I don't like labels. If Mises wanted to claim the anarchist label, then he would have done that while he was alive. If Ron Paul wants to be remembered as an anarchist, then he should take that label while he is alive. It is disingenuous for people to pin labels on others especially after they can no longer defend themselves.


So this is about your issue with the word "anarchist" then?

----------


## Travlyr

> So this is about your issue with the word "anarchist" then?


No, your philosophy is not compatible with Republican primary voting land owners and State workers. Labeling others labels they do not themselves take misrepresents who they are. Let Ron Paul promote Ron Paul.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> A very interesting and thoughtful response. Isn't that why the "Bill of Rights" were added? I am curious as to why "We The People" of the 21st century have such a difficult time righting some of the wrongs in our lives. As far as I am concerned, a proper governing body would be completely transparent, fully recorded, and open for examination at all times.


Exactly! I could not agree more. Rule of Law absolutely requires the characteristics you identify.

As regards those characteristics, the manner in which the Constitution was created was VERY inauspicious. It was done in secret, by a group of only 50-some-odd people who had not been given ANY authority to do such a thing (they had only been authorized to consider amendments to the Aritcles of Confederation). When they were finished, they presented the Constitution as a "done deal." Public discussion & debate did take place - as in the famous exchanges between the Federalists & Anti-Federalists - but this was all "after-the-fact."

Prior to its ratification, no changes to the Constitution were made as a result of this public debate. As a result, we got stuck with things like the "general welfare" & "supremacy" clauses (which Patrick Henry and other Anti-Federalists presciently warned would be the source of serious problems). After the Constitution was ratified, the Bill of Rights was attached as an afterthought - a sop to those who were alarmed that the new Constitution did not  adequately address limitations of State power (especially with respect  to personal/individual liberties). We can see today the consequences of treating as an afterthought the principles behind the amendments in the Bill of Rights. A perfect illustration of this is the 10th amendment, which is considered by the Establishment to be a joke - an "ink blot" - when they even consider it at all.

I recently read an article (or watched a recorded speech) in which the structure & powers of the government created by the Constitution were analyzed in terms of the material & political interests of the men who drafted the Constitution. It was VERY eye-opening. (Unfortunately, I don't have a link & can't remember where I found the aritcle/video). We have a very myth-laden image of the creation of the Constitution - a mythic image planted by state-run schools and well-watered by nostalgia-exploiting politicians & media.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> No, your philosophy is not compatible with Republican primary voting land owners and State workers. Labeling others labels they do not themselves take misrepresents who they are. Let Ron Paul promote Ron Paul.


So you're attempting to be a censor then? Aren't there moderators here who are supposed to worry about what's appropriate to post?
You're going on some sort of personal vendetta, in which you get into disingenuous "arguments" with us, question our support, ignore what we say, and everyone gets angry, and _it becomes gigantic spectacles which don't even remotely help achieve your ends_... because you have some sort of personal issues about us posting on this forum?

Trav, you're promoting Ron Paul the way you see him in your own philosophical context. I've been using quotes *directly* from Ron, and you simply ignore them.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> If someone decides to come to Ron Paul Forums to learn more about Ron, then they find that he is not an anarchist because of those of us who defend his honor.


I understand that that you were talking about defending [the purity of your perception of] Ron here, but do you consider anarchism "dishonorable"?

----------


## Travlyr

> I understand that that you were talking about defending [the purity of your perception of] Ron here, but do you consider anarchism "dishonorable"?


Do you wish me to label you as a statist? Would that be honorable on my part? Or would it be honorable if I let you make your own claims?

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Do you wish me to label you as a statist? Would that be honorable on my part? Or would it be honorable if I let you make your own claims?


Well according to you I am, because I believe in ownership of land.

Edit: you also didn't answer my question.

----------


## Travlyr

> Well according to you I am, because I believe in ownership of land.


But I am not labeling you. I leave it up to you to take what every tag you wish. That is honorable on my part.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

When have I 'labelled' Ron?

----------


## noneedtoaggress

Is it honorable to question my support for Ron when it has nothing to do with the topic? Is it honorable to ignore the quotes of his I post? Is it honorable to attempt to censor a forum you haven't been charged with moderating?

Is it honorable to screw with the ancaps because _you_ have _personal issues_ with them posting here?

Do you think Ron would approve of your attacks on the ancaps to "defend his honor"?

Do you think anarchocapitalism is "dishonorable"?

----------


## Travlyr

_"What we have here is a failure to communicate."_

----------


## noneedtoaggress

Well a cursory glance at the entirety of this thread would find that pretty obvious. You certainly haven't been helping to resolve that.

----------


## fisharmor

> I'm sorry, but it's not living document  theory, at all.  That's just a lie.  Living document theory holds that  beliefs and morals change over time, calling for different laws.  Living  document theory is talking about what we have right now being  inadequate in the future.  I'm talking about something we've never had  not being practical.  
> 
> Beside, it's clearly not living document theory because, um, I'm not  talking about the Constitution.  Living document theory only applies to  the Constitution.  You can't even compare something that talks about the  inadequacy of a certain form of government to an argument for the  inadequacy of no government.  Apples and oranges.


No,  seriously, this is Logic 101.  Arguments have been categorized for the  last couple millennia, so I think it's probably worth knowing something about it.

Living document theory talks about the constitution - using the same arguments you're now using against anarchy.
Can I get a show of hands - who else is disputing this?

Look,  arguments are categorized.  This is also why people are throwing Ron  Paul in there instead of anarchy - we're showing you that the structure  of your argument can be used against you.

If I call you "poopyhead" in a thread, that's an ad hominem argument.
If you call me "fascist" in a thread, that's an ad hominem argument.
Poopyheads and fascists aren't the same thing, but do you see that they've been categorized?

Look,  I'm reaching out here because we're on the same side.  There are plenty  of enemies of liberty who know how to structure an argument, and if you  go up against them you're going to sound like you do here.  Twice in  the last couple pages you've failed to realize that people were using  your exact same argument structure to trash things you hold dear.  The  problem with that is that even though you're walking away confident that  yelling "IMPRACTICAL" and "YOU GOT NOTHIN" has won the day, other  people read these threads and they're not recognizing what you say as valid.

You obviously see a problem with minarchists coming over to the dark side on this site.  Can you understand that it's in part because they're responding to valid arguments?

Do you see that if you take invalid arguments outside of this site to try to push for liberty, that you will lose ground there as well?

----------


## RiseAgainst

Steve walks merrily down the street with his brim pulled way down low...

----------


## Travlyr

> Ron Paul is a most unusual politicianin many ways. In the first place, he really knows what he's talking about. He is not only for the gold standard. He knows why he is for it, and he is familiar with the most advanced and complex economic insights on the true nature of inflation, on how inflation works, and how inflationary credit expansion brings about booms and busts. And yet Ron has the remarkable ability to take these complex and vital insights and to present them in clear, lucid, hard-hitting terms to the non-economist reader. His economics is as sound as a bell. 
> 
> But, even more important, Ron Paul is an unusual politician because he doesn't simply pay lip service to moral principles. He believes in moral principles in his mind and heart, and he fights for them passionately and effectively. High on his set of moral principles is the vital importance of individual freedom, of the individual's natural right to be free of assault and aggression, and of his right to keep the property that he has earned on the free market, and not have it stolen from him by confiscatory taxes and government regulations. 
> 
> Ron Paul, in short, is that rare American, and still rarer politician, who deeply understands and battles for the principles of liberty that were fought for and established by the Founding Fathers of this country. He understands that sound economics, moral principles, and individual freedom all go together, like a seamless web. They cannot be separated, and they stand or fall together. 
> 
> Ron Paul understands that all three parts of this system of liberty have been under grave attack for decades, and that the main problem is the federal government itself. The government has systematically eroded and invaded property rights, has piled on ever higher taxes, ever more onerous regulations, and, most sinister because most hidden, has eroded the value of the dollar and of all of our savings through inflation. Ron Paul is an unusual politician because he is not content to shrug his shoulders, to "go with the flow," as Californians say, or to go along in order to get along. He is a man of honor as well as a man of principle, and so he has, ever since he got into politics, been doing something about it. He has fought, sometimes single-handedly, for our liberties and for our savings.
> 
> Inflation, as Ron Paul points out, is caused by the government's continual creation of new money, by what amounts to its system of legalized counterfeiting. But, if that is so, why not simply urge the government to stop the creation of money? Why not point out to our rulers the bad consequences of their actions? But Ron Paul realizes that this kind of education, or even pressure, is not going to work by itself. For we are dealing not simply with ignorant or misled people; we are dealing with a pernicious system. 
> ...


"Gold, Peace, and Prosperity" by Ron Paul

----------


## Theocrat

> Once you experience and begin to understand Humanity you can figure the pros/cons of any form of government.


Spoken in true wisdom. Civil governments are not evil in and of themselves; they are dependent upon the individuals who are in control of them. Philosophically speaking, civil government is necessary to any civilized society because it is a ministry, ordained by God, to punish evildoers and reward the righteous through protection from those evildoers as well as to preserve God-given rights to life, liberty, property, etc.

Whether one believes a civil government should exist will be based upon that person's *worldview*, both of human nature (as the above member stated) and about the nature of the world. Many anarchists/"voluntarists" just have faulty presuppositions about those two important factors of civics.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Ron Paul is a most unusual politicianin many ways. In the first place, he really knows what he's talking about. He is not only for the gold standard. He knows why he is for it, and he is familiar with the most advanced and complex economic insights on the true nature of inflation, on how inflation works, and how inflationary credit expansion brings about booms and busts. And yet Ron has the remarkable ability to take these complex and vital insights and to present them in clear, lucid, hard-hitting terms to the non-economist reader. His economics is as sound as a bell. 
> 
> But, even more important, Ron Paul is an unusual politician because he doesn't simply pay lip service to moral principles. He believes in moral principles in his mind and heart, and he fights for them passionately and effectively. *High on his set of moral principles is the vital importance of individual freedom, of the individual's natural right to be free of assault and aggression, and of his right to keep the property that he has earned on the free market, and not have it stolen from him by confiscatory taxes and government regulations.*
> 
> Ron Paul, in short, is that rare American, and still rarer politician, who deeply understands and battles for the principles of liberty that were fought for and established by the Founding Fathers of this country. He understands that sound economics, moral principles, and individual freedom all go together, like a seamless web. They cannot be separated, and they stand or fall together. 
> 
> Ron Paul understands that all three parts of this system of liberty have been under grave attack for decades, and that the main problem is the federal government itself. The government has systematically eroded and invaded property rights, has piled on ever higher taxes, ever more onerous regulations, and, most sinister because most hidden, has eroded the value of the dollar and of all of our savings through inflation. Ron Paul is an unusual politician because he is not content to shrug his shoulders, to "go with the flow," as Californians say, or to go along in order to get along. He is a man of honor as well as a man of principle, and so he has, ever since he got into politics, been doing something about it. He has fought, sometimes single-handedly, for our liberties and for our savings.
> 
> Inflation, as Ron Paul points out, is caused by the government's continual creation of new money, by what amounts to its system of legalized counterfeiting. But, if that is so, why not simply urge the government to stop the creation of money? Why not point out to our rulers the bad consequences of their actions? But Ron Paul realizes that this kind of education, or even pressure, is not going to work by itself. For we are dealing not simply with ignorant or misled people; we are dealing with a pernicious system. 
> ...


Why did you post this?

----------


## Travlyr

> Why did you post this?


Two reasons. 
It seems like very few anarchists have taken the time to read Ron Paul's "Gold, Peace, and Prosperity."Because Clay Trainor claimed that I lied when I said that I've read Rothbard's "The Mystery of Banking." 
That preface by Rothbard proves that I am closely aligned with Ron Paul and while I disagree with "Hate of the State", Rothbard has influenced me a great deal with his economic philosophy as I have read quite a bit of his work. Rothbard himself admits in the preface that the Founding Fathers were fighting for and establishing the principles of liberty. 



> Ron Paul, in short, is that rare American, and still rarer politician, who deeply understands and battles for the principles of liberty that were fought for and established by the Founding Fathers of this country.





> I read the Manifesto front to back.  I haven't read the mystery of banking, but I have read plenty of Rothbard and it's pretty clear that you either misrepresent or misunderstand his positions on multiple occasions, so I really have trouble believing that you've actually read any of his work.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Two reasons. 
> It seems like very few anarchists have taken the time to read Ron Paul's "Gold, Peace, and Prosperity."Because Clay Trainor claimed that I lied when I said that I've read Rothbard's "The Mystery of Banking." 
> That preface by Rothbard proves that I am closely aligned with Ron Paul and while I disagree with "Hate of the State", Rothbard has influenced me a great deal with his economic philosophy as I have read quite a bit of his work. Rothbard himself admits in the preface that the Founding Fathers were fighting for and establishing the principles of liberty.


Why did you say he "admits"?

Do you think Rothbard is saying that _what the founding fathers fought for was a complete program for liberty_, or that Ron Paul is battling to keep _those principles of liberty which the founders fought for_ in the course of establishing the US government (and possibly takes it further than they did?).

----------


## Travlyr

> Why did you say he "admits"?
> 
> Do you think Rothbard is saying that _what the founding fathers fought for was a complete program for liberty_, or that Ron Paul is battling to keep _those principles of liberty which the founders fought for_ when establishing the US government (and possibly takes it further than they did?).


Definition of ADMIT

transitive verb
1
a : to allow scope for : permit <admits no possibility of misunderstanding>
b : to concede as true or valid <admitted making a mistake>

----------


## noneedtoaggress

I understand what the term means. That's not the question I asked.

_What is he admitting to_? Elaborate.

----------


## Travlyr

> I understand what the term means. That's not the question I asked.
> 
> _What is he admitting_? Elaborate.


You are full of questions. You are going to have to figure some of it out for yourself. When I try to answer your questions, you misunderstand what I write. I have no more answers for you at this time.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

And how, pray tell, am I supposed to "figure out" _your interpretation of a sentence_?

----------


## Travlyr

> And how, pray tell, am I supposed to "figure out" _your interpretation of a sentence_?


Merriam-Webster

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Ron Paul, in [having little length], is that [marked by a wide seperation of component particles] [an American Indian of North America or South America], and [devoid or abstaining from motion] rarer [a person experienced in the art or science of government], who [extending far from some surface or area] [grasps the meaning of] and [combats between two persons] for the [a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption] of [the quality or state of being free] that were [_past and present participle of fight_] for and [to institute (as a law) permanently by enactment or agreement] by the [the originators of an institution or movement] of this [an indefinite usually extended expanse of land].


I guess I'm just going to have to assume that this is how you interpreted it.

----------


## Travlyr

Serious LOLOLOL.... nice.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

haha. (but it still doesn't solve anything).

----------


## Wesker1982

Anyone who thinks that posting about Ron Paul's philosophy in a hidden subforum will significantly effect his odds of becoming president is delusional.

Ok, back to BF3 now.

----------


## Travlyr

> haha. (but it still doesn't solve anything).


Well it should have solved something. I did, in fact, quote Rothbard prefacing Ron Paul's work defending the Founding Fathers efforts to bring liberty to the people through the Constitutional republic.

Now you have more people to hate, degrade, and be more moral than them. Rothbard, Paul, Mises, Rev9, Liberty Eagle, PaulConventionWV, newbitech, myself, Theocrat, and the many, many, others who have spent their time and money defending the rule of law should be on your list of people to destroy.

----------


## Travlyr

> Anyone who thinks that posting about Ron Paul's philosophy in a hidden subforum will significantly effect his odds of becoming president is delusional.
> 
> Ok, back to BF3 now.


 It is in hidden sub-forum because some people believe that Ron Paul is a "Hater of the State" and they perpetually work undermine his campaign for president by painting him as an Anti-State candidate while he claims to be a "Defender of Liberty and The Champion of the Constitution."  He loves liberty and he understands that others take his liberty illegally. He fights for liberty by participating. Why do you have the incessant need to degrade others who are fighting and paying the costs for their fight for liberty?

----------


## Travlyr

> Well it should have solved something. I did, in fact, quote Rothbard prefacing Ron Paul's work defending the Founding Fathers efforts to bring liberty to the people through the Constitutional republic.
> 
> Now you have more people to hate, degrade, and be more moral than them. Rothbard, Paul, Mises, Rev9, Liberty Eagle, PaulConventionWV, newbitech, myself, Theocrat, and the many, many, others who have spent their time and money defending the rule of law should be on your list of people to destroy.


I hope you noticed that Hans-Hermann Hoppe was not on that list. He is the guy the State hired to philosophize about Stateless societies in order to take the focus off the Counterfeiting Cabal of Oligarchs effectively dividing the liberty movement and maintaining their power just a little longer.

Oh yeah, Stefan Molyneux too. He is not on the list either. He's the Canadian dude who sounds all righteous and stuff preaching don't vote for the good guy. I'm not sure who influenced him, but he has a very strong argument and a lot of followers too because the NAP makes so much sense. He doesn't say that not voting is really a vote, but most people can figure that out, right? I mean really it's pretty simple. If you don't vote, or vote against Ron Paul, then those are votes that Ron Paul doesn't get, right? Yeah.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Well it should have solved something. I did, in fact, quote Rothbard prefacing Ron Paul's work defending the Founding Fathers efforts to bring liberty to the people through the Constitutional republic.
> 
> Now you have more people to hate, degrade, and be more moral than them. Rothbard, Paul, Mises, Rev9, Liberty Eagle, PaulConventionWV, newbitech, myself, Theocrat, and the many, many, others who have spent their time and money defending the rule of law should be on your list of people to destroy.


What in the world are you talking about?

I don't hate anyone Trav. I'm critical of the idea that the initiation of force against person or property is beneficial to society. That's it. I don't _hate_ you, or anyone else on this board or anyone else you were insinuating. I didn't engage anyone because I didn't like them or the group they're a part of. Statism isn't a person, Trav. It's an idea, and one that you apparently seem to self-identify with strongly enough to take criticism as personal attacks.

I'm not out to "destroy" people, I'm not out to troll a group of people, I'm not out to censor anyone. I'm here to be critical of ideas, discuss libertarian principles, and support Ron Paul.

You've basically admitted that your goal in engaging the ancaps on this board is to attack them for _your own personal reasons_, which you turn into "honoring Ron Paul" (or defending _your concept_ of Ron Paul from what you see as an attack by dishonorable people with a twisted ideology).

I'm not the one out to destroy anyone, Trav.

----------


## CCTelander

> What in the world are you talking about?
> 
> I don't hate anyone Trav. I'm critical of the idea that the initiation of force against person or property is beneficial to society. That's it. I don't _hate_ you, or anyone else on this board or anyone else you were insinuating. I didn't engage anyone because I didn't like them or the group they're a part of. Statism isn't a person, Trav. It's an idea, and one that you apparently seem to self-identify with strongly enough to take criticism as personal attacks.
> 
> I'm not out to "destroy" people, I'm not out to troll a group of people, I'm not out to censor anyone. I'm here to be critical of ideas, discuss libertarian principles, and support Ron Paul.
> 
> You've basically admitted that your goal in engaging the ancaps on this board is to attack them for _your own personal reasons_, which you turn into "honoring Ron Paul" (or defending _your concept_ of Ron Paul from what you see as an attack by dishonorable people with a twisted ideology).
> 
> I'm not the one out to destroy anyone, Trav.



Trav definitely seems determined to make enemies out of friends, doesn't he?

Sad, really.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I hope you noticed that Hans-Hermann Hoppe was not on that list. He is the guy the State hired to philosophize about Stateless societies in order to take the focus off the Counterfeiting Cabal of Oligarchs effectively dividing the liberty movement and maintaining their power just a little longer.
> 
> Oh yeah, Stefan Molyneux too. He is not on the list either. He's the Canadian dude who sounds all righteous and stuff preaching don't vote for the good guy. I'm not sure who influenced him, but he has a very strong argument and a lot of followers too because the NAP makes so much sense. He doesn't say that not voting is really a vote, but most people can figure that out, right? I mean really it's pretty simple. If you don't vote, or vote against Ron Paul, then those are votes that Ron Paul doesn't get, right? Yeah.


I don't understand this either.  What are you trying to say?  You do like Rothbard, but you don't like Hoppe or Molyneux I guess?  Is that the gist of it?

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Trav definitely seems determined to make enemies out of friends, doesn't he?


We're not his friends, it seems. We're dishonorable and confused heretics, opposed to law and order, and misguidedly smearing Ron Paul with his own words. We criticize the state existentially, it's taboo and _offensive_. Discussing this topic doesn't belong here, despite Ron's own attitudes and associations involving ancap and it's proponents.

The mods aren't doing their jobs, so someone has to take it upon themselves rid this Ron Paul grassroots message board from the distortions of the ancap menace.

----------


## CCTelander

> We're not his friends, it seems. We're dishonorable and confused heretics, opposed to law and order, and misguidedly smearing Ron Paul with his own words. We criticize the state existentially, it's taboo and _offensive_. Discussing this topic doesn't belong here, despite Ron's own attitudes and associations involving ancap and it's proponents.
> 
> The mods aren't doing their jobs, so someone has to take it upon themselves rid this Ron Paul grassroots message board from the distortions of the ancap menace.



If I had a nickle for every time I've been called a NWO dupe or an agent provocateur around here...

----------


## Travlyr

> I don't understand this either.  What are you trying to say?  You do like Rothbard, but you don't like Hoppe or Molyneux I guess?  Is that the gist of it?


People who have read Ron Paul should understand what I am saying. My point is that the Counterfeiting Cabal of Oligarchs ignore the rule of law as stated in the Constitution when they assassinate citizens, when they steal from the citizens through the inflation tax, and when they war on other people around the world without declaring war. Eliminating the State is a monumental task while forcing the rule of law on the powers-that-be is simply our job as citizens. Ron Paul has the military behind him which is essential for any government. Hoppe has people on a wild goose chase, and Molyneux is telling people not to vote. They are not helping us to achieve liberty in my lifetime. Ron Paul needs all the votes he can get next year so he can bring the troops home and begin the healing process. Some of us don't have 20 more years to wait for liberty, peace, and prosperity.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> People who have read Ron Paul should understand what I am saying. My point is that the Counterfeiting Cabal of Oligarchs ignore the rule of law as stated in the Constitution when they assassinate citizens, when they steal from the citizens through the inflation tax, and when they war on other people around the world without declaring war. Eliminating the State is a monumental task while forcing the rule of law on the powers-that-be is simply our job as citizens. Ron Paul has the military behind him which is essential for any government. Hoppe has people on a wild goose chase, and Molyneux is telling people not to vote. They are not helping us to achieve liberty in my lifetime. Ron Paul needs all the votes he can get next year so he can bring the troops home and begin the healing process. Some of us don't have 20 more years to wait for liberty, peace, and prosperity.


Division of labor. Surely, Hoppe and Molyneux are in agreement with you on these issues. The more anarchists/liberty lovers/whatever you want to call people who fight for smaller government there are, and wider the range of emphasis, the wider the net that is cast.

----------


## Travlyr

> Division of labor. Surely, Hoppe and Molyneux are in agreement with you on these issues. The more anarchists/liberty lovers/whatever you want to call people who fight for smaller government there are, and wider the range of emphasis, the wider the net that is cast.


I agree with you on this. What they are doing is not all bad, but we need the votes now.

----------


## torchbearer

always had the same division in the LP between the anarchs and minarchs. the minarchs won the last convention with Barr, but the anarchs had controlled the majority of conventions. badnarik would be the *closest* to an anarch that would actually run for president.

----------


## Wesker1982

> Why do you have the incessant need to degrade others who are fighting and paying the costs for their fight for liberty?


Just because I agree with some of your goals does not mean that I have to agree with everything you say. If you think posting about things that Ron Paul has *said publicly* and *published in his books* is intended to be hidden, then you are delusional. 




> Painting Ron Paul as an anarchist undermines his campaign.


No one is painting him as an anarchist. The fear that dicussing *Ron Paul's own words* on a hidden subforum is undermining his campaign is simply irrational. If these ideas were supposed to be hidden, Ron Paul would not *publish* them. It is also laughable to think that Ron Paul's own ideas undermine his own campaign. 

If I thought the Voluntaryists were undermining his campaign, I would join you and help you in stopping them. But I don't believe this is the case _at all_. Most Voluntaryists I know of want Ron Paul to win, myself included. I have personally convinced 25+ confirmed people to vote for Ron Paul, and who knows how many others through random conversations, leaving tip cards (which were awesome, to whoever printed those), flyers, etc. So it would be a tough case to make that I want to undermine his campaign while simultaneously convincing people to vote for him.

----------


## Travlyr

> No one is painting him as an anarchist.


Not anymore. But it was rampant last election.




> Your claim: that I have directly called Ron Paul an "anarchist" recently.


It is clear that a voluntaryist and an anarchist are not one and the same philosophies.




> The fear that dicussing *Ron Paul's own words* on a hidden subforum is undermining his campaign is simply irrational.


"_What we have here is a failure to communicate._"




> If these ideas were supposed to be hidden, Ron Paul would not *publish* them. It is also laughable to think that Ron Paul's own ideas undermine his own campaign.


Only when they are taken out-of-context in order to promote your agenda not his.


> 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.


 


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


 Which is the way it is defined in the *Constitution*.




> 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


Ron is referring to the TSA airport security which is not a *constitutional* organization.




> If I thought the Voluntaryists were undermining his campaign, I would join you and help you in stopping them. But I don't believe this is the case _at all_. Most Voluntaryists I know of want Ron Paul to win, myself included. I have personally convinced 25+ confirmed people to vote for Ron Paul, and who knows how many others through random conversations, leaving tip cards (which were awesome, to whoever printed those), flyers, etc. So it would be a tough case to make that I want to undermine his campaign while simultaneously convincing people to vote for him.


Again, "_What we have here is a failure to communicate._"

Do you agree that Ron Paul is on the campaign trail asking for people to *vote for him* because if we obeyed the *Constitution* then wars would be declared, central banks would not have the power to print money out of nothing, and bloated Federal departments need to be abolished because they are not authorized in the *Constitution*?

Do you agree that Ron Paul has recently said, "I am a defender of liberty and supporter of the *Constitution*?"

If so, then promote him the way he promotes himself. He does not call it a CONstitution because it is offensive and not a vote getter. He needs 60% of the popular vote to have a mandate. _Cart behind the horse._

----------


## Wesker1982

> Not anymore. But it was rampant last election.


I wasn't even around here. They probably meant to call him a Voluntaryist. 




> It is clear that a voluntaryist and an anarchist are not one and the same philosophies.


I am glad that you realize this. 




> Only when they are taken out-of-context in order to promote your agenda not his.


It is his agenda, or else he wouldn't publish it. Ron Paul knows that he has turned a lot of people into Voluntaryists, it follows that he must know that these same people will come to a certain conclusion when they read certain things he writes. 

Like when he says all security should be privatized, i.e. voluntary, and then recommends you read For a New Liberty by Murray Rothbard. People are obviously going to take a hint. 




> Which is the way it is defined in the *Constitution*.


So? He supports the Constitution compared to what we have now, and he explicitly said he prefers a purely voluntary (i.e. no taxation) *rather* than a return to the Constitution. 




> Ron is referring to the TSA airport security which is not a *constitutional* organization.


He is using it as an example. "Airlines are a good example." - Liberty Defined, Page 288

If you read the rest of the paragraph, he also talks about armored trucks, jewelry stores, and banks. "They all have security issues but handle them through private means."

It is tough for people to wrap their heads around private security. They tend to think of blackwater (which is funded publicly, i.e. not private), so it is useful to use examples like malls etc. 




> Do you agree that Ron Paul is on the campaign trail asking for people to *vote for him* because if we obeyed the *Constitution* then wars would be declared, central banks would not have the power to print money out of nothing, and bloated Federal departments need to be abolished because they are not authorized in the *Constitution?*


Sure, but this isn't relevant to posting about his philosophy on the philosophy subforum. 




> If so, then promote him the way he promotes himself. He does not call it a CONstitution because it is offensive and not a vote getter.


He promotes himself more than one way. If he didn't want people to reach certain conclusions, he would avoid publishing certain things. Most people haven't drawn the same conclusion, but it is no accident that a lot of people have. 

Plus, it does not follow that discussing these issues here means that I am going out to the average voter and preaching about Ron Paul being a Voluntaryist. Out of all of the people I have convinced to vote for Ron Paul, I never bring it up unless I know there is time to explain. I realize that while there might be enough time and dialogue to convince someone to vote for him, it does not mean there is enough time to talk about philosophy.

So far I have a 100% success rate at not losing voters while simultaneously explaining to them that Ron Paul is a Voluntaryist.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> always had the same division in the LP between the anarchs and minarchs. the minarchs won the last convention with Barr, but the anarchs had controlled the majority of conventions. badnarik would be the *closest* to an anarch that would actually run for president.


Badnarik would be a strong candidate...except the LP candidates will probably never be allowed into the debates-unless one of them attracts the sponsorship of a Perot-type person who can buy an entry into the debate.

----------


## RiseAgainst

Funny, during his speach in MN today I must have heard Ron reference the principle of self ownership at least a dozen times...

Trav, is Ron Paul becoming a threat to Ron Paul?

----------


## Travlyr

> Funny, during his speach in MN today I must have heard Ron reference the principle of self ownership at least a dozen times...
> 
> Trav, is Ron Paul becoming a threat to Ron Paul?


_Defender of Liberty & The Champion of the Constitution_, Ron Paul, has stated clearly that by returning to the rule of law we will achieve liberty, peace, and prosperity. Read "Gold, Peace, and Prosperity" to learn more about Ron Paul's position. Pay special attention to Murray Rothbard's preface. Rothbard praises the work of Ron Paul and our Founding Fathers. 




> "Ron Paul, in short, is that rare American, and still rarer politician, who deeply understands and battles for the principles of liberty that were fought for and established by the Founding Fathers of this country. He understands that sound economics, moral principles, and individual freedom all go together, like a seamless web. They cannot be separated, and they stand or fall together." - Murray Rothbard


This is the same thing I have been saying on this board since December 2009. So, no, I do not think he is a threat to himself. I am not sure why you are still confused.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

I'm always entertained by a response that is not an answer.

On an unrelated note, did you guys know that - sometimes - self-ownership is conditional?

----------


## CCTelander

> I'm always entertained by a response that is not an answer.
> 
> On an unrelated note, did you guys know that - *sometimes - self-ownership is conditional?*



According to whom?

----------


## Travlyr

> Trav, is Ron Paul becoming a threat to Ron Paul?





> So, no, I do not think he is a threat to himself.





> I'm always entertained by a response that is not an answer.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> According to whom?


Not the back-slappin' contingent, I assure you.  

Lest I be accused of a "personal attack", I'll allow the thread to answer for itself.  

(in the minds of some, I suspect that's a personal attack... oh well... whatchagonnadoo?)

----------


## CCTelander

> Not the back-slappin' contingent, I assure you.  
> 
> Lest I be accused of a "personal attack", I'll allow the thread to answer for itself.  
> 
> (in the minds of some, I suspect that's a personal attack... oh well... whatchagonnadoo?)



<~~~Proud to be part of the "back-slappin' contingent."

As far as personal attacks go, there's just no accounting for some people's over sensitivity, is there?

----------


## Nathaniel1984

Just thought this was relevant as an idea:

"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. This is impracticable only because of compelling technical considerations, which make it necessary that a region be governed as a single administrative unit and 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."

http://mises.org/liberal/ch3sec2.asp

Mises was admiting the possibility of volunatrism, and therefore, 'anarchism' in the Austrian form (though, not in the perjorative majority of use of the word), only dissenting by pointing out he technical problems of single-person secession.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Just thought this was relevant as an idea:
> 
> "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. This is impracticable only because of compelling technical considerations, which make it necessary that a region be governed as a single administrative unit and 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."
> 
> http://mises.org/liberal/ch3sec2.asp
> 
> Mises was admiting the possibility of volunatrism, and therefore, 'anarchism' in the Austrian form (though, not in the perjorative majority of use of the word), only dissenting by pointing out he technical problems of single-person secession.


Yep.  I'm fond of Misesian "micro-secession" myself.  Rothbard talks about it too here: NATIONS BY CONSENTECOMPOSING THE NATION-STATE

----------


## Nathaniel1984

At which point one realizes that the difference between Rothbard and Mises on this point, the fundamental difference, is between Mises being a Utilitarian and Rothbard being Natural Law.  Mises would bring up the technical problems of micro or individual secession, but he would say that we should solve these so we could grant the right.  Rothbard would say, "The heavens fall, justice be done", end of story, grant the right.  This is similar to Rothbard castigating all the plans for 'graduated emancipation' that were offered in the 19th century; he viewed the matter as simply evil, immoral, and unjust, and that the slaves should be immediately emancipated, and the 'social consequences' be damned.  

Now that technology is much more advanced, I wonder how many additional technical issues have been removed from Mises technical objection?

----------


## Nathaniel1984

It should also be pointed out, that if individual secession were allowed, it wouldn't necessarily lead to what we generally view as non-territorial monopolist anarcho-capitalism.  I think many people, would willingly sign a covenant or contract, agreeing to a minarchist government, because they would see it (rightly or wrongly) as safer and less complicated.

For example, let us say you have a small town of 1000 people in North Dakota.  And they all exercise their right of individual secession from the US and North Dakota (assuming no one stopped them).  What are the chances that fairly conventional people, are just going to reform the 'state' in miniature?  I'd say very good chances, though, the difference would be, they now do so voluntarily, and any problems they encounter in the future they can't blame the government by saying, "Well, I didn't agree to this," when they did in the original contract (assuming nothing bad is happening, which is a big assumption in many ways).  This is more analogous to gated communities.  If you bring up the example of large gated communities, how they have strings attached to the land plots, there are noise regulations, etc, etc, things that mimic town laws, and you tell someone, "Well, this is anarchism as I understand it.", many would reply, "No, that's not anarchism.  There is rule of law, there are regulations, there is a governmnent in the community board that everyone votes for, etc."  And then the anarcho-capitalist could reply, "We have very different definition of what the word 'anarchy' means then.  These people have voluntarily moved here, they have voluntarily signed onto this contract.  They have voluntarily transfered these perogatives of theres to the gated community, and plus, they can leave with the community buying out their house and land whenever they want.  And they have voluntarily agreed that if they should violate the contract, the community can send the security to tell them to stop, and if they don't they can be expelled for violation of the contract.  The key word is voluntary."
I think many people hear the word 'anarchy' and because of is misuse and also miscommunication of what this entails by some libertarians, it contributes to an understanding that ammounts to 'Mad Max' or 'Road Warrior', that bad parts, that is.  A lot of this was cleared up for me, when I read Hoppe's 'Democracy: The God that Failed", especially when he quotes the great conservative sociologist Robert Nisbet.

----------


## Wesker1982

Nathaniel,

Please stick around, forever.

----------


## Nathaniel1984

I'll try!

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Nathaniel,
> 
> Please stick around, forever.


What Wesker said!

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> At which point one realizes that the difference between Rothbard and Mises on this point, the fundamental difference, is between Mises being a Utilitarian and Rothbard being Natural Law.  Mises would bring up the technical problems of micro or individual secession, but he would say that we should solve these so we could grant the right.  Rothbard would say, "The heavens fall, justice be done", end of story, grant the right.  This is similar to Rothbard castigating all the plans for 'graduated emancipation' that were offered in the 19th century; he viewed the matter as simply evil, immoral, and unjust, and that the slaves should be immediately emancipated, and the 'social consequences' be damned.  
> 
> Now that technology is much more advanced, I wonder how many additional technical issues have been removed from Mises technical objection?


IOU a +rep!  I've said the same thing during these sort of debates, but not so eloquently.

----------


## bwlibertyman

I would tread lightly though. It does seem that people like wesker/conzaa tend to get banned.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> <~~~Proud to be part of the "back-slappin' contingent."


+1 
<~~~fellow back-slapper

----------


## Nathaniel1984

Ron Paul has stated that he would like to shrink the federal governmnet to such a size, that it could be funded entirely through user fees, land sales, etc, that is, voluntary 'taxation'.  I think it will be very difficult for him to do this once he is elected president, and I think at most, we will be moderately on the road to this, possibly, by the end of his second term.  That's why it is necessary to get someone else elected after Paul's second term who will continue.  It is also important to remember that we can't just focus on the federal elections and government; we have to focus just as much, if not more, on the state, city, county, town, municipal and local governments.  If we concentrate on the federal gov, reduce it to pre-depression size, it will do a lot of good, but, we still have the state behemoths.

I'm sure anyone who owns a house, some land, a business, etc, can tell you that the local governments can be just as tyrannical as the federal government. The difference is that you can at least move to a different town, city, county, or even state to get away.  I've had experience with this when trying to build churches on a few acres of land for a local monastery.  Even though the church is entirely a 'private' building, and we got approval decades ago, the town doesn't seem to entirely care, and with their regulations, fees, taxes, etc, etc,. it has taken 20 years to build something that should have taken 2 years.

So, just to make clear, if we could just get back to a constitutional republic, analogous to that existing under Jefferson (excluding the obvious bad things at the time, like slavery, etc), then I'd probably just retire.

----------


## RiseAgainst

> I would tread lightly though. It does seem that people like wesker/conzaa tend to get banned.


Weve all been banned a time or two.  

Ideas are dangerous...

----------


## nayjevin

Banning is almost always a result of behavior, rarely if ever for simply holding a certain belief.  In other words, having an unpopular idea is fine, but one should understand that the more unpopular it is, or the more damaging it can be predicted to be perceived, the more careful one ought to be in choosing how to present it.

----------


## Wesker1982

> I would tread lightly though. It does seem that people like wesker/conzaa tend to get banned.


I have never been banned. Never even close AFAIK.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> People who have read Ron Paul should understand what I am saying.


 I have read Ron Paul and I did not understand what you were saying.  Anyway, I think I do now.  You were under the impression that some poster or posters have as their enemies everyone who says anything good about or supports in any way the Constitution, the founding fathers, voting, and all that jazz.  Right?  

Thus I can make sense of your being pro-Rothbard, while being anti-Hoppe.  You're saying that the bad ancap poster(s) had better hate Rothbard, since Rothbard said something nice about the founding fathers, but that he/they must like Hoppe, since he didn't.

You know what though?  I'll bet that someone could find somewhere where Hoppe does say something nice about the founding fathers or the Constitution, and I myself recall a lecture he gave wherein he presented voting as part of a positive, realistic, strategy for victory for liberty.  This one, listen and enjoy: 
http://mises.org/media/1282/Strategy...cts-of-Liberty

----------


## Travlyr

> I have read Ron Paul and I did not understand what you were saying.  Anyway, I think I do now.  You were under the impression that some poster or posters have as their enemies everyone who says anything good about or supports in any way the Constitution, the founding fathers, voting, and all that jazz.  Right?  
> 
> Thus I can make sense of your being pro-Rothbard, while being anti-Hoppe.  You're saying that the bad ancap poster(s) had better hate Rothbard, since Rothbard said something nice about the founding fathers, but that he/they must like Hoppe, since he didn't.
> 
> You know what though?  I'll bet that someone could find somewhere where Hoppe does say something nice about the founding fathers or the Constitution, and I myself recall a lecture he gave wherein he presented voting as part of a positive, realistic, strategy for victory for liberty.  This one, listen and enjoy: 
> http://mises.org/media/1282/Strategy...cts-of-Liberty


The counterfeiters are the controllers, aggressors, and initiators of force.
"Gold, Peace, and Prosperity" - Ron Paul talks about how central banking doesn't work except to keep people in power. Honest sound money is the solution.


> People fight the gold standard, said Ludwig von Mises, because they want to substitute national autarky for free trade, war for peace, totalitarian government omnipotence for liberty. It is no coincidence that the nineteenth century, a time of gold coin standards for the most part, was an era of peace. Nor is it a coincidence that the twentieth century combines wars with paper money.
> 
> Everyone who believes in freedom must work diligently for sound money, fully redeemable. Nothing else is compatible with the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity. -- Ron Paul


"A Case for Gold" - same thing."End The Fed" - same thing."The Revolution: A Manifesto" - same."Ron's debate with Charles Partee" Gold versus Discretion - same."The Mystery of Banking" - Rothbard explains the concept of honest sound money and how the Joachimstaler Groshen which morphed into the 'taler' which morphed into the 'dollar' originated in the free-market with the honesty and consistency of Count von Schlick's coinage."The Secrets of the Federal Reserve" Eustace Mullins talks about how international banker, Paul Warburg, et.al., was successful in getting control of America's money supply with "elastic" money. "Elastic Money" means money stolen from producers without them being able to detect it. 



> "By this means government may secretly and unobserved, confiscate the wealth of the people, and not one man in a million will detect the theft." - Lord John Maynard Keynes, "Economic Consequences of Peace"


So I have no desire to listen to 1 1/2 hours of Hans Hermann-Hoppe, who worked for the State and retired from the State, drone on and on about how we need to end the State. The counterfeiters are the controllers and they tell us that.



> "Banking was conceived in iniquity and born in sin. Bankers own the Earth. Take it away from them but leave them the power to create money, and, with the flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again. Take this great power away from them and all great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for then this would be a better and happier world to live in. But, if you want to continue to be the slave of the bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let the bankers continue to create money and control credit." - Sir Josiah Stamp, President, Bank of England (2nd richest man in England)


If you wish to do away with the State, then your first task is to do away with the counterfeiters because they are the one's holding the guns, guiding the drones, and paying the police to control the State.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

We all work for the state.

No one disagrees with ending the Fed.  

...and property can and has been delineated without you forcing me to use your particular deed-recording agency.

----------


## Travlyr

> We all work for the state.
> 
> No one disagrees with ending the Fed.  
> 
> ...and property can and has been delineated without you forcing me to use your particular deed-recording agency.


The point is that Ron Paul has written numerous books all of which talk about ending central banking and reverting back to society using honest sound money as the way to achieve liberty, peace, and prosperity. He has not written a book, pamphlet, or article with the focus on ending the State. He has read about it but never argued for it formally. One or two sentences out of all his writings do not constitute an argument.

Also, deed-recording is not what establishes a State. Competition in deed-recording is fine with me if, as a land owner, a deed-recording agency could demonstrate why their service is better.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> The point is that Ron Paul has written numerous books all of which talk about ending central banking and reverting back to society using honest sound money as the way to achieve liberty, peace, and prosperity. He has not written a book, pamphlet, or article with the focus on ending the State. He has read about it but never argued for it formally. One or two sentences out of all his writings do not constitute an argument.
> 
> Also, deed-recording is not what establishes a State. Competition in deed-recording is fine with me if, as a land owner, a deed-recording agency could demonstrate why their service is better.


I'm not one to make declarations about Ron's views - I think that's up to him.  We're all free to guess abou them, of course, but I'll not make categorical statements about where Ron stands.  

If it's true that you do not oppose competition in deed-recording, then I think that you and I have no conflict, as I was under the impression (as I think we all were) that this was - to you - the one legitimate role of the by-definition anti-competition state.  Cheers, mate.  Good day on RPF!

----------


## Travlyr

> I'm not one to make declarations about Ron's views - I think that's up to him.  We're all free to guess abou them, of course, but I'll not make categorical statements about where Ron stands.  
> 
> If it's true that you do not oppose competition in deed-recording, then I think that you and I have no conflict, as I was under the impression (as I think we all were) that this was - to you - the one legitimate role of the by-definition anti-competition state.  Cheers, mate.  Good day on RPF!


I made the claim early on in this thread that a State is formed when two or more people lay a claim to land, determine boundaries, and jointly make laws of the land. A State can be bigger than that by agreements and indeed they are. A proper function of the State is to publicly record deeds, enforce the laws, and determine justice for those who violate the rights of others. I can see how deed-recording, enforcement of laws, and justice could be accomplished competitively, but it is my opinion that there are no advantages to it because none of those functions should be for sale to the highest bidder. I do not see how enforceable common land laws could be written by private entities except by a monarch, or oligarch, which is what we endure today in America.

If only one person or group of people lay claim to the same land, then that would be a kingdom. I would like to be king of my land, but it is not practical in a world with 6 billion people. I'll settle for being king of my castle subject to the laws of the land with representation in the State.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

It's your opinion that there are no advantages to competition... that's telling.

I do not propose a free-for-all; I propose that the sovereignty of the individual be respected... by everyone.

----------


## Travlyr

> It's your opinion that there are no advantages to competition... that's telling.


I see no advantage for competition in those three specific functions of society. 

Perhaps you could explain how judges competing to hear the case of an individual accused of a crime would be preferable to a judge duty bound to the oath of the rule of law, or how competing Sheriff's departments are preferable to elected Sheriffs.




> I do not propose a free-for-all; I propose that the sovereignty of the individual be respected... by everyone.


Respect for the sovereignty of the individual is expected from everyone unless and until an individual infringes on the rights of another. Some people say that when an individual lays an ownership claim to land, then that act alone infringes on the rights of everyone else by stopping everyone else from their inherent right to use it. For example, when a land owner stops an individual from trespassing on his/her land, then the landowner is infringing on that individual's right to travel the world freely. 

Therefore, individuals must accept that pure unadulterated individual sovereignty is not conducive to land ownership. So the question becomes, "How much sovereignty compromise should individuals accept?" That is different strokes for different folks. For me, I accept competition in everything except, writing laws of the land, enforcing those laws, and the justice of restitution for individuals who violate laws made by legitimate representatives.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

I think your laws of the land are inherent, Trav.  Things are either absolute, or arbitrary.  the statelessness we advocate here is principled, not chaotic.  Courts and judges would compete based upon their reputation for objectivity and fairness, not on their particular brand of law, I think.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Yes.  The ideology of the people must change before ancap can work stably.

----------


## Wesker1982

> Yes.  The ideology of the people must change before ancap can work stably.


And this equally applies to a limited government. At the point where people's ideologies have changed enough to maintain a lasting limited government, a voluntary society is achievable.

----------


## Becker

> Yes.  The ideology of the people must change before ancap can work stably.


you mean to tell me we shouldn't force people to join and submit to the right kind of lack of government? and if ancap can't work stably we should give up and live in this immoral system?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> you mean to tell me we shouldn't force people to join and submit to the right kind of lack of government? and if ancap can't work stably we should give up and live in this immoral system?


You know exactly what I mean and are just playing dumb again, as you are wont.    You would have better luck playing that game with others who have not caught on, of course.  Enjoy that!

----------


## Wesker1982

> Perhaps you could explain how judges competing to hear the case of an individual accused of a crime would be preferable to a judge duty bound to the oath of the rule of law, or how competing Sheriff's departments are preferable to elected Sheriffs.


Once a judge is elected it is very hard to get rid of him. Bad judges are not held directly accountable for bad decisions. This should be very apparent by now.

Judges who are not legally immune from competition would be held directly accountable for their actions. A judge with a bad reputation would not have decisions respected by reputable insurance agencies, etc.




> The very life of the court, the very livelihood of a judge, will depend on his reputation for integrity, fair-mindedness, objectivity, and the quest for truth in every case.





> Contrast this built-in corrective mechanism to the present-day government courts. Judges are appointed or elected for long terms, up to life, and they are accorded a monopoly of decision-making in their particular area. It is almost impossible, except in cases of gross corruption, to do anything about venal decisions of judges. Their power to make and to enforce their decisions continues unchecked year after year. Their salaries continue to be paid, furnished under coercion by the hapless taxpayer. But in the totally free society, any suspicion of a judge or court will cause their customers to melt away and their "decisions" to be ignored. This is a far more efficient system of keeping judges honest than the mechanism of government.





> There is a *myth* that the "American System" provides a superb set of "checks and balances," with the executive, the legislature, and the courts all balancing and checking one against the other, so that power cannot unduly accumulate in one set of hands. But the American "checks and balances" system is largely a fraud. For each one of these institutions is a coercive monopoly in its area, and all of them are part of one government, headed by one political party at any given time. Furthermore, at best there are only two parties, each one close to the other in ideology and personnel, often colluding, and the actual day-to-day business of government headed by a civil service bureaucracy that cannot be displaced by the voters. Contrast to these mythical checks and balances the real checks and balances provided by the free-market economy! What keeps A&P honest is the competition, actual and potential, of Safeway, Pioneer, and countless other grocery stores. What keeps them honest is the ability of the consumers to cut off their patronage. What would keep the free-market judges and courts honest is the lively possibility of heading down the block or down the road to another judge or court if suspicion should descend on any particular one. What would keep them honest is the lively possibility of their customers cutting off their business. These are the real, active checks and balances of the free-market economy and the free society.


Chapter 12

Really, it should be obvious that taking away legal immunity from bad decisions will provide better results. We should all know what happens when the government protects you from bad decisions. 

"*The point is not that human failings play a central part in the breakdown of the courts but rather that courts as an institution tend to breed many of the observed failings*." - Judge Richard Neely, _Why Courts Don't Work_




> Life tenure or long elected terms for judges, he observed, encourages "arrogance and indolence," while occupations such as working as a salesperson tends to mask them. Salespersons compete in markets for the expenditures of consumers, while judges supply a service within an institutional setting that requires potential consumers to compete for their attention. - Bruce Benson, _The Enterprise of Law_


I can't recommend *The Enterprise of Law* enough.

Another very big problem is that socialist courts have no rational way to allocate resources. This leads to inevitable inefficiency and waste. 

The lack of incentive due to the absence of profit and loss alone is enough to show why socialist programs don't work. But as Mises pointed out, even if there was a magically transformed socialist man who only cared about the well being of his fellow man, socialism STILL could not work due to the lack of economic calculation. 

The Calculation Problem

----------


## Travlyr

> Once a judge is elected it is very hard to get rid of him. Bad judges are not held directly accountable for bad decisions. This should be very apparent by now.


The failure of the people to hold judges accountable for their decisions is directly related to the fact that the people do not know their rights.



> Article VI Clause 3
> The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.


"shall be bound" means that "judicial Officers" are to purchase a penal bond which binds their decisions to the limits of the Constitution. Therefore, when you stand in court in front of a judge in America, the first question you ask the judge is: "Do you have a penal bond on file?" If not, which they haven't since 1963, then the judge does not have jurisdiction over the case. 

Now, since about the time of the Civil War, when the counterfeiters first took over the government, government lawlessness grew and has been growing even more rapidly after 1913, so a modern judge may rule on your case without jurisdiction. That is lawlessness. That is what Ron Paul is trying to change. He and a bunch of his supporters are working daily to enforce the rule of law because it works.

It would be nice if the backslappers would join us instead of fight us. It is fairly obvious that lawlessness doesn't work because that's what we have today. 




> Judges who are not legally immune from competition would be held directly accountable for their actions. A judge with a bad reputation would not have decisions respected by reputable insurance agencies, etc.


That may work, but I don't buy it. Judges are rulers and rulers are motivated by money and power. Penal bonds are a much smarter way to hold judges feet to the fire.

What should be very apparent to everyone by now is that counterfeiters initiate force against competitors as a necessity to keep their power. Counterfeit money (Greenbacks) = Civil War, Sound Money = Peace, Counterfeit Money (Federal Reserve Act of 1913) = World War I (1914), & 100 years of War, CIA, FBI, IRS, Police State, Military Industrial Complex, Medical Industrial Complex, UN, IMF, BIS, World Bank, Agenda 21, Loss of Property & Rights = Violence. 

For you to keep arguing against the "State" because they are initiators of force in order to collect pennies in taxes while allowing counterfeiters an empire in which to steal trillions from producers and use those trillions to kill people all over the world, destroy property all over the world, and create injustice all over the world makes your argument appear disingenuous. 

The very first task of people who want to live free, peaceful, prosperous lives, the main focus to put an end to violence, is to stop the counterfeiters.

----------


## Travlyr

I do not disagree with private courts for civil law. However, for criminal law public courts are superior because crime affects everyone. We may very well need to put some counterfeiters in jail soon. We'll use the rule of law, public courts, and federal penitentiaries for those criminals.

----------


## fisharmor

> It would be nice if the backslappers would join us instead of fight us. It is fairly obvious that lawlessness doesn't work because that's what we have today.


Yet, we ought to state again, *lawlessness is not what anyone on this thread is ever advocating.*
It is privately supplied law that most of us are advocating.
We have given examples of stateless societies where law is upheld.  Can you supply an example of a constitutional republic which didn't backslide into lawlessness?
In the examples of stateless society I've looked into, they were always annihilated by a state, which, in some cases, was a state which formerly supported the rule of law.
I always freely admit my burden of proof: it is to show how a stateless society can protect itself from a bastardized future incarnation of what you advocate.




> That may work, but I don't buy it. Judges are rulers and rulers are motivated by money and power. Penal bonds are a much smarter way to hold judges feet to the fire.


How is that a smarter way than "you don't get to eat this week"?  I get what you're saying.  I see how it can be effective.  I just don't think it's as effective as simply _not paying the man_.




> What should be very apparent to everyone by now is that counterfeiters initiate force against competitors as a necessity to keep their power. Counterfeit money (Greenbacks) = Civil War, Sound Money = Peace, Counterfeit Money (Federal Reserve Act of 1913) = World War I (1914), & 100 years of War, CIA, FBI, IRS, Police State, Military Industrial Complex, Medical Industrial Complex, UN, IMF, BIS, World Bank, Agenda 21, Loss of Property & Rights = Violence. 
> 
> For you to keep arguing against the "State" because they are initiators of force in order to collect pennies in taxes while allowing counterfeiters an empire in which to steal trillions from producers and use those trillions to kill people all over the world, destroy property all over the world, and create injustice all over the world makes your argument appear disingenuous. 
> 
> The very first task of people who want to live free, peaceful, prosperous lives, the main focus to put an end to violence, is to stop the counterfeiters.


I agree 100% with this.  And if we ever get there, expect the rest of us to keep pushing farther than you want to go.
We see that as the problem, sure.  Then we wonder "If we get to the point where the counterfeiters are gone, how do we prevent more?"
Given that the state has at this point a 100% track record of devolving into a counterfeiting ring (including the ONE state on Earth to have codified that that is explicitly not to happen in its highest law), the solution to us is pretty apparent.

----------


## Travlyr

> Yet, we ought to state again, *lawlessness is not what anyone on this thread is ever advocating.*
> It is privately supplied law that most of us are advocating.


I'm not saying that anyone here is promoting lawlessness. I am merely pointing out that it is easier to enforce the current Supreme Laws of the Land as suggested by Ron Paul than it is to re-invent society. What I am saying is that lawlessness is what we have now at the Federal level because the elite counterfeiting cabal of oligarchs consider themselves above the law, and the people are blinded to the wisdom of the rule of law by public indoctrination institutions and continuing indoctrination programs orchestrated by counterfeiter controlled media. 




> We have given examples of stateless societies where law is upheld.  Can you supply an example of a constitutional republic which didn't backslide into lawlessness?


No, I think that a degree of lawlessness is present in any society. Nonetheless, most of the individual 50 constitutional republic States are not too lawless right now even though they too are submitting to the counterfeiters. Utah, which is returning to sound money principles, may lead the pack back to a virtual lawful State along with other States that are looking at protecting themselves from devastation with honest sound money policy as well.




> In the examples of stateless society I've looked into, they were always annihilated by a state, which, in some cases, was a state which formerly supported the rule of law.


 Right, because the State, as a collective, is a superior force to individuals. Aggression will always defeat non-aggression. The key is to keep aggression as minimal as possible by participation.




> I always freely admit my burden of proof: it is to show how a stateless society can protect itself from a bastardized future incarnation of what you advocate.


 Keep in mind that what you call advocation is truly acceptance. I accept that land ownership is good for individuals, but along with land claims comes a degree of collective aggression because representative land law attempts to create order through common agreements. Keeping that aggression as small as possible is what I advocate.




> How is that a smarter way than "you don't get to eat this week"?  I get what you're saying.  I see how it can be effective.  I just don't think it's as effective as simply _not paying the man_.


I agree for civil law. For criminal law, it is tough for me to imagine judges would adhere to a business plan of "being the most fair judge in town" when paupers are facing wealthy accusers. Money talks bull$#@! walks. I would expect private criminal justice to be not much different than what we endure today. Binding judges to the rule of law or send them packing is a superior solution, imo.




> I agree 100% with this.  And if we ever get there, expect the rest of us to keep pushing farther than you want to go.


We will achieve an end to the _counterfeiters-in-charge_ when we have a critical mass of people who understand it. Ron Paul is leading the charge with "End The Fed" and while the best case scenario would be for him to win the presidency, bring the troops home, and reduce government spending, ending the fed is not dependent on Ron Paul winning the presidency. The r3VOLution continues. The Fed is going to end... it just would just end a lot faster if Ron Paul wins in 2012.




> We see that as the problem, sure.  Then we wonder "If we get to the point where the counterfeiters are gone, how do we prevent more?
> Given that the state has at this point a 100% track record of devolving into a counterfeiting ring (including the ONE state on Earth to have codified that that is explicitly not to happen in its highest law), the solution to us is pretty apparent.


The Internet is the game changer because secrecy was the counterfeiter's most potent weapon. When I was in my 30's, I pulled a $50 and a $1 out of my wallet. It dawned on me that whoever had the privilege to make bills could make a $100 for the same cost as a $1. At the time, it took me all day laboring as a skilled carpenter to make $100. Like millions of others, I couldn't figure out how it worked.




> "By this means government may secretly and unobserved, confiscate the wealth of the people, and not one man in a million will detect the theft." - Lord John Maynard Keynes, "Economic Consequences of Peace"


So, I went to the library, went back to college, studied micro & macro economics but the truth was not to be found. Finally, when I read Ron Paul, he pointed me to "The Mystery of Banking" by Murray N. Rothbard... and there I found my answers. The _powers-that-be_ hid vital information for decades. Even today, The Mystery of Banking is not available from my public library, but it is free online. The Internet is the truth machine. The truth will set you free.

Then I studied "The Secrets of the Federal Reserve" by Eustace Mullins and I realized that when the counterfeiters are stopped it'll become obvious that State aggression is virtually nil in comparison.

----------


## Wesker1982

> The failure of the people to hold judges accountable for their decisions is directly related to the fact that the people do not know their rights.


Maybe to an extent, but a bigger problem is that it is too expensive (for many various different reasons) to defend yourself in court. An expected result from a *monopoly*.




> Judges are rulers and rulers are motivated by money and power.


This money and power they are motivated by is provided through a violent legal monopoly. Without the violent monopoly forcing people to pay for bad judges, they would either provide a good service or not be a judge at all. 




> For you to keep arguing against the "State" because they are initiators of force in order to collect pennies in taxes while allowing counterfeiters an empire in which to steal trillions from producers and use those trillions to kill people all over the world, destroy property all over the world, and create injustice all over the world makes your argument appear disingenuous.


Um yeah, I oppose it all. All of those are good reasons to oppose the State. But that isn't a reason to ignore other things. People still largely believe in the *myth* of monopoly law, exposing this myth deserves more attention imo. There are tons of threads and information dedicated to exposing the fraudulent money system.

----------

