# Think Tank > Political Philosophy & Government Policy >  Please convince me of statism!

## Conza88

I am intellectually honest and open to reason. If you would like to _fix_ my _unrealistic_ political philosophy, I eagerly await your _enlightenment_! I'm so sick and tired of being _wrong_. 

Just a few things first; below are a few quotes that represent a nice summation of my anti-statist political philosophy. To cure me of my _ills_, you will need to adequately address the following.

_Please help me_! 




> "This point can be made more philosophically: it is illegitimate to compare the merits of [a free society] and statism by starting with the present system as the implicit given and then critically examining only the [voluntarist] alternative. What we must do is to begin at the zero point and then critically examine both suggested alternatives.
> 
> Suppose, for example, that we were all suddenly dropped down on the earth de novo and that we were all then confronted with the question of what societal arrangements to adopt. 
> 
> And suppose then that someone suggested: "We are all bound to suffer from those of us who wish to aggress against their fellow men. Let us then solve this problem of crime by handing all of our weapons to the Jones family, over there, by giving all of our ultimate power to settle disputes to that family. In that way, with their monopoly of coercion and of ultimate decision making, the Jones family will be able to protect each of us from each other." 
> 
> I submit that this proposal would get very short shrift, except perhaps from the Jones family themselves. And yet this is precisely the common argument for the existence of the state. *When we start from the zero point, as in the case of the Jones family, the question of "who will guard the guardians?" becomes not simply an abiding lacuna in the theory of the state but an overwhelming barrier to its existence.*" - *Society Without a State*, Rothbard





> Assume a group of people, aware of the possibility of conflicts; and  then someone proposes, as a solution to this eternal human problem, that  he (someone) be made the ultimate arbiter in any such case of conflict,  including those conflicts in which he is involved. I am confident that  he will be considered either a joker or mentally unstable and yet this  is precisely what all statists propose. *Hans-Hermann Hoppe*





> *The state operates in a legal vacuum.* There exists no contract  between the state and its citizens. It is not contractually fixed, what  is actually owned by whom, and what, accordingly, is to be protected. It  is not fixed, what service the state is to provide, what is to happen  if the state fails in its duty, nor what the price is that the  customer of such service must pay. Rather, the state unilaterally  fixes the rules of the game and can change them, per legislation, during  the game. Obviously, such behavior is inconceivable for freely financed  security providers. Just imagine a security provider, whether police,  insurer or arbitrator, whose offer consisted in something like this: I  will not contractually guarantee you anything. I will not tell you what I  oblige myself to do if, according to your opinion, I do not fulfill my  service to you - but in any case, I reserve the right to unilaterally  determine the price that you must pay me for such undefined service. Any  such security provider would immediately disappear from the market due  to a complete lack of customers.  Hans-Hermann Hoppe





> *A tax-funded protection agency is a contradiction in terms* - an   expropriating property protector - and will inevitably lead to more   taxes and less protection. Even if, as some - classical liberal -   statists have proposed, a government limited its activities exclusively   to the protection of pre-existing private property rights, the further   question of how much security to produce would arise. Motivated (like   everyone else) by self-interest and the disutility of labor, but endowed   with the unique power to tax, a government agents answer will   invariably be the same: To maximize expenditures on protection - and   almost all of a nations wealth can conceivably be consumed by the cost   of protection - and at the same time to minimize the production of   protection. 
>  Hans-Hermann Hoppe





> 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 recognising that this  is a fallacy. *From the fact that monkeys can ride bikes it does not  follow that only monkeys can ride bikes.* *And second*, immediately  following, it must be recalled that the state is an institution that can  legislate and tax; and hence, that state agents have little incentive  to produce efficiently. State roads and schools will only be more costly  and their quality lower. For there is always a tendency for state  agents to use up as many resources as possible doing whatever they do  but actually work as little as possible doing it.  Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Reflections on the Origin and the stability of the State





> *Daily Bell:* Are you denying, then, that we need the state to defend us?
> 
> *Dr. Hans-Hermann Hoppe:*  Indeed. The state does not defend us; rather, the state aggresses  against us and it uses our confiscated property to defend itself. The  standard definition of the state is this: the state is an agency  characterized by two unique, logically connected features.
> 
> The state is an agency that exercises a territorial monopoly of  ultimate decision-making. That is, the state is the ultimate arbiter and  judge in every case of conflict, including conflicts involving itself  and its agents. There is no appeal above and beyond the state.The state is an agency that exercises a territorial monopoly of  taxation. That is, it is an agency that can unilaterally fix the price  that its subjects must pay for the states service as ultimate judge.
> Based on this institutional set-up you can safely predict the consequences.
> 
> Instead of preventing and resolving conflict, a monopolist of  ultimate decision-making will cause and provoke conflict in order to  settle it to its own advantage. That is, the state does not recognize  and protect existing law, but it perverts law through legislation. _Contradiction number one: the state is a law-breaking law protector.
> 
> _Instead of defending and protecting anyone or anything, a monopolist  of taxation will invariably strive to maximize his expenditures on  protection and at the same time minimize the actual production of  protection. The more money the state can spend and the less it must work  for this money, the better off it is. *Contradiction number two: the state is an expropriating property protector.*





> *Acquiescence* - Is the most consequentially neglected word in political science. Alone it establishes that tax is theft and government criminal by giving a name for something that is between consent and confrontation.
> 
> The concept of acquiescence, and even the word, is often lumped incorrectly with consent, thereby confusing submission in the face of overwhelming force with consent chosen freely. For example, if people evade tax, they face imprisonment and further extortion. So the payment of tax no more proves consent than the payment of a ransom transforms kidnapping into mere babysitting.
> 
> This is not to say that everyone who lives under government would rise up against it if they could. Rather, it is to point out that acquiescing to government is no evidence of consent. *So defenders of government cannot point to widespread acquiescence as evidence of consent. They must get written, signed and witnessed contracts if they want to say they are legitimate. And such an institution, with written, signed and witnessed contracts, would resemble a free market entity, not government.* - Benjamin Marks




What are your arguments for the state as defined above?

----------


## Jake Ralston

Warning: This is a trap. Don't fall for it.

Conza88 is actually dealt with quite easily if you use the right approach.

Just remind him that he will never see the fruits of his labor, and agree with him that you are ignorant, intellectually dishonest, and close minded. 

And with that, Conza88 will be successfully dismantled.

*Caveat Emptor* He may respond with more insults and/or fallacies he will throw at you. Take it with a grain of salt.

----------


## Krugerrand

> I am intellectually honest and open to reason. If you would like to _fix_ my _unrealistic_ political philosophy, I eagerly await your _enlightenment_! I'm so sick and tired of being _wrong_. 
> 
> Just a few things first; below are a few quotes that represent a nice summation of my anti-statist political philosophy. To cure me of my _ills_, you will need to adequately address the following.
> 
> _Please help me_! 
> 
> 
> What are your arguments for the state as defined above?


Obviously you fail to appreciate the importance and value of the state.  

Therefore you need to surrender your rights, freedoms, (and most importantly) assets, so that elected officials and (more commonly) non-elected bureaucrats can make decisions on your behalf, lest you hurt yourself or (worse yet) make a decision that is not in the best interest of the state.

Attempts to resist may result in you getting hurt by the state.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

*statist rushes to thread*

"How dare you seek to deny me the right to boss you around!?!"

----------


## acptulsa

Ah, Conza.  How wonderful to have you back just in time for you to piss off primary voters.

It seems to me that you of all people would understand that if you want to limit the state, you have to first establish a state with defined limits.  This codified the limitations of the state into law, philosophy and national definition of character.  Without these things, any charlaitan who can gain the confidence of the people can create a state around himself which gives him or her unlimited power.  Just like James Jones of Jonestown.  Just like Idi Amin Dada.  Just as has happened in the really really world time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again.  And you can't argue logically against it, because there's no logical reason for it.  All you can do is acknowledge that human nature abhors a vacuum, and so this has happened time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again.

The U.S. Constitution has been a major speed bump in the road to tyranny for two hundred years.  No nation has rushed toward tyranny more slowly in our lifetimes than the one with the U.S. Constitution.  And we and Ron Paul are poised to use the U.S. Constitution to set back the cause of tyranny two hundred years--right now.  Which would certainly be better than letting charismatic psychopaths do away with this Constitution, this philosophy, this speed bump in the road to tyranny as has been done around the world time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again.

So, point to Somalia and tell us again all about how they were better off than us--for about five minutes.  I'll be here--yawning.

Nothing has done more to codify and preserve semi-ancapism in the world than the United States Constitution.  Nothing.  Anywhere.  Ever.  So excuse me while I try to preserve, protect and defend it.  With or without your help.

What do you say, Jake?  Am I in a trap?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Ah, Conza.  How wonderful to have you back just in time for you to piss off primary voters.


Tired meme is tired.

I'm unconvinced that a philosophical debate on a hidden sub-forum is the great Achilles Heel of the campaign.  

Especially when 9/11 Truth and Alex Jones topics frequently crop up in the General Politics forum.  




> It seems to me that you of all people would understand that if you want to limit the state, you have to first establish a state with defined limits.  This codified the limitations of the state into law, philosophy and national definition of character.  Without these things, any charlaitan who can gain the confidence of the people can create a state around himself which gives him or her unlimited power.  Just like James Jones of Jonestown.  Just like Idi Amin Dada.  Just as has happened in the really really world time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again.  And you can't argue logically against it, because there's no logical reason for it.  All you can do is acknowledge that human nature abhors a vacuum, and so this has happened time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again.
> 
> The U.S. Constitution has been a major speed bump in the road to tyranny for two hundred years.  No nation has rushed toward tyranny more slowly in our lifetimes than the one with the U.S. Constitution.  And we and Ron Paul are poised to use the U.S. Constitution to set back the cause of tyranny two hundred years--right now.  Which would certainly be better than letting charismatic psychopaths do away with this Constitution, this philosophy, this speed bump in the road to tyranny as has been done around the world time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again.


200 years?  The constitution didn't prevent the Alien & Sedition Acts, Lincoln, TR, Wilson, the 16th Amendment, the Federal Reserve, FDR nor any of the disastrous second half of the 20th Century.  




> So, point to Somalia and tell us again all about how they were better off than us--for about five minutes.  I'll be here--yawning.


Again, how many times are we supposed to roll this boulder back up the mountain?

----------


## Conza88

Yo guys, I know you are trying to _help_... but I didn't see any arguments supporting the state? Nor did you guys address my _flawed_ reasoning in the quotes above.

This makes me _sad_.

----------


## acptulsa

> Again, how many times are we supposed to roll this boulder back up the mountain?


Oh, come on.  You've flamed me better than that in years past.

I wish I knew how many times we had to roll that boulder back up the mountain, Conza.  Wish I knew why I had to keep repainting the house and checking for termites, too.  But as long as that boulder takes two hundred years, rather than Somalia's five minutes, to roll back down, I'll keep up the hard work.

Oh, and in case you didn't notice, the Alien and Sedition acts were repealed, Teddy couldn't get elected when he tried to stage a comeback, all of Wilson's abuses were repudiated by Harding's election and repealed in short order (setting up the Roaring Twenties), Lincoln did manage to free a bunch of literal slaves (is this a bad thing in your book?) though the way he did it was very ugly, and we're working on the rest right now.  Gotta crawl before you can walk, you know.  As opposed to Somalia, which just keeps slipping and sliding into totalitarianism at an _amazingly_ fast rate.

I know how you hate debating practical matters, though.  So feel free to resort to flaming any time.  I still have enough scar tissue from four years ago; I can take it.

----------


## Conza88

> Obviously you fail to appreciate the importance and value of the state.  
> 
> Therefore you need to surrender your rights, freedoms, (and most importantly) assets, so that elected officials and (more commonly) non-elected bureaucrats can make decisions on your behalf, lest you hurt yourself or (worse yet) make a decision that is not in the best interest of the state.
> 
> Attempts to resist may result in you getting hurt by the state.


I want to be taught how to love my masters, I swears it! Please teach me how to live on my knees! 




> *statist rushes to thread*
> 
> "How dare you seek to deny me the right to boss you around!?!"


I'm so sorry ruler, I won't do it again.

----------


## Travlyr

In Carnegie's book, _"How to Win Friends and Influence People"_ Dale points out that none of us want to be wrong and none of us will take responsibility for being wrong. In the end we are all doing what we think is right. As you have defined statism you are not wrong, imo. But we don't have time to educate the voters and we do not have the bully pulpit. We have lives to save.

Laymen do not understand the language of Philosophers. Statism as you defined it is not a State the way VOTERS understand it. We need millions and millions of Republican voters NOW who will pull the handle for Ron Paul. Otherwise, many more people will suffer. You are not wrong philosophically because philosophy is not realism, but if we let the cart get in front of the horse ... we crash. We need VOTERS.

The best hope we have at the present time to achieve a Mises / Rothbardian type liberty is to elect Ron Paul as President of the United States of America. If we get that done in 2012, then many lives will be saved. Ron Paul needs millions of Republican voters to go to the polling booth and check the box next to his name: Republican for President -> Ron Paul. 

If you and the Son of Liberty will take a few minutes of your valuable time to survey your surroundings and ask your fellow citizens on the street, at the grocery store, business owners, ranchers, or senior centers, etc., _"What does anarchy mean to you?"_ You will find that virtually zero people understand it the way you do. But they are going to vote for whoever the TV tells them to vote for. They will not vote for anarchy in 2012. Teaching the philosophy is fine, but we have to win the election NEXT YEAR in order to save lives. It is about people who believe voting is their right and duty.

Ron Paul 2012 - "Defender of Liberty and supporter of the Constitution"


On another note,
I misunderstood this statement, "Thus the democratic state becomes, for Mises, a voluntary organization" to mean that a voluntary society would be possible under say, the State of Wyoming for example. Why is that not right? In your words, what did Hoppe mean when he said that?

----------


## Conza88

> So, point to Somalia and tell us again all about how they were better off than us--for about five minutes.  I'll be here--yawning.


"When dealing with the warlord objection, we need to keep our comparisons fair. It won’t do to compare society A, which is filled with evil, ignorant savages who live under anarchy, with society B, which is populated by enlightened, law-abiding citizens who live under limited government.  *The anarchist doesn’t deny that life might be better in society B.  What the anarchist does claim is that, for any given population, the imposition of a coercive government will make things worse.  The absence of a State is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to achieve the free society.*

To put the matter differently:  It is not enough to demonstrate that a state of private-property anarchy could degenerate into ceaseless war, where no single group is strong enough to subjugate all challengers, and hence no one can establish “order.”  After all, communities living under a State degenerate into civil war all the time.  We should remember that the frequently cited cases of Colombia and now Iraq are not demonstrations of anarchy-turned-into-chaos, but rather examples of government-turned-into-chaos.

For the warlord objection to work, the statist would need to argue that a given community would remain lawful under a government, but that the same community would break down into continuous warfare if all legal and military services were privatized.  *The popular case of Somalia, therefore, helps neither side.*_  It is true that Rothbardians should be somewhat disturbed that the respect for non-aggression is apparently too rare in Somalia to foster the spontaneous emergence of a totally free market community.  But by the same token, the respect for “the law” was also too weak to allow the original Somali government to maintain order."_~ *Bob Murphy*

----------


## Travlyr

> I'm unconvinced that a philosophical debate on a hidden sub-forum is the great Achilles Heel of the campaign.


Seriously? Why not ask? Go to your nearest senior center and ask what anarchy means to them. You think for one second that the oligarchs won't use anarchy against Ron Paul again? Do it. Learn for yourself. Or put liberty off for another decade while undermining Ron Paul's campaign cash.

----------


## acptulsa

> After all, communities living under a State degenerate into civil war all the time.


And arguably the U.S. has been in a constant state of civil war.  But thanks to the mechanisms of the U.S. Constitution, it has only devolved into widespread intranacine bloodshed once in all that time.  For this reason, I love our Constitution.  And will continue to do so.

And thank you for addressing the issue in a substantive way for once--even if you did have to cut and paste to do it.

----------


## Conza88

> And arguably the U.S. has been in a constant state of civil war.


Guys, this is an argument _against_ statism...  Can't anyone provide at least one argument for statism? 




> But thanks to the mechanisms of the U.S. Constitution, it has only devolved into widespread intranacine bloodshed once in all that time. For this reason, I love our Constitution. And will continue to do so.


By the very same reasoning, why don't you love the articles of confederation? 




> And thank you for addressing the issue in a substantive way for once--even if you did have to cut and paste to do it.


 You set up a strawman, I knocked it down. Copy and paste is all I need because I'm yet to see an argument for the state I haven't already refuted somewhere else.

----------


## Travlyr

> Ah, Conza.  How wonderful to have you back just in time for you to piss off primary voters.
> 
> It seems to me that you of all people would understand that if you want to limit the state, you have to first establish a state with defined limits.  This codified the limitations of the state into law, philosophy and national definition of character.  Without these things, any charlaitan who can gain the confidence of the people can create a state around himself which gives him or her unlimited power.  Just like James Jones of Jonestown.  Just like Idi Amin Dada.  Just as has happened in the really really world time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again.  And you can't argue logically against it, because there's no logical reason for it.  All you can do is acknowledge that human nature abhors a vacuum, and so this has happened time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again.
> 
> The U.S. Constitution has been a major speed bump in the road to tyranny for two hundred years.  No nation has rushed toward tyranny more slowly in our lifetimes than the one with the U.S. Constitution.  And we and Ron Paul are poised to use the U.S. Constitution to set back the cause of tyranny two hundred years--right now.  Which would certainly be better than letting charismatic psychopaths do away with this Constitution, this philosophy, this speed bump in the road to tyranny as has been done around the world time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again.
> 
> So, point to Somalia and tell us again all about how they were better off than us--for about five minutes.  I'll be here--yawning.
> 
> Nothing has done more to codify and preserve semi-ancapism in the world than the United States Constitution.  Nothing.  Anywhere.  Ever.  So excuse me while I try to preserve, protect and defend it.  *With or without your help.*


+ rep
Well Said.

Conza if you and Son of Liberty cannot understand this ^^^ then how can you claim intellectual honesty?
_Those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to not repeat the good parts. - acptulsa_
Conza... think history --- the election of 2008
And there it is in a nutshell.

----------


## acptulsa

> Guys, this is an argument _against_ statism...  Can't anyone provide at least one argument for statism?


Sure, Conza.  Everyplace is in a constant state of civil war, but elsewhere, where there is no Constitution to legitimize it as a peaceful political process, it is far, far, far bloodier and uglier.

As I mentioned in the part of my post you oh so conveniently snipped because it didn't support your worthless snark.

Bye, Conza.  [/banging head against thick as a brick wall]

----------


## Conza88

> Sure, Conza.  Everyplace is in a constant state of civil war, but elsewhere, where there is no Constitution to legitimize it as a peaceful political process, it is far, far, far bloodier and uglier.


*See quote 1.*  Begs the question fallacy. Still haven't provided me an argument for the state... 




> As I mentioned in the part of my post you oh so conveniently snipped because it didn't support your worthless snark.


Too slow, try again. 

Also can someone _please_ let me know if Trav provides an argument for the state? _[Currently on ignore list]
_
I think he may be my only hope.

----------


## acptulsa

One's best hope is on one's ignore list, yet we are expected to believe one wants what one asks for.  Counterproductive, much?  Hey, let's all follow the counterproductive guy's advice...  :rolleys:

In case you haven't noticed, Conza, we're kind of busy trying to hold a civil, bloodless revolution up here.  Lead from afar, follow ('cause God knows your nation needs it more than ours does), or stay the hell out of the way.

----------


## Krugerrand

A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

----------


## Conza88

> One's best hope is on one's ignore list, yet we are expected to believe one wants what one asks for.  Counterproductive, much?  Hey, let's all follow the counterproductive guy's advice...  :rolleys:
> 
> In case you haven't noticed, Conza, we're kind of busy trying to hold a civil, bloodless revolution up here.  Lead from afar, follow ('cause God knows your nation needs it more than ours does), or stay the hell out of the way.


Yeah, I noticed... I've even participated. And quite *easily argued*, I've done more for liberty in your country [that which I'm not even a member of] than you have in your own.

Kind of says alot about me, and alot about you - wouldn't you think? 

But seriously, if you want to get all nationalistic - something really stupid to do - Australia is ahead of the United States in every reputable freedom index there is. Not that either of us has directly done anything to achieve, which is why said comparisons is dumb.

----------


## Conza88

> A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.


But I _want_ to see the states existence _justified_! Is there no-one who can helpz meh?

----------


## acptulsa

> But I _want_ to see the state _justified_! Is there no-one who can helpz meh?


If you can't see by now that all but the rarest of free people choose leadership, be it good or bad, of their own free will, then no, there's no help for you.  You will remain thick as a brick forever.

Can we change that?  You've been trying and failing for at least four years.  What's your problem?  Can you preach to no one but the choir?  Have you no tools but snark?  Do better.

----------


## Travlyr

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


...

----------


## Conza88

> If you can't see by now that all but the rarest of free people choose leadership, be it good or bad, of their own free will, then no, there's no help for you.  You will remain thick as a brick forever.
> 
> Can we change that?  You've been trying and failing for at least four years.  What's your problem?  Can you preach to no one but the choir?  Have you no tools but snark?  Do better.


*See last quote.*

Statists, you're not being of much _help_ . It's like your position is irrational or something?  
I'm still waiting for some arguments for statism

----------


## Travlyr

> *See last quote.*
> 
> Statists, you're not being of much _help_ . It's like your position is irrational or something?  
> I'm still waiting for some arguments for statism





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


Conza? Do you believe yourself?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> If you can't see by now that all but the rarest of free people choose leadership, be it good or bad, of their own free will, then no, there's no help for you.  You will remain thick as a brick forever.
> 
> Can we change that?  You've been trying and failing for at least four years.  What's your problem?  Can you preach to no one but the choir?  Have you no tools but snark?  Do better.


 Didn't read the whole thread for context, but it is possible to have leadership in a voluntary, Stateless society.  States have been failing for _thousands_ of years.  I don't think it's unreasonable to let some people try statelessness if they can leave everyone else alone.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> But I _want_ to see the states existence _justified_! Is there no-one who can helpz meh?


Do you mean nation-states or States?  Nations typically come about naturally because of geographical, linguistic, and cultural borders.  Nation-states come about through conquest of the many by the few.  The former is a pretty natural thing and can be justified by virtue of its natural occurrance.  The latter, not so much.

----------


## acptulsa

> Didn't read the whole thread for context, but it is possible to have leadership in a voluntary, Stateless society.  States have been failing for _thousands_ of years.  I don't think it's unreasonable to let some people try statelessness if they can leave everyone else alone.


And the latter have been failing for millions of years.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> And the latter have been failing for millions of years.


 How do you know?  There hasn't been one yet.  Stateless, yes-but voluntary as well, no. Historically, Stateless societies have been disorderly and "governed" by warlords and such.  

As an aside, note also as an aside that Mises said in his book "Liberalism" that classical liberalism has never successfully been established.  Were you to achieve a truly "liberal" (in the classical sense) society, it would be a first in world history.

----------


## acptulsa

> How do you know?  There hasn't been one yet.


They have been countless.  You just don't notice them because they disappear so fast.

A state fails when the leaders chew and gnaw at their own limits until they can finally grow too big for their britches.  Statelss societies fail as soon as the people get sick of working at cross purposes and get themselves some leadership.  A process that doesn't take long, and leadership which is generally too big for its britches right out of the box.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> They have been countless.  You just don't notice them because they disappear so fast.
> 
> A state fails when the leaders chew and gnaw at their own limits until they can finally grow too big for their britches.  Statelss societies fail as soon as the people get sick of working at cross purposes and get themselves some leadership.  A process that doesn't take long, and leadership which is generally too big for its britches right out of the box.


No, there haven't been "countless".  Countless stateless societies, yes.  But countless voluntary societies, no. (never in history, in fact)

----------


## acptulsa

> No, there haven't been "countless".  Countless stateless societies, yes.  But countless voluntary societies, no. (never in history, in fact)


Surely there's an old hippie commune experimenter on here who can educate this child.  Help me out here...

----------


## Travlyr

> How do you know?  There hasn't been one yet.  Stateless, yes-but voluntary as well, no. Historically, *Stateless* societies have been disorderly *and "governed"* by *warlords* and such.  
> 
> As an aside, note also as an aside that Mises said in his book "Liberalism" that classical liberalism has never successfully been established.  Were you to achieve a truly "liberal" (in the classical sense) society, it would be a first in world history.


I don't follow what you are saying here. Explain please. Weren't the warlords in fact "rulers?"

Ron Paul - _"We had a relative voluntary society in our early history."_




To hold out for a perfect voluntary society is futile. A relative voluntary society is my goal.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Surely there's an old hippie commune experimenter on here who can educate this child.  Help me out here...


   Not a substitute for an argument.  Name a Voluntaryist society in history.  There hasn't even been a true classical liberal society.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I don't follow what you are saying here. Explain please. Weren't the warlords in fact "rulers?"


They were bullies, but they didn't "lead" anyone.  They issued orders.




> To hold out for a perfect voluntary society is futile. A relative voluntary society is my goal.


 No, to hold out for a successful minarchist society is futile.  Remember, there was a time when it was considered a fantasy that leaders would be elected at all or that blacks would be considered human on par with whites.  Humanity eventually outgrew it (in the West, at least).  We'll also outgrow our current state of affairs, simply because it isn't sustainable if for no other reason.

----------


## acptulsa

If a bunch of hippies aren't living together voluntarily, what's making them stay?  Talk about no substitute for an argument...




> They were bullies, but they didn't "lead" anyone.  They issued orders.


These semantics are no substitute for an argument, either.

Oh, and what was so slanderous about the post above to warrant a meaningless negrep?  The fact that I referred to your youth?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> If a bunch of hippies aren't living together voluntarily, what's making them stay?  Talk about no substitute for an argument...
> 
> 
> 
> These semantics are no substitute for an argument, either.
> 
> Oh, and what was so slanderous about the post above to warrant a meaningless negrep?  The fact that I referred to your youth?


 Yes-you called me a "child".  Generally, this is considered an insult when referring to a 30-year old person (especially in the condescending way you used it). Insults are against forum rules and generally poor discourse.

I wasn't using semantics as a substitute for an argument.  You tried to argue that there have been "countless" voluntary societies, which isn't true.  Voluntary association binds people all the time.  Contracts, purchases, loans, tickets to events, etc, etc.  Your "hippie commune" example was unrelated (unless these hippies have a some sort of binding agreement, which is not typical of hippie communes).
What binds states?  All the legalese and mumbo-jumbo (such as "social contract") espoused by Federalists and their sympathizers have not stopped the usurpation of power and transfer of wealth by the regime.

----------


## Theocrat

> I am intellectually honest and open to reason. If you would like to _fix_ my _unrealistic_ political philosophy, I eagerly await your _enlightenment_! I'm so sick and tired of being _wrong_. 
> 
> Just a few things first; below are a few quotes that represent a nice summation of my anti-statist political philosophy. To cure me of my _ills_, you will need to adequately address the following.
> 
> _Please help me_! 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's a good thing I'm not a statist.

----------


## Travlyr

> No, to hold out for a successful minarchist society is futile.  Remember, there was a time when it was considered a fantasy that leaders would be elected at all or that blacks would be considered human on par with whites.  Humanity eventually outgrew it (in the West, at least).  We'll also outgrow our current state of affairs, simply because it isn't sustainable if for no other reason.


We live in an imperfect world. To expect perfection in an imperfect world is futile. To work toward perfection is purposeful.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> We live in an imperfect world. To expect perfection in an imperfect world is futile. To work toward perfection is purposeful.


Quite right.  One wonders why you're aiming short of perfection.

----------


## Travlyr

> Quite right.  One wonders why you're aiming short of perfection.


Ron Paul - "We had a relative voluntary society in our early history."

What is wrong with a relative voluntary society?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Ron Paul - "We had a relative voluntary society in our early history."
> 
> What is wrong with a relative voluntary society?


The only thing wrong with it is that we could do better.

----------


## Travlyr

Ron Paul - "We had a relative voluntary society in our early history."




> No, to hold out for a successful minarchist society is futile.  Remember, there was a time when it was considered a fantasy that leaders would be elected at all or that blacks would be considered human on par with whites.  Humanity eventually outgrew it (in the West, at least).  We'll also outgrow our current state of affairs, simply because it isn't sustainable if for no other reason.


If our ancestors did enjoy a relative voluntary society, then why reject returning to those principles?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Ron Paul - "We had a relative voluntary society in our early history."
> 
> 
> 
> If our ancestors did enjoy a relative voluntary society, then why reject returning to those principles?


We have to go back quite a ways before the constitution to find a voluntary society. (even a number of the ranks of the colonial and revolutionary war army were drafted)  If he means that by that quote, I agree with him.

----------


## Travlyr

> We have to go back quite a ways before the constitution to find a voluntary society.  If he means that by that quote, I agree with him.


I think he did, but I'm not sure about that.



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

What is your opinion?

----------


## acptulsa

> We have to go back quite a ways before the constitution to find a voluntary society. (even a number of the ranks of the colonial and revolutionary war army were drafted)  If he means that by that quote, I agree with him.


What was so coercive about the signing of the Constitution?  Last I heard, it was voluntarily adopted by the nation when the Articles proved a bit too loose to be wieldy.

For that matter, what was coercive about the Articles of Confederation?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> What was so coercive about the signing of the Constitution?  Last I heard, it was voluntarily adopted by the nation when the Articles proved a bit too loose to be wieldy.


Actually the Constitution was not voluntarily adopted by "the nation".  It was foisted upon the people.  Madison and the Federalists closed the doors of their meeting to both the people and the press.  They explicitly violated their duty assigned by the state legislatures-to amend the articles of confederation.   

No member of                the Convention ever revealed what went on behind those closed doors.                This included the opponents of the Constitution. Luther Martin of                Maryland, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, opposed the                Convention's plan within days of his participation. He kept notes                of the debates, but his notes were not published until 1838, two                years after Madison's death  —  the last member of the Convention                to die.(1)




> For that matter, what was coercive about the Articles of Confederation?


I didn't get into the AoC previously, so I don't see why you're bringing it up.  (I'll add more to this point later...gtg for now)

----------


## acptulsa

> I didn't get into the AoC previously, so I don't see why you're bringing it up.  (I'll add more to this point later...gtg for now)


Well, you were talking about before the Revolution, right?  Not that I entirely agree about the Constitution--these people were elected, or at least selected, to represent the folks in the Several States after all...




> We have to go back quite a ways before the constitution to find a voluntary society. (even a number of the ranks of the colonial and revolutionary war army were drafted)  If he means that by that quote, I agree with him.


So, if you have to predate the revolution to find a voluntary society on this continent, what was so involuntary about the Articles?

----------


## robert68

> Well, you were talking about before the Revolution, right?  Not that I entirely agree about the Constitution--these people were elected, or at least selected, to represent the folks in the Several States after all...


 "Background to the Constitution" by Robert LeFevre, starting at 7:30 of note:

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> So, if you have to predate the revolution to find a voluntary society on this continent, what was so involuntary about the Articles?


 The primary problem is that there isn't an article allowing for individual nullification of laws.  It also forbids private minting of money.  I only have a few nitpicks like that with the AoC, and those could be fixed with amendments.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Brian Miller, recently ousted Pima CO. GOP chair, summed up his philosophy thusly, which is the same as mine:

"Progressively less government, until there is none".

The massive structure of the state was not erected overnight, it will not go away overnight.

----------


## Sentient Void

> Brian Miller, recently ousted Pima CO. GOP chair, summed up his philosophy thusly, which is the same as mine:
> 
> "Progressively less government, until there is none".
> 
> The massive structure of the state was not erected overnight, it will not go away overnight.


WHOAAAAA, WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA.... WHOA.

AF. What's this I see. Are you a gradualist anarchist?

When did you finally decide to jump on the anarchist boat? This is basically the same exact method I support (though  will say I want it as fast as possible, I realistically understand it will not be an overnight process). Minarchism on the road to anarchism - controlled demolition, preferably.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Brian Miller, recently ousted Pima CO. GOP chair, summed up his philosophy thusly, which is the same as mine:
> 
> "Progressively less government, until there is none".
> 
> The massive structure of the state was not erected overnight, it will not go away overnight.


Smooth move.    No wonder he was ousted.  Now, because of his big mouth, he has lost the chance he did have to help Ron Paul get elected.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Smooth move.    No wonder he was ousted.  Now, because of his big mouth, he has lost the chance he did have to help Ron Paul get elected.


He was not ousted for that comment.

He was ousted because he *dared* to open his mouth about that SWAT raid that killed the Marine in a botched drug raid and then they let him bleed out and die for an hour before allowing medics into the home.

http://www.kvoa.com/news/pima-county...airman-ousted/

----------


## Anti Federalist

That's where I've been all along.

It may take centuries to achieve worldwide though.

Which is why I still favor the concept of a nation and trade policies that work to maximize our efforts at limiting government and eventually eliminating it.




> WHOAAAAA, WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA.... WHOA.
> 
> AF. What's this I see. Are you a gradualist anarchist?
> 
> When did you finally decide to jump on the anarchist boat? This is basically the same exact method I support (though  will say I want it as fast as possible, I realistically understand it will not be an overnight process). Minarchism on the road to anarchism - controlled demolition, preferably.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> He was not ousted for that comment.
> 
> He was ousted because he *dared* to open his mouth about that SWAT raid that killed the Marine in a botched drug raid and then they let him bleed out and die for an hour before allowing medics into the home.
> 
> http://www.kvoa.com/news/pima-county...airman-ousted/


I don't care.  It still wasn't wise.  We all know they will do just about anything to keep Ron Paul from the Whitehouse and will jump at any chance to get us out of positions of power within the Republican party.  We have to be smarter than this and keep our eye on the prize.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I don't care.  It still wasn't wise.  We all know they will do just about anything to keep Ron Paul from the Whitehouse and will jump at any chance to get us out of positions of power within the Republican party.  We have to be smarter than this and keep our eye on the prize.


Sadly, you are absolutely correct, which is why most people in politics have the integrity and honesty of used car salesmen.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

Terrible thing to say about used car salesmen, that.  

I know one thing for sure - I respect Mr. Miller both for his view of government, and also for his stance on the awful murder of Jose Guerena.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Terrible thing to say about used car salesmen, that.  
> 
> I know one thing for sure - I respect Mr. Miller both for his view of government, and also for his stance on the awful murder of Jose Guerena.


As do I.

But the unfortunate fact of the matter is that, for a few rare exceptions, politics requires the greasy smile, the talking out of both sides of your mouth, two bit hustling of a petty pimp to be successful at it.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Terrible thing to say about used car salesmen, that.  
> 
> I know one thing for sure - I respect Mr. Miller both for his view of government, and also for his stance on the awful murder of Jose Guerena.


I would have respected him a lot more if he would have kept his mouth shut about it and helped to get Ron Paul elected.  Because then, we would be on a path to make sure that we didn't have a repeat of what happened to Guerena.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I would have respected him a lot more if he would have kept his mouth shut about it and helped to get Ron Paul elected.  Because then, we would be on a path to make sure that we didn't have a repeat of what happened to Guerena.


I'm not sure what electing Ron Paul to the postion of POTUS would effect at the local police level.

----------


## pcosmar

> I would have respected him a lot more if he would have kept his mouth shut about it and helped to get Ron Paul elected.  Because then, we would be on a path to make sure that we didn't have a repeat of what happened to Guerena.


It is apparent from both his statements and the reaction that the machine politics is still firmly opposed to Ron Paul, and to Liberty at all. I have no doubt they would have negated any effect from him in favor of Ron.




> I'm not sure what electing Ron Paul to the postion of POTUS would effect at the local police level.


Well that is yet to be seen, But I can extrapolate several changes.
The absence of Government funds and the disappearance of a few agencies for a start.
The end of Fusion Centers and the SPLC's influence. (training and oversight)
The very likely END of the War on Drugs.
A presidential respect for the 2nd amendment. (and likely changes in gun law)

Any or all of these would have a distinct affect.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> It is apparent from both his statements and the reaction that the machine politics is still firmly opposed to Ron Paul, and to Liberty at all. I have no doubt they would have negated any effect from him in favor of Ron.
> 
> 
> 
> Well that is yet to be seen, But I can extrapolate several changes.
> The absence of Government funds and the disappearance of a few agencies for a start.
> The end of Fusion Centers and the SPLC's influence. (training and oversight)
> The very likely END of the War on Drugs.
> A presidential respect for the 2nd amendment. *(and likely changes in gun law)*
> ...


How can the POTUS affect the bolded?  Do you mean by putting pressure on the legislature and the various states to change unfriendly state gun laws?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Well that is yet to be seen, But I can extrapolate several changes.
> The absence of Government funds and the disappearance of a few agencies for a start.
> The end of Fusion Centers and the SPLC's influence. (training and oversight)
> The very likely END of the War on Drugs.
> A presidential respect for the 2nd amendment. (and likely changes in gun law)
> 
> Any or all of these would have a distinct affect.


True enough.

----------


## pcosmar

> How can the POTUS affect the bolded?  Do you mean by putting pressure on the legislature and the various states to change unfriendly state gun laws?


* (and likely changes in gun law)*

Eliminating the ATF and Federal Firearms licenses.
By pardoning ALL NON crime Gun Offenses. (possession, transportation, sales)

And beyond that pushing for repeal of the GCA's from 1934 on.
Supporting and encouraging the Constitutional Militia.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> It is apparent from both his statements and the reaction that *the machine politics is still firmly opposed to Ron Paul*, and to Liberty at all. I have no doubt they would have negated any effect from him in favor of Ron.


Is this news to you?  That is exactly why we were asked to "become" the Republican party and get positioned the best that we could.  This was never going to be a cake walk.  But, these guys flushed their gains down the proverbial toilet for the pleasure of spouting off on one issue that would have absolutely no impact on what had happened.  It was shortsighted and extremely foolish.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Geez guys, sometimes when I read what you post it sounds like you don't believe Ron Paul has a shot in hell.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> * (and likely changes in gun law)*
> 
> Eliminating the ATF and Federal Firearms licenses.
> By pardoning ALL NON crime Gun Offenses. (possession, transportation, sales)
> 
> And beyond that pushing for repeal of the GCA's from 1934 on.
> Supporting and encouraging the Constitutional Militia.


 I didn't know the POTUS had the power to do that (underlined above).  I could've sworn that was congress' job.  I learn something new from RPFs every day.   Thanks!

----------


## pcosmar

> Geez guys, sometimes when I read what you post it sounds like you don't believe Ron Paul has a shot in hell.


I do believe he has a chance, But it is slim. And he will only get the nomination begrudgingly if at all.

We can get a seat at the table in some places. But not the head of the table,, at least not until a lot of old guard dies off. (20 or 30 years). I don't expect much from the GOP.

----------


## pcosmar

> I didn't know the POTUS had the power to do that (underlined above).  I could've sworn that was congress' job.  I learn something new from RPFs every day.   Thanks!


I'm not sure either. But he has spoken of eliminating agencies.
Were they created by congress? or by the stroke of a pen?

I do know he opposes them, and plans to eliminate them.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

I live in a pretty "Republican" area.  The sort of place where people get offended when a Democratic president or Congress spends too much money, but nary a peep is heard when a Republican does.  The sort of place where a lot of people think teh mooslims hate us for our freedomz.  

My local GOP is NOT going to be converted, nor co-opted.  I have better luck with left-leaning folks around here.  

I'm not going to sit here and make presumptions about the circumstances Miller was working in.  He took a stand on an issue that the rest of the members in his local organization SHOULD BE PROUD OF, and if they're not TO HELL WITH THEM.  There's more than one way to skin a cat, as I well know... and the longer a person lies in bed with a bunch of vipers, the more likely he ends up bit.  It's entirely likely that Miller scored points with independents and left-ish folks for taking his stand.  Some of us don't like compromising our principles just so we don't offend the local GOP.  

And pardon me but I'm getting a little tired of some of the preaching that goes on around here... some of you folks don't know what it's like on the ground in some of our counties and districts, so spouting off and calling people morons and/or decreeing that certain statements by some Ron Paul supporters do damage to the campaign is a whole lot of self-importance and little else in my book.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Valid points.

I'm really concerned about the direction this is going.

It's bad enough to suggest that the only way to "win" is to sit on your hands, smile politely and shut up about critical issues.

The vibe I'm catching now is: it's not just enough to do that, you had better be prepared to lie about what you think.





> I live in a pretty "Republican" area.  The sort of place where people get offended when a Democratic president or Congress spends too much money, but nary a peep is heard when a Republican does.  The sort of place where a lot of people think teh mooslims hate us for our freedomz.  
> 
> My local GOP is NOT going to be converted, nor co-opted.  I have better luck with left-leaning folks around here.  
> 
> I'm not going to sit here and make presumptions about the circumstances Miller was working in.  He took a stand on an issue that the rest of the members in his local organization SHOULD BE PROUD OF, and if they're not TO HELL WITH THEM.  There's more than one way to skin a cat, as I well know... and the longer a person lies in bed with a bunch of vipers, the more likely he ends up bit.  It's entirely likely that Miller scored points with independents and left-ish folks for taking his stand.  Some of us don't like compromising our principles just so we don't offend the local GOP.  
> 
> And pardon me but I'm getting a little tired of some of the preaching that goes on around here... some of you folks don't know what it's like on the ground in some of our counties and districts, so spouting off and calling people morons and/or decreeing that certain statements by some Ron Paul supporters do damage to the campaign is a whole lot of self-importance and little else in my book.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Valid points.
> 
> I'm really concerned about the direction this is going.
> 
> It's bad enough to suggest that the only way to "win" is to sit on your hands, smile politely and shut up about critical issues.
> 
> The vibe I'm catching now is: it's not just enough to do that, you had better be prepared to lie about what you think.


I think that's exactly the suggestion.  That sort of thing leads one down some pretty awful roads.  

Jose Guerena was murdered, in cold blood, in his home by the state.  There is no way around that fact.  To suggest that a person should keep from speaking out against that sort of thing is reprehensible, in my opinion.

Yeah, count me out of that sort of thing.  If the local GOP want to defend cops who gun down innocent people, then guess what?  I'm calling those people out.  At what point are we supposed to speak up, if not when innocent people are murdered?  

Disgusting...

----------


## mport1

> What are your arguments for the state as defined above?


There are none.  Good job, looks like you have things figured out just fine

----------


## Danke

Why was Conza banned...again?

----------


## Conza88

> Why was Conza banned...again?


Way too many anti-state threads of mine all over the 'new posts' section. Dangerous, dangerous, dangerous.  Seriously though, no reason was given. And it seems like they don't think they even need to . I believe someone asked for a specific quotation / reference point and misdirection was provided instead. 

I'd just like to also point out - noone has yet made an argument for the state, to justify it's existence. I am led to believe that it is impossible, yes?

The fact that you have no arguments - means you then move onto the question of strategy... which is completely irrelevant. That discussion is something that can be had elsewhere if it is so wished.

However, this thread is related specifically to justification of the state. 

*I want the moderators to delete every single post in here that is a RED HERRING and talks about strategy... pointlessly so and make a new thread.*  Do your job thanks.

----------


## Jake Ralston

> Why was Conza banned...again?


Probably because he is a troll that relies on divide and conquer tactics to create problems within a forum that is working overtime to get a certain man elected as Head of the State. Yes, Head of the STATE.

I for one have already debunked Conza88 by simply and thoroughly refusing to accept his philosophical ideals. Conza88 knows that no matter how hard he tries, I will never accept Anarchy or Voluntaryism. Conza88 knows that it's not a matter of logic, morality, or who is right and who is wrong. It's a matter of my own personal lifestyle that I choose to support. And best of all, he's not American, nor even physically in America, so he can't try the tired fallacy of claiming that I "suppress" him with my support of the state.

Anyways, who goes to McDonald's and demands they stop serving burgers? Welcome to Conza88's world ladies and gentlemen.

It's okay though, one of these days he will realize that his efforts are in vain. I mean imagine if he withdrew all the effort towards the unnattainable Utopian Anarchy and put it towards something worthwhile like, oh I don't know, helping Ron Paul get elected?

----------


## Jake Ralston

> I want the moderators to delete every single post in here that is a RED HERRING


_RED HERRING: "Red herring is an idiomatic expression referring to the rhetorical or literary tactic of diverting attention away from an item of significance."_

CONZA88 you are the definition of a Red Herring. Because the "item of significance" here is trying to get Ron Paul supported and elected. Something you know nothing about because you resort to divide and conquer tactics, diverting attention to ANARCHY (chaos) and do nothing to contribute to the significance of Ron Paul.

----------


## Conza88

> Probably because he is a troll that relies on divide and conquer tactics to create problems within a forum that is working overtime to get a certain man elected as Head of the State. Yes, Head of the STATE.
> 
> I for one have already debunked Conza88 by simply and thoroughly refusing to accept his philosophical ideals. Conza88 knows that no matter how hard he tries, I will never accept Anarchy or Voluntaryism. Conza88 knows that it's not a matter of logic, morality, or who is right and who is wrong. It's a matter of my own personal lifestyle that I choose to support. And best of all, he's not American, nor even physically in America, so he can't try the tired fallacy of claiming that I "suppress" him with my support of the state.
> 
> Anyways, who goes to McDonald's and demands they stop serving burgers? Welcome to Conza88's world ladies and gentlemen.
> 
> It's okay though, one of these days he will realize that his efforts are in vain. I mean imagine if he withdrew all the effort towards the unnattainable Utopian Anarchy and put it towards something worthwhile like, oh I don't know, helping Ron Paul get elected?



A "troll" that has done more for the liberty movement ala Ron Paul, than you have. How's that make you feel? If I'm a troll, then what on earth does that make you? 

No doubt this is merely an attempt to try get a rise out of me, in the hopes of me providing ya'll with an excuse so I can get banned again - and it seem "justified". Really, whose the troll now? Your last two posts SCREAM it bro . Will the mods do anything, of course not.

No-one has said Ron Paul supports anarchy as YOU define it [chaos], or how Mises defines it. NO-ONE HERE EVEN USES THE WORD, THE MINARCHIST TROLLS are the ones who cannot let it go.. it's delusional. 

Ron Paul -> his own words; he supports self-government over a return to the constitution. It is his end goal. 

His words, his words, his words, his words, in context, in context... how do you interpret that? What on earth do you think it means? lmao! 




> Ron Paul:_ "government planning leads to chaos"_


You guys are going to die, and you're still retain your cognitive dissonance.. stuck in a world of delusional self contradictions. Pathetic.

But really... just another bs *red herring*...

WHAT IS YOUR ARGUMENT FOR THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE STATE? Do you even have one?!

----------


## Jake Ralston

> You guys are going to die, and you're still retain your cognitive dissonance.. stuck in a world of delusional self contradictions. Pathetic.


Silence troll! 

Your fallacy-bound, argumentative attempts at entrapment are easily seen from far away. You are the self-embodyment of a red-herring.

Take your philosophical ideals and spread them like cancer in your own country. You are not one of us.

I will never accept your foolish attempts of Utopia. I will be harsh as truth, and uncompromising as justice... I am in earnest, I will not equivocate, I will not excuse, I will not retreat a single inch, and I will be heard!

----------


## A Son of Liberty

lol what a joke...

----------


## Conza88

Every single individual who has participated in this thread [and doesn't consider Ron Paul a voluntarist] is or has been guilty of using this in the present/past: *Argumentum ad nauseam*.




> *Argumentum ad nauseam* (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repitition). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again. But no matter how many times you repeat something, it will not become any more or less true than it was in the first place. Of course, it is not a fallacy to state the truth again and again; what is fallacious is to expect the repitition alone to substitute for real arguments.
> 
> Nonetheless, this is a very popular fallacy in debate, and with good reason: the more times you say something, the more likely it is that the judge will remember it. The first thing they'll teach you in any public speaking course is that you should "Tell 'em what you're gonna tell 'em, then tell 'em, and then tell 'em what you told 'em." Unfortunately, some debaters think that's all there is to it, with no substantiation necessary! The appropriate time to mention argumentum ad nauseam in a debate round is when the other team has made some assertion, failed to justify it, and then stated it again and again. The Latin wording is particularly nice here, since it is evocative of what the opposition's assertions make you want to do: retch. "Sir, our opponents tell us drugs are wrong, drugs are wrong, drugs are wrong, again and again and again. But this argumentum ad nauseam can't and won't win this debate for them, because they've given us no justification for their bald assertions!"


Jake Ralston, do you have a valid argument that supports the concept of a state [as defined in the OP]?

----------


## angelatc

Don't need to convince you of it.  That's kind of the point.

----------


## Conza88

> Don't need to convince you of it.  That's kind of the point.

----------


## Jake Ralston

> Jake Ralston, do you have a valid argument that supports the concept of a state [as defined in the OP]?


Conza88, I don't have enough respect for you to loan even half an effort towards proving a concept, idea, or principle. Nor do I feel any obligation to do so.

I know you've been told this before, and once you even acknowledged it. You are a terrible salesman. The "product" (idea, whatever) you are selling is not in the least bit appealing to the vast majority of humans. In your mind, it is perfectly logical and moral. Most disagree with you. The odds are stacked heavily against you, and you know it. To be blunt about it, you will never find your utopian Anarchy. You will spend your years reading about it, arguing and debating, and then going home banging your head against the wall in frustration. So much dedication, effort and time spent towards something you will never see come to fruition. But hey, maybe your laying the framework down for future generations, right? Which brings me back to my first point, your a terrible salesman. Your not helping the cause of Anarchy. There are a few reasons why you come here to the RPForums to unleash your rage:

1. Libertarians and Ron Paul supporters alike are some of the most intellectually honest people in the world. They know and care about politics.
2. The above mentioned cherish liberty and limited government, which in most cases is a few steps short of your goal.

You know you don't even stand a chance at converting the normal "sheeple" of the world. The people that follow the status quo, suck off the teet of the entitlement system, don't give a rats ass about politics, or even care to discuss it. 

So you come here, with your condiscending attitude, your smartass remarks, your fallacies, your "logic" and "facts" and "intellectual honesty", your 90 minute youtube videos and 200 page articles, and everything else that comes with it. Yet you still fail. 

One of these days you will need to acknowledge that those of us who decide we don't like your idea, simply don't want it. There is no arguing about it, no PROVING to you that our personal views of the State are justified in some way that makes sense to you. Anarchy is a no-go, and thats final. 

So what does that mean for me (us)?

We are the following:

1. Intellectually dishonest.
2. Close minded.
3. Ignorant.
4. Lost.
5. Bound by fallacies.
6. ?
7. ?
8. ?

I left a few openings for you to insert any vocabulary that you see fit. But it doesn't matter. If we don't care about you or your ideas, we don't care which vocabulary you use to describe us. And it really shouldn't matter to you anyways, because you failed. You need people to join your cause. And when for whatever reason they don't, thats a failure on your end. 

So what are you going to do about it? Keep spam posting? Keep spitting venom? Keep linking 90 minute youtube videos and 200 page blogs?

How about man-up and move on.

Try talking about Ron Paul and what your doing to help him get elected. Talk about activism or donating money to the cause. Find areas you can agree with people on and appreciate that, expand on it. Make friends from different walks of life. Broaden your horizons.

Or are you consumed by insanity? Trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?

----------


## Conza88

Do you still do drugs Jake? 

*Fallacy: Ad Hominem* 



> "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."...


Jake Ralston, do you have a valid argument that supports the concept of a state [as defined in the OP]?

No? Then be man enough to admit you have no legitimate basis for your beliefs... don't hide behind an irrational & invective filled diatribe... which has nothing to do with the OP.

----------


## libertyjam

> The fact that you have no arguments - means you then move onto the question of strategy... which is completely irrelevant. That discussion is something that can be had elsewhere if it is so wished.
> 
> .


I don't believe that there are no arguments, just there are no arguments that you accept.  Also it is false to claim that just because no arguments have been made directly to you, that there are no arguments.

----------


## Conza88

> I don't believe that there are no arguments, just there are no arguments that you accept.  Also it is false to claim that just because no arguments have been made directly to you, that there are no arguments.


Excuse me? Lmao! . Yeah, and it's a strawman to attribute that claim to me. Please link and quote me the arguments made that justify the existence of the state in this thread. What did I miss? 

Regardless of their non-existence, can you please go ahead and provide those arguments you contend as existing and we will use reason & logic to see if they are valid.

----------


## libertyjam

> Jake Ralston, do you have a valid argument that supports the concept of a state [as defined in the OP]?


I had to go back and see what this concept of the state as defined in the OP is, and I daresay most reject the definition out of hand, it contains so many errors. 
Nor will I and I suspect most others waste time even arguing about it, there are much more important fish to fry for most .  It may make an interesting discussion someday pointing out all the fallacies of Hans-Herman Hoppe and his faulty premises, and maybe someone will take you up on it, provided of course you are someone a person actually could have a rational discourse with and not merely the cudgel beating with words type that we see with others here.

----------


## Conza88

> I had to go back and see what this concept of the state as defined in the OP is, and I daresay most reject the definition out of hand, it contains so many errors. 
> Nor will I and I suspect most others waste time even arguing about it, there are much more important fish to fry for most .  It may make an interesting discussion someday pointing out all the fallacies of Hans-Herman Hoppe and his faulty premises, and maybe someone will take you up on it, provided of course you are someone a person actually could have a rational discourse with and not merely the cudgel beating with words type that we see with others here.


Oh great... so you didn't even read the OP before commenting? You just decided to weigh-in, in a state of ignorance? That's exactly what you just admitted. 

 _*sigh*_.

Why am I not surprised by this response?

*What errors? What on earth is wrong with it?* All I am after in this world is the truth. It's the reason I currently hold this intellectual position, I think what I accept is. And yet that is always the case for most people, so the key is being intellectually honest with an open mind. Premises often need to be questioned. I once believed what you do [check this forum, the posts would still be there]. I was shown the contradictions I held, and so I moved to the better argument. I don't like being wrong.. so when that happens I am easy in accepting that and acknowledging it, because then I won't have to be again [until someone else presents a better argument that refutes my position], and so on it goes.

And yet... surely if I'm acting like a pompous ass-clown [as some would no doubt content] & surely if those exact same people had _reason, logic, evidence and truth on their side_ - they'd be able to show me the error of my ways & school me like there is no tomorrow, to put my ignorant & arrogant ass in it's proper place.

But it's not like they've even tried... *perhaps it's because deep down they know...* *there is no justification for the state.* Or is there?  , I'm all ears .

----------


## newbitech

Occam's razor.  The state has existed in the past, it exists now, therefor it will continue to exist in the future.  That's a pretty easy justification for "the state".

Why should anyone believe that statelessness can be achieved if it has never been achieved before?  Or if I grant you that statelessness existed for a relatively short period only to be once again overtaken by "the state".  

Since I will have to make all kinds of new assumptions about the possibility of a stateless society, the fact that the state exists and requires no assumptions justifies the state.  

Deduction would be another way to convince you of statism.  Since the fight against statism has been going on since the beginning of history, it should be pretty easy to figure out that this fight will continue on currently and in the future. 

Not sure why you need to be convinced.  If you want someone to convince you that it is right, the Hannity forums would probably be a good place to get something more substantial.

----------


## angelatc

> 


Ladies and gentlemen, I rest my case.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Don't need to convince you of it.  That's kind of the point.





> 





> Ladies and gentlemen, I rest my case.




Who needs "convincing" when you have the state on your side, eh?

----------


## Conza88

> Occam's razor.  The state has existed in the past, it exists now, therefor it will continue to exist in the future.  That's a pretty easy justification for "the state".


That's not Occam's razor at all. It's a combination of *argument from ignorance* (stateless societies have existed in the past), but also the fact that governments are currently in a 'state' [using a diff def] of anarchy "no rulers" with each-other. Even more importantly, there are no rules imposed on the rulers, they are in a 'state' of lawlessness. A blatant contradiction. And it is also an *appeal to tradition fallacy*.




> *Appeal to Tradition* is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is older, traditional, or "always has been done." This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
> 
>     X is old or traditional
>     Therefore X is correct or better. 
> 
> This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because the age of something does not automatically make it correct or better than something newer. This is made quite obvious by the following example: The theory that witches and demons cause disease is far older than the theory that microrganisms cause diseases. Therefore, the theory about witches and demons must be true.


Here's another: "*Proponents of government intervention are trapped in a fatal contradiction*: they assume that individuals are not competent to run their own affairs or to hire experts to advise them. And yet they also assume that these same individuals are equipped to vote for these same experts at the ballot box. We have seen that, on the contrary, while most people have a direct idea and a direct test of their own personal interests on the market, they cannot understand the complex chains of praxeological and philosophical reasoning necessary for a choice of rulers or political policies. Yet this political sphere of open demagogy is precisely the only one where the mass of individuals are deemed to be competent!" _~ Murray N. Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market (Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2004), p. 1302._
Your argument [*ONE SENTENCE*] is invalid, as it constitutes as a logical fallacy. 

The rest of your post is a *red herring*.




> Why should anyone believe that statelessness can be achieved if it has never been achieved before?  Or if I grant you that statelessness existed for a relatively short period only to be once again overtaken by "the state".


Firstly, because you cannot escape 'anarchy' [no rulers]. *"Do we ever really get out of anarchy?"* by Alfred G. Cuzan. I await your 'refutation'  (in another thread where it will be relevant). Secondly, the exact same can be said about limited government - which is utopian. There has never been a state that has _ever_ remained limited, nor will there ever be. *See OP point 4.*




> Since I will have to make all kinds of new assumptions about the possibility of a stateless society, the fact that the state exists and requires no assumptions justifies the state.


*Please refer to OP points 1 & 2.* Failed attempt at shifting the burden of proof.




> Deduction would be another way to convince you of statism.  Since the fight against statism has been going on since the beginning of history, it should be pretty easy to figure out that this fight will continue on currently and in the future.


That is *not* a justification for the state. It is commentary on _strategy._ An ENTIRELY difference question. If you want to have that discussion by all means; but it is a red herring in this thread. This thread is about seeking justifications for said institution. 

I am still waiting..

----------


## Conza88

> Ladies and gentlemen, I rest my case.


. And what 'case' is it that you are resting? Please elaborate and explain your position - so that it is actually coherent.

----------


## CCTelander

> Who needs "convincing" when you have the state on your side, eh?


A gun shoved in one's face can be VERY "convincing."

----------


## Conza88



----------


## heavenlyboy34

> 


 "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Conza88 again."  IOU a +rep for that awesome pic^^^, Conza.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> 


True, that, and it's only taken roughly 500 years to wash the idea that cutting people's hearts out for the benefit of the ruling class is good, from the mass consciousness.

We made a pretty historic leap forward right here, for all our faults, but went off the rails about 100 years ago.

So, let's turn around on the path back to get back to that point where things went wrong, and then continue onward from there.

Trying to get back to point A from *this* point, 1-A, (that being where we are right now in bizarro world) would shred the space-time continuum.

----------


## Bman

> Who needs "convincing" when you have the state on your side, eh?


You beat me to it.  That's how you convince someone.  Not everyone, I certainly doubt Conza, but that's what your up against.

----------


## Conza88

> You beat me to it.  That's how you convince someone.  Not everyone, I certainly doubt Conza, but that's what your up against.


Excuse me?  Could you please elaborate and flesh out your point.

Before doing so, please refer to *Point 7* of the OP... and probably also: Ending Tyranny Without Violence, unless I have misunderstood you.

No justifications for the state? No-one?

----------


## newbitech

so you won't be convinced as you work your contortionist magic to wiggle out of clutches of the state.

I'll have more time later Conza, but I doubt I will spend it trying to convince you further.  If there is no justification for the state, then the state would not have the history it does.  If stateless society was successful, it would easily be more understood and would not require vast assumptions to make it work.  If you don't know what occums razor is, then there is no justification for anything.

----------


## Conza88

> so you won't be convinced as you work your contortionist magic to wiggle out of clutches of the state.


 Please refer to *Point 7* of the OP.




> I'll have more time later Conza, but I doubt I will spend it trying to convince you further.  If there is no justification for the state, then the state would not have the history it does.


And what are those justifications for the existence of the state? I am interested in whether they are valid & legitimate, or not. 

The history of the state? 

_"All we need do now is to point to the black and unprecedented record of the state through history: no combination of private marauders can possibly begin to match the state’s unremitting record of theft, confiscation, oppression, and mass murder. No collection of Mafia or private bank robbers can begin to compare with all the Hiroshimas, Dresdens, and Lidices and their analogues through the history of mankind._" — Society Without A State, Murray N. Rothbard



> If stateless society was successful, it would easily be more understood and would not require vast assumptions to make it work.  If you don't know what occums razor is, then there is no justification for anything.


Vast assumptions? lmao!  Like what? The concept of self ownership? That the initiation of threat and physical aggression is unjustifiable - the non aggression principle? That theft is bad? That murder is wrong? The homesteading principle - origional appropriation?   

*I do* know what Occam’s razor is and entails, pity you don't... which your actions here have demonstrated _(unbeknownst to you)_.

Yo dude, *your one sentence "argument"* is still invalid & still constitutes as a logical fallacy. *Appeal to tradition* fallacy all you want... no commentary on anything else?

I do hope you find the time to actually respond to my rebuttals - otherwise, your non response (as seen above) will just look like you've dodged it, in the hopes it goes unnoticed. Don't worry, I can assure you - it won't.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

It seems quite apparent that what Conza is looking for is a logically consistent argument on behalf of the state, which explains away all of the apparent and seemingly inherent contradictions.  No one is suggesting that the state doesn't have a long tradition of existence.  

For instance, one of the logical inconsistencies in the underlying philosophy of the state is the presumption that some men are fit to rule over other men; and this is true in authoritarian models of government as well as the various manifestations of democratic government.  Philosophically, we ask where is the evidence that some men are actually fit to rule others?  In other words, are all men not created equal?  Are we not sovereign individuals?  Can someone think with your mind, or feel with your heart?  If we do not respect the fact that, though some of us may be more intelligent than others, while others may be more physically powerful than some, we are yet fully independent beings with equal rights, then the argument that some may rule others must boil down to the threat or initiation of physical or coercive violence.  And that is exactly what the state is, in all it's manifestations.  Either it demands compliance in whatever it claims as it's monopoly be it broad or narrow, or it is voluntary and thus not a state at all.  

Conversely, anarchism is merely recognizing the objective truth that each individual is sovereign unto himself, and that if I violate that sovereignty I implicitly acknowledge the right of others to violate my sovereignty.  That is a logically inconsistent philosophy that leads ultimately to the destruction of each individual.

----------


## Travlyr

I am still waiting.. 

Page 3 post #23



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


Ron Paul has clearly demonstrated that early America was a relatively voluntary society under the colonies and early states. If you are looking for a perfectly voluntary society, you are in the wrong world. You may get that when you die. Perfection is impossible in an imperfect world. 

Those who carefully listen to Ron Paul learn that there was a specific reason we lost our liberty. The problem is not the State. The debasement of currency has enslaved peaceful people off and on since the times of Babylon. The state exists because as Mises points out it is the foundation for a voluntary society.

----------


## erowe1

I haven't read this thread, and probably won't.

But what are people debating here? Are there really some people taking the side that it is morally right for one group to rule over another without their consent? Or are the pro-state people saying something else?

----------


## erowe1

> Ron Paul has clearly demonstrated that early America was a relatively voluntary society under the colonies and early states.


And when you say "demonstrated," you just mean "claimed." Right?

----------


## Travlyr

> And when you say "demonstrated," you just mean "claimed." Right?


I suppose claimed is a better word. Nonetheless, history is clear that prior to the _'Civil War'_ many of our ancestors had the pleasure of living a fairly voluntary life. Many were land owners, some were business owners, others were miners and speculators. While not everyone was included, early America was indeed a land of opportunity for many. The twenty first century can be a land of opportunity for many, many more ... IF people don't destroy the right of the people to own property under the authority of competing states.

----------


## Travlyr

> I haven't read this thread, and probably won't.
> 
> But what are people debating here? Are there really some people taking the side that it is morally right for one group to rule over another without their consent? *Or are the pro-state people saying something else?*


I am saying something else. I am claiming that rulers under the platform of state organization, who are subject to the same laws as everyone else, then States are the foundation for a relatively voluntary society.

----------


## erowe1

> I suppose claimed is a better word. Nonetheless, history is clear that prior to the _'Civil War'_ many of our ancestors had the pleasure of living a fairly voluntary life. Many were land owners, some were business owners, others were miners and speculators. While not everyone was included, early America was indeed a land of opportunity for many. The twenty first century can be a land of opportunity for many, many more ... IF people don't destroy the right of the people to own property under the authority of competing states.


Well, the thing about what you're saying and what RP said is that words like "relatively" and "fairly" are pretty flexible. Both statements would be wrong without those words, and with those words they don't really add anything to the conversation.

If the question is whether a government that derives is powers from conquest over the governed, rather than consent of the governed, is a good or bad thing, then when it comes to evaluating early America, simply comparing it with later America can't provide the answer.

Instead, you have to look at things like the way American Indians were subjugated, the way the federal government prevented the people in non-slave states from providing refuge to runaway slaves, the way the Washington regime put down the whiskey rebellion, the way Andrew Jackson forced South Carolina to accept his tariffs under threats of military action, and so on, and ask if those were good things or bad things. If you say they were bad things, then it would seem to me that you are against the state.

----------


## erowe1

> I am saying something else. I am claiming that rulers under the platform of state organization, who are subject to the same laws as everyone else, then States are the foundation for a relatively voluntary society.


Well then what is state organization?

If a group of people is subject to the same laws as everyone else, I have trouble seeing how that group could be a state. Don't states require special powers over their subjects in order to be states? Isn't that the essential piece that makes the USA, North Korea, and Sweden all states, and the Boy Scouts, churches, and neighborhood associations all not states?

----------


## Travlyr

> Well, the thing about what you're saying and what RP said is that words like "relatively" and "fairly" are pretty flexible. Both statements would be wrong without those words, and with those words they don't really add anything to the conversation.
> 
> If the question is whether a government that derives is powers from conquest over the governed, rather than consent of the governed, is a good or bad thing, then when it comes to evaluating early America, simply comparing it with later America can't provide the answer.
> 
> Instead, you have to look at things like the way American Indians were subjugated, the way the federal government prevented the people in non-slave states from providing refuge to runaway slaves, the way the Washington regime put down the whiskey rebellion, the way Andrew Jackson forced South Carolina to accept his tariffs under threats of military action, and so on, and ask if those were good things or bad things. If you say they were bad things, then it would seem to me that you are against the state.


Again, if you are looking for perfection, then you are living in the wrong world. Perfection is impossible in an imperfect world.

----------


## angelatc

> . And what 'case' is it that you are resting? Please elaborate and explain your position - so that it is actually coherent.


The fallacy is in your tired and pathetic insistence that we who  live in the real world have to justify it to you.    We don't.

----------


## Travlyr

> Well then what is state organization?
> 
> If a group of people is subject to the same laws as everyone else, I have trouble seeing how that group could be a state. Don't states require special powers over their subjects in order to be states? Isn't that the essential piece that makes the USA, North Korea, and Sweden all states, and the Boy Scouts, churches, and neighborhood associations all not states?


Read the constitution of the state where you live and it should begin to become clear what is a state. If that doesn't do it read the U.S. Constitution as well.

----------


## erowe1

> Again, if you are looking for perfection, then you are living in the wrong world. Perfection is impossible in an imperfect world.


I can't speak for others, but to me the question isn't what's possible. I agree that perfection isn't.

But even if I take for granted that the world won't be perfect before Jesus returns, I can still use the idea of perfection as a way of judging what's right and wrong, and telling me which direction is the one I should work toward moving in and which direction I should work to prevent others from making me move.

If the top income tax bracket got reduced to 5%, I would consider that a marvelous development. But I still wouldn't say, "Now that's just the right amount of taxes." I would still say, "Lower is better, and no matter what the tax rate is, it can always be improved by getting lower."

Taxes can never ever, not even hypothetically, get so low that at some point I would say, "That's too much, take them back up a notch." I know full well that there will always be taxes. But in order for me to have an objective standard that will continue to guide my ethical decisions, no matter the situation, I have to hold to perfection as an ideal. It's not a goal, it's an ideal.

----------


## erowe1

> Read the constitution of the state where you live and it should begin to become clear what is a state. If that doesn't do it read the U.S. Constitution as well.


No problem. A state is exactly what I said, it is a group of people that rules over another group of people by conquest, and not consent of the governed. The constitutions you mentioned support this definition. I consider it a bad thing. Do you?

----------


## Revolution9

> No justifications for the state? No-one?


5% of the population are psychopaths. They can wreak havoc unless contained. They do not care about your stateless societies stability. They will use that to stomp dicks into the dirt to get what they want...generally belonging to others like their property, life, and person. The only way to stop them is a lynching/execution or incarceration. Either of those takes some sort of state to accomplish or vigilanteism will reign supreme again killing your stateless whatever-the-$#@!-you-wanna-call-it..

'Nuff Said
Rev9

----------


## Revolution9

> No problem. A state is exactly what I said, it is a group of people that rules over another group of people by conquest, and not consent of the governed.


Explain Switzerland in your broad brush generalisation.

Rev9

----------


## Travlyr

> No problem. A state is exactly what I said, it is a group of people that rules over another group of people by conquest, and not consent of the governed. The constitutions you mentioned support this definition. I consider it a bad thing. Do you?


No, I do not consider it a bad thing. I consider it a blessing.




> The Declaration of Independence
> 
> IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
> 
> The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
> 
> When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
> 
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

----------


## erowe1

> No, I do not consider it a bad thing. I consider it a blessing.


So you just quoted the Declaration of Independence, which affirms the ideal of statelessness, that the only just powers a government can have are those it derives from the consent of the governed. And somehow you see it as a blessing that some of those same people turned around and went against that ideal a decade later? How does that follow?

----------


## Travlyr

> So you just quoted the Declaration of Independence, which affirms the ideal of statelessness, that the only just powers a government can have are those it derives from the consent of the governed. And somehow you see it as a blessing that some of those same people turned around and went against that ideal a decade later? How does that follow?


*The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America*

----------


## erowe1

> Explain Switzerland in your broad brush generalisation.


First of all, when defining words, broad brush generalizations are good things. If others believe they can improve on that definition of "state" in such a way that removes the nonconsensual aspect of my definition, I welcome that.

I don't know a lot about Switzerland. But I do know, just from another discussion on these forums yesterday, that a land owner in is Switzerland prohibited by the government from selling his land to any individuals that don't have the state's prior permission to buy land there. That would be one example of how those subjects of the Swiss rulers are ruled by conquest. I saw another thread about how Swiss law makers were going to enact emergency measures to protect their tourism industry in light of their currency being worth too much relative to other currencies. That would be another example. Switzerland may well be one of the best states on earth, but it seems to me that it's still a state.

----------


## erowe1

> *The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America*


Right. So what are you saying? It looks like they all agreed with me.




> That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed


Doesn't that imply that any powers they derive from something other than consent of the governed are unjust powers?

Let me be clear that I heartily agree with the Declaration of Independence on this. One of the problems with the federal and all the state constitutions is that they do not.

----------


## Conza88

> I am still waiting..


And what on earth are you waiting for? Me to point out your flawed reasoning because you struggle to think for yourself? 

First off I'd recommend everyone head over to the thread, where this quote is from to get *some context* . 

Trav, *it is intellectually dishonest to delete the entire paragraph* that precedes & explains the meaning of the sentence that you now wish to showcase as some kind of argument by taking it out of context.

I'll put it back in context for others:




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


And so, if you support secession down to the individual level... and if you support institutions that are voluntarily paid for with witnessed, signed, contracts etc. [calling them whatever the hell you want] which are organisations that operate on the freemarket, if you support what Mises supports & Ron Paul supports... then you support _self-government_, which is precisely what Rothbard supports, Hoppe, Kinsella, Block, Higgs, Woods, Gordon etc etc... then we have no argument or quarrels because you are an anarcho-capitalist / voluntarist / self-government / private law / natural order society supporter.

So Mises supports private defence agencies; dispute resolution organisations just by another name.

_"Liberty and freedom are the conditions of man within a contractual society."_ ~ Human Action, p. 282.

Because as I pointed out to you Trav, *Mises wasn't a statist* (this conversation actually belongs there)... I RESPONDED there, and in fact it is YOU are still yet to respond.   

For the millionth time, I will refer others & you to *Point 7 of the OP.* What do you not understand about that? You do realise that no other classical liberals support individual secession, right? 




> Ron Paul has clearly demonstrated that early America was a relatively voluntary society under the colonies and early states.





> *ADAM KOKESH:* So you've described yourself as a voluntarist. Can  you tell us what that means for the big picture, and what your ideal  society would be, as a voluntarist?
> 
> *RON PAUL:* Voluntary means no coercion. So if you want to change  people's habits or change the world you should do it by setting examples  and trying to persuade people to do it. You can use force only when  somebody uses force against you. So voluntary use of information and  persuading people, I think, is the best way to go; and no matter what  kind of problem you're looking at.
> 
> *ADAM KOKESH:* Do you think we have a chance of achieving a society based on those ideals in America?
> 
> *RON PAUL:* Not soon. *We had a relative voluntary society (you know) in our early history, but steadily, even after the Constitution was passed*,  steadily it was undermined and it systematically grew, it grew  certainly through the 20th century; that is the authoritarian approach,  which is the opposite. That is: the government tells us everything we  can do and can't do.


He was asked if we have a chance of achieving a voluntary society... he says not soon, and I agree, as does Stephan Kinsella and many other anarcho-capitalists / voluntarists.

He makes reference to the relative voluntary societies of the past, *pre*-constitution. What could they be? (Articles of Confederation?) either way, all it does is back up his statement about his end goal *not* being constitutionalism, but self-government/voluntarism . 

Taken from the great *Anarcho-Capitalist FAQ*:
*
Rhode Island (1636-1648)*
 	Religious dissenter Roger Williams, after being run out of theocratic  puritan Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1636, founded Providence, Rhode  Island. Unlike the brutal Puritans, he scrupulously purchased land from  local indians for his settlement. In political beliefs, Williams was  close to the Levellers of England. He describes Rhode Island local  "government" as follows: "The masters of families have ordinarily met  once a fortnight and consulted about our common peace, watch and plenty;  and mutual consent have finished all matters of speed and pace." While Roger Williams was not explicitly anarchist, another Rhode  Islander was: Anne Hutchinson. Anne and her followers emigrated to Rhode  Island in 1638. They bought Aquidneck Island from the Indians, and  founded the town of Pocasset (now Portsmouth.) Another "Rogue Island"  libertarian was Samuell Gorton. He and his followers were accused of  being an "anarchists." Governor Winthrop of Massachusetts Bay called  Gorton a "man not fit to live upon the face of the earth," Gorton and  his followers were forced in late 1642 to found an entirely new  settlement of their own: Shawomet (later Warwick). In the words of  Gorton, for over five years the settlement "lived peaceably together,  desiring and endeavoring to do wrong to no man, neither English nor  Indian, ending all our differences in a neighborly and loving way of  arbitration, mutually chosen amongst us."Pf

*Albemarle (1640's-1663)*
 	The coastal area north of Albemarle Sound in what is now northeastern  North Carolina had a quasi-anarchistic society in the mid-17th century.  Officially a part of the Virginia colony, in fact it was independent. It  was a haven for political and religious refugees, such as Quakers and  dissident Presbyterians. The libertarian society ended in 1663, when the  King of England granted Carolina to eight feudal proprietors backed by  military.Pf

*Holy Experiment (Quaker) Pennsylvania (1681-1690)*
 	When William Penn left his Quaker colony in Pennsylvania, the people  stopped paying quitrent, and any semblance of formal government  evaporated. The Quakers treated Indians with respect, bought land from  them voluntarily, and had even representation of Indians and Whites on  juries. According to Voltaire, the Shackamaxon treaty was "the only  treaty between Indians and Christians that was never sworn to and that  was never broken." The Quakers refused to provide any assistance to New  England's Indian wars. Penn's attempt to impose government by appointing  John Blackwell, a non-Quaker military man, as governor failed  miserably.Pf
*
The American "Not so Wild" West - various locations*
 	Most law for settlements in the American West was established long  before  US government agents arrived.  Property law was generally  defined by local custom and/or agreement among the settlers.  Mining  associations established orderly mining claims, cattlemen's associations  handled property rights on the plains, local "regulators" and private  citizens provided enforcement. Yet most movie-watching people are  surprised to learn that crime rates were lower in the West than the  "civilized" East. Cf: The American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The Not so Wild, Wild, West




> If you are looking for a perfectly voluntary society, you are in the wrong world. You may get that when you die. Perfection is impossible in an imperfect world.


Furthermore,                the purely free-market, stateless  society  would contain within itself                a system of built-in  checks  and balances that would make it almost                 impossible for  such organized crime to succeed. There has been much                 talk  about checks and balances in the American system,  but these                 can scarcely be considered checks at all,  since every one of these                 institutions is an agency of  the central government and  eventually                of the ruling  party of that government. The  checks and balances                in the  stateless society consist  precisely in the _free market_,                 i.e., the  existence of freely competitive police and judicial  agencies                 that could quickly be mobilized to put down  any outlaw agency. 

*It  is true                that there can be  no absolute guarantee that a  purely market society                would  not fall prey to organized  criminality. But this concept is                 far more workable than  the truly Utopian idea of a  strictly                limited  government, an idea that has never  worked historically.*                 And understandably so, for the  States built-in monopoly of aggression                 and inherent  absence of free-market checks have enabled it  to burst                 easily any bonds that well-meaning people have  tried to place upon                 it. Finally, the worst that could  possibly happen would be  for the                State to be  reestablished. And since the State  is what we have _now_,                 any experimentation with a  stateless society would have nothing                 to lose and  everything to gain. - *No More Military Socialism by Murray N. Rothbard* 



> Those who carefully listen to Ron Paul learn that there was a specific reason we lost our liberty. The problem is not the State. The debasement of currency has enslaved peaceful people off and on since the times of Babylon. The state exists because as Mises points out it is the foundation for a voluntary society.


If you have come to that conclusion; you clearly do not listen to Ron Paul at all. Nor have you read anything of Mises. Actually, 'understood' is probably more accurate. You do realise that: 

_"The whole of mankinds progress has had to be achieved against the resistance and opposition of the state and its power of coercion." ~ Liberalism, p. 58.

"We see that as soon as we surrender the principle that the state should not interfere in any questions touching of the individuals mode of life, we end by regulating and restricting the latter down to the smallest detail. The personal freedom of the individual is abrogated. He becomes a slave of the community bound to obey the dictates of the majority." ~ Liberalism, 54.

"Whoever wishes peace among peoples must fight statism."  ~ Nation, State, and Economy, p. 77

"Capitalism means free enterprise, sovereignty of the consumers in economic matters, and sovereignty of the voters in political matters [which involves choosing their 'governments']. Socialism means full government control of every sphere of the individuals life and the unrestricted supremacy of the government in its capacity as central board of production management." ~ Bureaucracy, p. 10

"The democracy of the market consists in the fact that people themselves make their choices and that no dictator has the power to force them to submit to his value judgments." ~ Human Action, p. 384; p. 387

"What gives to the individuals as much freedom as is compatible with life in society is the operation of the market economy. The constitutions and bills of rights do not create freedom." ~ Mises, The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality, pp. 99-100._

----------


## erowe1

> And so, if you support secession down to the individual level... and if you support institutions that are voluntarily paid for with witnessed, signed, contracts etc. [calling them whatever the hell you want] which are organisations that operate on the freemarket, if you support what Mises supports & Ron Paul supports... then you support _self-government_, which is precisely what Rothbard supports, Hoppe, Kinsella, Block, Higgs, Woods, Gordon etc etc..


N.b. that somewhere in those et ceteras is the Declaration of Independence.

----------


## Conza88

> The fallacy is in your tired and pathetic insistence that we who  live in the real world have to justify it to you.    We don't.


The burden of proof lies with you. You are the one who supports violence being used against me. I live in the real world, more than you. I don't believe in myths or that government exists in reality. Because it doesn't.

----------


## Conza88

> 5% of the population are psychopaths. They can wreak havoc unless contained. They do not care about your stateless societies stability. They will use that to stomp dicks into the dirt to get what they want...generally belonging to others like their property, life, and person. The only way to stop them is a lynching/execution or incarceration. Either of those takes some sort of state to accomplish or vigilanteism will reign supreme again killing your stateless whatever-the-$#@!-you-wanna-call-it..
> 
> 'Nuff Said
> Rev9


Yeah, so you agree with *Mises*... and Rothbard, Hoppe etc. 

I'm sorry, did you have an objection? Or justification for the state as *DEFINED IN THE OP?* (Which is _NOT_ how Mises defines it as discussed by Hoppe).

----------


## Conza88

> N.b. that somewhere in those et ceteras is the Declaration of Independence.


You mean this one http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/doi.html ?

----------


## Travlyr

> And what on earth are you waiting for? Me to point out your flawed reasoning because you struggle to think for yourself?


Here is the problem I have with people who advocate for a stateless society. They attack the messenger ... not the message.

Conza, you are rude and wrong. I think for myself. Your response ignores the obvious which I have pointed to numerous times. One reason the State exists is to distribute property to individuals. The State of Idaho exists, in part, to offer equal opportunity for individuals to use the earth's resources for individual wealth. For example, a rancher who owns river frontage can raise cattle, offer a put-in for river rafters, or just grow valuable crops to sell to others. The State is actually to the advantage of individuals. It is not perfect because we don't live in a perfect world.

All your arguments ignore that fundamental point. It is not going away. There are millions of property owners in America. Most of the property owners will vote in 2012, and many, who are not turned off by extremism and rude behavior, will vote for Ron Paul.

So you just call everybody stupid and hope that destroying the messenger works. I'm not buying what you are selling. Ron Paul is not selling what you are selling.

Ron Paul 2012
_Defender of Liberty and supporter of the Constituion_

----------


## Conza88

> Explain Switzerland in your broad brush generalisation.
> 
> Rev9


Explain that to *Point 7 of the OP.*

----------


## Travlyr

> The burden of proof lies with you. You are the one who supports violence being used against me. I live in the real world, more than you. *I don't believe in myths or that government exists in reality. Because it doesn't.*


You can bang your head against the walls of the state buildings if you want some reality. Stefbot .. another appeal to authority... sheesh.

----------


## Revolution9

> So you just quoted the Declaration of Independence, which affirms the ideal of statelessness, that the only just powers a government can have are those it derives from the consent of the governed. And somehow you see it as a blessing that some of those same people turned around and went against that ideal a decade later? How does that follow?


Hold on there! You spout ideals and then claim he is spouting ideals? At lest the ideal he spoke to was implemented. And how would it have been implemented without cooperation amongst individuals? That cooperation amongst individuals when codified is a "state", ofttimes referred to as a community or a tribe also..

rev9

----------


## Conza88

> Here is the problem I have with people who advocate for a stateless society. They attack the messenger ... not the message.


The only way you could ever possibly come to that conclusion is by _IGNORING THE OTHER 95%_ of the post... lmao! 




> One reason the State exists is to distribute property to individuals.


How does it do this? Voluntarily? What is the justification for it's existence? 

See, still yet to provide any kind of justification (a _VALID_ one).

----------


## erowe1

> Hold on there! You spout ideals and then claim he is spouting ideals? At lest the ideal he spoke to was implemented. And how would it have been implemented without cooperation amongst individuals? That cooperation amongst individuals when codified is a "state", ofttimes referred to as a community or a tribe also..
> 
> rev9


I think you misunderstood me. What I'm saying is that the ideal espoused in the Declaration of Independence is the very same ideal as the one I'm advocating here. I don't believe it was implemented.

You can advocate rule over people without their consent, as defined by the constitutions of the USA and its states, or you can advocate consent of the governed, as the Declaration of Independence does. But you can't say you're for both at the same time.

----------


## Conza88

> You can bang your head against the walls of the state buildings if you want some reality. Stefbot .. another appeal to authority... sheesh.


You clearly didn't watch the video; nor do you understand what an appeal to authority fallacy is. I'm linking and showcasing the arguments he makes; not appealing to some bald guy. Try again.

----------


## Revolution9

> The burden of proof lies with you. You are the one who supports violence being used against me.


Whatcha gonna do when psychopath takes a lick out of you? I certainly do not support that violence used against you..Unless you are the psychopath perpetrating violence against another who is innocent..

You and the anarchists never bring the psychopath into your equations yet it is scientific fact that 5% of the population are psychopaths. Your on paper dreamworld fails hard under the light of reality.

Rev9

----------


## Conza88

*Rockwell:* The Constitution would be a major improvement over what we have today. But we need to realize that* the Constitution itself represented a major increase in government power over the Articles of Confederation,* which would have served us quite well had it not been overthrown. I'm not impressed by the bunch that foisted the Constitution on us. They were really up to no good. *We've all but forgotten that most everyone opposed it at the time.* It only squeaked through once the Bill of Rights was tacked on. The Bill of Rights isn't perfect, but it at least had the advantage of spelling out what the government could not do. In a rather ingenious twist, even that has been perverted: it is now seen as a mandate for the federal government to tell lower orders of government what they cannot do, meaning that it ends up being a force for centralization. This is such a tragedy. If Patrick Henry could see what became of it, I'm sure he never would have tolerated it. The same might be true of Hamilton, for that matter. *So long as we are talking about founding documents, the one that really deserves more attention is the Declaration of Independence. Now here is an inspiring document that shows us where we should go in the future!*

-- Lew Rockwell

----------


## Conza88

> Whatcha gonna do when psychopath takes a lick out of you? I certainly do not support that violence used against you..Unless you are the psychopath perpetrating violence against another who is innocent..
> 
> You and the anarchists never bring the psychopath into your equations yet it is scientific fact that 5% of the population are psychopaths. Your on paper dreamworld fails hard under the light of reality.
> 
> Rev9


Excuse me? Did you not read the link?  Here is what I linked to, now after reading the below, please tell me what you don't understand & if you still cling to the conclusion you did above. I'd love to know .




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

----------


## Revolution9

> I think you misunderstood me. What I'm saying is that the ideal espoused in the Declaration of Independence is the very same ideal as the one I'm advocating here. I don't believe it was implemented.
> 
> You can advocate rule over people without their consent, as defined by the constitutions of the USA and its states, or you can advocate consent of the governed, as the Declaration of Independence does. But you can't say you're for both at the same time.



OK. Agreed. As the consent of the governed is needed I consent to the arrest and incarceration of psychopaths at the very first crime committed. I do not want to have to chase them down with a personal posse. I want some citizen derived authority in place so I can continue my work and life whilst they hunt the criminal and bring him to community justice. Make sense?

Rev9

----------


## erowe1

> OK. Agreed. As the consent of the governed is needed I consent to the arrest and incarceration of psychopaths at the very first crime committed. I do not want to have to chase them down with a personal posse. I want some citizen derived authority in place so I can continue my work and life whilst they hunt the criminal and bring him to community justice. Make sense?


Yeah, I don't see anything in there I disagree with.

----------


## Revolution9

> Excuse me? Did you not read the link? You obviously didn't, since what your comment is patently absurd. Here is what I linked to, now after reading this... please tell me how you came to the conclusion you did above. I'd love to know .


I have no interest in what you quote...just like 95%+ of the population. How does that grab you for reality?

Now..back to psychopaths and how your little schemata fails hard in the true light of reality. Whatcha gonna do when psychopath takes a lick out of you? 

Rev9

----------


## Wesker1982

> 5% of the population are psychopaths.


Yeah, so don't allow them the illusion of legitimacy and don't give them all the guns. If these 5% were to try to tyrannize the public through the voluntary market process, they would fail. Without forced funding, without the public being fooled into seeing this criminal gang as legitimate, this criminal gang could not even come close to the havoc and destruction caused by "legitimized" criminal institutions such as the U.S.A government.

The 5% objection is a stronger case against one single coercive monopoly than it is for it. "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." 

Don't give the 5% the chance to capture the State apparatus. Not only is it more likely for the psychopaths to gain control of the State, it is more dangerous. 




> There is another vital consideration that would make it almost impossible 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 government 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 illegitimate demands and the bandits would be resisted and overthrown._ -Murray Rothbard


If 95% of the population are not psychopaths, there is no reason to conclude that they would be willing to voluntarily fund criminal organizations. The only reason why the biggest criminal gang on earth (U.S. government) is funded, the only reason why people don't resist the taxes to fund it on a massive scale, is because people falsely believe in the illusion of legitimacy. 




> If you get enough people to accept this (limited government), then it would be proof that an overwhelming majority of people have had a profound revelation. What I mean is, if most people accept the pure minarchist position, then there need not be any fear of criminal voluntary defense agencies, etc. Any corrupt defense service could not last in a society full of minarchist libertarians. 
> 
> To say that 95% of the population is liberty oriented enough to achieve the voluntarization of roads, schools, social security, etc., but then claim that these _very same people_  are too evil or ignorant to produce voluntary defense services, is a contradiction.


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3445947

----------


## Travlyr

> The only way you could ever possibly come to that conclusion is by _IGNORING THE OTHER 95%_ of the post... lmao!


No, you have demonstrated that your method to winning the debate is to first work to destroy the credibility of your opponent, ignore important information that was introduced, and then claim ... WIN.  

Someday, you must address the pro-state points. 5% of the people are psychopaths. The state, county, township, sections, acreages, lots & blocks provide opportunity for individuals to own property with property rights under the authority of the state.

Address our concerns or don't. In any case, your repeated attempts to destroy the messenger is tiresome. 




> How does it do this? Voluntarily?


I don't see it as perfectly voluntarily. We live in an imperfect world. It is relatively voluntarily... which I am willing to take.




> What is the justification for it's existence?


Survey methodsProperty deedsPublic recordingProperty rights.Criminal LawJustice

----------


## erowe1

> It is relatively voluntarily... which I am willing to take.


I'm willing to take it too. But since it would still be imperfect (as you seem to concede), I would not at that point pretend to have arrived at a final goal, but I would continue to work toward making things even better, and working against those who would make things worse. That's what having ideals are for, not goals, but ideals.

As for those pro-state points, I just have trouble seeing what makes them pro-state. I could see how they're pro-government, but how do you know that they require the state, and could not be taken care of better by some government more like what the Declaration of Independence idealizes?

----------


## Travlyr

> I'm willing to take it too. But since it would still be imperfect (as you seem to concede), I would not at that point pretend to have arrived at a final goal, but I would continue to work toward making things even better, and working against those who would make things worse. That's what having ideals are for, not goals, but ideals.


Exactly. That is why people should stop calling statists violent sociopaths. The state serves a purpose some good some not so good, but it is a basis. The way I read Ron Paul is he would like to again try the rule of law and go from there.

----------


## erowe1

> Exactly. That is why people should stop calling statists violent sociopaths. The state serves a purpose some good some not so good, but it is a basis. The way I read Ron Paul is he would like to again try the rule of law and go from there.


But if you agree with me, then doesn't that mean that you're not a statist?

I want rule of law too. But it has to be the real law, not some law a bunch of politicians arbitrarily invented.

----------


## Conza88

> I have no interest in what you quote...


Then you will fail to understand that you have erected a strawman.


*And instead of realising* that we may not actually need to argue at all; you've shown it clear you'd prefer to troll. 




> just like 95%+ of the population. How does that grab you for reality?
> 
> Now..back to psychopaths and how your little schemata fails hard in the true light of reality. Whatcha gonna do when psychopath takes a lick out of you?


It's highly amusing that you think this is some kind of knock down argument... _YOU HAVE ERECTED A STRAWMAN_ do you not understand that? Haha ... the position you think and have accused me of holding, I do not.

_"Like 95% of the population"?_ Pulled out of your behind, but for the sake of argument I will concede... and yet the very same _"argument"_ you level at me, can be said in reference to minarchism. 

Begs the question fallacy; how does my "schemata" fail? You don't even understand my position - you refused to read the quote. What a joke. 

But so you don't further embarrass yourself by repeating demented *RED HERRING* questions; I have a *right to self defense*. And *No More Military Socialism*.

But even more importantly;

_"However, this argument in favor of democracy is fatally flawed. Free entry is not always good. Free entry and competition in the production of goods is good, but free competition in the production of bads is not. Free entry into the business of torturing and killing innocents, or free competition in counterfeiting or swindling, for instance, is not good; it is worse than bad. So what sort of "business" is government? Answer: it is not a customary producer of goods sold to voluntary consumers. Rather, it is a "business" engaged in theft and expropriation - by means of taxes and counterfeiting - and the fencing of stolen goods. Hence, free entry into government does not improve something good. Indeed, it makes matters worse than bad, i.e., it improves evil." - Why Bad Men Rule, HHH_

----------


## Travlyr

> But if you agree with me, then doesn't that mean that you're not a statist?


No. I advocate for continuing education. The state is not well understood. Further discussion is warranted. There is no reason for anyone to stoop to name calling to end the debate. Both sides have valid points. 




> I want rule of law too. But it has to be the real law, not some law a bunch of politicians arbitrarily invented.


That is why the State's amendment process is brilliant. It can be done under the authority of the state. Evidence indicates that some of our ancestors enjoyed a relatively voluntary society in day's gone bye. The people should be able to improve on that model in the 21st century.

----------


## erowe1

> No. I advocate for continuing education. The state is not well understood. Further discussion is warranted. There is no reason for anyone to stoop to name calling to end the debate. Both sides have valid points.


I'm pretty sure that I haven't called anyone any names.




> Evidence indicates that some of our ancestors enjoyed a relatively voluntary society in day's gone bye. The people should be able to improve on that model in the 21st century.


When you say improve, do you mean for society to be even more voluntary than it was when it was "relatively voluntary"?

----------


## Conza88

Trav, you failed to address essentially every single point in my post. Keep telling yourself otherwise, just understand that no-one else believes you actually did.

You said: 

_"One reason the State exists is to distribute property to individuals."_

I asked; _"How does it do this? Voluntarily?"_




> I don't see it as perfectly voluntarily.


There is no middle ground. It is either voluntary, or it is not.




> Those laissez-faire economists and writers, past and present, who have stopped short at the impossibly Utopian ideal of a "limited" government are trapped in a grave inner contradiction. This contradiction of laissez faire was lucidly exposed by the British political philosopher, Auberon Herbert:
> 
>     A is to compel B to co-operate with him, or B to compel A; but in any case co-operation cannot be secured, as we are told, unless, through all time, one section is compelling another section to form a State. Very good; but then what has become of our system of Individualism? A has got hold of B, or B of A, and has forced him into a system of which he disapproves, extracts service and payment from him which he does not wish to render, has virtually become his master – what is all this but Socialism on a reduced scale? … Believing, then, that the judgment of every individual who has not aggressed against his neighbour is supreme as regards his actions, *and that this is the rock on which Individualism rests – I deny that A and B can go to C and force him to form a State and extract from him certain payments and services in the name of such State; and I go on to maintain that if you act in this manner, you at once justify State-Socialism.*[7]


Do you ALSO DENY _"that A and B can go to C and force him to form a State and extract from him certain payments and services in the name of such State"_?

I also asked; what is the justification for it's existence? 



> Survey methodsProperty deedsPublic recordingProperty rights.Criminal LawJustice


Hahah! . Sorry but you're going to have to do better than simply name dropping vague concepts, that of which have nothing to do with justifying the existence of the state. And why can't the market do any of the things you mentioned? Seriously, amateur hour at the Apollo here. 

Do you need some help? Are you going to make a public goods argument? How about social contract theory? How about you quit and save the time you'll waste by knowing you'll never 'get ahead'.

----------


## pcosmar

> *And instead of realising* that we may not actually need to argue at all; you've shown it clear you'd prefer to troll. 
> ]


This from someone that makes a profession of trolling.
And I have both defended you in the past, and appreciated some of your points.
I am not a "stateist", nor am I am anarchist.

I accept the reality of the state,, like I accept gravity. It is a reality.

And like the laws of aerodynamics, (overcoming gravity) I believe that the state can be limited.

There is not going to be a world wide altered consciousness that allows for all states to be eliminated .
That is pure fantasy. 
Though limiting government can be accomplished, and just like the laws of aerodynamics, it will take a constant thrust and airflow to overcome gravity.

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

----------


## Revolution9

> Then you will fail to understand that you have erected a strawman.


Nope. I am asking you without appealing to authority ...whatcha gonna do when the psychopath takes a lick out of you. You cannot know who they are in advance. They are masters of mimic and work dirty deeds in stealth. Who is gonna get you justice when they kill you in your sleep to get your bag of rice? Or is that alright with you?

Note. I will not be debated down blind alleys with dead ends. This means your gambit is wasted here. I will keep hammering reality until you give. Your arguments are spurious and leave great swaths of reality out of it for the sake of summing your buggy algorithm.

Rev9

----------


## Travlyr

> I'm pretty sure that I haven't called anyone any names.


Understood. I did not mean everybody... and I certainly did not mean anybody who hasn't name called. That only pertains to those who use that tactic to shut down debate.




> When you say improve, do you mean for society to be even more voluntary than it was when it was "relatively voluntary"?


 I expect people do much better in the future than they have in the past. In the past the color of skin, a person's belief, or just being ugly alienated people from participation. I certainly hope humanity can get beyond some of that unjust inequality in the future.

----------


## erowe1

> I expect people do much better in the future than they have in the past. In the past the color of skin, a person's belief, or just being ugly alienated people from participation. I certainly hope humanity can get beyond some of that unjust inequality in the future.


OK. But for me the question is, how do you define better?

Is there some standard out there that you want to move closer and closer to? What is that standard? Is it the US Constitution? Or is it something even better than that?

----------


## Revolution9

> Hahah! . Sorry but you're going to have to do better than simply name dropping vague concepts, that of which have nothing to do with justifying the existence of the state. And why can't the market do any of the things you mentioned? Seriously, amateur hour at the Apollo here.


Vague concepts? Surveying is a profession with precise methods. Property deeds are quite specific. Public recording allows access to this information to verify boundaries. Property rights ensure those boundaries. Criminal law deals with violations of property and harm done to private persons. Justice is the remedy for wrongs or violations against the private individuals property or person.

If you think these are vague concepts then you are not living on an earth type planet in The Materium.

Rev9

----------


## erowe1

> Vague concepts? Surveying is a profession with precise methods. Property deeds are quite specific. Public recording allows access to this information to verify boundaries. Property rights ensure those boundaries. Criminal law deals with violations of property and harm done to private persons. Justice is the remedy for wrongs or violations against the private individuals property or person.
> 
> If you think these are vague concepts then you are not living on an earth type planet in The Materium.
> 
> Rev9


But the question is, how do you know that the only way to have all those things is by ruling over people by conquest?

----------


## CCTelander

> The fallacy is in your tired and pathetic insistence that we who  live in the real world have to justify it to you.    We don't.


Those advocating the use of violence to get their way seldom _do_ feel the need to justify their actions to their victims. What else is new and exciting?

----------


## Travlyr

> Hahah! . Sorry but you're going to have to do better than simply name dropping vague concepts, that of which have nothing to do with justifying the existence of the state. And why can't the market do any of the things you mentioned? Seriously, amateur hour at the Apollo here. 
> 
> Do you need some help? Are you going to make a public goods argument? How about social contract theory? How about you quit and save the time you'll waste by knowing you'll never 'get ahead'.


How about I quit, eh?

Folks, do you see the obvious attempt to shut-down debate? 

Each of us are responsible to defend ourselves. The State gives us some recourse in real life. It went awry when Paul Warburg and his gang of thieves subverted the Constitution in 1913. The people can once again be successful in achieving liberty, peace, and prosperity, in our lifetime, by returning to the rule of law and forcing our leaders to honor their oath of office.

----------


## erowe1

> The State gives us some recourse in real life. It went awry when Paul Warburg and his gang of thieves subverted the Constitution in 1913.


I thought you said that it was already imperfect even before that.

----------


## Travlyr

> I thought you said that it was already imperfect even before that.


President Abraham Lincoln and his treasury secretary Salmon P. Chase, ($10,000.00 poster child of the Federal Reserve Notes) debased the currency to fund an unnecessary war of brother against brother. The world is not perfect... we can do better than what we are doing today. Honesty, integrity, truth, peace and understanding is the future. Anyone can be a part of it if they wish. The information is at your fingertips.

----------


## erowe1

> President Abraham Lincoln and his treasury secretary Salmon P. Chase, ($10,000.00 poster child of the Federal Reserve Notes) debased the currency to fund an unnecessary war of brother against brother. The world is not perfect... we can do better than what we are doing today. Honesty, integrity, truth, peace and understanding is the future. Anyone can be a part of it if they wish. The information is at your fingertips.


But I thought you said it was imperfect even before Lincoln.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Those advocating the use of violence to get their way seldom _do_ feel the need to justify their actions to their victims. What else is new and exciting?


I saw the sky today, and it was blue.

----------


## Revolution9

> But the question is, how do you know that the only way to have all those things is by ruling over people by conquest?


Where does this rule by conquest come in? There are actual property rights with boundaries. In my yard the squirrels and the chipmunks each have their peaceful area. If they go into others areas the others protect their resources via protest and if that does not work then violence. But I do not believe any of the squirrels or chipmunks are psychopaths. We have come, over the millennia from defining our herding areas and agricultural areas via natural geographic boundaries and obstacles, then with stone markers and roads, fences, paths and throughways. Even the various tribes have their hunting grounds they will defend. The civilised result is to have these human based boundaries recorded for posterity sake. Since a private company can claim private property rights and business secrets when an outsider wanting to review their books makes a query, then who is to hold accountable this private company if they get someone in there who is psychopathic and starts cooking the books for the local Boss Hogg? Ergo, it is better to have it of public record and pay someone out of the public pocket to keep unbiased records of all property holding in the case of them coming into dispute. This is where law and justice kick in. Even the various tribes held council when members of their local community committed crimes against another member to determine the level of condemnation as a remedy to their abrogation of another's rights.

Rev9

----------


## Wesker1982

> Nope. I am asking you without appealing to authority ...whatcha gonna do when the psychopath takes a lick out of you. You cannot know who they are in advance. They are masters of mimic and work dirty deeds in stealth. Who is gonna get you justice when they kill you in your sleep to get your bag of rice? Or is that alright with you?


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3446164

----------


## erowe1

> Where does this rule by conquest come in?


Isn't that what you're arguing? That having those things you listed requires a state (i.e. rule by conquest), and that they cannot be attained by a government that derives its powers from the consent of the governed (i.e. one that is not a state)?

If what you support is governance that comes about by free association of free people, then you are on the anti-state side of this debate, not the pro-state side.

Either that, or the ball is still in your court to offer a better definition of the word "state," one that eliminates the nonconsensual aspect of its meaning, which, as I said in response to you in post 122, I would welcome.

----------


## CCTelander

> I saw the sky today, and it was blue.


Really? Are you SURE?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3446164


Agreed.  And in regards the conversation in general:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3445731

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> *you'd rather him be kicked off his property because the only valid claim would be who controls the land*. think about it. soory for the neg rep, but not only do you misunderstand, but you twist as well.


From your neg rep comment.

No.  You want to talk about twisting an argument?  You seem to have it down, pat.  WE DO NOT WANT HIM OR ANYONE KICKED OFF OF THEIR PROPERTY.  WE WANT THE OPTION TO CHOOSE A DEEDING AGENCY VOLUNTARILY, RATHER THAN HAVE ONE FORCED UPON US AT GUN POINT.

----------


## CCTelander

> From your neg rep comment.
> 
> No.  You want to talk about twisting an argument?  You seem to have it down, pat.  WE DO NOT WANT HIM OR ANYONE KICKED OFF OF THEIR PROPERTY.  WE WANT THE OPTION TO CHOOSE A DEEDING AGENCY VOLUNTARILY, RATHER THAN HAVE ONE FORCED UPON US AT GUN POINT.


How ANYONE could misconstrue this situation, as Trav and Newbi have, is beyond me. One might be forgiven for entertaining the idea that they're being deliberately obtuse.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Someday, you must address the pro-state points. 5% of the people are psychopaths. The state, county, township, sections, acreages, lots & blocks provide opportunity for individuals to own property with property rights under the authority of the state.


The pro-state points have been addressed, ad nauseum.  Rothbard very clearly lays out potential privately provided security, insurance, etc.  MORE TO THE POINT - THERE ARE 6 BILLION PEOPLE ON THE PLANET LIVING UNDER GOVERNMENTS WHICH WILL NOT ALLOW THEM THE FREEDOM TO INNOVATE AND DEVELOP BUSINESS PLANS WHICH ADDRESS THESE CONCERNS OF YOURS.  Yet you seem convinced that there is no possibility of any one of them creatively addressing these concerns BESIDES THROUGH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF FORCE; I.E., BECAUSE TRAVLYR AND SOME GROUP OF PROPERTY OWNERS HE HAS SURVEYED IS SKEERED OF FREE PEOPLE, EVERYONE ELSE MUST SUBMIT TO THEIR SYSTEM OF DEED RECORDING.  




> Address our concerns or don't. In any case, your repeated attempts to destroy the messenger is tiresome.


Addressed in detail and cited numerous times in this sub-forum: http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp

Also, please see above (and have some faith in your fellow man).  





> Survey methodsProperty deedsPublic recordingProperty rights.Criminal LawJustice


Again, addressed in detail numerous times.  PLEASE RESPOND TO THIS.  Also, PLEASE RESPOND TO THE FACT THAT WE ALLOW THE "FREE MARKET" TO INNOVATE AND DEVELOP ANY MEANS OF GOODS AND SERVICES, which even you agree is a good system for all goods aside from those produced presently by government; WHY THEN DO YOU THINK IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THAT SAME FREE MARKET TO INNOVATE AND DEVELOP THESE ABOVE GOODS/SERVICES?

----------


## josh b

Holy hell, did this thread double in size since yesterday?  

I've noticed that much of the disconnect in these debates is over semantics.  People need to define their terms, especially 'state' and 'anarchy'.

----------


## erowe1

> Holy hell, did this thread double in size since yesterday?  
> 
> I've noticed that much of the disconnect in these debates is over semantics.  People need to define their terms, especially 'state' and 'anarchy'.


I agree. The need to do that has been made perfectly clear in this thread.

The non-statists have been pretty forthright about what they mean by "state." And the statists have neither explicitly accepted that meaning nor attempted to offer a better one. I can't help thinking that their hesitation to do that resides in the fear that they would subsequently have to admit that they actually agree with the non-statists after all, which for some would be too uncomfortable.

Speaking for myself, I do regard the state (being any government that derives its power from conquest, and not the consent of the governed) as inherently immoral. But I don't consider myself an anarchist, and I don't really care one way or the other about using the word anarchy, and I haven't seen anything in this thread that required use of that term.

----------


## newbitech

> From your neg rep comment.
> 
> No.  You want to talk about twisting an argument?  You seem to have it down, pat.  WE DO NOT WANT HIM OR ANYONE KICKED OFF OF THEIR PROPERTY.  WE WANT THE OPTION TO CHOOSE A DEEDING AGENCY VOLUNTARILY, RATHER THAN HAVE ONE FORCED UPON US AT GUN POINT.


you are removing the apparatus by which he makes his claim.  you are forcing him to control his land in some other way than he controls it now.  if you do not think he will be kicked off his land, then you must think that he can defend his land without the apparatus he uses now.  you are asking him to replace that apparatus with something else.  You have not shown what that something else is, I assume some kind of "private company" who he contracts with to defend his claim.  So you want to exchange one apparatus for another OR, you want no apparatus for making that claim.  

You would rather him be kicked off his property if that is what it came down to.  I am not twisting anything around.  Please respond with the quote I neg rep'ed you on so others may see what I responded to in private.  FWIW, the forum doesn't have a feature to neutral rep.  I supposed I could have just PM'ed and left the rep system out of it, but the rep system handles the backlink..

----------


## erowe1

> you are removing the apparatus by which he makes his claim.  you are forcing him to control his land in some other way than he controls it now.  if you do not think he will be kicked off his land, then you must think that he can defend his land without the apparatus he uses now.  you are asking him to replace that apparatus with something else.  You have not shown what that something else is.


I don't see why he should show what that something else is. I think it would be foolhardy for someone to pretend they know. And figuring that out shouldn't be a prerequisite for having the opinion that the current apparatus is unethical.

----------


## josh b

> The non-statists have been pretty forthright about what they mean by "state." And the statists have neither explicitly accepted that meaning nor attempted to offer a better one. I can't help thinking that their hesitation to do that resides in the fear that they would subsequently have to admit that they actually agree with the non-statists after all, which for some would be too uncomfortable.


Couldn't agree more.




> you are removing the apparatus by which he makes his claim. you are forcing him to control his land in some other way than he controls it now.


Incorrect, he wants to 'voluntarise' it.  He wants secession and competition for people who do not want to use that particular deeding and defense organization.  I do not want to abolish it either.  I want to strip it of its monopoly power.  This would make it cease to be a 'state' under the definition of that term used by Conza and others here.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> you are removing the apparatus by which he makes his claim.  you are forcing him to control his land in some other way than he controls it now.  if you do not think he will be kicked off his land, then you must think that he can defend his land without the apparatus he uses now.  you are asking him to replace that apparatus with something else.  You have not shown what that something else is, I assume some kind of "private company" who he contracts with to defend his claim.  So you want to exchange one apparatus for another OR, you want no apparatus for making that claim.


1. I would not be forcing him to do anything.  I advocate the dissolution of the agency by which HE and other statists FORCE the rest of us to comply with their wishes.  That is not the intitiation of force; if anything, it's self-defense.  To suggest otherwise would be akin to suggesting the victim punching and kicking the rapist is "forcing" the rapist to stop.  

2. For the umpteenth time, Rothbard offers a very detailed solution to this an many questions in For a New Liberty.  Additionally, free people can and will provide this service without the initation of force.  More importantly, it is not imcumbent upon the victim to prove to the criminal that his needs will be addressed through other means.  It is encumbent upon the criminal to cease and desist all violent and coercive behavior.  He is presumably a big boy.  He can fend for himself like the rest of us.

Sorry for the preemptory nature of this comment.  I and others have tried in detail and very eloquently to make this point.  For some reason, that method isn't taking root.  




> You would rather him be kicked off his property if that is what it came down to.  I am not twisting anything around.  Please respond with the quote I neg rep'ed you on so others may see what I responded to in private.  FWIW, the forum doesn't have a feature to neutral rep.  I supposed I could have just PM'ed and left the rep system out of it, but the rep system handles the backlink..


I did include your neg rep comment:




> From your neg rep comment.
> 
> No.  You want to talk about twisting an argument?  You seem to have it down, pat.  WE DO NOT WANT HIM OR ANYONE KICKED OFF OF THEIR PROPERTY.  WE WANT THE OPTION TO CHOOSE A DEEDING AGENCY VOLUNTARILY, RATHER THAN HAVE ONE FORCED UPON US AT GUN POINT.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I don't see why he should show what that something else is. I think it would be foolhardy for someone to pretend they know. And figuring that out shouldn't be a prerequisite for having the opinion that the current apparatus is unethical.


:thumbs:

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I agree. The need to do that has been made perfectly clear in this thread.
> 
> The non-statists have been pretty forthright about what they mean by "state." And the statists have neither explicitly accepted that meaning nor attempted to offer a better one. I can't help thinking that their hesitation to do that resides in the fear that *they would subsequently have to admit that they actually agree with the non-statists after all, which for some would be too uncomfortable.*


That, or they may have to face that they have more in common with leftists than they care to admit.

----------


## Travlyr

> I agree. The need to do that has been made perfectly clear in this thread.
> 
> The non-statists have been pretty forthright about what they mean by "state." And the statists have neither explicitly accepted that meaning nor attempted to offer a better one.


I reject your definition of state for purposes of my life.

For citizens of the State of Kentucky, the only definition of state, other than the U.S. Constitution, that matters to the general population is this:  



> The Commonwealth of Kentucky was admitted into the Union as the fifteenth state in 1792. In its over two hundred years of statehood, Kentucky has had four constitutions: Kentucky Constitution






> I can't help thinking that their hesitation to do that resides in the fear that they would subsequently have to admit that they actually agree with the non-statists after all, which for some would be too uncomfortable.
> 
> Speaking for myself, I do regard the state (being any government that derives its power from conquest, and not the consent of the governed) as inherently immoral. But I don't consider myself an anarchist, and I don't really care one way or the other about using the word anarchy, and I haven't seen anything in this thread that required use of that term.


I'm quite comfortable with the state I'm in. I simply disagree with you.

----------


## erowe1

> I reject your definition of state for purposes of my life.
> 
> For citizens of the State of Kentucky, the only definition of state, other than the U.S. Constitution, that matters to the general population is this:  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm quite comfortable with the state I'm in. I simply disagree with you.


But the state constitution of Kentucky institutes rule over you by conquest, and not consent. Doesn't it?

If so, then it doesn't provide a counterexample to the definition I provided.

Also, didn't you earlier boast that you think for yourself? But then you never answer any questions using your own words, but always give me a link to something else.

If there's something wrong with my definition, don't beat around the bush, just say exactly how you would improve it. When you use the word "state," are you talking about something that has no powers other than those it derives from the consent of the governed or not?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I reject your definition of state for purposes of my life.
> 
> For citizens of the State of Kentucky, the only definition of state, other than the U.S. Constitution, that matters to the general population is this:


Then bow out of the thread, Trav.  This is obviously not what we're talking about, and you're really just here to be a contrarian rather to engage in a legitimate and interesting question.  

Good lord...

----------


## Travlyr

> Then bow out of the thread, Trav.  This is obviously not what we're talking about, and you're really just here to be a contrarian rather to engage in a legitimate and interesting question.  
> 
> Good lord...


If everybody that disagrees with you would just be quiet, then you would win ... right?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> If everybody that disagrees with you would just be quiet, then you would win ... right?


Right, Trav.  That's definitely my take.  It's not that we've been discussing 'the state' this whole time, while you've been discussing 'the State [of Kentucky]'.

Right.

----------


## Conza88

> Vague concepts? Surveying is a profession with precise methods. Property deeds are quite specific. Public recording allows access to this information to verify boundaries. Property rights ensure those boundaries. Criminal law deals with violations of property and harm done to private persons. Justice is the remedy for wrongs or violations against the private individuals property or person.
> 
> If you think these are vague concepts then you are not living on an earth type planet in The Materium.
> 
> Rev9


Oh wow, how intellectually honest of you... ignoring the most important point.

Yeah, *"And why can't the market do any of the things you mentioned?"*




> Do you ALSO DENY _"that A and B can go to C and force him to form a State and extract from him certain payments and services in the name of such State"_?


_Those laissez-faire economists and writers, past and present, who have stopped short at the impossibly Utopian ideal of a "limited" government are trapped in a grave inner contradiction. This contradiction of laissez faire was lucidly exposed by the British political philosopher, Auberon Herbert:

A is to compel B to co-operate with him, or B to compel A; but in any case co-operation cannot be secured, as we are told, unless, through all time, one section is compelling another section to form a State. Very good; but then what has become of our system of Individualism? A has got hold of B, or B of A, and has forced him into a system of which he disapproves, extracts service and payment from him which he does not wish to render, has virtually become his master  what is all this but Socialism on a reduced scale?  Believing, then, that the judgment of every individual who has not aggressed against his neighbour is supreme as regards his actions, and that this is the rock on which Individualism rests  I deny that A and B can go to C and force him to form a State and extract from him certain payments and services in the name of such State; and I go on to maintain that if you act in this manner, you at once justify State-Socialism.[7]_

----------


## Conza88

> How about I quit, eh?
> 
> Folks, do you see the obvious attempt to shut-down debate?


How about you answer the questions you've just dodged, aye? 

Again:




> There is no middle ground. It is either voluntary, or it is not.





> Do you ALSO DENY "that A and B can go to C and force him to form a State and extract from him certain payments and services in the name of such State"?





> And why can't the market do any of the things you mentioned?

----------


## Travlyr

> But the state constitution of Kentucky institutes rule over you by conquest, and not consent. Doesn't it?
> 
> If so, then it doesn't provide a counterexample to the definition I provided.


And I do not have a problem with it.




> Also, didn't you earlier boast that you think for yourself? But then you never answer any questions using your own words, but always give me a link to something else.


 Is it not completely obvious that you don't do my thinking for me? I do my own thinking. It is silly to say that I don't. ??? What does that even mean???
Everybody does their own thinking ... don't they?




> If there's something wrong with my definition, don't beat around the bush, just say exactly how you would improve it. When you use the word "state," are you talking about something that has no powers other than those it derives from the consent of the governed or not?


If there are 6 billion definitions of state, then there is no way for me to understand what you are talking about. That is why I use the State Constitutions for definitions. I suspect most of the non-statists don't all agree on what is a state if they are not referring to reality. 

In a stateless society, at what age or level of maturity would you allow consent? Can parents consent for their children and bind them?

In the State of Kentucky consent is given at birth for residents of Kentucky. Parents have the choice to abide by the rules of the State of Kentucky, amend them, or move.

----------


## Conza88

> Holy hell, did this thread double in size since yesterday?  
> 
> I've noticed that much of the disconnect in these debates is over semantics.  People need to define their terms, especially 'state' and 'anarchy'.


Yes sir. The Definition of _the state_ provided in the OP is impeccable. As a result no-one has been able to refute it, or even be seen to wholeheartedly try.. until I guess yesterday when Trav decided to re-enter the scheme and obfuscate and muddy the waters by attempting to introduce another definition of the state.

'Anarchy' has also been explicitly defined by myself as "no rulers"_ (which does not mean "no rules", as private property owners can legitimately set rules for their property and contract with others etc.)_ 

The above definition is equally synonymous with anarcho-capitalism / voluntarism / self-government / private law society / natural order / pure and logical libertarianism etc.

When those who have an emotional reaction to the term; freak the hell out - they don't legitimately ask_ "HOW ARE YOU DEFINING IT? WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THIS WORD?"_

They instead give it their own meaning; that of "chaos" etc. And rant against a strawman. The ignorance is just outstanding... asking a Rothbardian what he is going to do with society cus there are psychopaths... I mean seriously, laugh-my-forking-ass off! 

See *Point 1 & 2 of the OP*. What more needs to be said? 

Last few points directed at Rev, Trav, etc.

----------


## Wesker1982

> I assume some kind of "private company" who he contracts with to defend his claim.  So you want to exchange one apparatus for another OR, you want no apparatus for making that claim.


Why is it so hard to think that it would probably be done in the same way, with the exception that it would not be funded through the use of violence? 

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




> If the State were abolished because we first had a successful education campaign which resulted in a true minarchy then to pure statelessness, then this would mean enough people were educated to understand the free market on at least some level and respect property rights, so I don't think there would be much trouble with land rights. If we ever get to a minarchy, people won't have a problem with the answer "let the market find out".
> 
> Customs, preferences, and respect for land boundaries would already be practically universally accepted in a state of minarchy (this is proven by the fact that minarchy was achieved in the first place). At this point, especially given the fact that the maximum efficiency of the market has been illustrated, consumers would demand the private production of this service.


Seriously. I don't know what kind of future you are imagining where you guys are successful enough to educate people on the principles of a limited government, while these same people simultaneously have no respect for property rights (or a desire to make deeds public, etc.). 

_If you ever convince enough people to embrace minarchism, how are you going to make the claim that all of these people (who you have convinced that libertarianism at least on a minarchist scale is desirable) would not respect property rights_, and would not produce a voluntary service to make land deeds public? This is bordering doublethink. 

To say that a population is liberty oriented enough to achieve limited government but then claim that these _very same people_ (once a state of limited government is achieved) are too evil or ignorant to produce a means to voluntarily recognize land deeds, does not follow. 

If you can educate enough people to achieve minarchy, how can one conclude that this same population would be incapable of voluntary production of _anything_? 

If we ever achieved a limited government, what will be the excuse? Most people are too evil and ignorant? _But this could not be the case_, proven by the fact that a limited government was achieved in the first place.




> You would rather him be kicked off his property if that is what it came down to.


Can you point me to where anyone has said they advocate kicking anyone off of legitimately acquired property? Wanting to voluntarize deed databases or whatever does not mean that the property is illegitimate, only that the institution that this duty is coercively monopolized to should hand over the service to the voluntary market.

----------


## erowe1

> And I do not have a problem with it.


Now you have no problem with it. In post 179 you said you rejected it. Which is it? You're not even being forthright enough to say what your own actual position is.




> If there are 6 billion definitions of state, then there is no way for me to understand what you are talking about. That is why I use the State Constitutions for definitions. I suspect most of the non-statists don't all agree on what is a state if they are not referring to reality.


I haven't seen 6 billion definitions of "state." I've only seen a few, and in this thread I've only seen one. And sometimes it looks like that's the definition you're using and sometimes it looks like it's not. But you won't say clearly one way or the other if it is.




> In a stateless society, at what age or level of maturity would you allow consent? Can parents consent for their children and bind them?


I don't know anything about what happens in a stateless society. I don't consider it possible for there to be one. Much less do I think that the governance of a stateless society, if it were possible, could be something based on what I do and don't allow.

If you mean to ask me the ethical question of whether or not parents have the right to rule their children without their consent, then yes, parents have that right, and indeed the obligation. But I know of no other relationship on earth where that's the case.




> In the State of Kentucky consent is given at birth for residents of Kentucky. Parents have the choice to abide by the rules of the State of Kentucky, amend them, or move.


Can parents really amend the rules of the state of Kentucky? And if they can, what happens to all the people in the state who don't like the rules those parents imposed on them without their consent? Is there any limit to the kinds of amendments these parents can make to the rules? Is there any point where you would consider some rule these parents made unethical? If so, how do you determine whether their rules are ethical or not? Do you have some standard you measure them against?

----------


## erowe1

..

----------


## Travlyr

> How about you answer the questions you've just dodged, aye? 
> 
> Again:


What a silly statement. I am under no obligation to answer every question posed to me. I have a life. While I do try to answer reasonable questions asked of me, it is impractical for me to respond to everyone. 




> There is no middle ground. It is either voluntary, or it is not.


100% voluntary is impossible on earth. Relatively voluntary has been achieved in our past, and I would be happy to return to the time when people trusted the rule of law. For instance, people at the time of prohibition believed that amending the constitution was required to accomplish their goal ... and repealing that amendment was important as well.




> Do you ALSO DENY "that A and B can go to C and force him to form a State and extract from him certain payments and services in the name of such State"?


To expect to always reap 100% of the fruits of your labor ignores the fact that humans are not self-dependent. If you are broke, get hurt, and cannot walk for some reason, is it not a tax on others to help you get treatment? Not paying taxes does not have to include jail time.




> And why can't the market do any of the things you mentioned?


Perhaps it could. But that is not what we have. We have a state structure which I am fine with. If someone dies without a will, then his/her property reverts to the state for redistribution. If someone violates someone else's right to life or injury, then the violator can be held to account through the structure of a state. Along with rights come responsibilities.

----------


## angelatc

> The burden of proof lies with you. You are the one who supports violence being used against me. I live in the real world, more than you. I don't believe in myths or that government exists in reality. Because it doesn't.


Oh crap - you're slightly autistic, aren't you?  Now I get it.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Oh crap - you're slightly autistic, aren't you?  Now I get it.

----------


## Travlyr

> Now you have no problem with it. In post 179 you said you rejected it. Which is it? You're not even being forthright enough to say what your own actual position is.


So confusing. I let the State define for me what they mean by state if I live in their state. 




> I haven't seen 6 billion definitions of "state." I've only seen a few, and in this thread I've only seen one. And sometimes it looks like that's the definition you're using and sometimes it looks like it's not. But you won't say clearly one way or the other if it is.


My definition of a State is defined by State Constitutions. If you mean something else, then I will quit responding to your posts because the official definition is the only one that matters to me.




> I don't know anything about what happens in a stateless society. I don't consider it possible for there to be one. Much less do I think that the governance of a stateless society, if it were possible, could be something based on what I do and don't allow.


Fair enough.




> If you mean to ask me the ethical question of whether or not parents have the right to rule their children without their consent, then yes, parents have that right, and indeed the obligation. But I know of no other relationship on earth where that's the case.


Then why do you let the TPTB rule you?




> Can parents really amend the rules of the state of Kentucky? And if they can, what happens to all the people in the state who don't like the rules those parents imposed on them without their consent? Is there any limit to the kinds of amendments these parents can make to the rules? Is there any point where you would consider some rule these parents made unethical? If so, how do you determine whether their rules are ethical or not? Do you have some standard you measure them against?


Finding acceptable balance in this world is a challenge. Rule of law under a democratic republic is better than no organized society, imo.

----------


## Revolution9

> Isn't that what you're arguing? That having those things you listed requires a state (i.e. rule by conquest), and that they cannot be attained by a government that derives its powers from the consent of the governed (i.e. one that is not a state)?


A philosophical either-or flim flam. A state is something that has a form and structure that persists through time. That is the universally derived meaning of it in electronics and chemistry and whether you can grasp the implication or not, in societal interactions. The childish format of the question with the quasi-obligatory redefinitions one must adhere to, abrogating common sense, is a moshpit of insensibility.

Here, take a shot at this convoluted simile for the OP argument and debate format. I am going to redefine anarchy as a farkle, and fred and fanny farkle make me laugh. Therefore anarchy is laughable. All who are anti-farkle are conquest driven psychopath statists who have no sense of humor. I want to walk all over their lawn.

Rev9

----------


## erowe1

> My definition of a State is defined by State Constitutions. If you mean something else, then I will quit responding to your posts because the official definition is the only one that matters to me.


Let's go with that then. What is the definition your state uses? You can't just link the whole Constitution. You need to provide the definition of the word "state." If your state constitution contains that anywhere, feel free to copy and paste it (FWIW, yes, I did look for one). If it doesn't, then it must not be the case that you're using a definition that you got from it, in which case the ball's still in your court to say what it is you're talking about.

----------


## erowe1

> A philosophical either-or flim flam. A state is something that has a form and structure that persists through time. That is the universally derived meaning of it in electronics and chemistry and whether you can grasp the implication or not, in societal interactions.


I don't buy that. The word "state," like most words, means different things in different contexts. The electronics and chemistry usages are not germane to this discussion. The definition we're talking about is that of the state as a group of people that rules over another group of people by conquest and not consent.

The USA, North Korea, Kentucky, etc. are all states. The Boy Scouts, churches, and neighborhood associations are not states. Since, though they do have governments, they are based on voluntary participation, rather than conquest.

That's the normal meaning of the word "state" in the context of socio-political institutions. If you are using a different one, it's up to you to say so.

If you agree that states, as defined here, are bad things, then you're as anti-state as I am. That's not sophistry.

As for anarchy, I don't know why you brought that up or what it has to do with this discussion. I'm not an anarchist.

----------


## josh b

> If everybody that disagrees with you would just be quiet, then you would win ... right?


  No, then the debate would simply be over and nobody would ‘win.’  That’s how I prefer a debate to end when no one agrees on what it is they’re even talking about.  It’s also how I prefer them to end when the opposition doesn’t even want to address any points.




> Yes sir. The Definition of _the state_ provided in the OP is impeccable. As a result no-one has been able to refute it, or even be seen to wholeheartedly try.. until I guess yesterday when Trav decided to re-enter the scheme and obfuscate and muddy the waters by attempting to introduce another definition of the state.
> 
> 'Anarchy' has also been explicitly defined by myself as "no rulers"_ (which does not mean "no rules", as private property owners can legitimately set rules for their property and contract with others etc.)_ 
> 
> The above definition is equally synonymous with anarcho-capitalism / voluntarism / self-government / private law society / natural order / pure and logical libertarianism etc.
> 
> When those who have an emotional reaction to the term; freak the hell out - they don't legitimately ask_ "HOW ARE YOU DEFINING IT? WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THIS WORD?"_
> 
> They instead give it their own meaning; that of "chaos" etc. And rant against a strawman. The ignorance is just outstanding... asking a Rothbardian what he is going to do with society cus there are psychopaths... I mean seriously, laugh-my-forking-ass off! 
> ...


  Absolutely right.  We’ve been consistent with our use of the terms ‘state’, ‘anarchy’, ‘tax’, …etc.  If only the opposition would do the same instead of sweeping definitions under the rug.

----------


## Conza88

> What a silly statement. I am under no obligation to answer every question posed to me. I have a life. While I do try to answer reasonable questions asked of me, it is impractical for me to respond to everyone.


Of course you're not, who said you are? The point being though - when you do actually decide to engage in the discussion, and when you only pick and choose which questions you want to answer - ignoring the more important ones, *then you're being intellectually dishonest.*

And as such, actions like that might get you confused as being a troll. And I wouldn't want that. 




> 100% voluntary is impossible on earth. Relatively voluntary has been achieved in our past, and I would be happy to return to the time when people trusted the rule of law. For instance, people at the time of prohibition believed that amending the constitution was required to accomplish their goal ... and repealing that amendment was important as well.


/facepalm. Talk about equivocating! This is your response to: _"There is no middle ground. It is either voluntary, or it is not."_

*You*: _"One reason the State exists is to distribute property to individuals."
_
*Me*: _"How does it do this? Voluntarily?"_
*You*:_ "I don't see it as perfectly voluntarily."_
*Me:* _"There is no middle ground. It is either voluntary, or it is not."_
*You:* _"100% voluntary is impossible on earth. Relatively voluntary has been achieved in our past, and I would be happy to return to the time when people trusted the rule of law. For instance, people at the time of prohibition believed that amending the constitution was required to accomplish their goal ... and repealing that amendment was important as well."_
Demented. :collins: You didn't answer the actual question... in ANY of the exchanges. 

*How does it do this?* And is it voluntary?  Either it is voluntary, or it is not. A, or Non-A. 



> “All other persons and groups in society…obtain their income voluntarily: either by selling goods and services to the consuming public, or by voluntary gift. Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion…That coercion is known as ‘taxation’…Taxation is theft, purely and simply.”16 Ibid, p. 162. Ethics of Liberty


The state owns no property to begin with. So *how* does it acquire it? 




> To expect to always reap 100% of the fruits of your labor ignores the fact that humans are not self-dependent. If you are broke, get hurt, and cannot walk for some reason, is it not a tax on others to help you get treatment? Not paying taxes does not have to include jail time.


I asked: _"Do you also deny "that A and B can go to C and force him to form a State and extract from him certain payments and services in the name of such State"?_  Or do you support forcing people into the state?




> Perhaps it could. But that is not what we have. We have a state structure which I am fine with. If someone dies without a will, then his/her property reverts to the state for redistribution. If someone violates someone else's right to life or injury, then the violator can be held to account through the structure of a state. Along with rights come responsibilities.


It can, and has. I know it is not what we have. 

How can you say the state *protects* property, when it must *violate* it to exist?

The state has no money of it's own.

----------


## Conza88

> *Daily Bell:* How, then, does one define freedom? As the absence of state coercion?
> 
> *Dr. Hans-Hermann Hoppe:* A society is free, if every person is recognized as the exclusive owner of his own (scarce) physical body, if everyone is free to appropriate or "homestead" previously un-owned things as private property, if everyone is free to use his body and his homesteaded goods to produce whatever he wants to produce (without thereby damaging the physical integrity of other peoples' property), and if everyone is free to contract with others regarding their respective properties in any way deemed mutually beneficial. Any interference with this constitutes an act of aggression, and a society is un-free to the extent of such aggressions.


So - who disagrees & why?

----------


## Conza88

> "My entire argument, then, claims to be an impossibility proof. But not, as the mentioned critics seem to think, a proof that means to show the impossibility of certain empirical events so that it could be refuted, by empirical evidence. Instead, it is a proof that it is impossible to propositionally justify non-libertarian principles without falling into contradictions. 
> 
> For whatever such a thing is worth (and I'll come to this shortly), it should be clear that empirical evidence has absolutely no bearing on it. So what if there is slavery, the Gulag, taxation? The proof concerns the issue that claiming such institutions can be justified, involves a performative contradiction. It is purely intellectual in nature, like logical, mathematical, or praxeological proofs." ~ *Hans-Hermann Hoppe*, pg 8


Get it? Do you get it Trav? No? Didn't think so... given you've read absolutely nothing on the matter.

----------


## Conza88

> No, then the debate would simply be over and nobody would win. Thats how I prefer a debate to end when no one agrees on what it is theyre even talking about. Its also how I prefer them to end when the opposition doesnt even want to address any points.


Hold up! We actually _still_ win.  It's called _argumentation ethics_. 

_"Any truth claim, the claim connected with any proposition that it is true, objective or valid (all terms used synonymously here), is and must be raised and settled in the course of an argumentation. Since it cannot be disputed that this is so (one cannot communicate and argue that one cannot communicate and argue), and since it must be assumed that everyone knows what it means to claim something to be true (one cannot deny this statement without claiming its negation to be true), this very fact has been aptly called "the a priori of communication and argumentation." ~ Hoppe, EEPP, p. 314)_
And... 

"Whether or not something is true, false, or undecidable; whether or not it has been justified; what is required in order to justify it; whether I, my opponents, or none of us is right - all of this must be decided in the course of argumentation. *This proposition is true a priori, because it cannot be denied without affirming it in the act of denying it.* One cannot argue that one cannot argue, and one cannot dispute knowing what it means to raise a validity claim without implicitly claiming at least the negation of this proposition to be true."

"With the a priori of argumentation established as an axiomatic starting point, it follows that anything that must be presupposed in the act of proposition-making cannot be propositionally disputed again. It would be meaningless to ask for a justification of presuppositions which make the production of meaningful propositions possible in the first place. Instead, they must be regarded as ultimately justified by every proposition-maker. *And any specific propositional content that disputed their validity could be understood as implying a performative contradiction [], and hence, as ultimately falsified."*

"*The law of contradiction is one such presupposition.* One cannot deny this law without presupposing its validity in the act of denying it. But there is another such presupposition. Propositions are not free-floating entities. They require a proposition maker who in order to produce any validity-claiming proposition whatsoever must have exclusive control (property) over some scarce means defined in objective terms and appropriated (brought under control) at definite points in time through homesteading action. *Thus, any proposition that would dispute the validity of the homesteading principle of property acquisition, or that would assert the validity of a different, incompatible principle, would be falsified by the act of proposition-making in the same way as the proposition 'the law of contradiction is false' would be contradicted by the very fact of asserting it.* As the praxeological presupposition of proposition-making, *the validity of the homesteading principle cannot be argumentatively disputed without running into a performative contradiction.* Any other principle of property acquisition can then be understood - reflectively - by every proposition maker as ultimately incapable of propositional justification."

"(Note, in particular, that this includes all proposals which claim it is justified to restrict the range of objects which may be homesteaded. They fail because once the exclusive control over some homesteaded means is admitted as justified, it becomes impossible to justify any restriction in the homesteading process - except for a self-imposed one - without thereby running into a contradiction. For if the proponent of such a restriction were consistent, he could have justified control only over some physical means which he would not be allowed to employ for any additional homesteading. Obviously, he could not interfere with another's extended homesteading, simply because of his own lack of physical means to justifiably do anything about it. But if he did interfere, he would thereby inconsistently extend his ownership claims beyond his own justly homesteaded means. Moreover, in order to justify this extension he would have to invoke a principle of property acquisition incompatible with the homesteading principle whose validity he would already have admitted.)"

----------


## josh b

> Hold up! We actually _still_ win.  It's called _argumentation ethics_.


Oh yeah, I forgot about Hoppe.  Nice.

----------


## Jake Ralston

*To Conza88:*
What happens when I respond to your OP in the following way:

_1. I have no justification for the state, yet I still support it.
2. I support the immoral and violent state because I am ignorant, and an overall bad person.
3. You are completely right about Anarchy, yet I don't care.
4. I am intellectually dishonest and not open to reason in the slightest amount.
5. With the above points clarified, I will support, donate and vote for Ron Paul. I will continue to press on regardless of how many posts you make, how many articles you link, how many "fallacies" you claim I commit or any other objections you have._

*To all other "supporters or the state":*
You are falling into Conza88's trap. He enjoys the heat of debate and argumentation. I personally consider him the textbook definition of a troll, who relies on *bait and capture techniques*, and *divide and conquer tactics*. 
If you believe in the state, and Conza88 doesn't, thats fine. You can defend yourself and justify your positions as you like, but you aren't required to by any means at all. Conza88 is presenting old, tired arguments and he won't get what he wants anyways. 

So to all others, enjoy the debates, but most of all, stand up for what you believe in and I look forward to your continued and future support of Ron Paul. After all that's why we are all here *(including CONZA88)*, right?

That is all for now, thank you.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *To Conza88:*
> What happens when I respond to your OP in the following way:
> 
> _1. I have no justification for the state, yet I still support it.
> 2. I support the immoral and violent state because I am ignorant, and an overall bad person.
> 3. You are completely right about Anarchy, yet I don't care.
> 4. I am intellectually dishonest and not open to reason in the slightest amount.
> 5. With the above points clarified, I will support, donate and vote for Ron Paul. I will continue to press on regardless of how many posts you make, how many articles you link, how many "fallacies" you claim I commit or any other objections you have._
> 
> ...


 Actually, Conza's simply turning the question normally pointed at anarchists the other way around-toward "archists".  It's not an invalid form of debate.  In formal debate, turning the point around like this is called "point-taking".  Whether or not it's effective in any given scenario is another question altogether.

----------


## Conza88

> *To Conza88:*
> What happens when I respond to your OP in the following way:
> 
> _1. I have no justification for the state, yet I still support it.
> 2. I support the immoral and violent state because I am ignorant, and an overall bad person.
> 3. You are completely right about Anarchy, yet I don't care.
> 4. I am intellectually dishonest and not open to reason in the slightest amount.
> 5. With the above points clarified, I will support, donate and vote for Ron Paul. I will continue to press on regardless of how many posts you make, how many articles you link, how many "fallacies" you claim I commit or any other objections you have._


. Sorry, but I don't understand this. Can I buy a few vowels?




> *To all other "supporters or the state":*
> You are falling into Conza88's trap. He enjoys the heat of debate and argumentation.


I enjoy spreading the message of liberty. 




> *Daily Bell:* How, then, does one define freedom? As the absence of state coercion?
> 
> *Dr. Hans-Hermann Hoppe:* A society is free, if every person is recognized as the exclusive owner of his own (scarce) physical body, if everyone is free to appropriate or "homestead" previously un-owned things as private property, if everyone is free to use his body and his homesteaded goods to produce whatever he wants to produce (without thereby damaging the physical integrity of other peoples' property), and if everyone is free to contract with others regarding their respective properties in any way deemed mutually beneficial. Any interference with this constitutes an act of aggression, and a society is un-free to the extent of such aggressions.


_Here_ on this forum, where individuals have already taken to the message of freedom by hearing Ron Paul speak in the MSM or elsewhere, I like to promote his lesser known words, works and interviews. His true end goal, as he has so stated: *self-government OVER a return to the constitution & voluntarism.* I'm merely showcasing the logically consistent and pure libertarian position which Ron Paul himself holds.

I don't suggest Ron Paul use the word "anarchy" [since it has negative connotations and is associated with the socialist-anarchists], nor do I recommend anyone else use the label... there are better ones: anti-monopolist, self-government, voluntarism, private law society, natural order.

But when discussing matters within the movement, you'd think that there would be some *intellectual honesty* in understanding that when the word "anarchy" is used in some text by supporters of the Austrian School of Economics, or Libertarianism.... they mean "no rulers" (which doesn't mean no rules - they support private property owners, who sets the rules via contract etc.), they don't mean or support "chaos"... so the diatribes directed at such... and the CONSISTENT slander from minarchist trolls here is just an excuse to keep a closed mind and remain ignorant.  

If you're intellectually honest and curious; you will not see a negative tone coming from me. If however, you consistently re-affirm your inability to read said resources (which I refer to - since I once held the exact same position as you - and what I am directing you to, is what enlightened me), if you cannot answer straight forward questions, if you dodge, ignore, if you are close minded & consistently act in such a manner - then you will get no respect from me because such actions are not the kind that deserve it. Ron Paul "supporters" should be better than that.




> I personally consider him the textbook definition of a troll, who relies on *bait and capture techniques*, and *divide and conquer tactics*.


More ad hominems... it's all you have. Your appeals are hilarious as they are misguided. But yeah, the guy who made this; total troll. 





> If you believe in the state, and Conza88 doesn't, thats fine. You can defend yourself and justify your positions as you like, but you aren't required to by any means at all. Conza88 is presenting old, tired arguments and he won't get what he wants anyways. 
> 
> So to all others, enjoy the debates, but most of all, stand up for what you believe in and I look forward to your continued and future support of Ron Paul. After all that's why we are all here *(including CONZA88)*, right?


Right! You support a return to the size of government as outlined in the constitution. I also would support a return to what is outlined in the Constitution *COMPARED TO WHAT WE HAVE NOW.* 

Who wouldn't? 

And *compared to* the US Constitution; I would support a return to the Articles of Confederation.. and so on. 

And when/if that should ever take place; I will continue on with Ron Paul to fight for true freedom and liberty - his end goal... that of a voluntary society, that of self-government. Until then all the Ron Paul "supporters" of minarchism etc are allies, until you guys then turn the barrel of the gun on me & RP. 

It really is quite simple - if you support the state _[AS DEFINED IN THE OP]_; *please* provide a valid justification for it.

If you *do not support the state* as defined in the OP_ (which is the standard definition in the world of political philosophy - both in the MAINSTREAM & Austro-Libertarian circles)_, great!... and yet if you continue to debate; whilst indirectly crying over issues of 'strategy' [zomg! the word 'anarchy' zomg!] and negative possibilities of said society occurring, as opposed to justifications for the state... please get a grip and stop wasting your time. 

If you want to have a discussion about strategy, by all means - and like I have said elsewhere, there can be a thread dedicated to that. It however, is completely a red herring within here.

*I asked those here 'in opposition' if they support secession down to the individual level; like Mises & other voluntarists. Do they support the ability to contract, for the individual to choose whatever organisation he sees fit to protect him & his property? Does this organisation freely compete on the market?* 

I never got a straight answer. So I will now ask Trav, Jake, Rev & others again. 

If you do; awesome... we have no quarrels. If you do and you call that institution "the state", then your definition does *NOT* fit in with what the rest of the world considers the state (both sides agree on the valid definition). If this is because you have strategy in mind; why the hell don't you call the organisation "baby seal" then? Or how about "kittens"? Surely that'd be an easier sell.

----------


## Conza88

*Do you want to know what is extremely telling?*

Within 21 pages or roughly 200 posts of responses; _not one person attempting to defend & justify the state has quoted or addressed anything in the OP._ 

Not once, nothing, nada, zip, zilch. That speaks volumes. I explicitly asked; where I had gone wrong. I'm still waiting...

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> *To Conza88:*
> What happens when I respond to your OP in the following way:
> 
> _1. I have no justification for the state, yet I still support it.
> 2. I support the immoral and violent state because I am ignorant, and an overall bad person.
> 3. You are completely right about Anarchy, yet I don't care.
> 4. I am intellectually dishonest and not open to reason in the slightest amount.
> 5. With the above points clarified, I will support, donate and vote for Ron Paul. I will continue to press on regardless of how many posts you make, how many articles you link, how many "fallacies" you claim I commit or any other objections you have._


What happens is that you are tacitly admitting that your argument is flawed, based on violence and force, is logically inconsistent and should therefore be disregarded as a poor philosophical model.  

Thank you for that.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Right! You support a return to the size of government as outlined in the constitution. I also would support a return to what is outlined in the Constitution COMPARED TO WHAT WE HAVE NOW. 
> 
> Who wouldn't? 
> 
> And compared to the US Constitution; I would support a return to the Articles of Confederation.. and so on. 
> 
> And when/if that should ever take place; I will continue on with Ron Paul to fight for true freedom and liberty - his end goal... that of a voluntary society, that of self-government. Until then all the Ron Paul "supporters" of minarchism etc are allies, until you guys then turn the barrel of the gun on me & RP.


:thumbs:

----------


## Mr.Magnanimous

...

----------


## erowe1

> I never imagined that I'd reach the point of calling RPF statist... Figured there were more ancaps on this site, but I guess the '12 campaign has turned everyone into political-prudes


Isn't a statist just someone who advocates the state?

----------


## Jake Ralston

> Right! You support a return to the size of government as outlined in the constitution. I also would support a return to what is outlined in the Constitution *COMPARED TO WHAT WE HAVE NOW.*


So, "compared to what we have now" you would support a limited State (even for a limited time)? Ok, convince me of statism.




> Who wouldn't?


Millions upon millions of people. You see, here in America, many live off of the entitlement system and do not care for government change.




> And *compared to* the US Constitution; I would support a return to the Articles of Confederation.. and so on.


By the way, are you referring to a return of the Articles of Confederation in YOUR country? Or mine? Just curious since you are so concerned with how America is governed, yet you aren't a citizen or even located in America. And before you cling to your lifesaving "fallacy" claims, it is a straight question not a rebuttal or argument to any of your positions.




> Until then all the Ron Paul "supporters" of minarchism etc are allies, until you guys then turn the barrel of the gun on me & RP.


I consider this statement a slanderous one. You should be perm-banned. Mods please take note.




> It really is quite simple - if you support the state _[AS DEFINED IN THE OP]_; *please* provide a valid justification for it.


I support the state as outlined in the Consitution. I refuse to provide justifications. Label me as you wish, I will never join your cause.




> I never got a straight answer. So I will now ask Trav, Jake, Rev & others again.


You got straight answers from me. You know where I stand. I didn't have to justify a damn bit of it to you. And the state will continue here in America. Life just ain't fair now is it?

----------


## erowe1

> I support the state as outlined in the Consitution.


Not having been a part of the whole conversation, I haven't read what those straight answers are. But if it's true that are in the habit of giving straight answers, that would be a breath of fresh air for this thread. So I'll take advantage of that and ask a question of my own to you if you don't mind.

When you say that you support the state (i.e. the group of people that rules over other people by conquest and not consent) as outlined in the Constitution, does that mean that you support whatever kind of state the Constitution happens to institute, no matter what it is like? In other words, could something that is wrong for the state today become right for it tomorrow by getting added to the Constitution, which is the law of the land?

Or do you mean that you advocate a certain ideal model of what the state ought to be, and that the Constitution, as it now exists, and has existed for the past 19 years since it was last amended, institutes precisely that model, such that any alterations to it would only make it worse?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I never imagined that I'd reach the point of calling RPF statist... Figured there were more ancaps on this site, but I guess the '12 campaign has turned everyone into political-prudes


Maybe you hadn't heard.  Ron Paul is running for President of the United States of America.  Most of us are working to get him elected; hence the name, RON PAUL forums.  

Perhaps you were looking for a different forum.

----------


## Conza88

> So, "compared to what we have now" you would support a limited State (even for a limited time)? Ok, convince me of statism.


"If, then, the libertarian must call for immediate abolition of the State as an organized engine of aggression, and if gradualism in theory is contradictory to the overriding end (and therefore impermissible), what further strategic stance should a libertarian take in a world in which States continue all too starkly to exist? Must the libertarian necessarily confine himself to advocating immediate abolition? Are transitional demands, steps toward liberty in practice, therefore illegitimate? Surely not, since realistically there would then be no hope of achieving the final goal.* It is therefore incumbent upon the libertarian, eager to achieve his goal as rapidly as possible, to push the polity ever further in the direction of that goal.* Clearly, such a course is difficult, for the danger always exists of losing sight of, or even undercutting, the ultimate goal of liberty. But such a course, given the state of the world in the past, present, and foreseeable future, is vital if the victory of liberty is ever to be achieved. The transitional demands, then, *must be framed while (a) always holding up the ultimate goal of liberty as the desired end of the transitional process;* and (b) never taking steps, or using means, which explicitly or implicitly contradict that goal." ~ Rothbard, Chp 30. TEOL
I don't support the state as anything even remotely close to an end goal; hence I am not a statist. And neither is Ron Paul. I cannot convince you of statism, since - to my knowledge, there is no valid justification for the state.

Hence, you - as a statist - shall need to convince me/others, why the violence you support against innocent individuals is justified.




> Millions upon millions of people. You see, here in America, many live off of the entitlement system and do not care for government change.


Greaaaaaat. Who [within the libertarian movement] wouldn't [support a reduction in the size of government / the state]?

That was the point being made. Jeezus. 




> By the way, are you referring to a return of the Articles of Confederation in YOUR country? Or mine? Just curious since you are so concerned with how America is governed, yet you aren't a citizen or even located in America. And before you cling to your lifesaving "fallacy" claims, it is a straight question not a rebuttal or argument to any of your positions.


This has been addressed before. When your nation-state stops being the policeman of the world, a global empire, when your state withdraws it's troops from my country, when I am not affected in the slightest by the actions of the US government then your 'argument' might have some merit. Until then it doesn't.

But quite literally; not YOUR country, you don't own it. You act as if you have some say or role in the state / government / affairs of your nation. YOU DON'T! The state runs itself, the mob has no concern for you. It is actually; rulers vs. ruled. That is the proper class analysis. Boy, are you whipped.




> I consider this statement a slanderous one. You should be perm-banned. Mods please take note.


Jake "my modus operandi is ad hominems" Ralston.




> I support the state as outlined in the Consitution. I refuse to provide justifications. Label me as you wish, I will never join your cause.


*You have no justifications...* would be 100x more accurate.




> You got straight answers from me. You know where I stand. I didn't have to justify a damn bit of it to you. And the state will continue here in America. Life just ain't fair now is it?


I see responses; I don't see any answers. You stand in a sea of cognitive dissonance, unwilling to engage in an intellectual discussion - since you have nothing to offer.

----------


## Conza88

> Maybe you hadn't heard.  Ron Paul is running for President of the United States of America.  Most of us are working to get him elected; hence the name, RON PAUL forums.  
> 
> Perhaps you were looking for a different forum.


Maybe _you_ hadn't heard...




> He's not campaigning to run the government. What you just said, think that over, long and hard. Ron Paul... campaigning, because he *wants to run the government*? Haha, seriously? 
> 
> _"Of course I'm cheering on Ron Paul because he is exposing the nature of the whole system. He is not running for president. He is running against the presidency as it is currently understood." - Lew Rockwell_
> 
> All he does is run _against_ the government. _"I don't want to run your lives"_, does that ring a bell? But honestly, it's *about the message*. 
> 
> But lets hear from someone who would be in the know. A close family member. According to Ron Paul's niece -> _"He's running just to make a point"_. 
> 
> 
> ...

----------


## Jake Ralston

> I don't support the state as anything even remotely close to an end goal; hence I am not a statist. And neither is Ron Paul. I cannot convince you of statism, since - to my knowledge, there is no valid justification for the state.


But you said yourself you will support a Constitutional-sized government. Nonetheless there is a time in which you are supporting violence. But your response when called out on it is a quote from Rothbard that basically states "the ends justify the means". So I suppose that is your justification  excuse for practicing blatant hypocrisy?

You have been caught red-handed, Conza88. I don't expect you to admit it, because I know you won't. But it is right out there in plain sight for anyone to read. So come forth with your exquisite vocabulary, draw your own fallacies, and talk your way out of this one. 




> Hence, you - as a statist - shall need to convince me/others, why the violence you support against innocent individuals is justified.


I disagree. Why do I *need* to convince and justify this to you?





> Greaaaaaat. Who [within the libertarian movement] wouldn't [support a reduction in the size of government / the state]?
> 
> That was the point being made. Jeezus.


There is a distinct difference between "who wouldn't?" and "who within the libertarian movement wouldn't?". Your the master of semantics, two can play that game.




> You have no justifications... would be 100x more accurate.


Okay. I have no justifications. /shrug


Where do you find your defintions of truth? Right and wrong? Morality?

Rothbard (for example)? What if I don't agree with him?

Rothbard was well educated, held strict beliefs, and was inspiring to many. But so have millions of other people throughout history. People may look up to Martin L. King for truth, others Thomas Jefferson, others Sean Hannity, or even Kurt Cobain.

If you find truth in Rothbard thats fine. But you can't quote the man and expect everyone to agree that what he said was an absolute truth. 

I try on a near daily basis to share (what I find as) truth from Ron Paul. Not everyone agrees though. Many believe Romney or Obama. What can I do about it? All I can do is share what I find as truth and accept the fact that they will either grasp it or abandon it. 

I suggest you do the same with your own beliefs _and most importantly, stop DEMANDING people justify why they disagree with you._

----------


## erowe1

> Where do you find your defintions of truth? Right and wrong? Morality?


This is the point the constitutionalists keep making that I have the biggest problem with, this idea that there is no absolute morality.

That's an internally contradictory position. First of all, because, as I related earlier in the thread, the Constitution itself recognizes a higher law that is prior to itself. Second of all, the very tenet that the Constitution is to be the law of the land, no matter what it says, is itself a claim that something is an absolute moral imperative.

If the Constitution is to be of any value at all, it simply must be the case that there exists a law that transcends it, and a standard against which it can be evaluated.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Blah, blah, blah, Conza.  Ron Paul is running for President of the United States of America.  

Deal with it.

----------


## Jake Ralston

> This is the point the constitutionalists keep making that I have the biggest problem with, this idea that there is no absolute morality.
> 
> That's an internally contradictory position. First of all, because, as I related earlier in the thread, the Constitution itself recognizes a higher law that is prior to itself. Second of all, the very tenet that the Constitution is to be the law of the land, no matter what it says, is itself a claim that something is an absolute moral imperative.
> 
> If the Constitution is to be of any value at all, it simply must be the case that there exists a law that transcends it, and a standard against which it can be evaluated.


I see your point. Well made. But I don't agree with everything in the Constitution. It is not an absolute law to me.

Not saying I would change it for my own personal gain. But I have a personal higher law, of which I would prefer not to discuss on a public forum at this time.

Your theory may apply to some though.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> This is the point the constitutionalists keep making that I have the biggest problem with, this idea that there is no absolute morality.
> 
> That's an internally contradictory position. First of all, because, as I related earlier in the thread, the Constitution itself recognizes a higher law that is prior to itself. Second of all, the very tenet that the Constitution is to be the law of the land, no matter what it says, is itself a claim that something is an absolute moral imperative.
> 
> If the Constitution is to be of any value at all, it simply must be the case that there exists a law that transcends it, and a standard against which it can be evaluated.


I agree, erowe.

----------


## erowe1

> I see your point. Well made. But I don't agree with everything in the Constitution. It is not an absolute law to me.
> 
> Not saying I would change it for my own personal gain. But I have a personal higher law, of which I would prefer not to discuss on a public forum at this time.
> 
> Your theory may apply to some though.


But in that case, what is the ideal?

Leave aside theoretical questions about whether or not humanity stands any chance of ever seeing that ideal. But if the ideal exists, even as an abstract concept, then what is it?

Is there an ideal tax level out there, at which any lower and it would be too little and any higher and it would be too high. I say there is, and I say that level is zero taxation. This isn't an arbitrary number I pulled out of the blue. It's an objective one that I base on simple black-and-white ethical imperatives that almost all people understand innately. If the Constitution institutes something that fails to meet that ideal, then it's the Constitution that's wrong.

I don't care if I never in my life experience that kind of perfection. It's important for me to hold to that ideal as a standard by which to measure all the public policy positions I take. No matter where we are at any given time, I'll always support getting closer to that ideal, and I'll always oppose moving further away from it.

----------


## Jake Ralston

> But in that case, what is the ideal?


Well, like I said I have my own absolute moralities. And yes, they have a basis beyond my own understanding. But my ideal is not to convert everyone to believe as I do. I don't find that to be anywhere near possible. My ideal is compromise. 

You have to think. People of two different religions have completely different ideals. They may either refuse to compromise and battle each other when their beliefs cross paths, or find common ground with a higher chance of living in peace with one another.

I believe everyone has to compromise if they want to see results that are close to their absolute morals. The Consitution for me (and many others) is just that, a compromise.




> Leave aside theoretical questions about whether or not humanity stands any chance of ever seeing that ideal. But if the ideal exists, even as an abstract concept, then what is it?


Your asking me personally? This would take so long to explain, in the interest of time I will conclude that my ideal is found in the majority of what Ron Paul stands for.




> I don't care if I never in my life experience that kind of perfection. It's important for me to hold to that ideal as a standard by which to measure all the public policy positions I take. No matter where we are at any given time, I'll always support getting closer to that ideal, and I'll always oppose moving further away from it.


I agree completely. If your ideal is different than mine, we may discuss and try to influence each other. But I have no expectation for you to follow my ideal. I do not require you to justify your beliefs and shape them into ways I can understand and accept.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> But you said yourself you will support a Constitutional-sized government. Nonetheless there is a time in which you are supporting violence. But your response when called out on it is a quote from Rothbard that basically states "the ends justify the means". So I suppose that is your justification  excuse for practicing blatant hypocrisy?


From the anarchist perspective, less government than we have now is logically preferrable; and ultimately just one stop earlier on the same rail line.  Given a choice between what we have now, less government and anarchism, the anarchist would prefer anarchy.  Given a choice between what we have now and less government, the anarchist would prefer less government.  Less government, less violence.  




> You have been caught red-handed, Conza88. I don't expect you to admit it, because I know you won't. But it is right out there in plain sight for anyone to read. So come forth with your exquisite vocabulary, draw your own fallacies, and talk your way out of this one.


Uh, no.




> I disagree. Why do I *need* to convince and justify this to you?


It seems you do not comprehend the point of this thread.  And no, it is not to cower, brow-beat, or recruit.  Do you understand that the practical establishment of society will be based upon some philosophical principle(s)?  

Anarchism is based upon the principle that each individual is sovereign - ultimately a free and independent entity.  If this is true, then it cannot be that one or some men may rule over others.  

Any other political philosophy (autocracy, monarchy, democracy) denies this fundamental, objective (as in, can be observed - provable) truth.





> Okay. I have no justifications. /shrug
> 
> 
> Where do you find your defintions of truth? Right and wrong? Morality?
> 
> Rothbard (for example)? What if I don't agree with him?
> 
> Rothbard was well educated, held strict beliefs, and was inspiring to many. But so have millions of other people throughout history. People may look up to Martin L. King for truth, others Thomas Jefferson, others Sean Hannity, or even Kurt Cobain.
> 
> If you find truth in Rothbard thats fine. But you can't quote the man and expect everyone to agree that what he said was an absolute truth.


NO.  Rothbard fleshed out a social paradigm based upon the objective truth of the soveriegnty of the individual.  In other words, these are not Rothbard's ideas, he just shows us ways in which we can order society without violating that truth.  




> I try on a near daily basis to share (what I find as) truth from Ron Paul. Not everyone agrees though. Many believe Romney or Obama. What can I do about it? All I can do is share what I find as truth and accept the fact that they will either grasp it or abandon it.
> 
> I suggest you do the same with your own beliefs _and most importantly, stop DEMANDING people justify why they disagree with you._


It's a discussion about the nature of the organization of society.  Conza nor any of the rest of us are demanding that anyone do anything.  We all espouse a philosophy, and it's encumbent upon each of us to reflect upon the logical consistency and morality of that philosophy, because ultimately, we go out into society at large and advocate on behalf of that philosophy.  We are challenging you to reflect upon your principles and, if you believe they are just and consistent, to defend them.  You're perfectly free to disengage from the conversation.  No demands are being made.

----------


## erowe1

> My ideal is compromise.


This is no better than saying your ideal is the Constitution itself.

Compromise can't be your ideal. The very meaning of an ideal excludes the possibility. The ideal isn't just the best you expect to get, it's the best you can imagine, whether you can get it or not. Compromise is, by definition, something you accept that you recognize as less than the ideal.

But even to speak of a compromise betrays that there must be an ideal there to be compromised. You may not want to say it explicitly, because you don't want to sound like you have a monopoly on the truth or something like that. But you have a law that's written in your heart, and you know that it's there, and you know it's right, and that it's not of your own creation. This law tells you, "Thou shalt not steal." and "Thou shalt not murder." And you may believe that theft and murder are impossible to escape in this life, and I would agree that they are. But that doesn't change the fact that there's an ideal of no theft and no murder. And whatever level of theft and murder any constitution happens to authorize, less would always be better.

To admit that that constitution is a compromise is to admit that there's an ideal, even if only an abstraction in your mind, that's better.

----------


## Krugerrand

> This is no better than saying your ideal is the Constitution itself.
> 
> Compromise can't be your ideal. The very meaning of an ideal excludes the possibility. The ideal isn't just the best you expect to get, it's the best you can imagine, whether you can get it or not. Compromise is, by definition, something you accept that you recognize as less than the ideal.
> 
> But even to speak of a compromise betrays that there must be an ideal there to be compromised. You may not want to say it explicitly, because you don't want to sound like you have a monopoly on the truth or something like that. But you have a law that's written in your heart, and you know that it's there, and you know it's right, and that it's not of your own creation. This law tells you, "Thou shalt not steal." and "Thou shalt not murder." And you may believe that theft and murder are impossible to escape in this life, and I would agree that they are. But that doesn't change the fact that there's an ideal of no theft and no murder. And whatever level of theft and murder any constitution happens to authorize, less would always be better.
> 
> To admit that that constitution is a compromise is to admit that there's an ideal, even if only an abstraction in your mind, that's better.


I have a friend who also thinks in similar fashion.  He insists the best political path is the middle of the road.  I've tried numerous times to explain that its thinking like that which causes radicalization of ideas.  Left/Right or whatever ideology split one looks at are then encouraged to push further "left/right" so that the middle is closer to their side.

I'm fine with meeting in the middle if I get to define my position AFTER my opponent.

----------


## Travlyr

Conza, you can quit with the intellectually dishonest claims, the facepalms, the strawman claims, the statists are deranged bull$#@!, and all the personal attacks. It is inappropriate. In RED? For what purpose? Oh yeah ... now I remember ... destroy the opposition by calling them names and declare, "I WIN!, I WIN, I WIN" just like we use to do in 3rd grade. Most of us on this forum are already out of junior high so you can put the childishness to rest.

Don't be asking unimportant questions. I've got better things to do than answer meaningless questions.



> Of course you're not, who said you are? The point being though - when you do actually decide to engage in the discussion, and when you only pick and choose which questions you want to answer - ignoring the more important ones, *then you're being intellectually dishonest.*
> 
> And as such, actions like that might get you confused as being a troll. And I wouldn't want that.


 A troll eh? I'm not a troll, or a liar. I don't agree with your intentions for destroying the states. I find that the states are a very good way to organize societies. Some rulers within the state have proven to use their position to advance their personal goals but not all. Ron Paul is a perfect example of a true statesman. Enforcing the rule of law is better than abandoning it.

Elected officials are to be bound by their oath of office. 



> 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.


If, or when, a bonded official strays from their sworn oath of office, then a citizen can call the bond due effectively leaving the elected official to either cease and desist or impersonate an elected official. Elected officials quit purchasing the required penal bond in 1963, so all who are not bonded are only acting as representatives. Impersonating an elected official is a punishable crime. Enforcing the law is the solution.

Okay children, time for facepalming! All together now... _facepalm!_



> /facepalm. Talk about equivocating! This is your response to: _"There is no middle ground. It is either voluntary, or it is not."_





> *You*: _"One reason the State exists is to distribute property to individuals."
> _
> *Me*: _"How does it do this? Voluntarily?"_
> *You*:_ "I don't see it as perfectly voluntarily."_
> *Me:* _"There is no middle ground. It is either voluntary, or it is not."_
> *You:* _"100% voluntary is impossible on earth. Relatively voluntary has been achieved in our past, and I would be happy to return to the time when people trusted the rule of law. For instance, people at the time of prohibition believed that amending the constitution was required to accomplish their goal ... and repealing that amendment was important as well."_


I guess I should have said, No it is not voluntary because 100% voluntary is impossible on earth. I actually thought that the statement "No it is not voluntary" was inferred in my response.




> Demented. :collins: You didn't answer the actual question... in ANY of the exchanges.


_Demented, Demented... Statists are Demented!_ Are all statists demented? Or am I the only one? What question do you really want answered, Conza? Which one is the important one?




> *How does it do this?* And is it voluntary?  Either it is voluntary, or it is not. A, or Non-A.


NO, it is not voluntary. It is relatively voluntary. Here I'll bold it for you. *NO, it is not perfectly voluntary. It is relatively voluntary.*  That's the way an imperfect world works. There are no absolutes. Does that answer your question, or do you want a different answer?




> The state owns no property to begin with. So *how* does it acquire it?


The states came into being through a process of conquest of property, then they organized as colonies which morphed into states and through that process they laid the claim, offered to govern, used a ratification process, and precedents based on common law. You were born into the system, so was I, and so were our ancestors. It is what it is. I don't mind it, you loathe it ... so what? As long as you don't try to eliminate my property, the only other problems I have with you is your baseless personal attacks on people and false labels that you put on Ron Paul.

Nonetheless, I think most people on the forums can see that your immature behavior is not warranted.




> I asked: _"Do you also deny "that A and B can go to C and force him to form a State and extract from him certain payments and services in the name of such State"?_  Or do you support forcing people into the state?


I support forcing people under the authority of the state at birth. I also advocate for penal bonds to bind our representatives to their sworn oath of office. It is not a bad way to organize society, imo. There are a lot of things wrong in the world, but constitutional republics are not among them. They can be amended. They have effectively proven to enrich individuals through organized property ownership which allow people to produce wealth. It worked quite well for a lot of people up until the "Civil War" when Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase began debasing currency, the Federal government began confiscating property rather than distributing it, the National Banking acts of 1863 & 1864 were implemented, and warmongering became big business.

Strong Property Rights Allow Peace and Order to Prevail



> How can you say the state *protects* property, when it must *violate* it to exist?


I say, _"so what?"_  You care, I don't care. So what? I've harvested enough grain in my life to know that if I get 90% of the fruits of my labor... that's pretty good. There is no perfection in an imperfect world. The fact that the state must violate the NAP to exist may bother you ... it does not bother me. It is inconsequential to me because there are about 5% of the population who are psychopaths that need tended to. I'll pay my share of that.



> The state has no money of it's own.


Separation of the state and money is the key to liberty, peace, and prosperity.

----------


## erowe1

> I have a friend who also thinks in similar fashion.  He insists the best political path is the middle of the road.  I've tried numerous times to explain that its thinking like that which causes radicalization of ideas.  Left/Right or whatever ideology split one looks at are then encouraged to push further "left/right" so that the middle is closer to their side.
> 
> I'm fine with meeting in the middle if I get to define my position AFTER my opponent.


That's like going into a negotiation to buy a car and making your initial offer whatever you think the price is going to be when the negotiating's over instead of starting with what you really want and going from there.

----------


## erowe1

> Separation of the state and money is the key to liberty, peace, and prosperity.


So before central banking there wasn't any tyranny?

Also, rather than separating state and money, it would be easier just to amend the Constitution to make the Federal Reserve explicitly legitimate. Then, once it's in the Constitution, there wouldn't be anything wrong with it any more. Right?

----------


## Travlyr

> So before central banking there wasn't any tyranny?


I did not make that claim. No way no how. Careful reading is required or exact quotes but don't twist what others say or write.



> Also, rather than separating state and money, it would be easier just to amend the Constitution to make the Federal Reserve explicitly legitimate. Then, once it's in the Constitution, there wouldn't be anything wrong with it any more. Right?


If you want to perpetuate tyranny, yes. To achieve liberty ... separation of state and money is the only way to achieve it.

----------


## erowe1

> I did not make that claim. No way no how. Careful reading is required or exact quotes but don't twist what others say or write.


One of two things must be true. Either you can't fail to have peace, prosperity, and liberty when you separate state and money, or else the key to peace, prosperity, and liberty must be something other than separation of state and money.




> If you want to perpetuate tyranny, yes. To achieve liberty ... separation of state and money is the only way to achieve it.


But whatever is in the Constitution can never be tyranny, since the Constitution is the supreme law. Isn't that your position?

Or is there some other law that's higher than the Constitution, that you can use to evaluate the Constitution, and to decide whether it institutes tyranny or not?

----------


## Travlyr

I wish you would learn to read carefully. I do not make the claims you state.



> One of two things must be true. Either you can't fail to have peace, prosperity, and liberty when you separate state and money, or else the key to peace, prosperity, and liberty must be something other than separation of state and money.


We live in an imperfect world. There are no absolutes. The only reason that the state is in the money creation business is to control the money supply to control the people. Whoever controls the money supply has power to control others. Separation of state and money puts power in the hands of individuals and takes it away from the state. Since ~ 5% of the population are psychopaths there will always be trouble brewing on earth. No solution is perfect. Starving the state is liberating.




> But whatever is in the Constitution can never be tyranny, since the Constitution is the supreme law. Isn't that your position?


No. The constitution could be amended to be tyrannical. It can also be amended to be liberating.

My position is that the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. That law is valid for interaction with other human beings. I did not make the claim that the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of man.




> Or is there some other law that's higher than the Constitution, that you can use to evaluate the Constitution, and to decide whether it institutes tyranny or not?


I do not understand this question.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

I'm quite surprised by all the moral relativism we're reading here.

----------


## erowe1

> There are no absolutes.


The above statement must not be absolutely true.

In fact, yes, there are absolutes. There is such a thing as absolute right and wrong. These things are defined by a law that truly is the supreme law of the land, one that trumps any constitution or any other law that was invented by humans. The only law that can ever claim to be valid for interaction with other human beings in all cases is this one transcendent law, not any constitution. And the way to decide when a constitution is tyrannical and when it is liberating is by evaluating it in light of this law.





> I do not understand this question.


You seriously don't?

It's kind of the point of this whole debate.

----------


## Travlyr

> The above statement must not be absolutely true.
> 
> In fact, yes, there are absolutes. There is such a thing as absolute right and wrong. These things are defined by a law that truly is the supreme law of the land, one that trumps any constitution or any other law that was invented by humans. The only law that can ever claim to be valid for interaction with other human beings in all cases is this one transcendent law, not any constitution. And the way to decide when a constitution is tyrannical and when it is liberating is by evaluating it in light of this law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seriously don't?
> 
> It's kind of the point of this whole debate.


Your question is vague. To which law are you refering?



> *Or is there some other law* that's higher than the Constitution, that you can use to evaluate the Constitution, and to decide whether it institutes tyranny or not?


God's law?
Yahweh's law?
Zeus's law?
Natural law?
Common law?
Universal law?
Scientific law?
What are you inferring?

----------


## erowe1

> Your question is vague. To which law are you refering?
> 
> God's law?
> Yahweh's law?
> Zeus's law?
> Natural law?
> Common law?
> Universal law?
> Scientific law?


Yes. That one.

----------


## Travlyr

> Yes. That one.


Those laws are for men not for the land.

----------


## erowe1

> Those laws are for men not for the land.


The law, the one that actually exists and that people didn't make up, is for everyone everywhere in every land. There is no plot of ground that you can stand on and be exempt from it. If you violate this law, then there is no other law you could write on parchment, no matter what degree of propaganda you use to sell it, that could turn your wrong into right.

You already know this is true. You've already shown me your cards plenty of times. When you refuse to admit it, your bluff is transparent.

----------


## Travlyr

> The law, the one that actually exists and that people didn't make up, is for everyone everywhere in every land. There is no plot of ground that you can stand on and be exempt from it. If you violate this law, then there is no other law you could write on parchment, no matter what degree of propaganda you use to sell it, that could turn your wrong into right.
> 
> You already know this is true. You've already shown me your cards plenty of times. When you refuse to admit it, your bluff is transparent.


Natural law? Some sort of law that everybody understands just because they are alive, eat, and breathe? This is why we need written laws for interaction with each other because I seriously don't know what the hell you are talking about. There is no refusal to admit anything other than I don't know what law you are referring to. There are 6 billion+ interpretations ... most of them without thought or consideration. My God may not be the same God as yours, don't ya know.

----------


## erowe1

> Natural law? Some sort of law that everybody understands just because they are alive, eat, and breathe? This is why we need written laws for interaction with each other because I seriously don't know what the hell you are talking about.


Yes you do, and you've already conceded it multiple times.

Take, for example, your line just a few posts up:



> The constitution could be amended to be tyrannical. It can also be amended to be liberating.


That could mean nothing other than that you recognize another law, one that's supreme over the Constitution, and that by measuring the Constitution next to this other higher law, it can be determined objectively when it is being made more tyrannical and when it is being made more liberating.

You know full well that Kim Jong Il is a tyrant, and that his ability to point to the constitution of North Korea and say, "See, I'm obeying the supreme law of the land." does nothing to ameliorate his guilt. Nor does the fact that that constitution uses the word "republic" in it.

----------


## Travlyr

Okay, I am not interested in guessing games.

I live in the united States of America. I am subject to the laws of the land where I live. Neither the U.S. Constitution or my State Constitution is tyrannical. 

When the counterfeiting elite oligarchy (Corporatacracists/Merchantilists) lose their power to print money out of nothing, their military industrial complex folds, their ability to pay the police disappears, their funding for Media dries up, and the indoctrination system ends in disarray, then we can embrace honest sound money in laissez-faire free-market environments. I wish we could achieve that before it folds, but it doesn't look like it will transition that way.

Then the people can amend their constitutions to separate money creation from the state and enjoy liberty, peace, and prosperity according to natural law under the organization of the competing constitutional republics.

----------


## erowe1

> Neither the U.S. Constitution or my State Constitution is tyrannical.


According to what standard?

----------


## Revolution9

> Let's go with that then. What is the definition your state uses?


An enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationship through interaction with one another. Just like any other state...chemical, electronic, societal, political...in a system.

Rev9

----------


## Travlyr

> According to what standard?


I use dictionary definitions. 
Definition of TYRANNY
Definition of LIBERTY

----------


## newbitech

Justification

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifi...(jurisprudence)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justification_(theology)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationa...on_(psychology)

My favorite, the unsatisfiable set

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

Clearly Conza has been given justification for "the state".  The problem is, he wasn't really looking for justification, he was looking for validity.  The formula for statism has been satisfied, but many of us agree that it has become invalid within our lifetimes.  The opposite of course, statelessness, struggles to find any satisfaction what so ever.

It is too bad that Conza and others who follow this type of "logic" can't see past the ends of their own noses to realize what hypocritical actions their conclusions and end game calls for.  You simply cannot take the anarchist philosophy to the end of the line without the train jumping the tracks.  This is why it has never been done, and why it will never be done.  Not only is the anarchist formula proven to be invalid, just as it's philosophical opposite, "statism" (according to anarchist), there is no evidence of the formula even being satisfied, unless we take the scale all the way back to individuals, families, and small tribes.  That changes the context however to make the point irrelevant for discussion on a forum dealing with the election of arguably the most power statist position in the history of man kind whose decisions literally impact BILLIONS>

----------


## erowe1

> An enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationship through interaction with one another. Just like any other state...chemical, electronic, societal, political...in a system.
> 
> Rev9


In that case I don't see what you're arguing against. That's not what this thread is about.

Do you advocate governments that rule people by conquest, rather than by deriving their power from the consent of the governed?

If the answer is yes, you're on the statist side of this debate. If the answer is no, you're on the anti-statist side.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I use dictionary definitions. 
> Definition of TYRANNY
> Definition of LIBERTY


*lib·er·ty*

_noun_ \ˈli-bər-tē\


1
*:* the quality or state of being free:    _a_ *:* the power to do as one pleases 

If you do in fact accept this definition (and I agree with it), your pursuit of Constitutionalism is antithetical to your pursuit of liberty.  Under a Constitutional regime, one is not free (by the above definition)-he is bound by arbitrary laws produced by people he doesn't know and who haven't the necessary knowledge to logically create such laws.

----------


## erowe1

> I use dictionary definitions. 
> Definition of TYRANNY
> Definition of LIBERTY


I see that, once again, you have directed me to dictionary entries that contain multiple definitions, without indicating which one is the one you mean. You are aware that, even though words can mean multiple things, they generally only mean one thing at any given occurrence. Right?

At any rate, let's take a look at these to illustrate the point I made. I don't imagine that you'll get it this time, but for the benefit of anyone else who reads this, I'll write it anyway.



> Definition of TYRANNY
> 
> 1
> : oppressive power ; especially : oppressive power exerted by government 
> 2
> a : a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler; especially : one characteristic of an ancient Greek city-state
> b : the office, authority, and administration of a tyrant
> 3
> : a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force 
> ...


Although you haven't said which definition you were using, definition #2 can be ruled out, since it does not comport with the context of what you said, where being more tyrannical entailed having a central bank, and you implied that this was true of our current government, which is not ruled by a monarch.

Definition #3 can also be ruled out, since it is not talking about human relationships.

Therefore, if it's true that you intended one of these definitions when you used the word "tyranny," it must be the case that you were using either definition #1 or #4. Notice that both of those definitions include the word "oppressive."

The word "oppressive" is not a value-neutral word. It is a word that implies a moral judgment about something.

A ruler is oppressive if his rule places greater burdens on his subjects than what is right. Of course, to say this is to presuppose that there is some amount of burden for him to place on his subjects that is the right amount. And this is to appeal to a standard. In the case of our conversation, when you said that the Constitution could be amended to become more tyrannical, you appealed to a standard, one that you recognize as higher than the Constitution, such that it can be used to evaluate whether or not the Constitution is tyrannical. In other words, you appealed to natural law.

----------


## Travlyr

On Earth there is no perfection. There is no perfect liberty for everyone. States can do a good job of organizing societies for free people as evidenced by history. Open your eyes and see.




> IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
> The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united *States of America*
> 
> When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
> 
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,  That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.  Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

----------


## erowe1

> On Earth there is no perfection. There is no perfect liberty for everyone. States can do a good job of organizing societies for free people as evidenced by history. Open your eyes and see.


You've already said that, and I've already agreed. Whether or not perfection exists on earth is not disputed.

I had been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. But I seriously think you're deliberately playing with words now.

Edit: And there you go again, quoting the Declaration of Independence. You realize that document takes exactly the same position I've been presenting all this time, and that it's diametrically opposed to your own view. Don't you?

----------


## Travlyr

> You've already said that, and I've already agreed. Whether or not perfection exists on earth is not disputed.
> 
> I had been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. But I seriously think you're deliberately playing with words now.
> 
> Edit: And there you go again, quoting the Declaration of Independence. You realize that document takes exactly the same position I've been presenting all this time, and that it's diametrically opposed to your own view. Don't you?


No, it is not diametrically opposed to my view. I do not believe that consent must be individual consent. Your parents bound you when you were born by living under the laws of where you were born. You give consent by living under the laws in the territory where you live. If you don't like the law where you live, you have choices. The privilege of living under a constitutional republic allows you to actually have good choices you can make. Under tyrants the choices may not be good.
Work to amend the laws to suit your needs.Live under the laws as written.Move to a competing State that better suits your needs.Disobey the laws and pay the penalty.
Don't shoot the messenger.

----------


## erowe1

> No, it is not diametrically opposed to my view. I do not believe that consent must be individual consent. Your parents bound you when you were born by living under the laws of where you were born. You give consent by living under the laws in the territory where you live. If you don't like the law where you live, you have choices. The privilege of living under a constitutional republic allows you to actually have good choices you can make. Under tyrants the choices may not be good.
> Work to amend the laws to suit your needs.Live under the laws as written.Move to a competing State that better suits your needs.Disobey the laws and pay the penalty.
> Don't shoot the messenger.


If you really believe that, then you miss the entire point of the Declaration of Independence.

But this is to be expected, since, to understand the entire point of the Declaration of Independence, you would have to admit the existence of moral absolutes.

----------


## Travlyr

> If you really believe that, then you miss the entire point of the Declaration of Independence.


Really? Silly me. The entire point? Gosh. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> If you really believe that, then you miss the entire point of the Declaration of Independence.
> 
> But this is to be expected, since, to understand the entire point of the Declaration of Independence, you would have to admit the existence of moral absolutes.


 +infinity

----------


## erowe1

> Really? Silly me. The entire point? Gosh. Perhaps you could enlighten me.


The point was not just to claim that they wanted to be free from the king, but that his rule over them is positively immoral and their freedom from it is positively right.

They did not say, "Our parents consented for us to be in this position, so it's right for us to stay in it." They recognized the king's actions as evil, and the fact that they did not consent to them is part of what made them evil. They appealed to "certain inalienable rights," not personal preferences. 

They didn't just say "We will disobey the laws and pay the penalty." They said, "We will disobey the laws and pay the penalty because to do so would be to suffer for a greater good."

----------


## Travlyr

> The point was not just to claim that they wanted to be free from the king, but that his rule over them is positively immoral and their freedom from it is positively right.
> 
> They did not say, "Our parents consented for us to be in this position, so it's right for us to stay in it." They recognized the king's actions as evil, and the fact that they did not consent to them is part of what made them evil. They appealed to "certain inalienable rights," not personal preferences. 
> 
> They didn't just say "We will disobey the laws and pay the penalty." They said, "We will disobey the laws and pay the penalty because to do so would be to suffer for a greater good."


And they took this action as a unanimous declaration of statists.  

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

----------


## erowe1

> And they took this action as a unanimous declaration of statists.  
> 
> The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America


If you mean that subsequent to signing that declaration they all turned around and went against the very principles they had proclaimed in it by refusing to allow secession from their own states, that is correct.

Had they instead taken a path more consistent with the document they signed, perhaps the word "state" would not gone on to become synonymous with rule over people without their consent, the way it is today.

----------


## Travlyr

> If you mean that subsequent to signing that declaration they all turned around and went against the very principles they had proclaimed in it by refusing to allow secession from their own states, that is correct.
> 
> Had they instead taken a path more consistent with the document they signed, perhaps the word "state" would not gone on to become synonymous with rule over people without their consent, the way it is today.


Perhaps. Or the debasement of currency has undermined liberty again just like it always has since the times of Babylon.

----------


## Conza88

> But you said yourself you will support a Constitutional-sized government. Nonetheless there is a time in which you are supporting violence. But your response when called out on it is a quote from Rothbard that basically states "the ends justify the means". So I suppose that is your justification  excuse for practicing blatant hypocrisy?
> 
> You have been caught red-handed, Conza88. I don't expect you to admit it, because I know you won't. But it is right out there in plain sight for anyone to read. So come forth with your exquisite vocabulary, draw your own fallacies, and talk your way out of this one.


I support a constitutional-size government AS A MEANS, as a TRANSITIONAL PHASE to that of the END GOAL of a voluntary society.

I support a reduction in the size of the state; always. It's not hard to understand ffs. What hypocrisy? You're delusional.




> I disagree. Why do I *need* to convince and justify this to you?


You don't need to do anything. If however, you want to have valid justifications for your position, then that would involve you actually doing so - having a theory on why the use of violence you support is valid.

 "Grundnorm" was  legal philosopher Hans Kelsen's term for the hypothetical basic norm or  rule that serves as the basis or ultimate source for the legitimacy of a  legal system. See Hans Kelsen, _General Theory of Law and State_,  trans. Anders Wedberg (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,  1949). I employ this term to refer to the fundamental norms presupposed  by civilized people, e.g., in argumentative discourse, which in turn  imply libertarian norms. _That_ the libertarian _grundnorms_ are, in fact,  necessarily presupposed by all civilized people to the extent they are  civilized  during argumentative justification, that is  is shown by  Hoppe in his argumentation-ethics defense of libertarian rights. On  this, see Hoppe, _A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism_, chapter 7; Stephan Kinsella, "New Rationalist Directions in Libertarian Rights Theory," _Journal of Libertarian Studies_ 12, no. 2 (Fall 1996): 31326; idem, "Defending Argumentation Ethics," _Anti-state.com_ (Sept. 19, 2002).
 For discussion of why people (to one extent or the other) _do_ value these underlying norms, see Stephan Kinsella, "The Division of Labor as the Source of Grundnorms and Rights," _Mises Economics Blog_ (April 24, 2009), and idem, "Empathy and the Source of Rights," _Mises Economics Blog_ (Sept. 6, 2006). See also idem, "Punishment and Proportionality," pp. 51 and 70:
  People who are civilized are  concerned about _justifying_  punishment. They want to punish, but they also want to know that such  punishment is justified  they want to legitimately be able to punish   Theories of punishment are concerned with justifying punishment, with  offering decent men who are reluctant to act immorally a reason why they  may punish others. This is useful, of course, for offering moral men  guidance and assurance that they may properly deal with those who seek  to harm them.



> There is a distinct difference between "who wouldn't?" and "who within the libertarian movement wouldn't?". Your the master of semantics, two can play that game.


Yes there is, and this discussion is taking place in the Political Philosophy section of the Ron Paul forum, a big home of the libertarian movement - so WTF do you think is more likely aye? You're the master of delusion.




> Okay. I have no justifications. /shrug


Then as such, you should probably _keep quiet_, stop embarrassing yourself by speaking out about matters you do not, nor even seek to understand and let the real men discuss matters.

----------


## Conza88

> Blah, blah, blah, Conza.  Ron Paul is running for President of the United States of America.  
> 
> Deal with it.


*And why is he doing that?* Not to win office, but to spread the message of liberty. Or are you calling Ron Paul's niece a liar?  !

----------


## Conza88

> There are no absolutes.


Hahahah ! That's too good.

_"There are no absolutes"_ .... *is an absolute statement.*  Contradiction. Self-detonating statement. Invalid.

----------


## Conza88

> Justification
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_justification
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justification_(jurisprudence)
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justification_(theology)
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_(psychology)
> ...


"Grundnorm"  was  legal philosopher Hans Kelsen's term for the hypothetical basic  norm or  rule that serves as the basis or ultimate source for the * legitimacy* of a  legal system. See Hans Kelsen, _General Theory of Law and State_,   trans. Anders Wedberg (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,   1949). I employ this term to refer to the fundamental norms presupposed   by civilized people, e.g., in argumentative discourse, which in turn   imply libertarian norms. *That the libertarian grundnorms  are, in fact,  necessarily presupposed by all civilized people to the  extent they are  civilized  during argumentative justification, that is   is shown by  Hoppe in his argumentation-ethics defense of libertarian  rights.* On  this, see Hoppe, _A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism_, chapter 7; Stephan Kinsella, "New Rationalist Directions in Libertarian Rights Theory," _Journal of Libertarian Studies_ 12, no. 2 (Fall 1996): 31326; idem, "Defending Argumentation Ethics," _Anti-state.com_ (Sept. 19, 2002).

 For discussion of why people (to one extent or the other) _do_ value these underlying norms, see Stephan Kinsella, "The Division of Labor as the Source of Grundnorms and Rights," _Mises Economics Blog_ (April 24, 2009), and idem, "Empathy and the Source of Rights," _Mises Economics Blog_ (Sept. 6, 2006). See also idem, "Punishment and Proportionality," pp. 51 and 70:  
People who are civilized are  concerned about *justifying*   punishment. They want to punish, but they also want to know *that such   punishment is justified*  they want to *legitimately* be able to punish    Theories of punishment are *concerned with justifying punishment*, with   offering decent men who are reluctant to act immorally a reason why  they  may punish others. This is useful, of course, for offering moral  men  guidance and assurance that they may properly deal with those who  seek  to harm them."_ - Footnote 14, from What Libertarianism Is - Kinsella._



> It is too bad that Conza and others who follow this type of "logic" can't see past the ends of their own noses to realize what hypocritical actions their conclusions and end game calls for.  You simply cannot take the anarchist philosophy to the end of the line without the train jumping the tracks.  This is why it has never been done, and why it will never be done.  Not only is the anarchist formula proven to be invalid, just as it's philosophical opposite, "statism" (according to anarchist), there is no evidence of the formula even being satisfied, unless we take the scale all the way back to individuals, families, and small tribes.  That changes the context however to make the point irrelevant for discussion on a forum dealing with the election of arguably the most power statist position in the history of man kind whose decisions literally impact BILLIONS>


See *Points 1 & 2* in the OP.

----------


## libertyjam

> *And why is he doing that?** Not to win office,* but to spread the message of liberty. Or are you calling Ron Paul's niece a liar?  !


No one else has called you on this BS yet??  If this is what you believe Conza you had better change your mind right now or I believe you are trying to get banned again.  What is your game, to try to drive off as many voters as possible?

----------


## Conza88

> No one else has called you on this BS yet??  If this is what you believe Conza you had better change your mind right now or I believe you are trying to get banned again.  What is your game, to try to drive off as many voters as possible?


Probably because it's not bs . Beg's the question fallacy. So why is it bs LibertyJam? I am merely quoting what Ron Paul's niece has said, who is recounting what Ron said (private of course). It lines up with what Lew Rockwell has said, and pretty much everything else.

*Did you miss the part* where I said I don't think it'd be wise to promote this publicly or anything, much to the reason you allude to - voters being concerned about "winning" as opposed to matters of truth. It's even the case with_[many people here]_. 

Video I made contains the point perfectly by G.Edward Griffin.



And yet the above is the truth. No, my game is not to drive voters off - it is to help spread the message of liberty. Ron Paul running a successful campaign is part of that. The longer he's in the spotlight the better. Getting votes at the _PRESIDENTIAL LEVEL_ is a corollary to merely about getting some form of "mainstream" acceptance and appearance of legitimacy. It'll force the ideas to be taken more seriously, and invite others to question their premises. 

If he wins, it'll be a miracle.. and yet what can he do? Alot actually; which is laid out in *Hans-Hermann Hoppe's* book: _Democracy: The God that Failed_, which *Ron Paul recommends you read*[in his latest book]!

Again - all this is a red herring to this discussion. If someone wants to talk strategy, by all means - but it ain't going to take place here. Go start a new thread. Quite simply really though; I don't go _promoting_ this view at all (even on these forums), it is always in RESPONSE to the bs posted by either LE, or newbitech. (Only times I've had to so far)... SO, if you don't want me to continue spreading the truth on here, which Ron Paul's niece confirms, then my suggest would be to recommend others not to bring it up as some kind of fallacious 'argument', because then I won't have to knock it down.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> *And why is he doing that?* Not to win office, but to spread the message of liberty. Or are you calling Ron Paul's niece a liar?  !


She's a little girl, Conza.

Ron Paul has said he is running to win.  Of course, in the process and when he wins, he will be spreading the message.  

I do not understand what you think you have to gain by pushing the meme that he is not running to win?  What is it, Conza?  Why do you feel threatened by Dr. Paul running to win the presidency?

----------


## Bman

Some people lead a horse to water.  Conza takes the horse to a bridge pushes it in and then jumps in and starts kicking it in the head til it drowns.

So much to say but no tact.

----------


## Conza88

> She's a little girl, Conza.


A little girl who is a member of the Ron Paul family. And what does being little have to do with the truth? Do you consider her a liar?




> Ron Paul has said he is running to win.  Of course, in the process and when he wins, he will be spreading the message.  
> 
> I do not understand what you think you have to gain by pushing the meme that he is not running to win?


I'm not _pushing_ the meme he's not running to win, _I'm defending the point that his ultimate goal is voluntarism / self-government, over a return to the constitution._ HIS WORDS, not mine. 

_YOU_ are the one who pushes the meme he is running to win _as some kind of argument against the above point._ It is totally fallacious.




> What is it, Conza? Why do you feel threatened by Dr. Paul running to win the presidency?


Lmao.. I don't feel threatened at all. Again, he's not running to "win" to control office, that is not his main objective. Spreading the message is. Secondary to that, I'd suggest is 'winning'. IF he does win, by all means - and I want him to; I think that'd be beyond epic. I just don't think it likely, not that changes anything. I don't think a free society is likely anytime soon, that doesn't change anything though. What is it you don't get?

----------


## Conza88

> So much to say but no tact.


What's the point of displaying tact with intellectually dishonest individuals who are not open to reason? 

I don't start with that assumption; I start based on the premise that people are open to reason. It is through the experience of continued discourse with them, that it is either confirmed or denied. 

I'm sorry Bman - did you have something valuable to say, or do you *just* enjoy flinging personal attacks?

----------


## Bman

> What's the point of displaying tact with intellectually dishonest individuals who are not open to reason? 
> 
> I don't start with that assumption; I start based on the premise that people are open to reason. It is through the experience of continued discourse with them, that it is either confirmed or denied. 
> 
> I'm sorry Bman - did you have something valuable to say, or do you *just* enjoy flinging personal attacks?


No I think I summed it up perfectly.  If you can't take the criticism it is not my problem.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> A little girl who is a member of the Ron Paul family. And what does being little have to do with the truth? Do you consider her a liar?


I consider her exactly what she is.  A little girl.




> I'm not _pushing_ the meme he's not running to win, _I'm defending the point that his ultimate goal is voluntarism / self-government, over a return to the constitution._ HIS WORDS, not mine.


Talk about intellectual dishonesty.  You have it in spades.  You have claimed over and over again that Paul is not running to win the election.  Further, you use the same two tired video spiffets to somehow insinutate that he must have been lying all the hundreds of times he has written and spoken about the need for us to reinstate the Constitution and follow it closely.  




> _YOU_ are the one who pushes the meme he is running to win _as some kind of argument against the above point._ It is totally fallacious.


 If you are not pushing the meme that he is not running to win, why do you keep claiming that he isn't?  You have done it over and over in this thread, posting the video of the little girl as your supposed proof that he isn't running to win.  You started this meme early in this thread and some of those posts thankfully were removed by the Mods.

All I have to say to you, Conza, is if Ron Paul keep gaining traction and other campaigns and/or the media finds this stuff by you claiming over and over that Ron Paul is an anarchist and uses it against him, I would imagine that it is really going to suck to be you.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

Does anyone else think this conversation might go a little better in person, over a couple pints?  Sometimes I really think things get lost in translation on the internet.

----------


## Conza88

> No I think I summed it up perfectly.  If you can't take the criticism it is not my problem.


I can. When it's constructive. When it's valid. Both of which your comment fails to achieve.

Do you have a justification for the state Bman, have you changed your tune in the last few years, or are you still stuck?

----------


## Conza88

> I consider her exactly what she is.  A little girl.


Yes, great, we've already confirmed that. Now, when she says her great uncle (Ron Paul) is_ "he's running just to make a point"_, what do you not understand? I am asking if you are saying she is a liar?

From her video:
_"Uh no...my grandma and family love this video. So does everyone else. Im not damaging his campaign! Read the comments. So.﻿ No. Im not."
oakykoalapro123 - 20 thumbs up_

Looks like you're the only one who thinks it's damaging to the campaign LE. Ron Paul's family loves it. How's that make you feel? Ron Paul moderators _(the one/s who keep secretly removing the video)_, how's that make you feel given the above?




> Talk about intellectual dishonesty.  You have it in spades.  You have claimed over and over again that Paul is not running to win the election.  Further, you use the same two tired video spiffets to somehow insinutate that he must have been lying all the hundreds of times he has written and spoken about the need for us to reinstate the Constitution and follow it closely.


Over and over again? You mean *just* in response to your & newbitechs posts?

Since I've been doing it_ SO_ often () it should be amazingly easy for you to find an example of me doing it once - when I am not either responding to you, trav or any of the other clowns. *I await your evidence* - back up your claim, or apologise.

Same two videos? You mean the ones where he is being interviewed and is states in his own words; a voluntary society is his end goal? He'd prefer that when compared to the constitution? You mean THAT one? Yeah sure.. I am a Ron Paul supporter; posting a video of Ron Paul being interviewed. Highlighting his words. *Guilty as charged.* 

I don't contend that he has lied. When he has been asked, or stated that he is a constitutionalist etc. it is from a _STATIST_ perspective. *I also support the constitution, COMPARED to what we have NOW*. It is a transitional means to the end goal of a voluntary society. Again, what do you not understand? He uses the constitution as a rhetorical tool, in an age of manufactured consent. It makes it easier for people to accept his arguments for limited the activities of the state. HIS WORDS essentially. I am paraphrasing; DO YOU WANT ME TO LINK YOU TO THE VIDEO OF HIM SAYING THEM, or will it also be deleted?! 




> If you are not pushing the meme that he is not running to win, why do you keep claiming that he isn't?  You have done it over and over in this thread, posting the video of the little girl as your supposed proof that he isn't running to win.  You started this meme early in this thread and some of those posts thankfully *were removed by the Mods.*


_"I'm defending the point that his ultimate goal is voluntarism / self-government, over a return to the constitution."_

It was always in response to you or others making the claim he doesn't support that. Go on - prove it otherwise, you can't. Because that's all I've ever done. Responded to your cognitive dissonance. It's not a meme at all, it's the truth.

*Oh so it hasn't been you who has been secretly removing the videos of Ron Paul's niece?* Who has then? Anyone want to fess up and provide a justification for secretly deleting content? Let me get this straight...

*A Ron Paul supporter, posts a video made by Ron Paul's niece* - the guy who this forum is named after - *and the moderators secretly continue to remove and delete the video being posted*; I get no warnings, I get no infractions? Why? *Because I haven't broken the rules,* _and yet somehow I am in the wrong?_

Wow, total intellectual honesty there...  




> All I have to say to you, Conza, is if Ron Paul keep gaining traction and other campaigns and/or the media finds this stuff by you claiming over and over that Ron Paul is an anarchist and uses it against him, I would imagine that it is really going to suck to be you.


He'll deny he's an "anarchist", because the definition they'll be using is that of "chaos". I also refuse this label. I'd imagine he would say he supports self-government, and voluntarism... as he already has done .

I wonder how the media would try slam him? *Ask him if all taxation is theft?* I wonder how he'd respond? 

WITH A "YES"?... *(This scenario has already happened)*... tell me LE, what changed? Anything? 
I'd post the video, but the mods would probably secretly remove it anyway...

----------


## Conza88

> Does anyone else think this conversation might go a little better in person, over a couple pints?  Sometimes I really think things get lost in translation on the internet.


Yeah . Probably a whole lot. Tons to discuss that we're in agreeance on. 

Though I must admit, I'd definitely be tempted to play the video of Ron Paul's Motor Home Diary interview from my phone, just to see the reaction hahah . Then I'd let the silence elicit a response .

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Since I've been doing it_ SO_ often () it should be amazingly easy for you to find an example of me doing it once - when I am not either responding to you, trav or any of the other clowns. *I await your evidence* - back up your claim, or apologise.


Here ya go...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3448754

You also posted it a couple of times early in the thread.  The Mods thankfully removed them.

You also continue to claim that Ron Paul is an anarchist.  

I repeat....if Ron Paul keep gaining traction and other campaigns and/or the media finds this stuff by you claiming over and over that Ron Paul is an anarchist and uses it against him, I would imagine that it is really going to suck to be you.

----------


## Conza88

> Here ya go...
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3448754
> 
> You also posted it a couple of times early in the thread.


_"- when I am not either responding to you, trav or any of the other clowns."_

Who am I posting the video in a response too LE? *You.* _Just like I said._ Early it was newbitech.

So there is no _"here ya go"_. I am still waiting for your evidence, and subsequent apology when you cannot back up your fallacious claim. 




> The Mods thankfully removed them.


They've removed a video that was put on the front page of *www.ronpaul.com*. Great job guys, awesome work mods. Saving the revolution! Haha hilarious. Why did they remove them? No reason has been given. 




> You also continue to claim that Ron Paul is an anarchist.


Just because you're a mod LE, doesn't mean what you're doing isn't trolling. How do you define "anarchist"? This should be interesting. 




> I repeat....if Ron Paul keep gaining traction and other campaigns and/or the media finds this stuff by you claiming over and over that Ron Paul is an anarchist and uses it against him, I would imagine that it is really going to suck to be you.


Spam. You repeat - you ignore. You don't address the points. You're intellectually dishonest and close minded. 

"I repeat...."



> He'll deny he's an "anarchist", because the definition they'll be using is that of "chaos". I also refuse this label. I'd imagine he would say he supports self-government, and voluntarism... as he already has done .
> 
> I wonder how the media would try slam him? *Ask him if all taxation is theft?* I wonder how he'd respond? 
> 
> WITH A "YES"?... *(This scenario has already happened)*... tell me LE, what changed? Anything? 
> I'd post the video, but the mods would probably secretly remove it anyway...





> Yes, great, we've already confirmed that. Now, when she says her great uncle (Ron Paul) is_ "he's running just to make a point"_, what do you not understand? I am asking if you are saying she is a liar?
> 
> From her video:
> _"Uh no...my grandma and family love this video. So does everyone else. Im not damaging his campaign! Read the comments. So.﻿ No. Im not."
> oakykoalapro123 - 20 thumbs up_
> 
> Looks like you're the only one who thinks it's damaging to the campaign LE. Ron Paul's family loves it. How's that make you feel? Ron Paul moderators _(the one/s who keep secretly removing the video)_, how's that make you feel given the above?





> Let me get this straight...
> 
> *A Ron Paul supporter, posts a video made by Ron Paul's niece* - the guy who this forum is named after - *and the moderators secretly continue to remove and delete the video being posted*; I get no warnings, I get no infractions? Why? *Because I haven't broken the rules,* _and yet somehow I am in the wrong?_
> 
> Wow, total intellectual honesty there...

----------


## angelatc

> Does anyone else think this conversation might go a little better in person, over a couple pints?  Sometimes I really think things get lost in translation on the internet.


No, because I sincerely believe that he's mildly autistic. They suck at communication. That's the only way I can imagine a sane claim to being honest and open to reason while simultaneously sincerely believing that government doesn't actually exist.

----------


## Conza88

> No, because I sincerely believe that he's mildly autistic. They suck at communication. That's the only way I can imagine a sane claim to being honest and open to reason while simultaneously sincerely believing that government doesn't actually exist.


Hi angelatc , are you having a good day? While I realise that such a claim seems absolutely absurd (as I once did)... having actually *listened to the arguments* made, I saw that I was wrong.




> "[T]he crucial question is not, as so many believe, whether property rights should be private or governmental, but rather whether the necessarily 'private' owners are legitimate owners or criminals. *For ultimately, there is no entity called 'government'; there are only people forming themselves into groups called 'governments' and acting in a 'governmental' manner.* All property is therefore always 'private'; the only and critical question is whether it should reside in the hands of criminals or of the proper and legitimate owners." ~ Murray Rothbard


How do you define "government" angelatc? I am wondering, as you must contend that such an entity called "government" exists in physical reality, could you help point it out to me? Help meeee

----------


## angelatc

> What happens is that you are tacitly admitting that your argument is flawed, based on violence and force, is logically inconsistent and should therefore be disregarded as a poor philosophical model.


There's a reason that philosophers don't rule the world. If you actually believe that the world will run on logic, then bless your naive, innocent little heart.  But sweetie, his argument isn't "flawed," he just summed up humanity.

----------


## Jake Ralston

Conza88, how does posting other people's opinions/thoughts in the form of web and video links hold any sort of value? You post content from Rothbard, that stefbot dude, and other Anarchists and expect it to be accepted as viable truth and a worthy rebuttal.

Everybody has an opinion. How are the opinion's of those who you support any more "right" or "truthful" than anyone else?




> which leads me to believe that just because Hoppe or Rothbard has their name attached to something, "libertarians" here take it for granted that its true.  But its not a valid argument.

----------


## angelatc

> Hi angelatc , are you having a good day? While I realise that such a claim seems absolutely absurd (as I once did)... having actually *listened to the arguments* made, I saw that I was wrong.


I believe that your autism makes you believe a lot of things that normal people don't.   I also believe it leaves you without the ability to understand other people, which means while I already understand your positions, you have no ability to understand normal society.

----------


## Conza88

> Conza88, how does posting other people's opinions/thoughts in the form of web and video links hold any sort of value?


Because I have watched or read the content in my journey of learning. Because I once held the same flawed position as yourself / whoever, and the source I am linking to for you and others to read/watch, addresses that. 




> You post content from Rothbard, that stefbot dude, and other Anarchists and expect it to be accepted as viable truth and a worthy rebuttal.
> 
> Everybody has an opinion. How are the opinion's of those who you support any more "right" or "truthful" than anyone else?


How are you defining "anarchist"?

Opinion is not the same as argument.

----------


## Revolution9

> Conza88, how does posting other people's opinions/thoughts in the form of web and video links hold any sort of value? You post content from Rothbard, that stefbot dude, and other Anarchists and expect it to be accepted as viable truth and a worthy rebuttal.
> 
> Everybody has an opinion. How are the opinion's of those who you support any more "right" or "truthful" than anyone else?



Ker-smack!! I take nobody as the expert. I run it through MY filters and see what happens when I subject it to thought experiments. I could care less what the so called experts, cult runners or pundits have to pontificate. The Good Lord gave me common sense and discernment enough to qualify any set of statements as utter hogwash, bearing points worth considering or having the full weight of authority.

Rev9

----------


## Revolution9

> Because I have watched or read the content in my journey of learning. Because I once held the same flawed position as yourself / whoever, and the source I am linking to for you and others to read/watch, addresses that.


My cockatoo is a great mimic of sounds.

HTH
Rev9

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I believe that your autism makes you believe a lot of things that normal people don't.   I also believe it leaves you without the ability to understand other people, which means while I already understand your positions, you have no ability to understand normal society.


*How to be a statist:*

When someone makes an argument against the state, insult them and then use that insult as an excuse to ignore everything they say.  This is the ad-hominem fallacy and it is the statists most essential and commonly used debating tool.

----------


## Conza88

> I believe that your autism makes you believe a lot of things that normal people don't.   I also believe it leaves you without the ability to understand other people, which means while I already understand your positions, you have no ability to understand normal society.


_You didn't answer any of my valid questions_. Statists are all alike. Drop the ad hominems please. Moderators, you openly tolerate this? Double standards folks. 

*Psychoanalysis as a Weapon* _- Murray N. Rothbard

_No better is the propensity, very popular nowadays, to brand supporters  of other ideologies as lunatics. Psychiatrists are vague in drawing a  line between sanity and insanity. It would be preposterous for laymen to  interfere with this fundamental issue of psychiatry. *However,  it is clear that if the mere fact that a man shares erroneous views and  acts according to his errors qualifies him as mentally disabled*,  it would be very hard to discover an individual to which the epithet  [p. 186] sane or normal could be attributed. Then we are bound to call  the past generations lunatic because their ideas about the problems of  the natural sciences and concomitantly their techniques differed from  ours. Coming generations will call us lunatics for the same reason.*Man  is liable to error. If to err were the characteristic feature of mental  disability, then everybody should be called mentally disabled.*

*Neither  can the fact that a man is at variance with the opinions held by the  majority of his contemporaries qualify him as a lunatic.* Were  Copernicus, Galileo and Lavoisier insane? It is the regular course of  history that a man conceives new ideas, contrary to those of other  people. Some of these ideas are later embodied in the system of  knowledge accepted by public opinion as true. *Is it permissible to apply the epithet "sane" only to boors who never had ideas of their own and to deny it to all innovators?*

The  procedure of some contemporary psychiatrists is really outrageous. They  are utterly ignorant of the theories of praxeology and economics. Their  familiarity with present-day ideologies is superficial and uncritical.  Yet they blithely call the supporters of some ideologies paranoid  persons. ~ Human Action, Chapter 9 Sec 2.
- Now here is my post again. Answer the questions this time please.

Hi angelatc , are you having a good day? While I realise that such a claim seems absolutely absurd (as I once did)... having actually *listened to the arguments* made, I saw that I was wrong.




> "[T]he crucial question is not, as so many believe, whether property rights should be private or governmental, but rather whether the necessarily 'private' owners are legitimate owners or criminals. *For ultimately, there is no entity called 'government'; there are only people forming themselves into groups called 'governments' and acting in a 'governmental' manner.* All property is therefore always 'private'; the only and critical question is whether it should reside in the hands of criminals or of the proper and legitimate owners." ~ Murray Rothbard


How do you define "government" angelatc? I am wondering, as you must contend that such an entity called "government" exists in physical reality, could you help point it out to me? Help meeee

----------


## Conza88

> Ker-smack!! I take nobody as the expert. I run it through MY filters and see what happens when I subject it to thought experiments. I could care less what the so called experts, cult runners or pundits have to pontificate. The Good Lord gave me common sense and discernment enough to qualify any set of statements as utter hogwash, bearing points worth considering or having the full weight of authority.
> 
> Rev9


Hilarious ... says the guy who doesn't read quotes . No, see... I agree with these folks arguments, not because of who they are - but what they say. I don't link to them for their "authority".




> My cockatoo is a great mimic of sounds.
> HTH
> Rev9


Pity it doesn't have the ability to reason, or engage in argumentation. Then it might have more success in showing who the real "bird brains" are.

----------


## Conza88

dblepost.

----------


## Jake Ralston

Conza88, you are a terribly destructive troll. angelatc, Rev9, LE, Travlyr and many others here have done nothing but support the liberty movement.

Why are you determined to destroy their credibility, call them liars, and publicly denounce them?
Don't you dare deny it either because the evidence is clearly found in your post history.

Do you not appreciate the fact that they have contributed so much to liberty? 

Do you not respect the fact that not everyone will agree with you, regardless of how many Rothbard quotes you provide?

Do you not understand that people don't care whether you think of them as ignorant, intellectually dishonest or any other insult you may come up with?

You are consumed with pride. Your arrogance stinks to high heaven. The only credibility you have here comes from the people that agree with you already. 

Are you seriously trying to help people believe and support the same causes you do? Your not doing a very good job.

----------


## angelatc

> *How to be a statist:*
> 
> When someone makes an argument against the state, insult them and then use that insult as an excuse to ignore everything they say.  This is the ad-hominem fallacy and it is the statists most essential and commonly used debating tool.


I unblocked you just to tell you that you're right, but I knew what I was doing I threw it out there.   But here's the rub - that's part of the reason I did it - suddenly his almost inhuman black-and-white thought process seemed a little too familiar to me.

Also realize that if your assertion had come from Conza88 in immediate response, I would have doubted, and even recanted upon request, my suspicions.  However, he reacted exactly the way I expected he would, though.   Which means nothing philisophically, but I now think more than ever that he's autistic and therefore literally quite unable to understand the same reality most of us live in.

ETA: I need to clarify that.  Autism produces a different type of thought process. Not that it's good or bad, but just that we can't perceive the world the way he does any more than he can perceive it the way we do.

----------


## Sentient Void

The reason the libertarian movement has grown so much and more hardcore elements of it have grown and become more popular is because people like Conza, myself, and many others like us online and out in real life have been debating these issues directly with others, in front of 'audiences' and obliterating the fallacies that you guys and other statists are propagating. 

We don't expect nor care to change *your* minds. We merely wish to expose the fallacies, point out the absurdities and show the logical proof of our arguments. Your fallacious responses only serve to expose the intellectual dishonesty and strengthen our position as the valid one. 

And *that* is why the 'spectrum of liberty' is winning, and will win.

Of course, you guys are part of the spectrum of liberty - but you still adhere to your stockholm syndrome to the state, as well as more or less of a degree of constitution fetishism. We will however continue to beat the hammer of a priori logic over your heads for others to witness, and hopefully for some of you to acknowledge, so that you can let go of your emotional attachment to the State and think more rationally on these issues.

Rothbard, Hoppe, et al quotes aren't merely appeals to authority - they hold heavy intellectual weight and it is merely giving credit where credit is due in showing a powerful and logical intellectual argument against whatever flavor of statism that you are propagating.

----------


## Conza88

> “No better is the propensity, very popular nowadays, to brand supporters   of other ideologies as lunatics. Psychiatrists are vague in drawing a   line between sanity and insanity. It would be preposterous for laymen  to  interfere with this fundamental issue of psychiatry. *However,  it  is clear that if the mere fact that a man shares erroneous views and   acts according to his errors qualifies him as mentally disabled*,  it  would be very hard to discover an individual to which the epithet  [p.  186] sane or normal could be attributed. Then we are bound to call  the  past generations lunatic because their ideas about the problems of  the  natural sciences and concomitantly their techniques differed from  ours.  Coming generations will call us lunatics for the same reason.* Man  is  liable to error. If to err were the characteristic feature of mental   disability, then everybody should be called mentally disabled.*
> 
> *Neither  can the fact that a man is at variance with the opinions  held by the  majority of his contemporaries qualify him as a lunatic.* Were   Copernicus, Galileo and Lavoisier insane? It is the regular course of   history that a man conceives new ideas, contrary to those of other   people. Some of these ideas are later embodied in the system of   knowledge accepted by public opinion as true. *Is it permissible to apply the epithet "sane" only to boors who never had ideas of their own and to deny it to all innovators?*
> 
> *The  procedure of some contemporary psychiatrists is really outrageous.* *They  are utterly ignorant of the theories of praxeology and economics.* *Their  familiarity with present-day ideologies is superficial and  uncritical.*  Yet they blithely call the supporters of some ideologies  paranoid  persons.” 
> 
> ~ Ludwig von Mises, Human Action, Chapter 9 Sec 2.


Don't worry angelatc, I don't think you're insane. Just severely misguided .

----------


## Revolution9

> Hilarious ... says the guy who doesn't read quotes . No, see... I agree with these folks arguments, not because of who they are - but what they say. I don't link to them for their "authority".
> 
> 
> 
> Pity it doesn't have the ability to reason, or engage in argumentation. Then it might have more success in showing who the real "bird brains" are.


You have a great ability to quote. You do not have that great of an ability to leverage that into a universally derived argumentation of your own making. And you have some kind of air that we are supposed to take YOU seriously when you seem to be a compendium of parts of others mentalities. And you call me a bird brain, yet it is the bird brain that holds the reptilian complex in check with its claws. My reaction is to think. Yours, like the autonomic nervous system is to relay signals from other places. I respond to points others make in their arguments that they thought of. I do not need to apply quotes from heavyweights, especially when I see them as specialized lightweights with an agenda. For those seeking an abrogation of authority over them in this thread they sure buckle under hard to authority when pleading their case.

This type of headspace gives you great difficulty and you have no method to supercede it. Hence you invert and project to deal with your dissonance.

Rev9

----------


## Revolution9

> The reason the libertarian movement has grown so much and more hardcore elements of it have grown and become more popular is because people like Conza, myself, and many others like us online and out in real life have been debating these issues directly with others, in front of 'audiences' and obliterating the fallacies that you guys and other statists are propagating. <snip projection and standard appeal to authority>


Not likely. You guys have alot less impact than you imagine. You fellas toss around the term statist with slippery definitions like a spastic juggler attempting a 10 ball lofter. You get no brownie points for this bogus tactic. Yer worse than frakkn' feminazis when chained to your own petard.

Rev9

----------


## angelatc

> Not likely. You guys have alot less impact than you imagine. You fellas toss around the term statist with slippery definitions like a spastic juggler attempting a 10 ball lofter. You get no brownie points for this bogus tactic. Yer worse than frakkn' feminazis when chained to your own petard.
> 
> Rev9


I haven't even seen any evidence of growth either.   It's almost ironic that the swelled head position he is taking  -  "I am an intellectual leader!"  - is born of the same attitude that instantly drives most people quickly away from libertarianism in the first place.

----------


## angelatc

> Don't worry angelatc, I don't think you're insane. Just severely misguided .



In your view, almost all people seem severely misguided.  Isn't that true?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> The reason the libertarian movement has grown so much and more hardcore elements of it have grown and become more popular is because people like Conza, myself, and many others like us online and out in real life have been debating these issues directly with others, in front of 'audiences' and obliterating the fallacies that you guys and other statists are propagating. 
> 
> We don't expect nor care to change *your* minds. We merely wish to expose the fallacies, point out the absurdities and show the logical proof of our arguments. Your fallacious responses only serve to expose the intellectual dishonesty and strengthen our position as the valid one. 
> 
> And *that* is why the 'spectrum of liberty' is winning, and will win.
> 
> Of course, you guys are part of the spectrum of liberty - but you still adhere to your stockholm syndrome to the state, as well as more or less of a degree of constitution fetishism. We will however continue to beat the hammer of a priori logic over your heads for others to witness, and hopefully for some of you to acknowledge, so that you can let go of your emotional attachment to the State and think more rationally on these issues.
> 
> Rothbard, Hoppe, et al quotes aren't merely appeals to authority - they hold heavy intellectual weight and it is merely giving credit where credit is due in showing a powerful and logical intellectual argument against whatever flavor of statism that you are propagating.


This post wins.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> There's a reason that philosophers don't rule the world. If you actually believe that the world will run on logic, then bless your naive, innocent little heart.  But sweetie, his argument isn't "flawed," he just summed up humanity.


"Philosophical model".  

His argument is severly flawed, because it is based on a poor philosophical premise.  Of course philosophers don't rule the world.  But the rulers of the world build their rule upon a philosophical foundation (whether they realize it or not).  

Are men created equal?  Are men soveriegns unto themselves?  The answer to these questions is *objectively* (provable; able to be observed) 'yes'.  As such, society should be organized in such a way as to best respect this truth, and that explicitly precludes the existence of an entity with a monopoly on physical and coercive force.  

I'd love to see a _logically consistent_ and coherent counter-argument...

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Conza88, how does posting other people's opinions/thoughts in the form of web and video links hold any sort of value? You post content from Rothbard, that stefbot dude, and other Anarchists and expect it to be accepted as viable truth and a worthy rebuttal.
> 
> Everybody has an opinion. How are the opinion's of those who you support any more "right" or "truthful" than anyone else?


Such moral relativism.  Very surprising.

Are men created equal?  Are men soveriegns unto themselves?  

The answer is yes, and that is not an opinion - it is an observable truth.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

It seems this thread is beginning to devolve to mere emotionally charged sniping.  It's a shame there's so much psycho-analysis of certain individuals in the thread and so little substantive debate.  Make your case!

----------


## angelatc

> I'd love to see a _logically consistent_ and coherent counter-argument...


Until they figure out that men aren't logically consistent, philosophers will never rule the world.

----------


## angelatc

> so little substantive debate....


Such a subjective phrase.  I would maintain there is nothing at all in this entire thread worth reading. Heck, there's not even been a single original thought introduced, except mine.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *I haven't even seen any evidence of growth either.*   It's almost ironic that the swelled head position he is taking  -  "I am an intellectual leader!"  - is born of the same attitude that instantly drives most people quickly away from libertarianism in the first place.


Really?  Libertarian talking points are becoming "mainstreamed"-such as criticism of the FED and undeclared war.  This is not just due to RP, but to the generations of libertarians who came before him.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Until they figure out that men aren't logically consistent, philosophers will never rule the world.


Does this mean you will now give up on Constitutionalism? (Constitutionalism is derived from philosophy after all-and an inconsistent, flawed one at that)

----------


## angelatc

> Really?  Libertarian talking points are becoming "mainstreamed"-such as criticism of the FED and undeclared war.  This is not just due to RP, but to the generations of libertarians who came before him.


That might be somewhat true, but I've yet to meet anybody off of the internet who thinks that all government should be abolished for the betterment of man. 

Plus, I think there's a gap between believing that talking points in a one-sided conversation are a signal that an actual philosophy is being mainstreamed.  As someone who saw libertarians do this same dance during the Reagan years, I have a legitimate reason to believe that as soon the the GOP swings back into power, the philosophy will be ostracized again and the talking points, as well as any perceived advances into whatever it is they want these days, will disappear.

----------


## angelatc

> Does this mean you will now give up on Constitutionalism?


Of course not. That position would be politically retarded.   

It wasn't the philosophers that got the nation to adopt that set of laws.  It was the soldiers, and I'm perfectly fine with that.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Of course not. That position would be politically retarded.   
> 
> It wasn't the philosophers that got the nation to adopt that set of laws.  It was the soldiers, and I'm perfectly fine with that.


No.  The Constitutional Convention was comprised of philosophers (some lay-philosophers, some more active).  It's true that the Constitution wasn't enacted by persuading the public (it was a coup-the purpose of the convention was actually to amend the Aricles Of Confederation), but it was written by philosophers.  (the Federalist Papers are full of philosophical waxing)

----------


## angelatc

> No.  The Constitutional Convention was comprised of philosophers (some lay-philosophers, some more active).  It's true that the Constitution wasn't enacted by persuading the public (it was a coup-the purpose of the convention was actually to amend the Aricles Of Confederation), but it was written by philosophers.  (the Federalist Papers are full of philosophical waxing)


 I didn't say it was written by soldiers.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I didn't say it was written by soldiers.


I didn't say you said that.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Such a subjective phrase.  I would maintain there is nothing at all in this entire thread worth reading. Heck, there's not even been a single original thought introduced, except mine.


Good lord... 

The OP posed a question.  No one attempted to substantively answer or even address it.  It almost immediately devolved into petty sniping.  

Your original thought was an insult.  Don't be too proud of it.

----------


## CCTelander

> Good lord... 
> 
> The OP posed a question.  No one attempted to substantively answer or even address it.  It almost immediately devolved into petty sniping.  
> 
> Your original thought was an insult.  Don't be too proud of it.


In my experience, ad hominem, insults and sniping are the first resort of those lacking more substantive arguments.

----------


## Seraphim

Might as well ditch your concept of freemarkets and individual liberty if you believe that. Why bother if you believe that? 




> Until they figure out that men aren't logically consistent, philosophers will never rule the world.

----------


## Jake Ralston

> Good lord... 
> 
> The OP posed a question.  No one attempted to substantively answer or even address it.  It almost immediately devolved into petty sniping.


I answered the OP straight up.




> *To Conza88:*
> What happens when I respond to your OP in the following way:
> 
> _1. I have no justification for the state, yet I still support it.
> 2. I support the immoral and violent state because I am ignorant, and an overall bad person.
> 3. You are completely right about Anarchy, yet I don't care.
> 4. I am intellectually dishonest and not open to reason in the slightest amount.
> 5. With the above points clarified, I will support, donate and vote for Ron Paul. I will continue to press on regardless of how many posts you make, how many articles you link, how many "fallacies" you claim I commit or any other objections you have._


Conza didn't like that answer. He learned from me that ideas are not put into action based on logic or "morality" alone. It takes the support and willingness of others to participate. That is where Anarchy has and always will fail. People simply do not want Anarchy. I don't know how much more clear I can be about that.

----------


## Sentient Void

> That might be somewhat true, but I've yet to meet anybody off of the internet who thinks that all government should be abolished for the betterment of man.


Then you need help with reading comprehension. I said the 'spectrum of liberty' has grown significantly. This includes not only anarchists (and the anarcho-capitalist stripe has grown significantly relative to other anarchist types, which is why lefty anarchists heads are exploding everywhere over the rise of ancap), but minarchist libertarians, constitutionalists, etc. This even implies those who hold similar views to you.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/20/li...t-three-years/

^^ THAT illustrates my point I was making (which was *not* that anarchism has gone mainstream, but the spectrum of libertarianism is going mainstream). Do you think this happened for no reason? It just happened ex nihilo, in a vacuum? Or because people are discussing the issues, debating them, and researching the issues - leading them to libertarian positions, whether they realize it or not? 

As a side note I think it's quite clear that Ron Paul has sparked this growth of libertarian philosophy.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I answered the OP straight up.
> 
> 
> 
> Conza didn't like that answer. He learned from me that ideas are not put into action based on logic or "morality" alone. It takes the support and willingness of others to participate. That is where Anarchy has and always will fail. People simply do not want Anarchy. I don't know how much more clear I can be about that.


And the consequences of your answer were spelled out.  You made your point.  It wasn't a very good one in terms of logic, but that's okay.  You're free to discuss it further, bow out of the thread, or continue making the thread about Conza personally, in which case I hope the mods will at least have the integrity to deal with it appropriately.

Some of us are quite interested in this discussion.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Until they figure out that men aren't logically consistent, philosophers will never rule the world.


What is your point?  Are you under the impression that someone is suggesting that philosophers should rule the world?

----------


## Jake Ralston

> And the consequences of your answer were spelled out. You made your point.


Which consequences?




> It wasn't a very good one in terms of logic, but that's okay.


Right. Glad to see you understand now that logic fails in philosophy. All it takes is a blanket of "ignorance" and any other insults used against the "statist" and logic or not your plans are spoiled. The Anarchist is so easy to deal with its almost comical.




> continue making the thread about Conza personally, in which case I hope the mods will at least have the integrity to deal with it appropriately.


Well, i'm no advocate for ad hominem fallacies. But in certain cases, when people have personality ... hmmm ... i'll say "glitches", that actually ends up having a lot to do with that persons train of thought, and reasoning behind why they believe certain things. Not naming any names or insulting, but over the years i've found this to be true. I know it appears as a "logical" fallacy to some, but that just adds to the laundry list of why logic doesn't always apply.




> Some of us are quite interested in this discussion.


It is a tired discussion. One that bears absolutely no fruit. But if it floats your boat you will continue discussing.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Which consequences?





> What happens is that you are tacitly admitting that your argument is flawed, based on violence and force, is logically inconsistent and should therefore be disregarded as a poor philosophical model.  
> 
> Thank you for that.






> Right. Glad to see you understand now that logic fails in philosophy. All it takes is a blanket of "ignorance" and any other insults used against the "statist" and logic or not your plans are spoiled. The Anarchist is so easy to deal with its almost comical.


I don't think this thread is for you, perhaps even this sub-forum.  One cannot deduce that "logic fails in philosophy" from the fact that YOUR response wasn't logically consistent.

I'm embarrassed for you that you seem to think that "anarchists are easy to deal with".  In order to "deal with" anarchists, you need to deal with their argument.  You haven't done anything remotely close to that.  Again, this is a philosophical question about the substance of statism - what is the philosophical justification for it?  If you don't care about that question, or think that it is a pointless discussion, you're perfectly entitled to that opinion - I can even respect that opinion.  




> Well, i'm no advocate for ad hominem fallacies. But in certain cases, when people have personality ... hmmm ... i'll say "glitches", that actually ends up having a lot to do with that persons train of thought, and reasoning behind why they believe certain things. Not naming any names or insulting, but over the years i've found this to be true. I know it appears as a "logical" fallacy to some, but that just adds to the laundry list of why logic doesn't always apply.


A little advice, then - stay away from that person.  Even if what you say is true, this thread _still_ is not about that person's personality.  




> It is a tired discussion. One that bears absolutely no fruit. But if it floats your boat you will continue discussing.


Yes.  That's correct - it floats my boat so I'll continue discussing it.  If in your opinion it is a tired discussion that bears no fruit, I ask you to please stop derailing it because, again, some of our boats are floated by it.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

Seriously, if you're not interested in discussing the philosophical justification for the state, and all the consequences thereof, please give it a rest.  

I understand that Conza bothers some of the minarchists around here.  I don't personally care why, but I do think that this - even after 16 pages - has the potential to be an interesting discussion if someone - anyone - would be willing to take up his challenge rather than to make the thread about his perceived personality flaws.  At this point I'm even willing to see someone play devil's advocate...

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Are men created equal? Are men soveriegns unto themselves? The answer to these questions is *objectively* (provable; able to be observed) 'yes'. As such, society should be organized in such a way as to best respect this truth, and that explicitly precludes the existence of an entity with a monopoly on physical and coercive force. 
> 
> I'd love to see a logically consistent and coherent counter-argument...


//

----------


## Jake Ralston

> Seriously, if you're not interested in discussing the philosophical justification for the state, and all the consequences thereof, please give it a rest.  
> 
> I understand that Conza bothers some of the minarchists around here.  I don't personally care why, but I do think that this - even after 16 pages - has the potential to be an interesting discussion if someone - anyone - would be willing to take up his challenge rather than to make the thread about his perceived personality flaws.  At this point I'm even willing to see someone play devil's advocate...


The point is, it doesn't matter. None of it matters at all. Thats why I don't get involved in the quagmire of Anarchism vs Statism. Yes this is a sub-forum of RPF. But this is RPF. Don't anyone ever forget that.

The reason people go after Conza personally is because he spews out blasphemies about the man we work so hard to support. He twists certain quotes and adds his own wording to try and make it sound like RP is an Anarchist. That couldn't be further from the truth. Has the man made mention of certain philosophical ideals towards voluntarism? Yes, on one or two occasions. But reality check folks, he is running for head of the state. He will restore our Consitutional liberties.

I defend RP and his character. I will not stand by idle and allow Conza to degrade him. I will not allow innocent bystanders to stumble into this thread and get the wrong idea about RP. I will not allow one of Conza's posts to be tweeted and then reported as fact in the MSM. That would potentially destroy RP's campaign. Yes, that is how dangerous Conza is.

The least I can do is debunk Conza (and others if necessary) in this thread, so that people won't be led too far astray.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> The point is, it doesn't matter.


No.  That's not the point.  The "point" is the OP.  If the discussion in the OP doesn't interest you or "matter" to you, please bow out of the thread!




> None of it matters at all. Thats why I don't get involved in the quagmire of Anarchism vs Statism.


:facepalm: But, see, YOU ARE INVOLVED IN THE QUAGMIRE OF ANARCHISM VS STATISM.  THAT IS THE DISCUSSION GOING ON IN THIS THREAD.  IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO BE INVOLVED, PUT YOUR KEYBOARD WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS AND MAKE THIS YOUR LAST POST.




> Yes this is a sub-forum of RPF. But this is RPF. Don't anyone ever forget that.


'kay.  Thanks.  




> The reason people go after Conza personally is because he spews out blasphemies about the man we work so hard to support. He twists certain quotes and adds his own wording to try and make it sound like RP is an Anarchist. That couldn't be further from the truth. Has the man made mention of certain philosophical ideals towards voluntarism? Yes, on one or two occasions. But reality check folks, he is running for head of the state. He will restore our Consitutional liberties.


I'm guessing that you do not know Conza personally?  If that is the case, I would be careful about making assumptions about him.

I get that people don't care for Conza's take on Ron Paul's views.  You have your take, he has his, I have mine, and everyone else has theirs.  The reality is, as I've said before, none of us know precisely what Dr. Paul's views are.  He's said and done things that justify both perceptions.  I do not see the harm in having the discussion, myself, but on that basis the declarations that Ron IS or ISN'T something are unfounded.  They are assumptions, not facts.  You do not *know* that Ron is not a voluntaryist any more than Conza *knows* he is.  




> I defend RP and his character. I will not stand by idle and allow Conza to degrade him.


No, you're defending your IMPRESSION of Ron Paul.  Unless Ron called and said, "Hey Jake - do me a favor and get into that thread and defend me against that bastard Conza!", you're just tilting at windmills.  




> I will not allow innocent bystanders to stumble into this thread and get the wrong idea about RP. I will not allow one of Conza's posts to be tweeted and then reported as fact in the MSM. That would potentially destroy RP's campaign. Yes, that is how dangerous Conza is.


Anyone could tweet anything they want to about Ron.  A thread on a hidden subforum is the least of the worries of the campaign.  

As to this notion that the mere usage of the word "anarchy" in a thread in a hidden subforum being detrimental to the campaign... come on.  I'll respect the mods as overseers of the owners property, and if they decide to ban the discussion, that's their prerogative.  But the notion that a potential voter might wander into this discussion and merely see the word anarchy - without any consideration of the discussion & context going on around that word - and run screaming over to MittRomneyForums is laughable.  

Additionally, it is off-topic of the thread.  




> The least I can do is debunk Conza (and others if necessary) in this thread, so that people won't be led too far astray.


The least you could do in this thread is make a logically consistent argument on behalf of statism.  You haven't.  If you think Conza should be warned or banned, flag a comment of his and notify the mods.  If you just don't like Conza, stay away from his threads/posts.  I believe there is an ignore feature.  Otherwise, address the OP, or leave the thread.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

To further address this idea that the media is going to "run" with seeing the word "anarchy, -ism, -ist" used in a thread in a hidden subforum:

Ron Paul has himself - in print in his books and in interviews - mentioned that he reads lewrockwell.com everyday.  From the LRC store, one may in the same purchase have the following two items delivered to their home:





(In fact, now that I think about it, I may do just that myself!   ).

This is not to suggest that Ron is an anarchist, or a voluntaryist; merely that it is quite clear that 1, Ron Paul does not disavow those who do openly take those positions, and 2, that if the media wanted to make an issue of this, they'd hardly need to look for it here.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> You do not *know* that Ron is not a voluntaryist any more than Conza *knows* he is.


I know that he's not an anarchist.  How do I know that?  I know that because he has said flat out that he is not.  

I also know that because I have read his articles and speeches for over 20 years.  Many of those articles and books were about the need to reinstate the Constitution.  His entire campaign is based upon this premise.

So, for someone, anyone to claim over and over and over again, on a forum that bears Dr. Paul's name, that Dr. Paul is an anarchist, rather than the Champion of the Constitution that he calls himself, is more than suspect as to their goals.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> To further address this idea that the media is going to "run" with seeing the word "anarchy, -ism, -ist" used in a thread in a hidden subforum:


It's not so hidden.  All someone has to do is become a member and hit New Posts.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> In your view, almost all people seem severely misguided.  Isn't that true?


If all people are severely misguided, how is that conducive to anarchy?  Hmmm??  (I'm not asking you, angelatc.)

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I also know that because I have read his articles and speeches for over 20 years.  Many of those articles and books were about the need to reinstate the Constitution.  His entire campaign is based upon this premise.


That's part of how he plays the political game, yes... but politics is different than reality, and Ron Paul also takes the time to be realistic...

"*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




> So, for someone, anyone to claim over and over and over again, on a forum that bears Dr. Paul's name, that Dr. Paul is an anarchist, rather than the Champion of the Constitution that he calls himself, is more than suspect as to their goals.


Dr. Paul can and does speak for himself. 




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





> (Go to 4m5s)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *MHD:* "What do you say to people who advocate for self-government rather than a return to the Constitution? Just like ..."
> 
> *Ron Paul:* "Great. Fine. And I think that's really what my goal is."

----------


## ClayTrainor

> If all people are severely misguided, how is that conducive to anarchy?  Hmmm??  (I'm not asking you, angelatc.)


If men are severely misguided, than what makes them capable of the government of others? 

If men are good, than they need no government.  If men are bad, than governments of men, composed of men will be bad and probably worse due to the states *amplification of coercive power*.  Most anarcho-capitalists believe that some men are good and some aren't, and there will always be some crime.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> If men are severely misguided, than what makes them capable of the government of others? 
> 
> If men are good, than they need no government.  If men are bad, than governments of men, composed of men will be bad and probably worse due to the states *amplification of coercive power*.  Most anarcho-capitalists believe that some men are good and some aren't, and there will always be some crime.


That's exactly the problem.  If people are severely misguided, someone is inevitably going to try, and other people are inevitably going to jump on the bandwagon.  So, even in a perfect anarchist world, it will not last because some people will form a state where there was none before and claim it is for the good of "society."  It's that easy to defeat anarchy.  It just will never last.  People want to cooperate with their fellow man to achieve more than they could by themselves.  They form cults, organizations, and other such things.  They will never be satisfied to live for their own freedom because they will always want more from someone else.  

Either you can take away people's liberties (the unthinkable according to the framers), or you can deal with the effects.  Minarchist governments aren't perfect or even good, but a necessary evil.  A minarchist society can be maintained with strict guidelines, such as the Constitution, that limit its ability to compete with liberty.  However, this can only be achieved through an educated populace.  That is what we are attempting to do now, and I think we all agree it has more of a chance of happening than even 5% of the populace being willing to embrace anarchy.  All it takes is a very small portion of people to ruin anarchism.  It takes much more to override a system that is already in place.  Anarchy would be nice, but those who think it is a feasible or realistic idea or hold it for any reason other than an entertaining notion, are naive at best.

Also, please learn how to use "than" and "then."  That's just a little pet peeve of mine.  If x, *then* y.  It's not, If x, than y.  Than is always used to refer to something that is more extreme than something else.  X is more ____ than y.  X is ____er than y.

----------


## Wesker1982

> If men are severely misguided, than what makes them capable of the government of others? 
> 
> If men are good, than they need no government.  If men are bad, than governments of men, composed of men will be bad and probably worse due to the states *amplification of coercive power*.  Most anarcho-capitalists believe that some men are good and some aren't, and there will always be some crime.


Another point that the advocates of limited government have yet to address is:

How can a population be educated and virtuous enough to achieve a limited government, but then claim that these _very same people_ who have established a limited government are too evil or dumb to voluntarize everything? 

The point is that once a limited government is achieved, it will be impossible to claim that the majority of people are too ignorant or evil for voluntaryism. Essentially, this makes limited government as an _end goal_ illogical (because at this point voluntaryism is achievable). If mostly everyone respects property rights (proven by the fact that limited government was achieved in the first place through a non-violent  revolution), you cannot simultaneously claim that these very same people are incapable of a respect for property.

If you get enough people to accept limited government, then it would be proof that an overwhelming majority of people have had a profound revelation in regards to libertarian philosophy and economics. It would be a contradiction to say that this _very same society_ is incapable of respecting life and property. 

Thus, it makes perfect sense that Ron Paul advocates the limited government position in his _education_* campaign with an end goal (like _he_ has said himself) of a voluntary society. He knows that once enough people advocate achieving a limited government through *non-violent* means, then this means people overwhelmingly advocate liberty and a voluntary society is likely to be established. 

*The situation would not be the same as it was during the first experiment with limited government, because obviously not enough people advocated true liberty before the Revolution. If they did, we wouldn't be where we are today. This is why he holds education above all of his other goals. If we have a violent revolution with an ignorant population then they will just return to the same failed philosophies.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> That's exactly the problem.  If people are severely misguided, someone is inevitably going to try, and other people are inevitably going to jump on the bandwagon.


That's not really an answer to my question, and the rest of your post is just a rant about how correct your position is, and how "naive" anarchy is...  but i'll do ya the courtesy of responding to your points anyways...  (would appreciate an answer to the question, though) 




> _If men are severely misguided, than what makes them capable of the government of others?_







> So, even in a perfect anarchist world, it will not last because some people will form a state where there was none before and claim it is for the good of "society."


It's logically true that a state *can* form in an anarchic society, and it's also logically true that Slavery can form in a society without slavery, but let me ask you this.._. does that somehow effect the moral arguments for/against slavery and the state?_




> It's that easy to defeat anarchy.  It just will never last.  People want to cooperate with their fellow man to achieve more than they could by themselves.  They form cults, organizations, and other such things.  They will never be satisfied to live for their own freedom because they will always want more from someone else.


Ill give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume what you're saying here is true...  

_So, explain to me how a state will solve this problem instead of making it worse?

What kind of men do you think tend to gravitate towards an organization with the power to lay and collect taxes on other people?_




> A minarchist society can be maintained with strict guidelines, such as the Constitution, that limit its ability to compete with liberty.


"*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




> That is what we are attempting to do now, and I think we all agree it has more of a chance of happening than even 5% of the populace being willing to embrace anarchy.  All it takes is a very small portion of people to ruin anarchism.  statism


Fixed. 




> It takes much more to override a system that is already in place.  Anarchy would be nice, but those who think it is a feasible or realistic idea or hold it for any reason other than an entertaining notion, are naive at best.


Not once throughout history has a government ever stayed limited. Even the US "Constitutional government" experiment has resulted in arguably the largest state *in world history*.  It is utopian and naive to think that an organization financed through taxes will "stay limited" or "serve to protect liberty".  Ron Paul understands this...

"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

On the other hand....

If men are good, than they need no government. If men are bad, than governments of men, composed of men will be bad and probably worse due to the states amplification of coercive power. Most anarcho-capitalists believe that some men are good and some aren't, and there will always be some crime.  This is hardly utopian or "naive".  It is merely a recognition of human nature. 


p.s. I put all of my questions in italics.... I would appreciate answers to the questions I asked, before you further respond to the other points I made.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I know that he's not an anarchist.  How do I know that?  I know that because he has said flat out that he is not.  
> 
> I also know that because I have read his articles and speeches for over 20 years.  Many of those articles and books were about the need to reinstate the Constitution.  His entire campaign is based upon this premise.
> 
> So, for someone, anyone to claim over and over and over again, on a forum that bears Dr. Paul's name, that Dr. Paul is an anarchist, rather than the Champion of the Constitution that he calls himself, is more than suspect as to their goals.


In the particular bit of text you quoted, the word "voluntaryist" was used.  

Ron has said many things.  None of us know what his underlying philosophy is because as far as any of us know, none of us know Ron personally and intimately.  

And yet again, here we are discussing something completely irrelevant to the OP.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Also, please learn how to use "than" and "then."  That's just a little pet peeve of mine.  If x, *then* y.  It's not, If x, than y.  Than is always used to refer to something that is more extreme than something else.  X is more ____ than y.  X is ____er than y.


Thanks!  I'll be sure to try and be more conscious of that.  I actually really appreciate people who correct my grammar... I know I can be pretty sloppy with it sometimes, and would like to correct that a bit.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> It's not so hidden.  All someone has to do is become a member and hit New Posts.


So what?  

Unless the very word "anarchist" is so terrifying as to cause the person who reads it to disregard the context and discussion involving it, such that they are so intellectually stunted as to actually feel fear at just the mere sight of the word by itself, is it REALLY that big of a deal?  Or is the case we're making in this and other threads in this sub-forum so complicated as to be completely indecipherable to a person that they might read that word and yet not be able to comprehend the context and discussion around it?  Do a majority of people read a word and instantly, without concern to context, associate it with brick-throwers in Seattle and Pittsburgh?  

If this is the level of confidence you have in your fellow GOP voter, I submit that the fight is well since lost, LE.  

Again, the media has their fodder if they want it, provided by Dr. Paul himself.  And if a GOP voter is so disabled by a word without regard to the discussion it's used in, it's already over.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

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


:thumbs:

----------


## Wesker1982

> So what?


+1

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3443682

----------


## newbitech

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3452742

can we get a counter on how many times a video has been posted at this site?  I think that is what the anarchist are trying to accomplish.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?305625-Please-convince-me-of-statism!&p=3452742&viewfull=1#post3452742
> 
> can we get a counter on how many times a video has been posted at this site? * I think that is what the anarchist are trying to accomplish.*


Unclear grammatical subject.  What is the "that" in this case? /curious

----------


## Mr.Magnanimous

...

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> That's not really an answer to my question, and the rest of your post is just a rant about how correct your position is, and how "naive" anarchy is...  but i'll do ya the courtesy of responding to your points anyways...  (would appreciate an answer to the question, though) 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's logically true that a state *can* form in an anarchic society, and it's also logically true that Slavery can form in a society without slavery, but let me ask you this.._. does that somehow effect the moral arguments for/against slavery and the state?_
> ...


The problem here is that you say no government has ever stayed limited.  I completely agree with that, and it is historically true.  Neither have we seen anarchy ever successfully carry on.  It is just as likely, if not more likely, to evolve into totalitarianism.  So, even at best, it is no better than minarchism.

Here are my answers to your questions in order:

1)  


> does that somehow effect the moral arguments for/against slavery and the state?


No, not really.  However, it does nullify the support for anarchy.  Anarchy can never be achieved.  Minarchism has been achieved, although it hasn't lasted.  Still, that's a far cry better than hoping for some utopian world that will never happen.  I'm a realist, and I recognize that anarchy will never satisfy people, and thus will never last.  I don't see anything inherently wrong with anarchy because there is really no collective action to speak out against as wrong.  However, that doesn't really affect the fact that people will never cooperate in such away as to make a harmonious anarchic society.  Someone will want power, and they will get it one way or another.  The problem is, that there is no position of power that would prevent this rise if people wanted it to happen, which they inevitably will at some point.

2) 


> So, explain to me how a state will solve this problem instead of making it worse?


The state doesn't solve the problem, since the problem IS the state.  What I am saying is that the state is going to arise one way or another.  Anarchy is not practical and will never last.  There will be a state at some point.  You can either control the effects, or you can take away people's liberties.  Controlling the effects seems to be the only real option.  I never said the state was a morally good thing.  I said it was a necessary evil.  That's the way Thomas Paine viewed it.  He knew that people would always want some form of government, and in a way, it would be desirable.  On the other hand, people who gained power would always seek more.  Therefore, we had to have honest people found a government that was based on righteous principles to prevent the degrading of society into following whatever ruler was the flavor of the month.  That's what would happen in anarchy, it would just be a series of oppressions and totalitarian governments.  It's much easier to form a government where there was none in the name of the common good than it is to override a system that is based on giving people their freedom.  It's evil in itself, but it's necessary because anarchy simply was not an option, it is not, and never will be.

3) 


> What kind of men do you think tend to gravitate towards an organization with the power to lay and collect taxes on other people?


What kind of men?  Anyone who feels it would be in their interest to do so, if they were given the opportunity.  It doesn't really matter who, but it does matter that there are a lot of those people who exist.  Anarchy is never going to work because other people are going to agree that they need an authority figure and some people like that are going to offer that to them.  Surely you can see that many people will prefer this based on their situation, no matter how logically sound it seems to just live for yourself.  People think independence is great until they find themselves in trouble and they need someone reliable.  I'm not saying the state can offer this, but I'm saying the state will inevitably arise as a result of people feeling this way.  You just cannot prevent it by appealing to logic.

Like I said, I can't argue against anarchy because there is no collective action to argue against.  Therefore, my opinion of it is neutral, especially since I have never seen anarchy in action, nor would I know it if I saw it.  I doubt you would, either.  That's because it is imaginary.  Anarchy is simply a product of the mind trying to make up various scenarios, and trying to purify things to the form where they operate perfectly.  However, I recognize that we live in a fallen world, one where people will face trouble based on their own behavior and will do crazy things because all they care about is finding their next meal.  If they don't want to do it themselves, they will relegate someone else to the task, thus creating government.  Pure anarchy isn't bad because immoral people would be free in such a scenario, it is bad because it does nothing to prevent people from usurping power where it is readily available and exploiting others on a much more massive scale than would ever happen with personal liberty.  Yes, governments tend toward totalitarianism, but so does anarchy.  It's no better than the state because it allows the state.

It's like you say the state is evil because we've all seen it tend toward totalitarianism, and then you say anarchy is better simply becaus we've never seen it.  However, that's exactly my point.  WHY do you think we've never seen it?  There must be a reason for that.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> So what?  
> 
> Unless the very word "anarchist" is so terrifying as to cause the person who reads it to disregard the context and


You're kidding, right?  Most people have a pre-conceived notion of what it means.  But, that isn't even the point.  The problem is Conza's claims about Ron Paul.




> In the particular bit of text you quoted, the word "voluntaryist" was used.


You must have missed the many times he has grouped everyone short of the dog catcher in under the label of anarchist.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Statists are all alike.


A little collectivist, don't you think?

----------


## josh b

> I don't understand all the hate for anarchists on this thread, and why the philosophy is treated as counter-productive to the movement. Sure, it's a little early to start talking anarchy when you look at the state of our country, but it's an end-goal to many liberty minded people. I've come to accept that many people on these forums don't accept anarchism, and that's fine, but what is wrong with debate? The point of this thread was really to get people talking about why they believe what they believe, and providing reasons, but it quickly degraded into personal attacks. I seriously doubt that conza or anyone else on this site is out to harm the Ron Paul campaign, and I don't get how this discussion will be detrimental to his bid. Even if someone tried pulling up these threads as dirt (they'd be really desperate), look at what happened last time the media tried that. Remember the "KKK member donates to campaign" headlines? Remember what happened? People forgot, because as Ron said, his supporter's don't necessarily reflect his ideas. 
> 
> Can't we all just get along*
> 
> 
> *_very cliche voice_


This post is too reasonable.  We can't have that.

The issue was debated to death a while ago on the forums.  At this point it's all just personal vendettas.

----------


## Mr.Magnanimous

...

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You're kidding, right?  Most people have a pre-conceived notion of what it means.  But, that isn't even the point.  The problem is Conza's claims about Ron Paul.
> 
> 
> 
> You must have missed the many times he has grouped everyone short of the dog catcher in under the label of anarchist.


The problem is that Conza uses Ron's own words and thinks they mean something he agrees with, but never takes into account the fact that, at the same time that Ron Paul says those words that seem like they would be supportive of liberty, he also believes in minimal government.  So, when he uses Ron's words to support his position, he is using the words of someone who really holds that view and believes it is consistent with "statism" or the existence of minimal government.  

He acts as if those words could only mean anarchy, when in fact someone can honestly say that and still believe in minarchy.  So that just proves that Conza himself is not always logically consistent.

----------


## ProIndividual

I'm here to show my support for the thread...I'd love to see some good arguments for the monopolist coercive State that don't reduce themselves to logically fallacious banter.

And these threads are beneficial to us all regardless of whether you think we are right or not...all intelligent debate is good. So can we see some now? 

Saying Ron isn't in favor of anything but small govt Statism is another logical fallacy...appeal to authority. We don't believe Ron is 100% correct, but we support him anyway. He goes in our direction. He knows this, as he is close with many anarchists like Dr. Tom Woods, Dr. Bob Murphy, etc., etc.

Like Reagan said (another small govt Statist most of us like somewhat) "if you agree on 80% of the issues, you're allies." This is known as the 80% rule.

We are all alies, just trying to have a good philosophical debate. So, can anyone make any arguments without logical fallacy to support Statism? I'd say it's impossible...but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try. Instead of throwing up your hands and falsely accusing us of hurting the campaign all the time, try defending your position as we do ours, and thereby allow people who read the thread to discern reasonably who is correct.

I mean, you really think Ron's stances on the Drug War are LESS offensive to the very uptight possible voter than the mere word 'anarchism'? Obviously if they are turned away by this mere word, they would have been turned away by the Drug War ideas anyway. This thread, and threads like it, are no more dangerous to the campaign than Ron's own stances...I'd argue less so.

We can't censore ourselves, when we aren't being ridiculous, to try and win over every uptight voter. Soccer mom's are going to vote for someone else regardless. But we may wake someone up to the philosophy of liberty. If someone who was a big govt conservative comes here and just one of our logical points sink in, it could start an intellectual chain reaction that, while rejecting anarchism, would lead them to embrace at least small government Statism, or better yet minarchy (they aren't the same thing, minarchism allows for others to be anarchists as minarchism is voluntary; some mistakenly seem to think the Constitution is minarchist - it isn't. It could have been considered so in some ways before the Civil War however, to be fair). 

Our ideas might be farther out than yours, but if even one sinks in, it is a life changing experience for a big government Statist. How do I know?

I used to be Leftist big government loving tyrant...the only reason I support Ron Paul is because I found anarchism...otherwise I'd still be a Democrat drone. Be thankful some find anarchism...it can transform them from big government Statists into either small government Statists (it gives them a new standard to temper their beliefs against), minarchists (also tempered against our farther out ideas), or very rarely anarchists. Anyway way you look at it...the most important part is that they become Ron Paul supporters and free market capitalists. Everything else is just frosting on the cake.

Ron Paul 2012! (Let's not forget why we're here fellow State-haters)

Edit: another post makes it clear in an interview Ron isn't a small govt Statist (I thought he was...lol), he is in fact a self described voluntarist, or a voluntary government guy. I didn't know until now Ron was actually a minarchist, in the sense minarchism means voluntary government. Learn something new (and encouraging) everyday.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

Thank you for this response!!  




> The problem here is that you say no government has ever stayed limited.  I completely agree with that, and it is historically true.  Neither have we seen anarchy ever successfully carry on.  It is just as likely, if not more likely, to evolve into totalitarianism.  So, even at best, it is no better than minarchism.


Yes, that's an understandable concern, but:




> Here are my answers to your questions in order:
> 
> 1)  
> 
> No, not really.  However, it does nullify the support for anarchy.  Anarchy can never be achieved.  Minarchism has been achieved, although it hasn't lasted.  Still, that's a far cry better than hoping for some utopian world that will never happen.  I'm a realist, and I recognize that anarchy will never satisfy people, and thus will never last.


There are historic examples of stateless societies surviving and thriving for years, even centuries.  And in those cases (I'm not sure about Iceland, but specifically Ireland and the relative stateless "Wild" American West) a state did not spontaneously arise.  Notedly in Ireland, it took centuries for the British to subdue the island through a mixed process of warfare, occupation, colonization and even breeding.  The state was imposed through outside forces - and again, in the case of Ireland, this took literally centuries... nearly a millenium.  




> I don't see anything inherently wrong with anarchy because there is really no collective action to speak out against as wrong.  However, that doesn't really affect the fact that people will never cooperate in such away as to make a harmonious anarchic society.


Harmony hasn't exactly been a characteristic of society under the state, wouldn't you agree?  In fact, the state possesses the capacity to create far, far greater disharmony and sheer violence than any private actor could ever hope.  




> Someone will want power, and they will get it one way or another.  The problem is, that there is no position of power that would prevent this rise if people wanted it to happen, which they inevitably will at some point.
> 
> 2) 
> 
> The state doesn't solve the problem, since the problem IS the state.  What I am saying is that the state is going to arise one way or another.  Anarchy is not practical and will never last.  There will be a state at some point.  You can either control the effects, or you can take away people's liberties.  Controlling the effects seems to be the only real option.  I never said the state was a morally good thing.  I said it was a necessary evil.


Thank you.  I've been waiting 18 pages for a supporter of the state to admit that support for the existence of the state must be made on a purely utilitarian basis, as there is no logically consistent, moral argument for it that I can find.  I believe that is a very important acknowledgment, because it frames the state properly.




> That's the way Thomas Paine viewed it.  He knew that people would always want some form of government, and in a way, it would be desirable.  On the other hand, people who gained power would always seek more.  Therefore, we had to have honest people found a government that was based on righteous principles to prevent the degrading of society into following whatever ruler was the flavor of the month.  That's what would happen in anarchy, it would just be a series of oppressions and totalitarian governments.  It's much easier to form a government where there was none in the name of the common good than it is to override a system that is based on giving people their freedom.  It's evil in itself, but it's necessary because anarchy simply was not an option, it is not, and never will be.


Understandable view.  Again for reference, see above.  

I also tend to agree with the notion that removing the state from present society altogether would probably be pretty disastrous, especially in this country - the "land of the free".     Man has become so dependent, and so compliant, yet so poor at social interaction, curiously.  

Anyway, I just wanted to respond to a couple of things here - I know this response was directed to Wesker who'll do a far better job than I in responding, but it seems like the first real attempt at an honest, calm and reasoned counter-point to the discussion at hand.  So, again, thanks!

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> You're kidding, right?  Most people have a pre-conceived notion of what it means.  But, that isn't even the point.  The problem is Conza's claims about Ron Paul.


I agree that most people have a pre-conceived notion of what it means.  I did too, not very long ago.  I did just a very little reading and as it turns out I survived.  In fact, I became an even BIGGER Ron Paul supporter as a consequence.  

I understand that people have a prejudices, but what we present here as an argument for anarchism is not what people usually think of.  Even the very slightest bit of reading reveals this, so again unless people actually tremble with fear such that they can literally read no further after the mere encounter with the word "anarchy, -ist, -ism", I think this is a lot more drama than your average 7th grade girl would ordinarily conjure.  




> You must have missed the many times he has grouped everyone short of the dog catcher in under the label of anarchist.


I must have.  Maybe you should have quoted him, then.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> The problem here is that you say no government has ever stayed limited.  I completely agree with that, and it is historically true.  Neither have we seen anarchy ever successfully carry on.  It is just as likely, if not more likely, to evolve into totalitarianism.  So, even at best, it is no better than minarchism.


This is the utiliatarian argument, which seems to be the fundamental argument you are imposing against anarchy in this post.  Is this fair to say?

If not, what precisely is your principled *argument from morality*, against Anarchy?




> 1)  
> 
> No, not really.


What do you mean by "Not really"?  Does this mean that you agree that Anarchy is the correct argument with regards to the logic of morality?




> However, it does nullify the support for anarchy.  Anarchy can never be achieved.  Minarchism has been achieved, although it hasn't lasted.  Still, that's a far cry better than hoping for some utopian world that will never happen.


Again, This is the utilitarian argument, not an argument from first principles.  i.e.  If "Minimal" slavery seemed more realistic than abolishing slavery, this in no way effects the moral arguments for/against slavery.




> 2) 
> 
> The state doesn't solve the problem, since the problem IS the state.


Good start. I 100% agree with the above. 




> What I am saying is that the state is going to arise one way or another.  Anarchy is not practical and will never last. There will be a state at some point.  You can either control the effects, or you can take away people's liberties.  Controlling the effects seems to be the only real option.  I never said the state was a morally good thing.  I said it was a necessary evil.  That's the way Thomas Paine viewed it.  He knew that people would always want some form of government, and in a way, it would be desirable.  On the other hand, people who gained power would always seek more.  Therefore, we had to have honest people found a government that was based on righteous principles to prevent the degrading of society into following whatever ruler was the flavor of the month.  That's what would happen in anarchy, it would just be a series of oppressions and totalitarian governments.  It's much easier to form a government where there was none in the name of the common good than it is to override a system that is based on giving people their freedom.  It's evil in itself, but it's necessary because anarchy simply was not an option, it is not, and never will be.





> This is the utilitarian argument, not an argument from first principle.  i.e.  If "Minimal" slavery seemed more realistic than abolishing slavery, this in no way effects the moral arguments against slavery.






> It's like you say the state is evil because we've all seen it tend toward totalitarianism, *and then you say anarchy is better simply becaus we've never seen it.*  However, that's exactly my point.


To be fair, the bold above *is not* the fundamental argument I'm making. I am arguing that anarchy is the logical conclusion of first principles such as the Non-Aggression Principle and Self-Ownership.

On Moral Grounds, arguing for an organization financed by taxation is a direct violation of these principles.  *A utilitarian case can be made for Minimal Slavery, or minimal taxation, but a consistent logical and moral case cannot.*

Do you acknowledge that your argument against anarchy is not an argument from first principles?  If not, than what are the first principles you are reasoning from?




> WHY do you think we've never seen it?  There must be a reason for that.


The same fundamental reasons that prevented slavery from being abolished for thousands of years... 



Why We Couldn't Abolish Slavery Then and Can't Abolish Government Now

----------


## A Son of Liberty

Oh - sorry, PaulConventionWV was responding to Clay, not Wesker... :

Nice post, Clay.  Sorry for the wrong attribution.




> On Moral Grounds, arguing for an organization financed by taxation is a direct violation of these principles. A utilitarian case can be made for Minimal Slavery, or minimal taxation, but a consistent logical and moral case cannot.


:thumbs:

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I agree that most people have a pre-conceived notion of what it means.  I did too, not very long ago.  I did just a very little reading and as it turns out I survived.  In fact, I became an even BIGGER Ron Paul supporter as a consequence.  
> 
> I understand that people have a prejudices, but what we present here as an argument for anarchism is not what people usually think of.  Even the very slightest bit of reading reveals this, so again unless people actually tremble with fear such that they can literally read no further after the mere encounter with the word "anarchy, -ist, -ism", I think this is a lot more drama than your average 7th grade girl would ordinarily conjure.


Again, your belief or discussion of anarchy in the Philosophy subforum isn't the issue.  The issue is when a few call Ron Paul an anarchist, or claim that he is not running to win.  The people who do this are playing with fire and are putting their own egos and agendas ahead of Ron Paul and his campaign.  I think that is pretty easy to understand.




> I must have.  Maybe you should have quoted him, then.


Nope.  He's done it numerous times.  You go back and find them if you want to see them.  I am not wasting my time looking through Conza's numerous walls of appealing to authority, to find them.

Seriously, if you honestly haven't seen him doing this, feel free to ask heavenlyboy.  He has commented about him doing it.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Again, your belief or discussion of anarchy in the Philosophy subforum isn't the issue.  The issue is when a few call Ron Paul an anarchist, or claim that he is not running to win.  The people who do this are playing with fire and are putting their own egos and agendas ahead of Ron Paul and his campaign.  I think that is pretty easy to understand.
> 
> Nope.  He's done it numerous times.  You go back and find them if you want to see them.  I am not wasting my time looking through Conza's numerous walls of appealing to authority, to find them.
> 
> Seriously, if you honestly haven't seen him doing this, feel free to ask heavenlyboy.  He has commented about him doing it.


I'm just saying that you replied to me, not to him.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I'm just saying that you replied to me, not to him.


Fair enough and if you don't believe he did it, then feel free to peruse his walls of text or just ask heavenlyboy.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Another point that the advocates of limited government have yet to address is:
> 
> *How can a population be educated and virtuous enough to achieve a limited government, but then claim that these very same people who have established a limited government are too evil or dumb to voluntarize everything?* 
> 
> The point is that once a limited government is achieved, it will be impossible to claim that the majority of people are too ignorant or evil for voluntaryism. Essentially, this makes limited government as an _end goal_ illogical (because at this point voluntaryism is achievable). If mostly everyone respects property rights (proven by the fact that limited government was achieved in the first place through a non-violent  revolution), you cannot simultaneously claim that these very same people are incapable of a respect for property.
> 
> If you get enough people to accept limited government, then it would be proof that an overwhelming majority of people have had a profound revelation in regards to libertarian philosophy and economics. It would be a contradiction to say that this _very same society_ is incapable of respecting life and property. 
> 
> Thus, it makes perfect sense that Ron Paul advocates the limited government position in his _education_* campaign with an end goal (like _he_ has said himself) of a voluntary society. He knows that once enough people advocate achieving a limited government through *non-violent* means, then this means people overwhelmingly advocate liberty and a voluntary society is likely to be established. 
> ...


Great post!  The question in bold really strikes down at the heart of the arguments for minarchy being presented in here...

----------


## Conza88

> A little collectivist, don't you think?


_"Statists are all alike"..._ 

True, I'll be more specific - The statists _who are participating in this thread_ are all alike. There we go, much more accurate. Even more specifically; all alike in their dodging, ad hominems and overall intellectual dishonesty. Better? 




> The problem is that Conza uses Ron's own words and thinks they mean something he agrees with, but never takes into account the fact that, at the same time that Ron Paul says those words that seem like they would be supportive of liberty, he also believes in minimal government.  So, when he uses Ron's words to support his position, he is using the words of someone who really holds that view and believes it is consistent with "statism" or the existence of minimal government.  
> 
> He acts as if those words could only mean anarchy, when in fact someone can honestly say that and still believe in minarchy.  So that just proves that Conza himself is not always logically consistent.






 
*4min+*

What did I get wrong? I am all ears.

*"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


Do you have Ron Paul's new book? Liberty Defined? Go to the section on Democracy and recommended reading. 
~ Abolish Government by Lysander Spooner. 
~ Democracy: The God that Failed by Hans Hermann Hoppe.

... so guys, are you going to continue trying to slander me, or will you try offer a legitimate justification for the state? lol.

----------


## Conza88

> In your view, almost all people seem severely misguided.  Isn't that true?


They accept the same principles and agree with them: aggression is bad, murder is wrong, theft is bad etc. Some people just make the mistake of accepting delusions and myths, because it's what they've been told. I don't call them crazy, or autistic, or insane though. And yet that's precisely what you say to me; as you fail epicly to even pretend to even address my posts or answer _ANY_ question, all legitimate ones.

I gave you the Mises quote, but you ignored it. So here's something more on your level. Some advice:

----------


## Jake Ralston

> I gave you the Mises quote, but you ignored it. So here's something more on your level. Some advice:


And you give her a Dave Chappelle GIF? You are so rude and inapropriate it's downright repulsive.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

You must have missed the part where she ignored everything he had to say and called him autistic, I guess?

----------


## ClayTrainor

> You are so rude and inapropriate it's downright repulsive.


Coming from someone who says things like...




> Haha nice one! But yea right on.* Sometimes a good 2 minute ass-whooping will fix an attitude* that could normally take years to correct. *I can think of a few here on this forum that could sure use one.* Perhaps then we would see a little more respect. *As I was always taught:*
> 
> Show respect for your elders.
> Pride comes before the fall. There is always someone bigger and stronger than you.
> 
> *20 years and half a dozen ass-whoopings later and i've learned a lot.*


It sure doesn't mean much...

----------


## Jake Ralston

> You must have missed the part where she ignored everything he had to say and called him autistic, I guess?


Right. So an *eye for an eye* then.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Right. So an *eye for an eye* then.


No, I guess I was just curious where your revulsion was when angelatc ignored the substance of Conza's post and went straight to an ad hominem attack.

----------


## Jake Ralston

> No, I guess I was just curious where your revulsion was when angelatc ignored the substance of Conza's post and went straight to an ad hominem attack.


Ok so be straightforward and speak whats on your mind. Don't insinuate an "eye for an eye" scenario as a justification.

And its probably for the same reason that you didn't condemn Conza, yet you condemn her.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Ok so be straightforward and speak whats on your mind. Don't insinuate an "eye for an eye" scenario as a justification.
> 
> And its probably for the same reason that you didn't condemn Conza, yet you condemn her.


I didn't condemn either of them, Jake.

----------


## Jake Ralston

> I didn't condemn either of them, Jake.


Fair enough. It's just that some of us don't appreciate when people are rude and insult the intelligence of others. If your okay with that type of behavior and choose to remain silent, thats okay too.

----------


## Sentient Void

> Right. So an eye for an eye then.


I'll absolutely advocate an eye for an eye. Retribution and proportional self defense is absolutely justified. We are, uhh, libertarians - yknow?

You or someone say stupid $#@! like wanting to 'give people an ass whoopin' (as called out by Clay above) merely because they greatly disagree with you, because they said something you didn't like, is what is truly rude and inappropriate. You're a hypocrite and your statist advocation of violence due to mere disagreement comes out in full force here. 

You and others making such inane comments deserve an appropriate response in kind. Tit for tag, baby. Live by the sword, die by the sword. 

Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Fair enough. It's just that some of us don't appreciate when people are rude and insult the intelligence of others. If your okay with that type of behavior and choose to remain silent, thats okay too.


I believe they're both adults who can deal with it themselves.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> _"Statists are all alike"..._ 
> 
> True, I'll be more specific - The statists _who are participating in this thread_ are all alike. There we go, much more accurate. Even more specifically; all alike in their dodging, ad hominems and overall intellectual dishonesty. Better? 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, I just got his new book! 

I think what I said is pretty self-explanatory.  The fact that you can't think of any way in which someone says something you agree with and yet doesn't believe in anarchy demonstrates your preconceived notions.  You can point to some things where Ron Paul says some things you agree with (duh), but you can't actually link me to a portion where he says he believes there should be no state or that he believes in anarchy.  Voluntarism isn't the same thing.  I've seen that video you gave me, and I find it laughable that you would think that suggests he believes in no government.  He's talking about his moral principles REGARDING GOVERNMENT, not regarding no government.  

Of course, he is right about the Constitution, and I agree with him that pretty much every single form of government (including self-government) will eventuall fall apart.  That's why we, as a people are responsible for upholding the Constitution by educating and promoting ideals that are based on liberty.  The Constitution, ITSELF, can't prevent totalitarianism, but the people can.  That's why the Constitution deliberately gives power to the people.  Of course, there are preconditions which must be met, namely the belief of the people in liberty, but that's exactly what we are doing with this r3volution.  We are educating and trying to get back to the basics.  

My main point, however, was that you are severely twisting Ron Paul's words.  You can't provide me with a quote where he confirmed that he is an anarchist, and I have just demonstrated why he acknowledges the failure of government, and AT THE SAME TIME, still believes government is better than no government.

And give it a rest, dude.  Nobody is slandering you.

Oh, and the utilitarian argument is all I need.  Anyone who treats anarchy as anything more than an interesting idea is dreaming.  And your claim that all government is immoral is collectivist.  Your preconceived notion is that, in order for government to be moral, there must not be a state.  Where do you even get your morals from in the first place?

----------


## Conza88

> The fact that you can't think of any way in which someone says something you agree with and yet doesn't believe in anarchy demonstrates your preconceived notions.  You can point to some things where Ron Paul says some things you agree with (duh), but you can't actually link me to a portion where he says he believes there should be no state or that he believes in anarchy.  Voluntarism isn't the same thing.  I've seen that video you gave me, and I find it laughable that you would think that suggests he believes in no government.  He's talking about his moral principles REGARDING GOVERNMENT, not regarding no government.


Self-government is voluntarism. Self-government is a synonymous for anarcho-capitalism, private law society, anti-monopolism etc. He EXPLICITLY denies using force in anyway. He says taxation is all theft. Of course constitutionalists/minarchists claim that; and yet Ron Paul has EXPLICITLY said his end goal is self-government IN CONTRAST / COMPARED TO the Constitution...   




> Of course, he is right about the Constitution, and I agree with him that pretty much every single form of government (including self-government) will eventuall fall apart.  That's why we, as a people are responsible for upholding the Constitution by educating and promoting ideals that are based on liberty.  The Constitution, ITSELF, can't prevent totalitarianism, but the people can.  That's why the Constitution deliberately gives power to the people.  Of course, there are preconditions which must be met, namely the belief of the people in liberty, but that's exactly what we are doing with this r3volution.  We are educating and trying to get back to the basics.


You don't know what self-government is. That's not my problem. You are the one who is taking what he says, and twisting it to your meaning. *Self-government ≠ constitutionalism/minarchism. *  




> My main point, however, was that you are severely twisting Ron Paul's words.  You can't provide me with a quote where he confirmed that he is an anarchist, and I have just demonstrated why he acknowledges the failure of government, and AT THE SAME TIME, still believes government is better than no government.


When he has rejected the use of "anarchism", it was because he was being asked from a statist perspective. Their definition of the word they were using, what they meant when they asked him was "chaos". The libertarians who choose to use it (misguidedly) don't define it that way. Mises also rejected _the label_. It is the LABEL they are rejecting NOT the idea, of a society without rulers. No rulers does not mean no rules. It doesn't mean chaos. "GOVERNMENT PLANNING IS CHAOS" that is Ron Paul's words, not mine.

You demonstrated nothing. *Self-government ≠ constitutionalism/minarchism.* That's according to Ron Paul. To twist that into meaning the same thing is bs. 




> Oh, and the utilitarian argument is all I need.  Anyone who treats anarchy as anything more than an interesting idea is dreaming.  And your claim that all government is immoral is collectivist.  Your preconceived notion is that, in order for government to be moral, there must not be a state.  Where do you even get your morals from in the first place?


The utilitarian argument is invalid. Collectivist? What a demented notion, _says the guy who fails in using methodological individualism._ 

_"As regards the utilitarian position, the proof contains its ultimate refutation. It demonstrates that simply in order to propose the utilitarian position, exclusive rights of control over ones body and ones homesteaded goods already must be presupposed as valid. More specifically, as regards the consequentialist aspect of libertarianism, the proof shows its praxeological impossibility: the assignment of rights of exclusive control cannot be dependent on certain outcomes. One could never act and propose anything unless private property rights existed prior to a later outcome. A consequentialist ethic is a praxeological absurdity. Any ethic must instead be aprioristic or instantaneous in order to make it possible that one can act here and now and propose this or that rather than having to suspend acting until later. Nobody advocating a wait-for-the-outcome ethic would be around to say anything if he took his own advice seriously. Also, to the extent that utilitarian proponents are still around, they demonstrate through their actions that their consequentialist doctrine is and must be regarded as false. Acting and proposition-making require private property rights now and cannot wait for them to be assigned only later." - HHH, pg 354, Economics and Ethics of Private Property_
I get my ethics within political philosophy from argumentation ethics, and natural law. I get my personal morals from various sources, Aristotle amongst others.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Oh, and the utilitarian argument is all I need.


 Utilitarian arguments always fail because 1) they lack morality 2) they discount reality.  3) they cannot be applied consistently.  You definitely need more than the argument from utility if you want to convince any significant amount of people.  For example, the Utilitarian can say x (say "x" is dismembering children for argument's sake) is good _because it is legal_.  This is absurd.

----------


## ProIndividual

All -archists (min- or an-) please read this post:

I got banned from chat for NO reason after being attacked for a half hour for statements like "MOST (not all) politicians are liars"

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...an-)-read-this

----------


## Conza88

Still yet to see a solid attempt at justifying the state...

----------


## Conza88

Explicit reference to the Austrian Economists... and the individuals he has read and studied about the concept of liberty. i.e spreading the message .

----------


## Sola_Fide

Austrian economics does not imply Libertarianism.  Austrian economics is a descriptive science.  If a tyrant wanted to impoverish his people, he should listen to his Austrian advisors, they could tell him exactly how to do it.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Explicit reference to the Austrian Economists... and the individuals he has read and studied about the concept of liberty. i.e spreading the message .


 Actually, that was an implicit reference. ("The economists I listen to")

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Austrian economics does not imply Libertarianism.  Austrian economics is a descriptive science.  If a tyrant wanted to impoverish his people, he should listen to his Austrian advisors, they could tell him exactly how to do it.


 True.  Economics is value-free.

----------


## Conza88

> Austrian economics does not imply Libertarianism.  Austrian economics is a descriptive science.  If a tyrant wanted to impoverish his people, he should listen to his Austrian advisors, they could tell him exactly how to do it.


*Obviously.* And yet all those he refers to are also libertarians. It's not a stretch. He reads Lew Rockwell daily. Elsewhere he's given you recommended reading; Abolish Government by Spooner, Democracy: God that Failed by Hoppe etc...




> Actually, that was an implicit reference. ("The economists I listen to")


Yes, ok. Who are the Austrian's... lol

----------


## Jake Ralston

> Still yet to see a solid attempt at justifying the state...


Why does it matter? Not everything in this world is just. Maybe you should come to terms with that.

----------


## Conza88

> Why does it matter? Not everything in this world is just. Maybe you should come to terms with that.


No, see I have. YOU are the one who needs to come to terms with that. If you, and the other "supporters" do, then there will be nothing to talk about. It's up to you to accept though. Will you?

----------


## Jake Ralston

> No, see I have. YOU are the one who needs to come to terms with that. If you, and the other "supporters" do, then there will be nothing to talk about. It's up to you to accept though. Will you?


Obviously you haven't. Your entire life is dedicated to abolishing the "unjust" State and you spend countless hours reading the works of philosophers who's work will never come to fruition. It's all based on morality, justice, what is "right" vs wrong, etc. You have embarked on a fools quest. 

What can you do to help us get Ron Paul elected? Obviously your a Canadian or Brit or Australian or whatever you are. Can you help us?

FYI- Manipulating quotes, and misrepresented Ron in the name of Anarchy or Anarcho-Capitalism will only damage his campaign. I don't care how true you claim or believe it is. Ron mentions nothing about it to the media and is not running on it. He is more intelligent than you, hence his success and your failure. So why don't you either help us out, or get out of the way. Mises has a plenty of forum space for you to unleash your Anarcho-Insanity, it isn't helpful here.

----------


## Conza88

> Obviously you haven't. Your entire life is dedicated to abolishing the "unjust" State and you spend countless hours reading the works of philosophers who's work will never come to fruition. It's all based on morality, justice, what is "right" vs wrong, etc. You have embarked on a fools quest.


I've embarked on a quest to understand reality. As a result of that I am championing justice; I support virtue. In turn, that leads to happiness. I will eventually found a company that will be a = http://libertarianpapers.org/2009/12...re-of-liberty/ based in Oz.




> What can you do to help us get Ron Paul elected? Obviously your a Canadian or Brit or Australian or whatever you are. Can you help us?


By making videos / influencing yank voters. Which I have already done.. since I keep getting "thanks" from those who see my Obama vs RP video. 




> FYI- Manipulating quotes, and misrepresented Ron in the name of Anarchy or Anarcho-Capitalism will only damage his campaign. I don't care how true you claim or believe it is. Ron mentions nothing about it to the media and is not running on it. He is more intelligent than you, hence his success and your failure. So why don't you either help us out, or get out of the way. Mises has a plenty of forum space for you to unleash your Anarcho-Insanity, it isn't helpful here.


Yeah, accept that he's a voluntarist / anarcho-capitalist according to his own words (which he is).. and I have no need to continue to defend such a notion (the truth). Your choice.

----------


## Travlyr

> I've embarked on a quest to understand reality.


I definitely agree that this would be a worthwhile project if you can do it.

----------


## Jake Ralston

> I've embarked on a quest to understand reality.


Yea but I don't think reality and Anarchy have a very good relationship with each other.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

Hi statists!  Address the topic or admit that you cannot.  

For your information, your continued efforts to make this thread about personalities rather than addressing the topic is as transparent as Saran-wrap, and the only people buying it are the likes of yourselves.  

If I were you, I'd bow out and stop revealing my ignorance...

----------


## erowe1

> Yea but I don't think reality and Anarchy have a very good relationship with each other.


That depends on what you mean by anarchy.

If anarchy means that there do not exist any people on earth who have a special right to rule over other people without their consent, then anarchy and reality are on quite good terms, since, by that definition, anarchy is simply what the world truly is.

----------


## Travlyr

> If I were you, I'd bow out and stop revealing my ignorance...


Indeed we are trying.

If you believe anarchy is the right way to achieve liberty, then why are you in defensive mode rather than marketing mode. For example, why not buy a full page ad in the New York Times stating:

*Anarchists Wanted*
As anarchists we want to abolish the state. We want the U.S. Constitution of No Authority to be burned ... never to be resurrected.  Anarchists will work to destroy the State of Utah and all the rest of the 50 States of America. Join our movement today!

Can you get a big enough chip-in to do that, Son?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

lol

Travlyr, do you have an answer to the OP?  A logically consistent and principled argument in favor of the state?  If not, please say so, then bow out of the thread.  Otherwise, you are trolling.

----------


## Travlyr

> lol
> 
> Travlyr, do you have an answer to the OP?  A logically consistent and principled argument in favor of the state?  If not, please say so, then bow out of the thread.  Otherwise, you are trolling.


Lol... yes, page 3 post 23 of this thread.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3427742

----------


## erowe1

> Lol... yes, page 3 post 23 of this thread.
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3427742


Before I click, I'm saying in my head, "Please don't be that silly line about keeping deeds at the county courthouse."

Edit: Nope. At least you were honest here.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

Say good-bye, Travlyr.  You're just trolling this thread.

----------


## Travlyr

> Before I click, I'm saying in my head, "Please don't be that silly line about keeping deeds at the county courthouse."
> 
> Edit: Nope. At least you were honest here.


I've always been honest. There is no post on this forum or any written piece in the last 40 years where I have been dishonest. I have been wrong plenty of times... but never dishonest.

----------


## Travlyr

> Say good-bye, Travlyr.  You're just trolling this thread.


Good-bye, Son.

----------


## Wesker1982

> I've always been honest. There is no post on this forum or any written piece in the last 40 years where I have been dishonest. I have been wrong plenty of times... but never dishonest.


What I quoted you saying in this post is definitely dishonest

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3413217

----------


## MaxPower

> Ah, Conza.  How wonderful to have you back just in time for you to piss off primary voters.
> 
> It seems to me that you of all people would understand that if you want to limit the state, you have to first establish a state with defined limits.  This codified the limitations of the state into law, philosophy and national definition of character.  Without these things, any charlaitan who can gain the confidence of the people can create a state around himself which gives him or her unlimited power.  Just like James Jones of Jonestown.  Just like Idi Amin Dada.  Just as has happened in the really really world time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again.  And you can't argue logically against it, because there's no logical reason for it.  All you can do is acknowledge that human nature abhors a vacuum, and so this has happened time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again.
> 
> The U.S. Constitution has been a major speed bump in the road to tyranny for two hundred years.  No nation has rushed toward tyranny more slowly in our lifetimes than the one with the U.S. Constitution.  And we and Ron Paul are poised to use the U.S. Constitution to set back the cause of tyranny two hundred years--right now.  Which would certainly be better than letting charismatic psychopaths do away with this Constitution, this philosophy, this speed bump in the road to tyranny as has been done around the world time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again.
> 
> So, point to Somalia and tell us again all about how they were better off than us--for about five minutes.  I'll be here--yawning.
> 
> Nothing has done more to codify and preserve semi-ancapism in the world than the United States Constitution.  Nothing.  Anywhere.  Ever.  So excuse me while I try to preserve, protect and defend it.  With or without your help.
> ...


Good post. The Constitution is quite flawed, and does not go nearly so far as I would like, but it actually is about the best bulwark that has ever stood against tyranny. Many here will invariably point to all the ways in which the Constitution has been violated and broken down such that the State has grown anyway, and they have a point; but what they are missing is that all of these expansions of government would have happened anyway without the Constitution, and in fact would have been far more swift and severe were it not there impeding them. The Constitution has been on our side in most every "big-government-versus-small-government" conflict which has come up since the 1780s, such that the supporters of big government have had to fight tooth and nail for most every inch of power they have usurped, and have sometimes had it taken back from them.

Under Bush, what was the popular unifying rallying point against the PATRIOT Act, indefinite detention, etc.? It was the Constitution. What, now, is the unifying rallying point against ObamaCare, bail-outs and stimulus packages and everything else the current president is doing to expand the State? It is the Constitution. Have you ever, in your lifetime, heard the Constitution used as a rallying point for a _pro_-government-growth policy? Certainly not; at best, the expansionists will try to squeeze out some interpretation whereby their usurpation is _"acceptable"_ under the Constitution- even they don't try to argue that the Constitution mandates it. The Constitution is a stumbling block for big government, and it is about the best there has ever been in that regard. 

It is true that in a time of perceived crisis, the law will often go by the wayside in the name of self-preservation, but note that it was because of the Constitution that the Alien and Sedition Acts were subsequently repealed under Jefferson, the dictatorial role of the presidency was (at least temporarily) revoked after the Civil War, Wilson's power grabs were repealed under Harding, and even FDR, the biggest usurper of all, was, at times, significantly impeded in his plans _by the Constitution_. The Constitution is an obstacle for usurpers to surmount, and though some of them have done so, they have been slowed and sometimes even ultimately turned back in the process.

Let us imagine that the State is like a cancer. Now, it may be the case that one would be best off with absolutely no cancer cells in his or her body, but, in lieu of a _cure_ for said disease, it seems quite wise to me to focus on limiting it, stopping it from spreading, and keeping one's tumors small and manageable as possible; in fact, if this is done well enough, one can achieve a state which does _strongly resemble_ that of a cancer-free individual. So, _as long as we have this cancer,_ is it not wise to focus on fighting its spread, trying to contain and shrink it where it already exists?

----------


## Conza88

> Good post. The Constitution is quite flawed, and does not go nearly so far as I would like, but it actually is about the best bulwark that has ever stood against tyranny. Many here will invariably point to all the ways in which the Constitution has been violated and broken down such that the State has grown anyway, and they have a point; *but what they are missing is that all of these expansions of government would have happened anyway without the Constitution*, and in fact would have been far more swift and severe were it not there impeding them. The Constitution has been on our side in most every "big-government-versus-small-government" conflict which has come up since the 1780s, such that the supporters of big government have had to fight tooth and nail for most every inch of power they have usurped, and have sometimes had it taken back from them.


Ahhh, *noo....* What part of the US Constitution _increasing_ the size of government is not understood? The articles of confederation...?

Everything that follows is _irrelevant_. The US Constitution increased the size of the state. _It made EVERYTHING afterwards possible._ To say otherwise is to completely ignore it's origin.

----------


## Revolution9

> Hi statists!  Address the topic or admit that you cannot.  
> 
> .


The issue has been addressed numerous times with much efficacy, elucidation and erudite commentary. The problem is the libertine reprobates inhabiting the dungeons of anarchic philosophy have decided to promptly ignore those, revert to their brand of political psychobabble and claim no idea or philosophy has breached the walls of their sandcastle in the surf. Entirely dishonest..but what do you expect from anarchist trollers who just cannot shut up about their fascination with their mental masturbatory diatribe that is entirely incapable of being implemented to the good of any community without the integration of some other form of political philosophy whose environs and methods would resemble a state, which they claim is psychopathic and violent. However, it appears that anarchists as tools of the central bankers are the ones whose implementation of violence is psychopathic as they do not care about the innocent inflicted upon by their actions. (see the London riots for example and all those burnt out of their apartments/homes by the anarchists torching the businesses below) Apparently anybody who does not support the community and society <snark>of the anarchists state is a psychopath under their definition by rote and verse.

I am hardly impressed with this gaggle of paltroons and their boobocracy driven paradigms.

Rev9

----------


## Revolution9

> Ahhh, *noo....* What part of the US Constitution _increasing_ the size of government is not understood? The articles of confederation...?
> 
> Everything that follows is _irrelevant_. The US Constitution increased the size of the state. _It made EVERYTHING afterwards possible._ To say otherwise is to completely ignore it's origin.


This answer is proof positive of why you guys fail so hard yet like the garbage truck running at Trinity in The Matrix you drive right into the brick wall whilst thinking yer taking out yer target. But don't worry Conza..one of your crew will be here to scrape you from the brick wall you hit and continue this line of horse$#@! as though you have never had umpteen mishaps on your route to pure failure through lack of proper thought experiment revolving around the actual way in which the world works, with actual real people doing real things and living real lives.

Yer Pal
Rev9

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> The issue has been addressed numerous times with much efficacy, elucidation and erudite commentary. The problem is the libertine reprobates inhabiting the dungeons of anarchic philosophy have decided to promptly ignore those, revert to their brand of political psychobabble and claim no idea or philosophy has breached the walls of their sandcastle in the surf. Entirely dishonest..but what do you expect from anarchist trollers who just cannot shut up about their fascination with their mental masturbatory diatribe that is entirely incapable of being implemented to the good of any community without the integration of some other form of political philosophy whose environs and methods would resemble a state, which they claim is psychopathic and violent. However, it appears that anarchists as tools of the central bankers are the ones whose implementation of violence is psychopathic as they do not care about the innocent inflicted upon by their actions. (see the London riots for example and all those burnt out of their apartments/homes by the anarchists torching the businesses below) Apparently anybody who does not support the community and society <snark>of the anarchists state is a psychopath under their definition by rote and verse.
> 
> I am hardly impressed with this gaggle of paltroons and their boobocracy driven paradigms.
> 
> Rev9


So I'll take that as a no, then.  Good enough.  You've made your views known.  Seems like at this point, you can leave the thread and let the adults handle the discussion from here.  

...it's like having a discussion with a thesaurus...

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> This answer is proof positive of why you guys fail so hard yet like the garbage truck running at Trinity in The Matrix you drive right into the brick wall whilst thinking yer taking out yer target. But don't worry Conza..one of your crew will be here to scrape you from the brick wall you hit and continue this line of horse$#@! as though you have never had umpteen mishaps on your route to pure failure through lack of proper thought experiment revolving around the actual way in which the world works, with actual real people doing real things and living real lives.
> 
> Yer Pal
> Rev9


Don't you all just love the violent imagery the likes of this guy uses?  Seems like he can't make a sound point, unless it has to do with shooting someone, kickin' some butt, or driving a garbage truck through someone.  Grr... I'm an internet tough guy!  RAWR!  Watch out while I lay the smack down!  <RAGE!!11!>

----------


## Travlyr

> What I quoted you saying in this post is definitely dishonest
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3413217


I wish you could understand English. I was wrong by making that statement but it was an honest mistake which I admitted immediately following. 
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3413242

----------


## Travlyr

> The issue has been addressed numerous times with much efficacy, elucidation and erudite commentary. The problem is the libertine reprobates inhabiting the dungeons of anarchic philosophy have decided to promptly ignore those, revert to their brand of political psychobabble and claim no idea or philosophy has breached the walls of their sandcastle in the surf. Entirely dishonest..but what do you expect from anarchist trollers who just cannot shut up about their fascination with their mental masturbatory diatribe that is entirely incapable of being implemented to the good of any community without the integration of some other form of political philosophy whose environs and methods would resemble a state, which they claim is psychopathic and violent. However, it appears that anarchists as tools of the central bankers are the ones whose implementation of violence is psychopathic as they do not care about the innocent inflicted upon by their actions. (see the London riots for example and all those burnt out of their apartments/homes by the anarchists torching the businesses below) Apparently anybody who does not support the community and society <snark>of the anarchists state is a psychopath under their definition by rote and verse.
> 
> I am hardly impressed with this gaggle of paltroons and their boobocracy driven paradigms.
> 
> Rev9


This is exactly what is going on here in these threads.

----------


## Conza88

> This answer is proof positive of why you guys fail so hard yet like the garbage truck running at Trinity in The Matrix you drive right into the brick wall whilst thinking yer taking out yer target. But don't worry Conza..one of your crew will be here to scrape you from the brick wall you hit and continue this line of horse$#@! as though you have never had umpteen mishaps on your route to pure failure through lack of proper thought experiment revolving around the actual way in which the world works, with actual real people doing real things and living real lives.
> 
> Yer Pal
> Rev9


The only way you can say the purpose of the US Constitution is to limit the size of the state; is by denying how it first came into being.

To deny reality. To be guilty of logical fallacy. Compared to the Articles of Confederation; the US Constitution was an increase in the size of government... TO THEN SAY ALL THE PROBLEMS THAT CAME ABOUT OF THIS; THAT THE US CONSTITUTION IS "A LIMITER" is absurd.

It's called mythology. It's called cognitive dissonance. It's called intellectual error.

You are guilty as charged. But once again; just more bs about me with no valid arguments. Pretty violent stuff Rev.. would you hire a gang of people called 'the government' to force me into your system?

How about do it yourself? Rev? *Would you put a gun to my head and pull the trigger if I didn't obey your threats?*

No? You wouldn't hire a gang of criminals writ large (government) to come force me into your system? You wouldn't put the trill yourself? No? Then what is your problem?  Save your pathetic tough man rants, grow up and act like an adult.

----------


## Revolution9

> So I'll take that as a no, then.  Good enough.  You've made your views known.  Seems like at this point, you can leave the thread and let the adults handle the discussion from here.  
> 
> ...it's like having a discussion with a thesaurus...


Apparently the use of multisyllabics renders you incompetent, yet you have the temerity to insist adults handle the discussion as though you qualified irregardless of your inability to properly parse sentences that use words with multiple syllables.

I am to take this juvenile horse$#@! seriously??

Yer Pal
Rev9.

----------


## Revolution9

> The only way you can say the purpose of the US Constitution is to limit the size of the state; is by denying how it first came into being.
> 
> To deny reality. To be guilty of logical fallacy. Compared to the Articles of Confederation; the US Constitution was an increase in the size of government... TO THEN SAY ALL THE PROBLEMS THAT CAME ABOUT OF THIS; THAT THE US CONSTITUTION IS "A LIMITER" is absurd.
> 
> It's called mythology. It's called cognitive dissonance. It's called intellectual error.
> 
> You are guilty as charged. But once again; just more bs about me with no valid arguments.


Loop the loop rhetoric is standard for your contingent. Typical deflection and obfuscation with dead end alley propositions that are asked to be refuted when on the face of the claim they make it is a closed loop all gussied up like some two bit drag queen hooker. Might fool those drunken by this bogus political philosophy who see the icon of their fantasies, but for those who remain sober to the realities of the real world it looks like a frakking man in a dress. The Constitution is a limiter. This is a real world analyzable truth and all the mental gymnastics and fingerpointing you can come up with does not change this. Neither does your appeal to the manner in which it came into being alter that fact.

Feel free to jump up and down and gesticulate wildly. The alpha or beta simian in you will adore your antics.

Yer Pal
Rev9

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Apparently the use of multisyllabics renders you incompetent, yet you have the temerity to insist adults handle the discussion as though you qualified irregardless of your inability to properly parse sentences that use words with multiple syllables.
> 
> I am to take this juvenile horse$#@! seriously??
> 
> Yer Pal
> Rev9.


Take it however you want, pal.  For instance, I take it that your "use of multisyllabics" and your tendency to weave rambling thoughts with poor and/or misplaced metaphors is intended to mask the fact that you're... well... just not very good at this sort of thing.  There's nothing wrong with that, but throw in the the tough-guy act and it gets pretty silly.  

You haven't made a single point nor contributed to the thread in any way other than to attempt to derail it and to cast personal attacks.  

Don't take it any way at all, Rev9.  If you can't contribute to the thread, leave it the hell alone.

----------


## Travlyr

> Take it however you want, pal.  For instance, I take it that your "use of multisyllabics" and your tendency to weave rambling thoughts with poor and/or misplaced metaphors is intended to mask the fact that you're... well... just not very good at this sort of thing.  There's nothing wrong with that, but throw in the the tough-guy act and it gets pretty silly.  
> 
> You haven't made a single point nor contributed to the thread in any way other than to attempt to derail it and to cast personal attacks.  
> 
> Don't take it any way at all, Rev9.  If you can't contribute to the thread, leave it the hell alone.


I completely disagree with you Son of Liberty. His points are spot-on. Your inability to understand is the source of your confusion.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I completely disagree with you Son of Liberty. His points are spot-on. Your inability to understand is the source of your confusion.


I "understand" as much as there is to understand.  I can imagine that you do agree with his points, in that his "points" are nothing more than hyped up insults, and attempts to deflect a perfectly good discussion because he and you are apparently offended by it.

There's no place in the discussion for you and he to be personally offended by the _topic_.  If you don't care for the topic, leave it alone.

Not once have you or he even so much as attempted to discuss the OP.  You irrationally hate _anarchism_.  Irrationally.  As in, you cannot substantiate it.  If you could, you would deal with the OP.

----------


## Travlyr

> I "understand" as much as there is to understand.  I can imagine that you do agree with his points, in that his "points" are nothing more than hyped up insults, and attempts to deflect a perfectly good discussion because he and you are apparently offended by it.
> 
> There's no place in the discussion for you and he to be personally offended by the _topic_.  If you don't care for the topic, leave it alone.
> 
> *Not once have you or he even so much as attempted to discuss the OP.*  You irrationally hate _anarchism_.  Irrationally.  As in, you cannot substantiate it.  If you could, you would deal with the OP.


Baloney, you just live in a fantasy world of games. The state is reality. 
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3427742

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Baloney, you just live in a fantasy world of games. The state is reality. 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3427742


Yeah.  I remember that one.  Awesome post.



It's not a "world of games".  Again, this is the PHILOSOPHY sub-forum.  You seem repulsed by philosophical discussions.  If I were you, I'D avoid the PHILOSOPHY sub-forum.  

None of us are unaware of the fact that the state is reality.

----------


## Revolution9

> Don't you all just love the violent imagery the likes of this guy uses?  Seems like he can't make a sound point, unless it has to do with shooting someone, kickin' some butt, or driving a garbage truck through someone.  Grr... I'm an internet tough guy!  RAWR!  Watch out while I lay the smack down!  <RAGE!!11!>


Heh. You will get better at this if you keep trying. I have made more than enough sound points. Your ignorance of them is par for the course, as though i should just keep reiterating that which has already been pointed out, elucidated and been done with. Furthermore your heightened and incongruently violent sense of the nature of my metaphors and actual usage of such by myself is illustrative of the understanding and retention gap practiced by many of your contingent, leading to a plethora of nonsense and false accusations.

Rev9

----------


## A Son of Liberty

lol

----------


## Conza88

> The Constitution is a limiter. This is a real world analyzable truth and all the mental gymnastics and fingerpointing you can come up with does not change this.
> 
> Yer Pal
> Rev9


*"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_




. So, Rev - why am I & Ron Paul wrong? 
Do you have an argument; or will you continue to talk like some kind of deranged pirate?  Attacking me instead of the argument. Notice: you didn't answer any of my legitimate questions. Standard intellectual dishonesty.

----------


## ClayTrainor

Amusing to watch, to say the least.

----------


## Travlyr

> *"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_


That's for sure. Ron Paul is right on. The Constitution has to be enforced to be effective.

----------


## Conza88

> That's for sure. Ron Paul is right on. The Constitution has to be enforced to be effective.


By who? _(Word of warning: this is a "trap" ... so think long and hard about how you answer this one)_

----------


## Travlyr

> By who? _(Word of warning: this is a "trap" ... so think long and hard about how you answer this one)_


By each of us. The only rights any of us have are those we are willing to stand-up for.



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

----------


## Conza88

> By each of us. The only rights any of us have are those we are willing to stand-up for.


The only _de facto_ rights. Spot on. So while a piece of paper grants 'legal rights', it means absolutely nothing if they are illegitimate, or don't actually receive protection or respect in said society. Correct.

So how do we organise to protect our rights?




> 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.





> 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.



HT: Wesker1982 - Ron Paul and Private Courts (defence, arbitration etc.).

----------


## newbitech

and the AoC were an increase to the DoI.  So the $#@! what?  Once the anarchist dismantle the constitution, they will then go ahead and dismantle the AoC, on their way to dismantling the DoI, and finally feel comfortable in the throws of the Revolutionary war, where people actually did fight and die to change "the State".

Oh no!  A Declaration of Independence!  We can't have that!  It is the root of "the State"!

We have some honest anarchist, then we have people like COnza who are blaming the United States for problems on an island (AUstralia) that the people on these forums have no control over. 

Conza wants to put up this front like he is really getting in to Ron Paul and the Campaign for Liberty in the United states, but he only shows up when the spot light is on the Freedom Fighters in AMerica.

He likes to fancy himself as some kind of global freedom fighter, and its clear he doesn't give a crap about the campaign, ROn Paul, Ron Paul's philosophy, and the philosophy that this forum, and many hard working America;s are trying  embrace and teach to their neighbors.  

Instead, Conza attacks the very root and core of AMerica since he has YET to figure out what the real root issue is.  

It would be great if there was a true grassroots following around the globe COnza, but with folks like you ignoring your own problems in your own backyard, and further coming over to someone else's backyard and taking out your frustration on them, it won't happen.

Stand down Conza, watch as America once again leads the world back to liberty and freedom.  By your actions, that is what you expect, but your words betray your hypocrisy.  It is unfortunate, I'd love to see you make some inroads against Tyranny on your island.  But alas, you are waiting for America to lead, and since your only hope for anarchy seems to rely on people in another country doing something that you yourself are not willing to do in your own country, I fear you will eventually be disappointed.  

YOur only real hope is to disengage yourself and let the chips fall where they may.  I don't see you doing that either, because your anger and hatred for what AMerica has done to you personally will not allow you withhold your angst as you actively seek to piss off as many of your potential allies as you possibly can. 

Too bad you can't see that your request has been met in this thread over and over again.  Your form of dismissing opinions and commentary is no at all philosophical, argumentation, logically consistent, constructive, or conducive to any type of resolution.   You seek to frustrate and belittle anyone who does not share your opinion, and blind yourself from the truth of what anyone who disagree's with you may have to say.

Pathetic little troll, only worthy of confrontation as a means of limiting the damage you have become so adept at dishing out, and certainly worthy of defending against since your target and audience are the very demographic that the status quo in AMerica is attempting to manipulate.  You are the tool of the elite, the patsy, and my personal symbol of willful ignorance which I believe is a manifestation of the systematic commercial brainwashing of the world by the global banking cartel.  

Please, carry on =)

----------


## Travlyr

> The only _de facto_ rights. Spot on. So while a piece of paper grants 'legal rights', it means absolutely nothing if they are illegitimate, or don't actually receive protection or respect in said society. Correct.


The constitution and bill of rights do not grant rights. Our rights are inherent. The Bill of Rights states that those rights cannot be taken away.  




> So how do we organise to protect our rights?


It is up to each of us to stand-up for our rights. The only way one can do that is to learn what rights one possesses and defend them.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> and the AoC were an increase to the DoI.  So the $#@! what?  Once the anarchist dismantle the constitution, they will then go ahead and dismantle the AoC, on their way to dismantling the DoI, and finally feel comfortable in the throws of the Revolutionary war, where people actually did fight and die to change "the State".
> 
> Oh no!  A Declaration of Independence!  We can't have that!  It is the root of "the State"!
> 
> We have some honest anarchist, then we have people like COnza who are blaming the United States for problems on an island (AUstralia) that the people on these forums have no control over. 
> 
> Conza wants to put up this front like he is really getting in to Ron Paul and the Campaign for Liberty in the United states, but he only shows up when the spot light is on the Freedom Fighters in AMerica.
> 
> He likes to fancy himself as some kind of global freedom fighter, and its clear he doesn't give a crap about the campaign, ROn Paul, Ron Paul's philosophy, and the philosophy that this forum, and many hard working America;s are trying  embrace and teach to their neighbors.  
> ...


Well, gee, looky there... another half-page diatribe against Conza.

Was this post meant to Convince Me of Statism?

----------


## newbitech

> Well, gee, looky there... another half-page diatribe against Conza.
> 
> Was this post meant to Convince Me of Statism?


The point of this thread was not to convince anyone of statism, you know that, I know that, the OP knows that.  So let's stop playing games after 400 posts shall we?   The OP got his answer, yet the OP is still pushing the underlying reason for the post.  Let's talk about that underlying reason.  

If you or the OP want to discuss the Topic Facade, then stop ignoring and pretending like the OP hasn't been addressed, there is plenty of material on that.  I chose to address what I believe is the real topic of this thread.  If you'd like to respond to what I believe is the real topic, you can do that too.  I'd be happy to engage you in either of those discussion, but if your response is always gonna be some short thoughtless answer to what I type, then I'll just continue to pump out page after page of my thought stream for your reading pleasure.

----------


## Conza88

> and the AoC were an increase to the DoI.  So the $#@! what?  Once the anarchist dismantle the constitution, they will then go ahead and dismantle the AoC, on their way to dismantling the DoI, and finally feel comfortable in the throws of the Revolutionary war, where people actually did fight and die to change "the State".
> 
> Oh no!  A Declaration of Independence!  We can't have that!  It is the root of "the State"!


_Lew Rockwell: The Constitution would be a major improvement over what we have today. But we need to realize that the Constitution itself represented a major increase in government power over the Articles of Confederation, which would have served us quite well had it not been overthrown. I'm not impressed by the bunch that foisted the Constitution on us. They were really up to no good. We've all but forgotten that most everyone opposed it at the time. It only squeaked through once the Bill of Rights was tacked on. The Bill of Rights isn't perfect, but it at least had the advantage of spelling out what the government could not do. In a rather ingenious twist, even that has been perverted: it is now seen as a mandate for the federal government to tell lower orders of government what they cannot do, meaning that it ends up being a force for centralization. This is such a tragedy. If Patrick Henry could see what became of it, I'm sure he never would have tolerated it. The same might be true of Hamilton, for that matter. So long as we are talking about founding documents, the one that really deserves more attention is the Declaration of Independence. Now here is an inspiring document that shows us where we should go in the future!_ 



> It would be great if there was a true grassroots following around the globe COnza, but with folks like you ignoring your own problems in your own backyard, and further coming over to someone else's backyard and taking out your frustration on them, it won't happen.


I'm ignoring my own problems down under? Hahah, _so ignorant._ 




> Stand down Conza, watch as America once again leads the world back to liberty and freedom.  By your actions, that is what you expect, but your words betray your hypocrisy.
> 
> _*removed paragraphs of personal attacks and childish dribble only a simpleton reactionary clown could conjure up and consider valid*_


What nationalistic & fallacy riddled bs. Considering just *part of* what I've done (more than you)... I'd suggest my actions declare your words baseless & hallow. And it really is sad seeing someone filled with such invective.

----------


## Conza88

> It is up to each of us to stand-up for our rights. The only way one can do that is to learn what rights one possesses and defend them.


And to not re-impose an institution that can only exist by violating them. Hence, private defence agencies etc as Ron Paul says. Very good .

----------


## Conza88

> The point of this thread was not to convince anyone of statism, you know that, I know that, the OP knows that.  So let's stop playing games after 400 posts shall we?   The OP got his answer, yet the OP is still pushing the underlying reason for the post.  Let's talk about that underlying reason.  
> 
> If you or the OP want to discuss the Topic Facade, then stop ignoring and pretending like the OP hasn't been addressed, there is plenty of material on that.  I chose to address what I believe is the real topic of this thread.  If you'd like to respond to what I believe is the real topic, you can do that too.  I'd be happy to engage you in either of those discussion, but if your response is always gonna be some short thoughtless answer to what I type, then I'll just continue to pump out page after page of my thought stream for your reading pleasure.


There hasn't been a legitimate defense of the state presented yet. Attempts have been made for sure; and yet the arguments were invalid, or logic contradictory. If you beg to differ; please point them out.. I STILL NEED HELP

----------


## newbitech

> _Lew Rockwell: The Constitution would be a major improvement over what we have today. But we need to realize that the Constitution itself represented a major increase in government power over the Articles of Confederation, which would have served us quite well had it not been overthrown. I'm not impressed by the bunch that foisted the Constitution on us. They were really up to no good. We've all but forgotten that most everyone opposed it at the time. It only squeaked through once the Bill of Rights was tacked on. The Bill of Rights isn't perfect, but it at least had the advantage of spelling out what the government could not do. In a rather ingenious twist, even that has been perverted: it is now seen as a mandate for the federal government to tell lower orders of government what they cannot do, meaning that it ends up being a force for centralization. This is such a tragedy. If Patrick Henry could see what became of it, I'm sure he never would have tolerated it. The same might be true of Hamilton, for that matter. So long as we are talking about founding documents, the one that really deserves more attention is the Declaration of Independence. Now here is an inspiring document that shows us where we should go in the future!_ 
> 
> 
> I'm ignoring my own problems down under? Hahah, _so ignorant._ 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering just *part of* what I've done (more than you)... I'd suggest my actions declare your words baseless & hallow. And it really is sad seeing someone filled with such invective.


so what lew rockwell?  Back to Conza.  You accuse people of engaging in mythology, of being "guilty" of something since they support the Constitution as a means of limiting government.  

You accuse Ron Paul of the same, BUT WAIT!  You have a couple of out of context quotes from Ron Paul that allows you to give him a pass on this while burying everyone else who agrees with him.

It has been pointed out time and time again that you are using Ron Paul's words out of context, yet you CONTINUE TO DO SO!  What is wrong with you?  


So you have a youtube channel.  Great!  I have a list of people IN THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA who I have either persuaded or in the process of persuading OR ALL to either

1.) Switch party affiliation during the primaries to vote for Ron Paul
2.) Donate money to the Ron Paul FOR PRESIDENT campaign
3.) Actively go out in to the world, jobs, grocery stores, beaches, parks, to engage in the discussion of liberty and freedom IN AMERICA
4.) Completely changed their minds on a host of issues

So my list vs your Youtube channel?  I'll take my list all day every day.  I'm not the one who started measuring dicks for Ron Paul.  This is your fall back that you used 4 years ago.  It's like you have to put up this facade of support for Dr. Paul in order to legitimize your asinine anarchist position.

Here is a clue.  Start a movement in your own back yard.  Get a local meetup going somewhere in australia and find the best most consistent politician you can to fight for YOUR countries founding documents and RULE OF LAW.  Then I will be impressed and be convinced that you have actually DONE something for liberty where it counts.

YOUR OWN BACK YARD!

----------


## newbitech

> There hasn't been a legitimate defense of the state presented yet. Attempts have been made for sure; and yet the arguments were invalid, or logic contradictory. If you beg to differ; please point them out.. I STILL NEED HELP


BULL$#@!!  

You don't need help being convinced of "statism", what you need help with is bringing down the status quo in your own backyard.  STOP blaming America for your problems, and START looking for solutions where it counts.

YOUR OWN BACKYARD!

----------


## Jake Ralston

> Once the anarchist dismantle the constitution, they will then go ahead and dismantle the AoC, on their way to dismantling the DoI, and finally feel comfortable in the throws of the Revolutionary war, where people actually did fight and die to change "the State".


Conza isn't an American, so he has no respect for those who died in the Revolutionary War to give us our freedoms. 




> then we have people like COnza who are blaming the United States for problems on an island (AUstralia) that the people on these forums have no control over.


Great point!




> He likes to fancy himself as some kind of global freedom fighter, and its clear he doesn't give a crap about the campaign, ROn Paul, Ron Paul's philosophy, and the philosophy that this forum, and many hard working America;s are trying  embrace and teach to their neighbors.


You know, some of the most respected people on this forum have been saying this about Conza for a long time. He doesn't care, he has no respect. 




> It would be great if there was a true grassroots following around the globe COnza, but with folks like you ignoring your own problems in your own backyard, and further coming over to someone else's backyard and taking out your frustration on them, it won't happen.


Exactly. As soon as I found out this dude wasn't even American I totally wrote him off. It's like, why are you telling me what to do? How to live? 
Get your own affairs in order before you come pointing out my problems.




> Stand down Conza, watch as America once again leads the world back to liberty and freedom.  By your actions, that is what you expect, but your words betray your hypocrisy.  It is unfortunate, I'd love to see you make some inroads against Tyranny on your island.  But alas, you are waiting for America to lead, and since your only hope for anarchy seems to rely on people in another country doing something that you yourself are not willing to do in your own country, I fear you will eventually be disappointed.


Hahaha wow, so it really is Australia, huh? Things are really starting to make sense now. Unbelievable.




> YOur only real hope is to disengage yourself and let the chips fall where they may.  I don't see you doing that either, because your anger and hatred for what AMerica has done to you personally will not allow you withhold your angst as you actively seek to piss off as many of your potential allies as you possibly can.


What HAS "America" done to Conza personally, lol. Think about it, the guy hates America, the guy once complained about our military being over on his country. I'll tell you exactly what happened. A few U.S. sailors probably whooped his ass and took his girl a few years ago. Lol. How's that Non-Aggression Pact working out for you bro? Hilarious!




> Too bad you can't see that your request has been met in this thread over and over again.  Your form of dismissing opinions and commentary is no at all philosophical, argumentation, logically consistent, constructive, or conducive to any type of resolution.   You seek to frustrate and belittle anyone who does not share your opinion, and blind yourself from the truth of what anyone who disagree's with you may have to say.


Your exactly right. This Conza kid will never change his mind, he's a lost cause. And that's assuming you take him seriously. I'd say favor lends that he's nothing but an impotent internet troll, that got his ass whooped and his girl taken from him by a U.S. sailor or two.

Anyways, epic post newbitech. You hit the nail on the head and Conza boys only response was a Lew Rockwell quote and a sentence or two of rambling. Lol, this really is getting pathetic, oh well.

----------


## newbitech

So now you have changed what you wrote and I quoted after you wrote it.  Tailoring your words.

Call me nationalistic will ya? Go look up what your hero Rothbard has to say about this in National Self-Determination, maybe then you'll understand why your attack against me on that front falls flat.  

And it's too bad you aren't willing to address ALL of my post to you.  You call it childish simpleton whatever.  Par for the course for you.  You can pick and choose all you want, but changing context doesn't change circumstance.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> You know, some of the most respected people on this forum have been saying this about Conza for a long time. He doesn't care, he has no respect.


Maybe you just gotta beat it into him, according to your own words. 




> Haha nice one! But yea right on.* Sometimes a good 2 minute ass-whooping will fix an attitude* that could normally take years to correct. *I can think of a few here on this forum that could sure use one.* Perhaps then we would see a little more respect. *As I was always taught:*
> 
> Show respect for your elders.
> Pride comes before the fall. There is always someone bigger and stronger than you.
> 
> *20 years and half a dozen ass-whoopings later and i've learned a lot.*

----------


## ClayTrainor

hmmmmmmm I wonder why there's been such a strong and consistent trend towards voluntaryism with the members of this forum.




> It's okay.  I sincerely believe the reason there is such a strong and growing Voluntaryist presence on this board is not because of people like me who argue in favor of it, but moreso because of the obvious flaws in the arguments that are used to against it,* especially when they begin to get emotional.*
> 
> All we need to do is continue to ask the tough questions, and the truth will reveal itself to those who are curious enough to discover it. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh wait, no i don't.

----------


## newbitech

> hmmmmmmm I wonder why there's been such a strong and consistent trend towards voluntaryism with the members of this forum.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh wait, no i don't.


yeah, the sock puppets are hardly indistinguishable from the activist.

----------


## Jake Ralston

> hmmmmmmm I wonder why there's been such a strong and consistent trend towards voluntaryism with the members of this forum.


There hasn't. At all. 

30,810 Ron Paul Forum members. Take a look at this poll:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...5-Ancap-anyone

You have a whopping 25 declared Anarchists. 

Thousands upon thousands of RPF members don't even visit the Philosophy threads. They are actually here to support Ron Paul.

Believe it or not ( I am sure you will choose not) the Anarchists on this forum are a very small, but loud minority.

----------


## newbitech

for instance, here is a poll tailor made for anarchist

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...or-Other-(POLL)

Notice that a mere 26 forum members have decided they are anarchist/voluntarist/ancap/"self-government" (I only added self-government because that is the latest (not really, its old) anarchist distortion).

And here is a poll from 2009 that you started looking for real motivation for freedom.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/poll.ph...ts&pollid=3586

31 people voted for natural law.  

These polls are very similar in participation.

I think any increase you may see of a trend towards voluntarism/anacap/anarchy/"self-government"  is wishful thinking.

----------


## newbitech

> for instance, here is a poll tailor made for anarchist
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...or-Other-(POLL)
> 
> Notice that a mere 26 forum members have decided they are anarchist/voluntarist/ancap/"self-government" (I only added self-government because that is the latest (not really, its old) anarchist distortion).
> 
> And here is a poll from 2009 that you started looking for real motivation for freedom.
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/poll.ph...ts&pollid=3586
> ...


in fact, in the 2009 poll, only 8 people came out for the constitution.  Here in 2011, 3 times as many people came out for "minarchy".

if anything, I am convinced more people are starting to understand that there is a forum where people are actually advocating AGAINST the constitution contrary to Dr. Paul's campaign and are jumping in to show support of the constitutional stance, IN THIS FORUM.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> yeah, the sock puppets are hardly indistinguishable from the activist.


The thing about activists is, they can cite their activism. 




> I also played a central role in organizing and marketing Adam Kokesh's first money bomb when he ran for congress, which also just so happened to be his biggest.  The website is no longer up, but the video I made is...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I spent over 40 hours in one week working on that video.  I chose to work on it, instead of make money. (I'm a professional marketer, btw) 
> 
> I have donated to multiple chipin's, I have donated money to this forum, I have helped to create, pay for and host websites for certain friends of Ron Paul, including Michael Scheuers www.non-intervention.com.  I even donated my fully functional HP laptop to an activist on this forum who was in dire need of a new computer.  And these are just the things i can think of at the moment.

----------


## newbitech

> The thing about activists is, they can cite their activism.


I mean it's a youtube video posts.  You have no way of actually validating that you converted ANYONE or gained any support.  Yes you spread the message.  Great. What does that prove to someone who has a list of people who have changed party affiliation, donated money, started their own activist efforts, etc etc..

The only proof that any of us are effective is when Ron Paul or other liberty minded candidates win their elections and start representing the people.  

Great, thank you for helping to spread the message.  I do not take away from that.  But what is the point of the pissing contest?  LOCAL RESULTS are what counts!  Prove those!  If you are going to pull out the true supporter card, it's up to you to provide that evidence of your activism paying off.  I am sorry to say, but a public forum is not the place to compare conversion notes, and youtube views on the topic are not sufficient to prove results.  Case in point.  Ron Paul dominates the internet, what does any of us get from that in 2008?

----------


## ClayTrainor

> There hasn't. At all. 
> 
> 30,810 Ron Paul Forum members. Take a look at this poll:
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...5-Ancap-anyone
> 
> You have a whopping 25 declared Anarchists.


lol, you took a poll that was in the philosophy section that very few people read.  And laughingly so, WAYYYYYYYYYYYYY more people voted for anarchism than against it, so LOL!

And yea, that trend is far more consistent in recent years than it was in the early years.  (not that you would know since you joined only a couple months ago)





> They are actually here to support Ron Paul.







> Believe it or not ( I am sure you will choose not) the Anarchists on this forum are a very small, but loud minority.


Since virtually none of the polls in recent history of the forum show Minarchy having a strong lead, i think it's safe the say there's a trend.

More empirical evidence for you to reject.  http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...be-yourself-as

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I mean it's a youtube video posts.


Ugh no, it's far more than that.   Try reading other peoples posts sometime before making such blatantly false assertions. 




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


And ya, those youtube videos you so easily shrug off also drove large amounts of traffic to build email lists which were used to drive donations to political campaigns and chip-in efforts. This very easily verfiable if you don't believe me at my word.




> You have no way of actually validating that you converted ANYONE or gained any support.  Yes you spread the message.  Great. What does that prove to someone who has a list of people who have changed party affiliation, donated money, started their own activist efforts, etc etc..


Who says I don't have that too?  One things for sure, I've presented just as much evidence suggesting I have what you describe, as you have.




> The only proof that any of us are effective is when Ron Paul or other liberty minded candidates win their elections and start representing the people.


lol.  We're in for a world of hurt then.

----------


## newbitech

> lol, you took a poll that was in the philosophy section that very few people read.  And laughingly so, WAYYYYYYYYYYYYY more people voted for anarchism than against it, so LOL!
> 
> And yea, that trend is far more consistent in recent years than it was in the early years.  (not that you would know since you joined only a couple months ago)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nice poll.  I think the philosophy itself is very new and that attracts a lot of young people who are still in the process of defining their world view.  I think the philosophy also attracts a lot of older people in the process of changing their world view. 

I for one who never identify myself as any of these, simply because I know that the world and definitions are not static.  So regardless of what my philosophy is, I am always going to vote for "other" in this poll.

I appreciate and respect the philosophy, I just don't agree with the possibilities for implementation.  I have yet to hear anything remotely close to a solid plan of action based on this philosophy that will get results in a time frame that I consider to be agile and pragmatic.  This is important to me, because even though I am willing to give up my lifetime for future generations, I believe this root problem will be a recurring theme in the future and work needs to be done to develop an action plan that keeps the frog OUT of the boiling pot of water.  

So a 40-50 time horizon to turn things around is not sufficient, IMO.  I believe that through utilizing the constitutional republic form of government, the turn around time for results has a time horizon of 8-16 years.  

Unfortunately, Dr. Paul has not enjoyed the momentum and support that he has been giving this message, and I believe any discussion on his philosophy needs to answer that question in order for it to be considered "viable".  I am not attaching his philosophy or labeling it either, but I do believe the answer to that question will go a long way in to properly identifying where the man stands on the issues today.  It would be to easy to say that he stands in the exact same place that he stood 30-40 years ago, but I don't think that would be realistic.

The man was not born with the ideas he has, and he like any other, is capable of growing in his world view.  Sticking him or his philosophy with a label is short-sided at best.  It's like anarchy folks are trying to pigeon-hole everyone who supports Ron Paul in to believing in a philosophy that does not and cannot provide any viable actions inline with the goal of electing Ron Paul as President without forcing folks to feel like hypocrites.  I don't buy that, and neither should anyone, regardless of what philosophy you claim as true.

----------


## newbitech

> Ugh no, it's far more than that.   Try reading other peoples posts sometime before making such blatantly false assertions. 
> 
> 
> 
> And ya, those youtube videos you so easily shrug off also drove large amounts of traffic to build email lists which were used to drive donations to political campaigns and chip-in efforts. This very easily verfiable if you don't believe me at my word.
> 
> 
> 
> Who says I don't have that too?  One things for sure, I've presented just as much evidence suggesting I have what you describe, as you have.
> ...


Clay that is what it is.  I read your comments under the posts just now.  I am not discounting anything you did.  BUt really, what is the goal of your activism and everything you do?  That is my point.  Creating a list of all the things you did is one thing.  But the only list that matters IMO, is the list of people's names who vote, contribute cash, and actively participate in getting others to vote, send cash, and actively participate. 

If we have to compare what we have done, then the ruler should be those three things and the success and ability to achieve the same.  I take it one step further and say, OFFLINE~!

----------


## erowe1

> And yea, that trend is far more consistent in recent years than it was in the early years.  (not that you would know since you joined only a couple months ago)


I think everybody who has been here for awhile knows you're right about the trend. We've all seen people move in that direction.

When I became an RP supporter, I was a pretty typical conservative Republican, and I thought anarchist were absolutely crazy. I still don't consider myself an anarchist, but at least now when I use the label I don't mean it as a bad thing.

Actually I don't see a huge difference between anarchy and a republic. But a lot of the statists here like to say they are for a constitutional republic, when they really are just for the Constitution, including all the nonrepublican parts of it.

----------


## Wesker1982

> I wish you could understand English. I was wrong by making that statement but it was an honest mistake which I admitted immediately following.


I saw your post, I just don't believe that it was an honest mistake. I have had multiple long conversations answering questions for you, so unless you are senile (if so, my apologies!), it was intentionally dishonest.

----------


## Travlyr

> I saw your post, I just don't believe that it was an honest mistake. I have had multiple long conversations answering questions for you, so unless you are senile (if so, my apologies!), it was intentionally dishonest.


No it was not dishonest. You did avoid answering my question that day as evidenced by the posts. You still have not answered this question.

Where in the Constitutions do they say the purpose of the State is to provide security?
Articles & Sections please. 
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3410147

There is no dishonesty on my part. I admit that I am not infallible ... and I am not dishonest.

Maybe you could honor us with your answer now?

----------


## Wesker1982

> hmmmmmmm I wonder why there's been such a strong and consistent trend towards voluntaryism with the members of this forum.
> 
> Oh wait, no i don't.


This, lol. Sometimes I think that a few here arguing in favor of limited government are actually trying to promote Voluntaryism. 




> I don't spend hours debating with certain people here to necessarily change _their_ minds. It is nice if that happens, but I have no delusions about the stubborn cognitive dissonance and/or Stockholm syndrome that isn't likely to wither in some people. Watching other people debate each other about anarcho-libertarianism on the 2+2 forum is how my mind was changed too, btw. 
> 
> I really appreciate the discussion, though. The minarchists will probably lol at this, but thanks to them, I have an answer for everything now. I have had to ponder about certain criticisms that never even crossed my mind before some of the debates here occurred. It is so easy to get stuck in auto-pilot answering easy questions about roads or taxes that sometimes I forget that once in a while someone might actually come up with a criticism that I haven't addressed 10,000 times already. _That_ is the main reason why I post.
> 
> They have also inspired me to continually desire more knowledge in economics. At some point I figured out that many of the criticisms are based on many of the same economic fallacies that frustrate the minarchists _themselves_ when debating the average American. Oddly enough (but makes perfect sense now), studying economics, _not_ anarchist theory,  has helped me understand how a voluntary society would function.


_Another point: in my view, we are about as likely to achieve minarchy as we are to achieve anarchy. I.e., both are remote possibilities. What is striking is that almost every criticism of "impracticality" that minarchist hurl at anarchy is also true of minarchy itself. Both are exceedingly unlikely. Both require massive changes in views among millions of people. Both rest on presumptions that most people simply don't care much about._- Stephan Kinsella 




> I appreciate and respect the philosophy, I just don't agree with the possibilities for implementation.  I have yet to hear anything remotely close to a solid plan of action based on this philosophy that will get results in a time frame that I consider to be agile and pragmatic.  This is important to me, because even though I am willing to give up my lifetime for future generations, I believe this root problem will be a recurring theme in the future and work needs to be done to develop an action plan that keeps the frog OUT of the boiling pot of water.


If I didn't know any better, this post could be about limited government.

----------


## Wesker1982

> You did avoid answering my question that day as evidenced by the posts.


But *this is not what you claimed*. Are you making an honest mistake now, or being dishonest? 




> You never answer the questions.


Notice the plural form here. And also note that you said never. This post claims I never answer the multiple questions you present. Now you are claiming that you really meant that I only avoided one question and it only happened once.

You cannot get these two statements confused. It was a dishonest statement and being dishonest in attempts to defend it only makes it more apparent that you are indeed dishonest. I have had multiple long conversations with you and although we disagree on a lot, I have been nice to you. Not only have I done nothing to deserve dishonesty from you, it also makes you appear insecure in your beliefs because if you were confident in the validity of your position, you would not have to resort to dishonesty.

My advice would be that if you cannot participate in these type of discussions without getting emotional, you should avoid them.

----------


## newbitech

> If I didn't know any better, this post could be about limited government.


Of course, you want anarchy.  No amount of government is acceptable to you.  If you actually accepted limited government as a satisfactory and valid outcome to your efforts, the plan of action and implementation would become crystal clear.  Since you want 0 government, and reject limiting government, any plan to limit government to reduce it to anything other than 0 is not solid, agile, pragmatic, possible to implement or have an acceptable time frame.  

Yet, you will continue to push the philosophy even if it conflicts with a limited government philosophy in the realm of actions.

----------


## Travlyr

> But *this is not what you claimed*. Are you making an honest mistake now, or being dishonest? 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice the plural form here. And also note that you said never. This post claims I never answer the multiple questions you present. Now you are claiming that you really meant that I only avoided one question and it only happened once.
> 
> You cannot get these two statements confused. It was a dishonest statement and being dishonest in attempts to defend it only makes it more apparent that you are indeed dishonest. I have had multiple long conversations with you and although we disagree on a lot, I have been nice to you. Not only have I done nothing to deserve dishonesty from you, it also makes you appear insecure in your beliefs because if you were confident in the validity of your position, you would not have to resort to dishonesty.
> 
> My advice would be that if you cannot participate in these type of discussions without getting emotional, you should avoid them.


The proof is in the pudding. The video you posted claimed that the "State exists to provide security."  I asked where in the constitution is that claim made. You never answered. That claim is a dishonest claim by you unless you can back it up.

So I ask again.

Where in the Constitutions do they say the purpose of the State is to provide security?
Articles & Sections please.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3410147

----------


## ClayTrainor

> The proof is in the pudding. The video you posted claimed that the "State exists to provide security."  I asked where in the constitution is that claim made. You never answered. That claim is a dishonest claim by you unless you can back it up.


Been over this many times. 




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






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





> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, *provide for* the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, *and secure the Blessings of Liberty* to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

----------


## CCTelander

> Been over this many times.


And STILL no reasonable answer. Not that I ever expected you to get one, but...

----------


## ClayTrainor

> And STILL no reasonable answer. Not that I ever expected you to get one, but...


After calling him out for avoiding that question (among many others) several times, he finally took the time to answer it by setting up a straw man.  Here was his answer.




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





> AS you can see, this is in no way an actual answer to my question, but is in fact just a straw-man.  Nothing about my question implies that I ever claimed the state was formed to provide police, redistribute wealth.  I am merely questioning him on a direct quote from the preamble of the constitution, and he completely dodged it by setting up a straw man.


So yea... Been there, done that.

----------


## CCTelander

> After calling him out for avoiding that question (among many others) several times, he finally took the time to answer it by setting up a straw man.  Here was his answer.
> 
> 
> Like I said, still no REASONABLE answer. That's why I seldom bother to respond at much length to Trav's ranting anymore. It gets old FAST.
> 
> 
> 
> So yea... Been there, done that.


Like I said, still no REASONABLE answer. That's why I seldom bother to respond at any length to Trav's rantings. He seldom if ever responds in a straightforward manner.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Like I said, still no REASONABLE answer. That's why I seldom bother to respond at any length to Trav's rantings. He seldom if ever responds in a straightforward manner.


You're right, but I do appreciate him constantly arguing against voluntaryist philosophy, because...





> I sincerely believe the reason there is such a strong and growing Voluntaryist presence on this board is not because of people like me who argue in favor of it, but moreso because of the obvious flaws in the arguments that are used to against it, especially when they begin to get emotional.
> 
> All we need to do is continue to ask the tough questions, and the truth will reveal itself to those who are curious enough to discover it. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...

----------


## Travlyr

Why doesn't Wesker answer the question? He is the one who posted the video.




> Originally Posted by Preamble of the constitution
> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


To secure the blessings of liberty is the security that Wesker was referring to at 22 seconds into the video?  Seriously?  Sounds more like he intended it to mean security teams to me. What did you mean by that Wesker?




> 


Or was the implication public security services vs. private security services? 


> All services, including security, are provided by competing private firms.


In any case, the purpose of the state is not to provide security. 

The State was not formed to redistribute wealth, provide police, or cradle to grave services. The primary purpose of the State is to organize property, rights, law, and justice.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> To secure the blessings of liberty is the security that Wesker was referring to at 22 seconds into the video?  Seriously?  Sounds more like he intended it to mean security teams to me.


At 22 seconds, the video is describing voluntaryism, not minarchism.  At 39 Seconds, it describes the Minarchist position.  Here's a screenshot.



And now back to the question that you've never bothered to answer, unless you count a strawman logical fallacy as an answer....




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








> The State was not formed to redistribute wealth, provide police, or cradle to grave services. The primary purpose of the State is to organize property, rights, law, and justice.


LMFAO!!!  Are you serious!?!?! This is the *exact same* straw man fallacy that you already committed! 




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





> AS you can see, this is in no way an actual answer to my question, but is in fact just a straw-man.  Nothing about my question implies that I ever claimed the state was formed to provide police, redistribute wealth.  I am merely questioning him on a direct quote from the preamble of the constitution, and he completely dodged it by setting up a straw man.

----------


## CCTelander

> Why doesn't Wesker answer the question? He is the one who posted the video.
> 
> 
> To secure the blessings of liberty is the security that Wesker was referring to at 22 seconds into the video?  Seriously?  Sounds more like he intended it to mean security teams to me. What did you mean by that Wesker?
> 
> 
> 
> Or was the implication public security services vs. private security services? 
> 
> ...


Once again, your argument makes no sense.

Every single thing you cite as legitimate purposes for the state do, in fact, amount to the provision of SOME FORM of security.

You just added the crap about redistributing wealth and cradle to grave service yourself. It's just another one of your straw men. Nobody else has even alluded to those things.

I really have difficulty believing that ANYONE could honestly be this obtuse. Nobody with a 3 digit IQ, anyway.

----------


## Travlyr

Again what is the problem with allowing Wesker answering questions about the video he posted?

----------


## CCTelander

> Again what is the problem with allowing Wesker answering questions about the video he posted?


No problem at all.

However, since this IS a "public" forum, there's also no problem with others chiming in as they see fit. That is the nature of Internet Forums after all.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Again what is the problem with allowing Wesker answering questions about the video he posted?


I'm sure Wesker can and will respond to your post if he wants, but since I've already completely exposed your "argument" by demonstrating chronoligically ordered quotes of you avoiding questions and building straw men I'm not sure it'd be worth his time to even bother.  But of course, I don't claim to speak for wesker.

You're asking about something that I've tried to talk and question you about at least a dozen times by now, in several threads.  As you know, I've chronologically quoted many of our conversations to quickly expose the arguments that you repeat ad-nauseum, and demonstrate how you avoid questions and, at best, build straw men to respond to them.  

Of course, I don't really need to even make this case.  The evidence already speaks for itself. 


So, Is it fair to say that you'll never give me a direct answer to my question (without committing a Straw Man Fallacy)?




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

----------


## Travlyr

> I'm sure Wesker can and will respond to your post if he wants, but since I've already completely exposed your "argument" by demonstrating chronoligically ordered quotes of you avoiding questions and building straw men.
> 
> You're asking about something that I've tried to talk and question you about at least a dozen times by now, in several threads.  As you know, I've chronologically quoted many of our conversations to quickly expose the arguments that you repeat ad-nauseum, and demonstrate how you avoid questions and, at best, build straw men to respond to them.  
> 
> Of course, I don't really need to even make this case.  The evidence already speaks for itself. 
> 
> 
> 
> So, Is it fair to say that you'll never give me a direct answer to my question (without committing a Straw Man Fallacy)?


Clay Trainor, I have lost all respect for you so this will be the last time I respond to anything you have to say.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Clay Trainor, I have lost all respect for you so this will be the last time I respond to anything you have to say.


Heh...  I'll wear that as a badge of honor. 

Rest assured I will continue to cite and demonstrate the glaring flaws and fallacies in your arguments, regardless of if you respond or not.  I'm already kinda used to you not answering my questions, so this really won't be any different for me.

----------


## Travlyr

> No problem at all.
> 
> However, since this IS a "public" forum, there's also no problem with others chiming in as they see fit. That is the nature of Internet Forums after all.


Chris, if you are serious about your philosophy, then why not be completely open and honest?

Start a chip-in to grow your movement on TV, radio, newsprint or some sort.

Something like this:
*Anarchists Wanted*
As anarchists we want to eliminate the State. We want to destroy the U.S. Constitution and the Constitutions of the 50 States in America. We have a better idea. Join us today.

I'm pretty sure that most homeowners will be like WTF? But, if you are honest... that is your goal, right?

----------


## CCTelander

> Chris, if you are serious about your philosophy, then why not be completely open and honest?
> 
> Start a chip-in to grow your movement on TV, radio, newsprint or some sort.
> 
> Something like this:
> *Anarchists Wanted*
> As anarchists we want to eliminate the State. We want to destroy the U.S. Constitution and the Constitutions of the 50 States in America. We have a better idea. Join us today.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that most homeowners will be like WTF? But, if you are honest... that is your goal, right?


I already AM completely open and honest about my philosophy.

This post seems like a veiled accusation of dishonesty to me.

But hey, carry on.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I already AM completely open and honest about my philosophy.
> 
> This post seems like a veiled accusation of dishonesty to me.
> 
> But hey, carry on.


Get ready for his "put up or shut up" argument.  My voluntaryist spidey sense is tingling.

----------


## Travlyr

> I already AM completely open and honest about my philosophy.
> 
> This post seems like a veiled accusation of dishonesty to me.
> 
> But hey, carry on.


What is dishonest about it?

----------


## CCTelander

> Get ready for his "put up or shut up" argument.  My voluntaryist spidey sense is tingling.


ROTFL! "Voluntaryist Spidey Sense!

----------


## CCTelander

> Get ready for his "put up or shut up" argument.  My voluntaryist spidey sense is tingling.


double post

----------


## CCTelander

> What is dishonest about it?


It seemed to be accusing ME of dishonesty.

But like I said, carry on.

----------


## Travlyr

> It seemed to be accusing ME of dishonesty.
> 
> But like I said, carry on.


Oh no. I was simply referring to the fact that if your philosophy is valid, then you should have no problem promoting it rather than defending it.

----------


## Conza88

> so what lew rockwell?  Back to Conza.  You accuse people of engaging in mythology, of being "guilty" of something since they support the Constitution as a means of limiting government.


I hold the exact same position as him. No, I get people to question the validity of their position - who think the Constitution is an END GOAL. Which as we both know is demented; and why the good Dr. doesn't accept it... for the reasons he has outlined many times.  




> You accuse Ron Paul of the same, BUT WAIT!  You have a couple of out of context quotes from Ron Paul that allows you to give him a pass on this while burying everyone else who agrees with him.
> 
> It has been pointed out time and time again that you are using Ron Paul's words out of context, yet you CONTINUE TO DO SO!  What is wrong with you?


The fact they're not out of context... the fact that I'm merely linking to a Ron Paul interview where he EXPLICITLY SPELLS IT OUT. 




*4+min* ... you know; there is a reason why you "guys" have never addressed this video; and instead pretend it doesn't exist.

Ron Paul makes the anarcho-capitalist/voluntarist/self-government argument right after where he says he supports self-government INSTEAD of a return to the constitution. His end goal is self-government. 




> So you have a youtube channel.  Great!  I have a list of people IN THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA who I have either persuaded or in the process of persuading OR ALL to either
> 
> 1.) Switch party affiliation during the primaries to vote for Ron Paul
> 2.) Donate money to the Ron Paul FOR PRESIDENT campaign
> 3.) Actively go out in to the world, jobs, grocery stores, beaches, parks, to engage in the discussion of liberty and freedom IN AMERICA
> 4.) Completely changed their minds on a host of issues
> 
> So my list vs your Youtube channel?  I'll take my list all day every day.  I'm not the one who started measuring dicks for Ron Paul.  This is your fall back that you used 4 years ago.  It's like you have to put up this facade of support for Dr. Paul in order to legitimize your asinine anarchist position.


My 1,000,000 youtube views, with tons of testimonials thanking for the Obama video I made that compares him to RP.. which is still bearing fruit. The video helping promote tips to on how to properly sell liberty? The passionate video supporting not giving up at the end of the last campaign? The numerous interviews of Ron Paul's I personally was able to market to get viral by getting them all on the prominent RP/Libertarian sites at the same time? The video attacking McCain and giving the RP alternative?

Let's say, for the sake of argument only 1% of the people who viewed any of my videos changed their mind... after being exposed to the liberty message... *that's 10,000 people.*

_YOUR List versus my youtube? LOL!!! _ 

And what.. you've probably barely even reached 1% of _THAT_? Compare e-penises? Bro, you're the one who is claiming I'm attacking America etc.. full of your bs rants, with a sad inability to distinguish between nation and nation-state. What a joke.




> Here is a clue.  Start a movement in your own back yard.  Get a local meetup going somewhere in australia and find the best most consistent politician you can to fight for YOUR countries founding documents and RULE OF LAW.  Then I will be impressed and be convinced that you have actually DONE something for liberty where it counts.
> 
> YOUR OWN BACK YARD!


Get a clue? You are *so* hilariously ignorant... I don't need to showcase what I am doing down under. If considering what I've done for another country; such as yours.. wtf do you think I may have done in my own? Your opinion / thoughts about me, I couldn't care less about. 




> So now you have changed what you wrote and I quoted after you wrote it.  Tailoring your words.
> 
> Call me nationalistic will ya? Go look up what your hero Rothbard has to say about this in National Self-Determination, maybe then you'll understand why your attack against me on that front falls flat.  
> 
> And it's too bad you aren't willing to address ALL of my post to you.  You call it childish simpleton whatever.  Par for the course for you.  You can pick and choose all you want, but changing context doesn't change circumstance.


No, check time and edit stamps. Just because you take ages to think; that ain't my problem or fault. Nationalistic in the statist sense fool. Your entire diatribe against me earlier shows absolutely no understanding / comprehension between the differences of nation (America) and nation-state (The United States Government).

I know what Rothbard says, and your beyond absurd 'interpretations' are amazingly comical. Your post is full of bs, why repeat ad hominems?

YOU HAVE NOTHING IN THE FORM OF GIVING A LEGITIMATE ARGUMENT / JUSTIFICATION FOR THE STATE.

I am still yet to see it... now go on, go write another page length attack on my character  Actions speak louder than words... and you're nothing but words bro.

----------


## Wesker1982

> That claim is a dishonest claim _by you_ unless you can back it up.


Could you show me where I made this particular claim? Thanks!  

(since I never made this claim, it must just be another honest mistake on your part, right?) 

You also failed to actually address the content of my post that proves that you are dishonest. That was what we were actually talking about, in case you don't remember. Red Herring, or another honest mistake?

----------


## Wesker1982

> If you actually accepted limited government as a satisfactory and valid outcome to your efforts


Who said I didn't? You are attacking a strawman. I would love to see a limited government in my life time as an outcome of mine and other's efforts. A fine outcome it would be indeed, but as an _end goal_ it is illogical (assuming you advocate maximum liberty) because at this point Voluntaryism is achievable.




> you will continue to push the philosophy even if it conflicts with a limited government philosophy in the realm of actions.


Could you elaborate?

----------


## Travlyr

> Could you show me where I made this particular claim? Thanks!


It is a video that YOU posted. You remind me of the little kid who kicks the dirt and cannot look a man in the eye all the while claiming ... _"It wasn't me."_




> (since I never made this claim, it must just be another honest mistake on your part, right?)


22 seconds into the video YOU posted. _"All services, including security, are provided by competing private firms."_ ... all the while completely ignoring the fact that our ancestors created the state for various reasons. Then at 40 seconds you make the claim that "_The purpose of the state is to provide security._" I call bull$#@! on your false claim.




> 


I've been waiting since July 20th for you to answer the question:
Where in the Constitutions do they say the purpose of the State is to provide security?
Articles & Sections please. 
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3410160




> You also failed to actually address the content of my post that proves that you are dishonest. That was what we were actually talking about, in case you don't remember. Red Herring, or another honest mistake?


You, Wesker, are a pathetic liar.

----------


## MaxPower

> Ahhh, *noo....* What part of the US Constitution _increasing_ the size of government is not understood? The articles of confederation...?
> 
> Everything that follows is _irrelevant_. The US Constitution increased the size of the state. _It made EVERYTHING afterwards possible._ To say otherwise is to completely ignore it's origin.


No, you miss my point. I _admit_ that the Articles of Confederation were largely preferable to the Constitution- note that I referred to "every big-government-versus-small-government conflict which has come up _since_ the 1780s." The fact that the Constitution authorized bigger government _relative to the Articles of Confederation_ says nothing about its standing _relative to the government we have now._ Nowhere did I say that the standing Constitution was the most small-government document which could possibly exist, or that it was the most small-government document which ever _has_ existed.

Rather, when I talked about government expansions which _"would have happened anyway without the Constitution, and in fact would have been far more swift and severe were it not there impeding them,"_ I mean _relative to a state in which there were no Constitution._ My point here is thus: _perhaps the absolute abolition of government would be best, but where that is not achievable, surely a government with a Constitution is preferable to a government without one._ If I have a tumor, I might indeed look to the complete removal of said tumor as the most ideal solution- but supposing that the tumor is at present inoperable, then I had best at the least take whatever medicine I can get that will contain it, inhibit its growth or even shrink it. Now, the Constitution may not be so strong a medicine as the Articles of Confederation it replaced but_ if properly administered,_ it is still pretty strong stuff as relates to our current problem.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Then at 40 seconds you make the claim that "_The purpose of the state is to provide security._" I call bull$#@! on your false claim.


This has been specifically addressed at least a dozen times in multiple threads, and Travlyr simply has not provided any sort of answer, other than a straw man.




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


After avoiding the question multiple times, and accusing me of lying, being in a cult, etc.... He finally answered it, with a Straw-man




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





> AS you can see, this is in no way an actual answer to my question, but is in fact just a straw-man.  Nothing about my question implies that I ever claimed the state was formed to provide police, redistribute wealth.  I am merely questioning him on a direct quote from the preamble of the constitution, and he completely dodged it by setting up a straw man.






> I've been waiting since July 20th for you to answer the question:
> Where in the Constitutions do they say the purpose of the State is to provide security?
> Articles & Sections please. 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3410160


It's been given to you dozens of times.  




> "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, *provide for* the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, *and secure* the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."





> You, Wesker, are a pathetic liar.


When all else fails, resort to ad-hominem personal attacks.  Not uncommon for you, at all.  For example...




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





> Stupid anarchy *cult* is stupid.


I must sincerely thank you for helping to make the case for Voluntaryism and Anarchy so well.  Your form of argumentation really helps demonstrate what Cutlerzzz was trying to describe.




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

----------


## Conza88

> No, you miss my point. I _admit_ that the Articles of Confederation were largely preferable to the Constitution- note that I referred to "every big-government-versus-small-government conflict which has come up _since_ the 1780s." The fact that the Constitution authorized bigger government _relative to the Articles of Confederation_ says nothing about its standing _relative to the government we have now._ Nowhere did I say that the standing Constitution was the most small-government document which could possibly exist, or that it was the most small-government document which ever _has_ existed.


Ok, well it is good to see the preferability of AoC, nice. 




> Rather, when I talked about government expansions which _"would have happened anyway without the Constitution, and in fact would have been far more swift and severe were it not there impeding them,"_ I mean _relative to a state in which there were no Constitution._ My point here is thus: _perhaps the absolute abolition of government would be best, but where that is not achievable, surely a government with a Constitution is preferable to a government without one._


I understand your point, and my objection was that those expansions would NOT _"have happened anyway without the Constitution"_. 

The anti-federalists had to fight tooth and nail, they lost. The compromise for the federalists was allowing the Bill of Rights. Constitutions / social contracts need not be limiting at all, and the US is really the only one that comes kind of close to being 'libertarian'. 

What it does is provide a fallacious / mythical justification for 'we the people' are the government, and yet that is total bs. IF a state is too exist; the best form is as follows:

_    "The defining characteristic of private government ownership is that the expropriated resources and the monopoly privilege of future expropriation are individually owned. The appropriated resources are added to the ruler’s private estate and treated as if they were a part of it, and the monopoly privilege of future expropriation is attached as a title to this estate and leads to an instant increase in its present value (“capitalization” of monopoly profit).

    Most importantly, as private owner of the government estate, the ruler is entitled to pass his possessions onto his personal heir; he may sell, rent, or give away part or all of his privileged estate and privately pocket the receipts from the sale or rental; and he may personally employ or dismiss every administrator and employee of his estate.

    In contrast, in a publicly owned government the control over the government apparatus lies in the hands of a trustee, or caretaker. The caretaker may use the apparatus to his personal advantage, but he does not own it. He cannot sell government resources and privately pocket the receipts, nor can he pass government possessions onto his personal heir. He owns the current use of government resources, but not their capital value.

    Moreover, while entrance into the position of a private owner of government is restricted by the owner’s personal discretion, entrance into the position of a caretaker-ruler is open. Anyone, in principle, can become the government’s caretaker.

    From these assumptions two central, interrelated predictions can be deduced:
A private government owner will tend to have a systematically longer planning horizon, i.e., his degree of time preference will be lower, and accordingly, his degree of economic exploitation will tend to be less than that of a government caretaker; and        subject to a higher degree of exploitation, the nongovernmental public will also be comparatively more present oriented under a system of publicly owned government than under a regime of private government ownership." ~ Hoppe._



> If I have a tumor, I might indeed look to the complete removal of said tumor as the most ideal solution- but supposing that the tumor is at present inoperable, then I had best at the least take whatever medicine I can get that will contain it, inhibit its growth or even shrink it. Now, the Constitution may not be so strong a medicine as the Articles of Confederation it replaced but_ if properly administered,_ it is still pretty strong stuff as relates to our current problem.


Yes, I understand that. I, like Ron Paul, consider using the rhetoric of the Constitution in an age of manufactured consent.. it is an 'even on their own terms, they fail to live up to it'. They swore an oath to this thing, and yet they do not follow it. It is like the argument Hoppe makes comparing Monarchy and Democracy. 

Monarchy is a lesser evil; though it is not Hoppe's end goal. 
Comparing constitution to now; the constitution is a lesser evil, but it is not Ron Paul end goal. 
Comparing constitution to free society, the latter is the way to go.

I don't disagree with people using it as a means to an end of a free society. The discussion here though is not about getting people new to the message; (they're already on a Ron Paul forum), it's about radicalizing the 'supporters', to show the logical conclusions of their premises; to show that this is what Ron Paul actually supports.

----------


## Wesker1982

> It is a video that YOU posted.


This does not equal me making a claim, your post is a red herring. Unlike you, I can actually show you exactly where you made a particular statement, proving that you lied:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3493338




> You did avoid answering my question that day as evidenced by the posts.


But *this is not what you claimed*. Are you making an honest mistake now, or being dishonest? 




> You never answer the questions.


Notice the plural form here. And also note that you said never. This post claims I never answer the multiple questions you present. Now you are claiming that you really meant that I only avoided one question and it only happened once.

You cannot get these two statements confused. It was a dishonest statement and being dishonest in attempts to defend it only makes it more apparent that you are indeed dishonest. I have had multiple long conversations with you and although we disagree on a lot, I have been nice to you. Not only have I done nothing to deserve dishonesty from you, it also makes you appear insecure in your beliefs because if you were confident in the validity of your position, you would not have to resort to dishonesty.

My advice would be that *if you cannot participate in these type of discussions without getting emotional, you should avoid them.*

----------


## newbitech

> I hold the exact same position as him. No, I get people to question the validity of their position - who think the Constitution is an END GOAL. Which as we both know is demented; and why the good Dr. doesn't accept it... for the reasons he has outlined many times.


No you don't.  You are two different people with two different life experiences.  Further more, you are an anarchist, and your supreme is the individual.  You wouldn't respect the individual if you didn't accept that each has their own differences on a fundemental level.  You cannot hold the exact same position because you are not exactly him!  You "get" people to do what?  It sounds to me like you are constantly working out the validity of your own position by hitching it to other individual's opinions and waiting for acceptance.  There is no such thing as an "end goal".  The world is constantly turning, people are constantly changing.  Your mistake may be in thinking that there is any kind of finality to what you hope for.  There is not.  Even if the world was exactly how you wanted it, if people behaved and spoke exactly how you wanted them too, there would still be yet another "end goal". 

One of the things I am constantly harping on anarchist about is time frames.  What is your goal for tomorrow? Next week, Next Month, Next Year, 10 years, 50 years etc etc...  Restoring the Constitution CAN happen in 4-8 years given the right set of circumstances and the right "rulers".  That is an end goal if your time frame is 4-8 years.  So what is the time frame for YOUR end goal, COnza?  

No having the Constitution as an end goal is NOT demented.  Dr. Paul does accept it (he campaigns on it, and in fact, sells it), you just completely misunderstand the motor homes diary interview and twist Dr. Pauls words.  That is the problem.  But you won't see it any other way.  He has not "outlined" any reasons.  He has made a couple of comments in this regard amidst the overwhelming amount of comments to the contrary.  Yet you cling to your tether that the man who is growing a freedom and liberty movement by his political actions is acting as some kind of anarchist who believes that the constitution has been a complete and utter failure and unworthy of further condsideration.  Talk about demented.  




> The fact they're not out of context... the fact that I'm merely linking to a Ron Paul interview where he EXPLICITLY SPELLS IT OUT.


Yes you took his words out of context.  The question was

You emphasize individual responsibility and freedom.  I know you STAND for the Constitution, but what do you say to the people who advocate for the return to self-government rather than a return to the Constitution?

Context:

Ron Paul Stands for the Constitution.  
Advocacy of self-government vs advocacy of a return to the constitution. 

In this context, Ron Paul tells us his goal is a really a return to self-government.  

So why are you taking his words out of context? 




> Ron Paul makes the anarcho-capitalist/voluntarist/self-government argument right after where he says he supports self-government INSTEAD of a return to the constitution. His end goal is self-government.


You just said "he supports self-government instead of a return to the constitution".  Well, does Ron Paul advocate a return to the Constitution?  Yes!  Does Ron Paul advocate "self-government", of course.  So what does he say to those who advocate one instead of the other?  He says "great"!  From his actions and the way he answered this question, he could have said, "I advocate BOTH!"  That is what his goal is!  How can the man stand for the constitution, advocate the constitution, support the constitution, have a 30 record of voting strictly based on the constitution, and yet his goal be something other than advocating the constitution?  Easy!

He advocates both!  Now what is Ron Paul's "end goal" as you like to frame it?  Who knows.  He was never asked that question.  

By the way, you never talked about "self-government" until I introduced you to this video 3 years ago.  DOn't say that I avoid it, because I was the one who originally posted it on these forums in a response to something completely different that you said that was also BS.  I still remember and have that archive with you as well.  You insisted that "all forms of government" were illigitimate.  I said what about self-government?  You had no idea what that was.  That is why I told you to watch this video where Ron Paul talks about Ghandi.  It was an easy example of the idea of self-government.  This was also the conversation where we talked about national self-determination.  

By the way, you'll notice that ancap/voluntaryism is not mentioned.  At All.  

SO this little quip below is just patent Conza B.S.  




> 4+min ... you know; there is a reason why you "guys" have never addressed this video; and instead pretend it doesn't exist.





> My 1,000,000 youtube views, with tons of testimonials thanking for the Obama video I made that compares him to RP.. which is still bearing fruit. The video helping promote tips to on how to properly sell liberty? The passionate video supporting not giving up at the end of the last campaign? The numerous interviews of Ron Paul's I personally was able to market to get viral by getting them all on the prominent RP/Libertarian sites at the same time? The video attacking McCain and giving the RP alternative?
> 
> Let's say, for the sake of argument only 1% of the people who viewed any of my videos changed their mind... after being exposed to the liberty message... that's 10,000 people.
> 
> YOUR List versus my youtube? LOL!!!  
> 
> And what.. you've probably barely even reached 1% of THAT? Compare e-penises? Bro, you're the one who is claiming I'm attacking America etc.. full of your bs rants, with a sad inability to distinguish between nation and nation-state. What a joke.


That is all crap you constantly try to bring up.  I noticed that your 1 million + views had nothing to do with anarchy.  hmmm... I know other types of people that manufacture acceptance in order to push an alternate agenda later on, and then claim support.  

I never tried to trot out my personal achievements in this movement as some kind of validation that my support was real and worthy.  I do one thing that you will never be able to do, and that is vote directly for Ron Paul.  My one vote, trumps all the salesman calculus you just tried to pull to provide some kind of empirical evidence.  

It doesn't matter though.  That is your strawman that you try to pull.  YOU CONSTANTLY QUESTION PEOPLE's SUPPORT!  PEOPLE WHO GIVE HARD EARNED MONEY AND BUST THEIR ASSES IN THE REAL WORLD!  
Strawman + Ad Hominem = ad Strawminem!  That is what you do with your anarchist clap-trap!

 Keep telling us how great you are at selling freedom and liberty, an idea that doesn't need to be sold, only spread to the masses.  I am not buying your version and neither are the million views you have on that one video that doesn't mention anything about your brand of freedom and liberty.  

Nice job having nearly 1 million total channel views.  Can we get a break down on how many of those preached Ron Paul is an anarchist?  How about how many of those you made?  Really, how about something to back up your salesman calculus?
Or not, I don't care.  Feel free to continue off on this tangent with the stuff you reposted from 3 years ago.  

The world moves on from your "success".




> Get a clue? You are so hilariously ignorant... I don't need to showcase what I am doing down under. If considering what I've done for another country; such as yours.. wtf do you think I may have done in my own? Your opinion / thoughts about me, I couldn't care less about.


Yeah, they are free around here.  And, you haven't really done anything for my country that I can perceive.  Anyone else see what he has done yet?  Ok.. What do I think you have done in your own?  Nothing.  

Good, then if you care less, why the need to constantly question or "get" people to see things your way or question their own beliefs?  Shouldn't you lead by example?  Oh wait, your example is to repost MSM news on your channel.  Great, I'll get right on hooking up cable t.v. so I can be more like you.  

No Conza, you do care, in fact you care so much it makes you laugh when someone disagrees with you.  Must be insecure or afraid while discussing life or death topics like this one.  Especially when it is your views and opinions that are dangling on thin wire.  Relax buddy, in a Ron Paul society, you'd be free to live in the ruins of Conza all by yourself with no one to think about you or have opinions that differ from your own.




> No, check time and edit stamps. Just because you take ages to think; that ain't my problem or fault. Nationalistic in the statist sense fool. Your entire diatribe against me earlier shows absolutely no understanding / comprehension between the differences of nation (America) and nation-state (The United States Government).
> 
> I know what Rothbard says, and your beyond absurd 'interpretations' are amazingly comical. Your post is full of bs, why repeat ad hominems?
> 
> YOU HAVE NOTHING IN THE FORM OF GIVING A LEGITIMATE ARGUMENT / JUSTIFICATION FOR THE STATE.
> 
> I am still yet to see it... now go on, go write another page length attack on my character  Actions speak louder than words... and you're nothing but words bro.


Little ad hominem in return from you?  Nice!  W/E  you obviously edited your post while I was responding.  You were obviously tailoring your words.  Had nothing to do with how fast I think.  Pay attention to words and their meaning for once why don't ya?  You called me nationalistic because of the country sense, neither one of us brought up the Australian government.  So once again, context eludes you. 

Seems as though you can't address your hypocrisy when it comes to national self-determination as Rothbard describe it yet.  That's pretty much where we left off a few years back.  Too bad.  

I will make the point once again by using your favorite method, quoting someone else.




> "In addition, the libertarian, especially of the anarcho-capitalist wing, asserts that it makes no difference where the boundaries are, since in a perfect world all institutions and land areas would be private and there would be no national boundaries. Fine, but in the meantime, in the real world, in which language should the government courts hold their proceedings? What should be the language of signs on the government streets? Or the language of the government schools? In the real world, then, national self-determination is a vitally important matter in which libertarians should properly take sides."


I'll even take it one step further by making the point as succint as possible and do you the honor of answering your OP once again all in the same breath.

Rothbard makes the distinction between what YOU believe as an ancap and the real world.  You'd probably do well to follow his line of reasoning here as well and make the same distinction.  

In the real world Conza, "the state" is ALWAYS justified, and for most of us, there need not be convincing, it is as you say, a priori.  The problem, of course is that what I see in the real world is not what I see in my mind.  In my mind, "the state" is not justified in so many ways.  Unfortunately, it is not my mind that needs to be changed.  And for your purposes, it is not by beliefs that need to be questioned.  

Commense with your laughter willful ignorance of my response to your lack of one.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

So many words... so little moral, principled, philosophical justification for the state.

----------


## newbitech

> So many words... so little moral, principled, philosophical justification for the state.


Already answered both of those questions.  If you can't follow the thread, why bother responding?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Already answered both of those questions.  If you can't follow the thread, why bother responding?


No, you haven't.  

This isn't hard.  This isn't complex.  

Is the individual a sovereign political entity or not?  Am I able to creep into your mind and take the controls?  Are you able to creep into my mind and take the controls?  

Of course not.  

All manner of utilitarian justifications for the state can be made.  But - respecting the indisputable sovereignty of the individual - no philosophically sound argument for the state may be made.  

We either are individuals or a alternate-consciousness "colony".  Philosophically, the answer is quite clear.  Take the pragmatic discussion to another sub-forum.  There's YET to be a legitimate, logically consistent case made that proves that one man may morally, justifiably hold dominion over another.  NONE.

----------


## A Son of Liberty



----------


## Conza88

> Already answered both of those questions.  If you can't follow the thread, why bother responding?


You responded, but it wasn't a valid answer. Pity.. I don't think you guys are even capable of one.

----------


## Conza88

> Guilty.





> Guilty.





> Guilty.





> Guilty.





> Guilty.


Two words for you guys: *The Dunning-Kruger effect*.
_
Justin Kruger & David Dunning.
Unskilled and unaware of It: how difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments.

Journal of personality and social psychology
1999, vol.77, no.6, pp1121-1134
©1999 by American Psychological Association, Inc._

----------


## newbitech

> No, you haven't.  
> 
> This isn't hard.  This isn't complex.  
> 
> Is the individual a sovereign political entity or not?  Am I able to creep into your mind and take the controls?  Are you able to creep into my mind and take the controls?  
> 
> Of course not.  
> 
> All manner of utilitarian justifications for the state can be made.  But - respecting the indisputable sovereignty of the individual - no philosophically sound argument for the state may be made.  
> ...


That was not the question.  And regardless if you "liked" my answer or not, it was an answer that I already gave.  

No philosophically sound argument for "the state"?  I think the problem here is, as I have identified over the years, is that the philosophy of Rothbard, Mises, and even Ron Paul barely scratch the surface of a fully rounded philosophy, at least those parts that are made public that we read about. 

We hear ancaps especially people who have explored Rothbard focus in on epistemology, ethics, political philosophy, and logic.  What you do not hear is the metaphysics of their philosophy's.  In fact, I have heard some e-scholars here flat out reject metaphysics as a point worth discussing.  This shows me how black that hole really is, that missing piece of the puzzle so willfully ignored.  

Your hatred of "the state", and elimination of "the state" will not fill that void.  I suggest exploring the metaphysical side of the philosophy of freedom.  Perhaps Gandhi, or even Martin Luther King Junior would be a way to ease in to it.  Ron Paul gives hints at his metaphysics.  I have talked at length about the ontology of self-government and where it breaks down and ultimately gets labeled as "the state".  

My argument is valid and a very sound philosophical justification for "the state".  The only way my justification for the state is not valid is if "the state" does not exist.  If that is the case then anarchist are out looking for a boogey man to conjure "the state" in to existence so they may have something to blame for their philosophical failure.  However, if "the state" does indeed exist, then it's existence is justified by it's very being.  This is the metaphysical ontological justification.  It is what it is, as the saying goes here stateside.  

Now you can get in to some other realm of philosophy to try and invalidate "the state", but you won't be able to remove it's justification without completely eliminating, and since that is not something you can do with your mind alone, then my comments about pragmatism are absolutely in the right sub-forum.  

Again, anarchist like to move the goal post and then claim that the goal was not met.  "the state" is justified because "the state" exists.  

There has yet to be made a case that a "statelessness" exists, can exist, or will exist, much less a case made that my life, your life, or anyone's life would be closer to freedom if that were the case.  

At least in a Ron Paul society, people would be able to choose, and one would not be favored over the other.  That is my goal.

----------


## newbitech

> You responded, but it wasn't a valid answer. Pity.. I don't think you guys are even capable of one.


You aren't convinced, that's fine.  It takes time, and experience for wisdom to bear fruit.  Everything I said was valid, it's just easier for you to ignore it and say it's invalid.  Wisdom is not something you can just read about online buddy.

----------


## newbitech

> Two words for you guys: *The Dunning-Kruger effect*.
> _
> Justin Kruger & David Dunning.
> Unskilled and unaware of It: how difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments.
> 
> Journal of personality and social psychology
> 1999, vol.77, no.6, pp1121-1134
> ©1999 by American Psychological Association, Inc._



At least with the constitution, I get due process.  Here in your anarchist wonderland, it's just a popularity contest, right?  See who can get the most "hits", and that's who wins right?  

If I am guilty of anything in this thread, it's of thinking that you'd have grown up a little in the past few years.  Of actually thinking you might be something other than a deeply embedded agent provocateur.  Nah, you are here to stir dissension and to chip away at Dr. Paul's base.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> That was not the question.  And regardless if you "liked" my answer or not, it was an answer that I already gave.  
> 
> No philosophically sound argument for "the state"?  I think the problem here is, as I have identified over the years, is that the philosophy of Rothbard, Mises, and even Ron Paul barely scratch the surface of a fully rounded philosophy, at least those parts that are made public that we read about. 
> 
> We hear ancaps especially people who have explored Rothbard focus in on epistemology, ethics, political philosophy, and logic.  What you do not hear is the metaphysics of their philosophy's.  In fact, I have heard some e-scholars here flat out reject metaphysics as a point worth discussing.  This shows me how black that hole really is, that missing piece of the puzzle so willfully ignored.  
> 
> Your hatred of "the state", and elimination of "the state" will not fill that void.  I suggest exploring the metaphysical side of the philosophy of freedom.  Perhaps Gandhi, or even Martin Luther King Junior would be a way to ease in to it.  Ron Paul gives hints at his metaphysics.  I have talked at length about the ontology of self-government and where it breaks down and ultimately gets labeled as "the state".  
> 
> My argument is valid and a very sound philosophical justification for "the state".  The only way my justification for the state is not valid is if "the state" does not exist.  If that is the case then anarchist are out looking for a boogey man to conjure "the state" in to existence so they may have something to blame for their philosophical failure.  However, if "the state" does indeed exist, then it's existence is justified by it's very being.  This is the metaphysical ontological justification.  It is what it is, as the saying goes here stateside.  
> ...


Not exactly correct.  Several libertarians have explored metaphysics, such as Nozik.  Rothbard discusses Nozik and this issue (as well as related ones) in ROBERT NOZICK AND THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION OF THE STATE.  Besides, the libertarian can get his metaphysics from other sources, such as religion.  We have had discussions about past occurrances of statelessness.  One that should be of interest to you is the statelessness of the early American West.  

At any rate, I admire your goal of allowing people to choose.  Very noble, and I applaud you for it.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> At least with the constitution, I get due process.


 Sometimes.  Then there are all those other times when a cop makes himself judge, jury, and executioner.  And the times when the various levels of government seize property outright without due process.  We have numerous horror stories like this documented on these forums.
(I'm not an anarchist, I just wanted to bring that point up)

----------


## newbitech

> Not exactly correct. Several libertarians have explored metaphysics, such as Nozik. Rothbard discusses Nozik and this issue (as well as related ones) in ROBERT NOZICK AND THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION OF THE STATE. Besides, the libertarian can get his metaphysics from other sources, such as religion. We have had discussions about past occurrances of statelessness. One that should be of interest to you is the statelessness of the early American West. 
> 
> At any rate, I admire your goal of allowing people to choose. Very noble, and I applaud you for it.





> Sometimes.  Then there are all those other times when a cop makes himself judge, jury, and executioner.  And the times when the various levels of government seize property outright without due process.  We have numerous horror stories like this documented on these forums.
> (I'm not an anarchist, I just wanted to bring that point up)


NOt to be totally argumentative, but only about 99% argumentative, (see I leave some room for error =  BBBBBBut..

that's what I mean, the metaphysics of those 3 icons barely scratch the surface.  You have to dig deep for that stuff.  As far as statelessness of the early American West, those moments in history where "the state" was very minimal were fleeting moments, transitory times.  "the state" was not stamped out of existence.  I could use the relatively to what argument so famously made as a backdoor escape route by our anarchist friends, but why should I?  I'd just point out that if statelessness is defined as the absence of a coercive monopoly of force over a geographical region, all I would need to do to prove that the state existed would be to find such a monopoly in the American West.  

So in my search for an example of statelessness in the early America West, I started here.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Old_West  and it seems like the settlers relied on the FEDGOV to protect them, and also settle property issues.  Looks like pioneers chased statelessness into the Pacific?  I'll have to dig more though, but it is a good recent, and relevant example to explore the nascent American "state".  There is your 1% =)

Oh and the other thing, I think you missed my point.  IN my comment that you quoted, I was pointing out the fact that Conza was acting like the judge, jury, and executioner by making that list of people and putting guilty by all there names, accusing them of having such poor skills as not to even realize their own mistakes.  Of course this is Conza's excuse and justification for continually starting threads like this one where he pretends have an interest in honestly discussing topics that he knows will stir people up, just so he can accuse them once again of being idiots.  It's his cycle and the punishment being, he will never stop it.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> NOt to be totally argumentative, but only about 99% argumentative, (see I leave some room for error =  BBBBBBut..
> 
> that's what I mean, the metaphysics of those 3 icons barely scratch the surface.  You have to dig deep for that stuff.  As far as statelessness of the early American West, those moments in history where "the state" was very minimal were fleeting moments, transitory times.  "the state" was not stamped out of existence.  I could use the relatively to what argument so famously made as a backdoor escape route by our anarchist friends, but why should I?  I'd just point out that if statelessness is defined as the absence of a coercive monopoly of force over a geographical region, all I would need to do to prove that the state existed would be to find such a monopoly in the American West.  
> 
> So in my search for an example of statelessness in the early America West, I started here.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Old_West  and it seems like the settlers relied on the FEDGOV to protect them, and also settle property issues.  Looks like pioneers chased statelessness into the Pacific?  I'll have to dig more though, but it is a good recent, and relevant example to explore the nascent American "state".  There is your 1% =)
> 
> Oh and the other thing, I think you missed my point.  IN my comment that you quoted, I was pointing out the fact that Conza was acting like the judge, jury, and executioner by making that list of people and putting guilty by all there names, accusing them of having such poor skills as not to even realize their own mistakes.  Of course this is Conza's excuse and justification for continually starting threads like this one where he pretends have an interest in honestly discussing topics that he knows will stir people up, just so he can accuse them once again of being idiots.  It's his cycle and the punishment being, he will never stop it.


First, I apologize for jumping the gun and addressing your comment to conza.  I'm sure there is some literature to suggest, as you say, that some settlers asked for help from the FEDs.  There is also a body of literature to suggest otherwise.  This may interest you-*The Culture of Violence in the American West: Myth versus Reality*A few pull-quotes-n contrast, an  alternative literature based on actual history concludes that the civil  society of the American West in the nineteenth century was not very  violent. Eugene Hollon writes that the western frontier was a far more  civilized, more peaceful and safer place than American society today  (1974, x). Terry Anderson and P. J. Hill affirm that although [t]he  West . . . is perceived as a place of great chaos, with little respect  for property or life, their research indicates that this was not the  case; property rights were protected and civil order prevailed. Private  agencies provided the necessary basis for an orderly society in which  property was protected and conflicts were resolved (1979, 10). 


What  were these private protective agencies? They were not governments  because they did not have a legal monopoly on keeping order. Instead,  they included such organizations as land clubs, cattlemen's  associations, mining camps, and wagon trains.
So-called  land clubs were organizations established by settlers before the U.S.  government even surveyed the land, let alone started to sell it or give  it away. Because disputes over land titles are inevitable, the land  clubs adopted their own constitutions, laying out the laws that would  define and protect property rights in land (Anderson and Hill 1979, 15).  They administered land claims, protected them from outsiders, and  arbitrated disputes. Social ostracism was used effectively against those  who violated the rules. Establishing property rights in this way  minimized disputes  and violence.
The  wagon trains that transported thousands of people to the California gold  fields and other parts of the West usually established their own  constitutions before setting out. These constitutions often included  detailed judicial systems. As a consequence, writes Benson, [t]here  were few instances of violence on the wagon trains even when food became  extremely scarce and starvation threatened. When crimes against persons  or their property were committed, the judicial system . . . would take  effect (1998, 102). Ostracism and threats of banishment from the group,  instead of threats of violence, were usually sufficient to correct rule  breakers' behavior.

Thanks for being civil.  Nice talking with you, as always.

----------


## Conza88

> No you don't.  You are two different people with two different life experiences.


Yes absolutely. And you are delusional if you think that has anything to do with making different his so stated political end goal. Self-government INSTEAD of a return to the constitution.  







> Further more, you are an anarchist, and your supreme is the individual.  You wouldn't respect the individual if you didn't accept that each has their own differences on a fundemental level.  You cannot hold the exact same position because you are not exactly him!


How are you defining anarchist? I'm not an anarchist in the popular conception of the world. I am a voluntarist, self-government, anti-monopolist supporter. You support monopolies and a gang of thieves writ large. As for me and RP - exact same position in regards to the state not being necessary for a free society. That a return to self-government INSTEAD of a return to the Constitution is his end goal. We have the exact same position in that regard. Self government is my end goal, so is his. Other things will be different for sure, but I wasn't talking about that was I? No. Drop the red herrings.




> You "get" people to do what?  It sounds to me like you are constantly working out the validity of your own position by hitching it to other individual's opinions and waiting for acceptance.  There is no such thing as an "end goal".  The world is constantly turning, people are constantly changing.  Your mistake may be in thinking that there is any kind of finality to what you hope for.  There is not.  Even if the world was exactly how you wanted it, if people behaved and spoke exactly how you wanted them too, there would still be yet another "end goal".


When you attack my conception of an 'end goal', you're attacking Ron Paul's... as he has explicitly stated and what I agree with. I'm talking about the confines of political philosophy though, and the need for a state. Yeah, I understand your point .... and if it way erroneous, because it is an equivocation. I'm not talking about personal ends, you fool! Your ignorance is pathetic.


"Libertarianism, then, is a philosophy seeking a policy. But what else can a libertarian philosophy say about strategy, about “policy”? *In the first place, surely-again in Acton’s words-it must say that liberty is the “highest political end,” the overriding goal of libertarian philosophy.* *Highest political end, of course, does not mean “highest end” for man in general.* _Indeed, every individual has a variety of personal ends and differing hierarchies of importance for these goals on his personal scale of values._ Political philosophy is that subset of ethical philosophy which deals specifically with politics, that is, the proper role of violence in human life (and hence the explication of such concepts as crime and property). _Indeed, a libertarian world would beone in which every individual would at last be free to seek and pursue his own ends-to “pursue happiness,” in the felicitous Jeffersonian phrase."_ - TEOL, chp 30
"
WHAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT? SEE HOW USELESS YOUR RANT WAS?  



> One of the things I am constantly harping on anarchist about is time frames.  What is your goal for tomorrow? Next week, Next Month, Next Year, 10 years, 50 years etc etc...  Restoring the Constitution CAN happen in 4-8 years given the right set of circumstances and the right "rulers".  That is an end goal if your time frame is 4-8 years.  So what is the time frame for YOUR end goal, COnza?


I'm not an anarchist. Restoring the Constitution can happen in 4-8 years... LOL. Back up that claim please, with evidence.. something more than an assertion. Your day dreaming doesn't count. You don't know the future so this is a red herring. How is the number you arrived at _NOT_ arbitrary? My time frame for living in a free society? I would hope in my lifetime. But I don't know the future, and neither do you - so I have no idea. But that doesn't matter. I think slavery is wrong. If I was around when chattel slavery was the norm, you think it would be legitimate to ask me what my time frame was - as the chief overriding concern about whether I should be against slavery or not? I'd be an abolitionist then against slavery... whether I got to see it repealed in my lifetime or not. The same goes with the state. I'm against it, whether I live to see it or not. It's called a legacy. And I hope to contribute to the edifice in a meaningful way.

*I do however, have much more realistic plans than you do.. precisely because I want to live in liberty so badly.* 

THIS IS ABOUT STRATEGY THOUGH... _A RED HERRING TO THIS DISCUSSION._




> No having the Constitution as an end goal is NOT demented.  Dr. Paul does accept it (he campaigns on it, and in fact, sells it), you just completely misunderstand the motor homes diary interview and twist Dr. Pauls words.  That is the problem.  But you won't see it any other way.  He has not "outlined" any reasons.  He has made a couple of comments in this regard amidst the overwhelming amount of comments to the contrary.  Yet you cling to your tether that the man who is growing a freedom and liberty movement by his political actions is acting as some kind of anarchist who believes that the constitution has been a complete and utter failure and unworthy of further condsideration.  Talk about demented.


Any sane person who views the above clip, can hear and understand Ron's point. 







> Yes you took his words out of context.  The question was
> 
> You emphasize individual responsibility and freedom.  I know you STAND for the Constitution, but what do you say to the people who advocate for the return to self-government rather than a return to the Constitution?
> Ron Paul Stands for the Constitution.  
> Advocacy of self-government vs advocacy of a return to the constitution. 
> In this context, Ron Paul tells us his goal is a really a return to self-government.  
> 
> So why are you taking his words out of context?


I didn't. They are in context, lmao.. how are they not? Yes to the above... and yes, (1) self-government vs. (2) return to constitution...

Returning to the constitution is a means, Ron Paul's *end goal* is self-government INSTEAD OF the latter. What is not understood?




> You just said "he supports self-government instead of a return to the constitution".  Well, does Ron Paul advocate a return to the Constitution?  Yes!  Does Ron Paul advocate "self-government", of course.  So what does he say to those who advocate one instead of the other?  He says "great"!  From his actions and the way he answered this question, he could have said, "I advocate BOTH!"  That is what his goal is!  How can the man stand for the constitution, advocate the constitution, support the constitution, have a 30 record of voting strictly based on the constitution, and yet his goal be something other than advocating the constitution?  Easy!
> 
> He advocates both!  Now what is Ron Paul's "end goal" as you like to frame it?  Who knows.  He was never asked that question.


That's exactly what he said agreed to: "self-government *instead* of a return to the constitution". "That's really my end goal".

Ron Paul advocates a return to the constitution *COMPARED TO* WHAT WE HAVE NOW. As do I.
Ron Paul advocates self-government *COMPARED TO* the Constitution... As do I. 

What is his end goal? He's literally, explicitly said it... cognitive dissonance. 

Yeah, I ADOVCATE BOTH AS WELL if you want to put it that way. I advocate a return to the constitution compared to what we have now, then when we get there... I will carry on with Ron Paul... and advocate an actual free society... which is my end goal. And Ron Paul's as he has so said. Self-government.




> By the way, you never talked about "self-government" until I introduced you to this video 3 years ago.  DOn't say that I avoid it, because I was the one who originally posted it on these forums in a response to something completely different that you said that was also BS.  I still remember and have that archive with you as well.  You insisted that "all forms of government" were illigitimate.  I said what about self-government?  You had no idea what that was.  That is why I told you to watch this video where Ron Paul talks about Ghandi.  It was an easy example of the idea of self-government.  This was also the conversation where we talked about national self-determination.  
> 
> By the way, you'll notice that ancap/voluntaryism is not mentioned.  At All.


You introducing me to it had nothing on the end result, I would have found that anyway. Regardless, the interviewer who uses the term "self-government" NOTICE: HE IS A VOLUNTARIST, AN ANARCHO-CAPITALIST! He is questioning the constitution, and put fowarding the argument for self-government. Ron Paul agrees.

I used to also say, regulation is bad... but upon hearing an alternative perspective; that regulation is good.. when done by the market, it is much better. Yes, national self-determination... where you are at your most delusional and set up strawman every sentence. Completely incoherent.




> My one vote, trumps all the salesman calculus you just tried to pull to provide some kind of empirical evidence.


So one newbitech vote for Ron Paul > 10,000 enlightened new Ron Paul supporters thanks to me. RIIIGHHHHHHHHHHHHHT  make a poll about that and see what the forum thinks.  




> I will make the point once again by using your favorite method, quoting someone else.
> 
> I'll even take it one step further by making the point as succint as possible and do you the honor of answering your OP once again all in the same breath.
> 
> Rothbard makes the distinction between what YOU believe as an ancap and the real world.  You'd probably do well to follow his line of reasoning here as well and make the same distinction.  
> 
> In the real world Conza, "the state" is ALWAYS justified, and for most of us, there need not be convincing, it is as you say, a priori.  The problem, of course is that what I see in the real world is not what I see in my mind.  In my mind, "the state" is not justified in so many ways.  Unfortunately, it is not my mind that needs to be changed.  And for your purposes, it is not by beliefs that need to be questioned.


You are insane if you think you Rothbard is arguing against my position, or if I disagree with it. I recommend everyone read the article *National Self-Determination* by Murray Rothbard. I support every word said and every point made. That you continue to think I was EVER in disagreement, or that you EVER had a valid objection against me using Rothbard is BEYOND ABSURD... seriously; think about what you are saying... hahaha

----------


## Conza88

Repost from page 10. Never got a response.




> Occam's razor.  The state has existed in the past, it exists now, therefor it will continue to exist in the future.  That's a pretty easy justification for "the state".


That's not Occam's razor at all. It's a combination of *argument from ignorance* (stateless societies have existed in the past), but also the fact that governments are currently in a 'state' [using a diff def] of anarchy "no rulers" with each-other. Even more importantly, there are no rules imposed on the rulers, they are in a 'state' of lawlessness. A blatant contradiction. And it is also an *appeal to tradition fallacy*.




> *Appeal to Tradition* is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is older, traditional, or "always has been done." This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
> 
>     X is old or traditional
>     Therefore X is correct or better. 
> 
> This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because the age of something does not automatically make it correct or better than something newer. This is made quite obvious by the following example: The theory that witches and demons cause disease is far older than the theory that microrganisms cause diseases. Therefore, the theory about witches and demons must be true.


Here's another: "*Proponents of government intervention are trapped in a fatal contradiction*: they assume that individuals are not competent to run their own affairs or to hire experts to advise them. And yet they also assume that these same individuals are equipped to vote for these same experts at the ballot box. We have seen that, on the contrary, while most people have a direct idea and a direct test of their own personal interests on the market, they cannot understand the complex chains of praxeological and philosophical reasoning necessary for a choice of rulers or political policies. Yet this political sphere of open demagogy is precisely the only one where the mass of individuals are deemed to be competent!" _~ Murray N. Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market (Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2004), p. 1302._
Your argument [*ONE SENTENCE*] is invalid, as it constitutes as a logical fallacy. 

The rest of your post is a *red herring*.




> Why should anyone believe that statelessness can be achieved if it has never been achieved before?  Or if I grant you that statelessness existed for a relatively short period only to be once again overtaken by "the state".


Firstly, because you cannot escape 'anarchy' [no rulers]. *"Do we ever really get out of anarchy?"* by Alfred G. Cuzan. I await your 'refutation'  (in another thread where it will be relevant). Secondly, the exact same can be said about limited government - which is utopian. There has never been a state that has _ever_ remained limited, nor will there ever be. *See OP point 4.*




> Since I will have to make all kinds of new assumptions about the possibility of a stateless society, the fact that the state exists and requires no assumptions justifies the state.


*Please refer to OP points 1 & 2.* Failed attempt at shifting the burden of proof.




> Deduction would be another way to convince you of statism.  Since the fight against statism has been going on since the beginning of history, it should be pretty easy to figure out that this fight will continue on currently and in the future.


That is *not* a justification for the state. It is commentary on _strategy._ An ENTIRELY difference question. If you want to have that discussion by all means; but it is a red herring in this thread. This thread is about seeking justifications for said institution. 

I am still waiting..

----------


## Jake Ralston

Conza:
*
Please stop holding Argument from Fallacy positions.*

You are being intellectually dishonest, and you have been caught red handed. 
No I will not cite every single post that you have committed this fallacy. I am not your slave. 
I want the thread-readers to see what you do in nearly every single post:
_
Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false. It is also called argument to logic (argumentum ad logicam), fallacy fallacy, or fallacist's fallacy.

Fallacious arguments can arrive at true conclusions._

You will be held to higher standard from now on Conza. I claimed long ago that you were titling people's arguments as "fallacies" and then refusing to acknowledge them afterward. Just simply title it a fallacy and put the head right back in the sand.

Not going to work anymore buddy, because you (hypocrite) have been just as fallacious (actually much more) than anyone else in this forum.

So you will understand that even though a post may be fallacious, it can still be true. 
You will analyze people's arguments, and if you disagree you can explain why. 

Your time of using fallacies as a crutch are over. Time to man up.




You can do it!

----------


## Conza88

> Conza:
> *Please stop holding Argument from Fallacy positions.*
> 
> You are being intellectually dishonest, and you have been caught red handed.


No, I haven't. Any evidence to back up your baseless assertion? 




> No I will not cite every single post that you have committed this fallacy. I am not your slave. 
> I want the thread-readers to see what you do in nearly every single post:
> _
> Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false. It is also called argument to logic (argumentum ad logicam), fallacy fallacy, or fallacist's fallacy.
> Fallacious arguments can arrive at true conclusions._


Haha, nothing to support your claim... should have known. If I've done it so much, should be easy right? . Oh I agree, but you guys use nothing but fallacies... all I do is point out your argument is invalid. 

*I am completely open to non-fallicious arguments* that support whatever conclusion you hold that justifies the state....

*i.e THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THIS THREAD.*
I'm just yet to see a non-fallicious argument presented...  




> So you will understand that even though a post may be fallacious, it can still be true. 
> You will analyze people's arguments, and if you disagree you can explain why. 
> 
> Your time of using fallacies as a crutch are over. Time to man up.
> You can do it!


Do you want to know how I see you guys: LE, Trav, Jake, newbitech etc.? When you post.. all of you remind me of this guy:







Loveable and yet _so_ misguided... Thanks for helping me spread the message of liberty on these forums, couldn't do it without a soundboard.

----------


## Jake Ralston

> No, I haven't. Any evidence to back up your baseless assertion?


The point of my post must have flown right over your head. I'm not trying to convince, prove or persuade YOU to agree with what I wrote. 
Your skull is thicker than reinforced steel and I have not the energy to force truth inside of it. The point is to get other forum members aware as well, so they aren't on the recieving end of your intellectual dishonesty anymore.




> Haha, nothing to support your claim... should have known. If I've done it so much, should be easy right? . Oh I agree, but you guys use nothing but fallacies... all I do is point out your argument is invalid.


Does a professor do his students homework for him? No. 
If you want to learn from your mistakes YOU can do the work. I honestly don't care. The point is to make it evident to OTHERS that what you are doing is wrong. 
I have led you to the source of water, I have shown you where to search for proof, the rest is up to you. Either way I don't care.
But if you must, the evidence is in your post history. Read and understand the Argument from Fallacy, and see how many times you've committed it!
The days of claiming fallacy as a rebuttal without even considering the post are over for you now though.




> *I am completely open to non-fallicious arguments* that support whatever conclusion you hold that justifies the state....


Do you comprehend the concept of Argument from Fallacy?
*Fallacious arguments can arrive at true conclusions.*
If you want to point out that someone's argument is fallacious, have at it! 
But that doesn't excuse you from giving thoughtful insite as to whether their claim and/or conclusion is true. Scary, ain't it!




> I'm just yet to see a non-fallicious argument presented...


_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy_

_ If P, then Q.
    P is a fallacious argument.                          <----------------------CONZA's LOGIC
    Therefore, Q is false._

_All great historical and philosophical arguments have probably been fallacious in some respect.
David Hackett Fischer_

----------


## A Son of Liberty

This thread, and this discussion in general, has gone completely off the rails...

----------


## Jake Ralston

> This thread, and this discussion in general, has gone completely off the rails...


Care to explain?

----------


## Conza88

> This thread, and this discussion in general, has gone completely off the rails...


Sad isn't it. But at times, also mildly hilarious... in a _'oh wowwww /facepalm'_ kind of way haha .

There is some sheer inability of these people to actually put forward a valid argument for the state... I mean, no-one has _even tried_ to use social contract theory, public goods argument etc. Whilst being flawed arguments would ultimately be a step above the ______ adhominems and constant attacking of others characters as some kind of argument or rebuttal.




> Care to explain?


You wouldn't understand.

Do you have an argument to make which you think is valid, on behalf of the state? Why is a monopoly and coercive institution justified?

----------


## Jake Ralston

Hey Conza.

Was post #494 as educational for you as it was for me?

Did you learn from it? Care to respond, or just dodge?

I know you don't like it when others dodge your posts!

I find it relevant to the OP because some may use what you claim to be a fallacy, yet still remain in the realm of truth.

If you want, I can open a new thread discussing the Fallacy Fallacy?

Just want to make sure you don't keep making the same illogical arguments over and over, that's all.

----------


## Conza88

> Hey Conza.
> Was post #494 as educational for you as it was for me?
> Did you learn from it? Care to respond, or just dodge?
> I know you don't like it when others dodge your posts!
> I find it relevant to the OP because some may use what you claim to be a fallacy, yet still remain in the realm of truth.
> If you want, I can open a new thread discussing the Fallacy Fallacy?
> Just want to make sure you don't keep making the same illogical arguments over and over, that's all.


You do realise how retarded your post was, right? Nothing but a mindless lecture from an ignoramus. I will answer your one question posed.

"Do you comprehend the concept of Argument from Fallacy?"

I do. And what I've been doing; doesn't qualify. I've been shooting down fallacies from you guys for 50 odd pages... the arguments are invalid. 

The conclusion of whether the state is justifiable or not; I'm still open to... i.e see the whole point of this thread. I am yet to see a legitimate no-fallicious reasoning presented, an actual argument that doesn't fail.. to be presented, so I can consider it.

And yet what I have just done is repeat what I already said. Nothing in your post was worth responding to. THAT you have the arrogance to think you have 'schooled' me, is beyond laughable.

Once again: two words: 




> Two words for you guys: *The Dunning-Kruger effect*._ Justin Kruger & David Dunning. Unskilled and unaware of It: how difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments.
> 
> Journal of personality and social psychology
> 1999, vol.77, no.6, pp1121-1134
> ©1999 by American Psychological Association, Inc._


And....




> 


Let's hope I see an actual argument in the next 50 pages or so...

----------


## Jake Ralston

> Do you comprehend the concept of Argument from Fallacy?





> I do. And what I've been doing; doesn't qualify.









> I've been shooting down fallacies from you guys for 50 odd pages... the arguments are invalid.


You haven't been explaining why the arguments are invalid. Actually you have ... you title them each as a specific fallacy and therefore claim it's invalid.

*But your wrong.*
You will no longer be simply writing people off because they give what you claim to be a fallacy. You will proving through fact and sound logic why they are wrong. The crutch has been removed. Every time you put forth a Fallacy Fallacy, I will be there to put you in check. 
The intellectual dishonesty stops here.

----------


## Conza88

> You haven't been explaining why the arguments are invalid.


The individual presenting the argument is ignorant of their error. I'm pointing out that error. If they want to understand further, they can ask. 

I am not going to spoon-feed people.

You still haven't backed up your claim. _*yawn*_

----------


## Jake Ralston

> *The individual presenting the argument is ignorant of their error. I'm pointing out that error.*

----------


## Conza88

Nice picture. Can you actually back up your assertion though? Good luck .

Jake, can I ask - how young are you? 

Oh, and another thing.... what sources / books have you read on anarcho-capitalism / self-government / voluntarism?

And in the interest of getting this topic back on track after you've done your very best to derail it so many times...

Could you *PLEASE* answer the question *in this post*. Thank you.

----------


## Jake Ralston

> Nice picture. Can you actually back up your assertion though? Good luck .


I could, but you do more than good enough of a job doing it yourself.




> Jake, can I ask - how young are you?


Sure, but first you must answer how American you are. Then explain why you are so obsessed with American politics rather than the politics of your own nation island. An unnamed source tells me a few American sailors whooped your ass, took your girl back to their ship and ..... lol well you know what happened. Is that why you are Anti-Violence and Anti-America? Would really explain things ....




> Oh, and another thing.... what sources / books have you read on anarcho-capitalism / self-government / voluntarism?


Probably a good 18-20 or so. I don't have them anymore though, I used them to help start up the coals when I grill.




> Could you *PLEASE* answer the question *in this post*. Thank you.


I have answered it at least twice in this thread. YOU can do the work of sorting through and finding it. Have fun!

----------


## Travlyr

Hey dumbass Conza - take that stupid $#@! out of your signature

----------


## Conza88

Thank you for the bumps... I appreciate the new opporunity for others to read the OP of this thread! 

Just a FYI folks.. in case you decided to skip the last 50 pages; _no_, there _still_ hasn't been a legitimate justification of the state... and the 'opposition' doesn't even seem to try. 

All they do is use _ad hominems_ and try attack me personally. Quite childish really.

----------


## Travlyr

> Thank you for the bumps... I appreciate the new opporunity for others to read the OP of this thread! 
> 
> Just a FYI folks.. in case you decided to skip the last 50 pages; _no_, there _still_ hasn't been a legitimate justification of the state... and the 'opposition' doesn't even seem to try. 
> 
> All they do is use _ad hominems_ and try attack me personally. Quite childish really.


You are in clear violation of forum rules. Take the stupid $#@! out of your signature. And I'll do the same.

----------


## Travlyr

> Thank you for the bumps... I appreciate the new opporunity for others to read the OP of this thread! 
> 
> Just a FYI folks.. in case you decided to skip the last 50 pages; _no_, there _still_ hasn't been a legitimate justification of the state... and the 'opposition' doesn't even seem to try. 
> 
> All they do is use _ad hominems_ and try attack me personally. Quite childish really.


Really dumbass?

Page 3



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


Thank you to the moderator who removed the personal attack from Conza's signature for me.
...

----------


## Conza88

The above... case and point. 




> All they do is use _ad hominems_ and try attack me personally. Quite childish really.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> So in my search for an example of statelessness in the early America West, I started here.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Old_West  and it seems like the settlers relied on the FEDGOV to protect them, and also settle property issues.  Looks like pioneers chased statelessness into the Pacific?  I'll have to dig more though, but it is a good recent, and relevant example to explore the nascent American "state".  There is your 1% =)


I'll concede that, and you're entitled to your opinion.  BUT, there is evidence to the contrary as well.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo195.html
So-called land clubs  were organizations established by settlers before the U.S. government  even surveyed the land, let alone started to sell it or give it away.  Because disputes over land titles are inevitable, the land clubs adopted  their own constitutions, laying out the “laws” that would define and  protect property rights in land (Anderson and Hill 1979, 15). They  administered land claims, protected them from outsiders, and arbitrated  disputes. Social ostracism was used effectively against those who  violated the rules. Establishing property rights in this way minimized  disputes — and violence.
The wagon trains  that transported thousands of people to the California gold fields and  other parts of the West usually established their own constitutions  before setting out. These constitutions often included detailed judicial  systems. As a consequence, writes Benson, “[t]here were few instances  of violence on the wagon trains even when food became extremely scarce  and starvation threatened. When crimes against persons or their property  were committed, the judicial system . . . would take effect” (1998,  102). Ostracism and threats of banishment from the group, instead of  threats of violence, were usually sufficient to correct rule breakers'  behavior.
When government  bureaucrats failed to police cattle rustling effectively, ranchers  established cattlemen's associations that drew up their own  constitutions and hired private “protection agencies” that were often  staffed by expert gunmen. This action deterred cattle rustling. Some of  these “gunmen” did “drift in and out of a life of crime,” write Anderson  and Hill (1979, 18), but they were usually dealt with by the  cattlemen's associations and never created any kind of large-scale  criminal organization, as some have predicted would occur under a regime  of private law enforcement.
Source-Anderson, Terry, and Fred L. McChesney, 1994.  Raid or Trade? An Economic Model of Indian-White Relations. Journal of Law and Economics 27: 39-74

----------


## Conza88

_Go to 4min+._

This is the level of quality service you get when you have a *monopoly.*

Statists, why do you support a monopoly?

----------


## Travlyr

Liberalism, State and Government



> 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. - Ludwig von Mises

----------


## Conza88

*Hoppe [Intro to TEOL]:

*

* Rothbard's anarchism was not the sort of anarchism that his teacher and mentor Mises had rejected as hopelessly naive*, of course. "The anarchists," Mises had written,


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

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

----------


## Conza88

Here we go again. (HT: Kinsella)




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





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


With the internet, it is.

----------


## Travlyr

Dr. Oliver Marc Hartwich
The errors of Hans-Hermann Hoppe



> To say it with the philosopher Ernst Jünger: Hoppes theory overlooks the reality of machine guns. If Hoppe ignores the simple fact that violence and crime always originate from human beings, not from legal entities, this underlines how illusionary his whole theory is. Hoppe wants to solve every possible problem by the free market. But he does not see that the market can only be free if somebody keeps it free from violence and crime.

----------


## Conza88

> Dr. Oliver Marc Hartwich
> The errors of Hans-Hermann Hoppe


I have in fact met Dr. Oliver Marc Hartwich. 

*Exclusive Oliver Marc Hartwich interview on Hans-Hermann Hoppe*

Do you fail to see how illogical his position is? 

_"...the market can only be free if somebody keeps it "free" from violence and crime."_ ... *By causing violence and mass crime.*

*Or do you deny that taxation is theft? Something Ron Paul has explicitly said on national television*.

----------


## Jake Ralston

> Dr. Oliver Marc Hartwich
> The errors of Hans-Hermann Hoppe


Good read. 




> I have in fact met Dr. Oliver Marc Hartwich. Do you fail to see how illogical his position is?


Got some money-quotes for you Conza. Get ready to start refuting, because simply saying "Do you fail to see how illogical his position is" is not very convincing.



*1. "Why should human beings lose their capability to do evil just because the legal fiction of the state disappears?"*
_
-They don't, hence Anarchist Utopia._
*
2. Secondly, and more dangerously, there would be new ways of abusing power in Hoppes world, namely in the form of insurance companies. How would Hoppe guarantee that insurance companies would not degenerate and become mafia-like structures that begin to threaten other individuals and extort protection money? Why should someone who abuses his power as Prime Minister, Chancellor or President not abuse his power when he becomes the CEO of an insurance company?*
_
-Exactly! And think about it, this insurance company CEO is essentially one of the most powerful, if not the most powerful person in the Anarchist society._
*
"On the first point, Hoppe does not seem to have an answer at all. On the second point, he would probably say that such things could not happen as there would be competing insurance companies and that would guarantee that they would not degenerate. After all, customers could just change the insurance company they are with. But how would that make any difference? Imagine the following case: The restaurant owner X is threatened by his insurance company A. He now turns to insurance company B to seek help. But what should B do? If it has an armed force  like company A  it could attack A with the result of a small civil war. If it does not have an armed force or if its armed forces are weaker than As troops, it could only advise X to move to a faraway country, i.e. if company A lets him go."*

_-Arguably more violent and dangerous than the State itself. Scary stuff._

*"Hoppe loves to simplify and distort existing problems until they fit into his limited worldview. One could call this a methodological trick, but it is a cheap trick indeed, which is easy to see through."*
_
-I see why you like him Conza._

_
And the money quote:_

*"The errors of Hans-Hermann Hoppe are regrettable for two reasons: Firstly, Hoppe is a highly intelligent and well-educated economist who  for whatever reasons  fails to notice when he does damage to the values of freedom and property, which he claims to support. This is the tragic personal side of Hans-Hermann Hoppe. But it is also tragic for academic discussions: At a time when we are surrounded by ever growing welfare states we badly need thinkers like Hoppe to show us how to tackle todays problems. But instead of doing that, Hoppe prefers to take refuge in his pipe dreams of a so-called natural order, which rather resembles the abyss of a variation of right-wing totalitarianism. For all these reasons, for all his errors and mistakes and for his wrong-headed methodology we may expect Hoppes ideas to remain a footnote in the history of political thought. And it may well be better this way. An effective strategy of liberation would look very different. If Hoppe continues to use the terms liberalism and freedom for his authoritarian and pseudo-liberal agenda, it is time for the true liberals to claim back these terms from him."*

----------


## Conza88

... so ignore the argument made? Are you blind, or intellectually dishonest. Obviously the latter. You also completely ignored the question raised. Standard fare for a person like you..




> _"...the market can only be free if somebody keeps it "free" from violence and crime."_ ... *By causing violence and mass crime... i.e the existence of the state.*
> 
> *Or do you deny that taxation is theft? Something Ron Paul has explicitly said on national television*.


You cannot say A *protects* B, when it *must* violate B *to exist*.

You cannot say _the state_ *protects* _private property_, when it _must_ *violate* it _to exist_.

Try reason your way out of that.




> All we need do now is to point to the black and unprecedented record of the state through history: no combination of private marauders can possibly begin to match the state’s unremitting record of theft, confiscation, oppression, and mass murder. *No collection of Mafia or private bank robbers can begin to compare with all the Hiroshimas, Dresdens, and Lidices and their analogues through the history of mankind.*
> — Society Without A State, Murray N. Rothbard

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> "The errors of Hans-Hermann Hoppe are regrettable for two reasons: Firstly, Hoppe is a highly intelligent and well-educated economist who – for whatever reasons – fails to notice when he does damage to the values of freedom and property, which he claims to support. This is the tragic personal side of Hans-Hermann Hoppe. But it is also tragic for academic discussions: At a time when we are surrounded by ever growing welfare states we badly need thinkers like Hoppe to show us how to tackle today’s problems. But instead of doing that, Hoppe prefers to take refuge in his pipe dreams of a so-called ‘natural order’, which rather resembles the abyss of a variation of right-wing totalitarianism. For all these reasons, for all his errors and mistakes and for his wrong-headed methodology we may expect Hoppe’s ideas to remain a footnote in the history of political thought. And it may well be better this way. An effective strategy of liberation would look very different. If Hoppe continues to use the terms ‘liberalism’ and ‘freedom’ for his authoritarian and pseudo-liberal agenda, it is time for the true liberals to claim back these terms from him."


Sadly, it seems you are incapable of recognizing that none of the above "money-quote" in any way, shape or form counters the argument that Hoppe and advocates of statelessness here make, namely that the entire philosophical premise of the "state" necessarily rests upon coercive and if necessary physical violence against the concept of the individual.  As an advocate of statelessness, I merely seek to enlighten more people to that undeniable, incontrovertible fact, in the hopes of spreading peace and true liberty.  

The above "money-quote" is not at all an argument - a reasoned, logically consistent position - against the philosophy of Hoppe and advocates of statelessness, but essentially an ad hominem.  There is no case being made by the above, "money-quote", and it seems you consider it to be a "money-quote" because it appeals viscerally to your _emotion-based_ distaste for anarchism and anarchists.  

If I had posed the challenge of the OP, I would have worded it differently, and more succinctly.  I would have simply posed that I hold the individual to be the largest legitimate political unit.  I hold that position because it is observable that on a basic level, the individual is entirely sovereign.  I have no access to any other individual's mind or heart, nor does any other individual have access to mine.  I am no man's master, nor any man's slave.  To advocate the destruction of another individual's sovereignty is then, logically, to advocate for the destruction of my own sovereignty and is thus a logically inconsistent position to take.  The state must, even in it's most restrained incarnation, in some capacity or another destroy individual sovereignty, otherwise it is no state at all, but a voluntary, cooperative agency with which I would have no objection.  And then, the question: Can anyone who _proactively_ advocates the state (excepting, for decency's sake, utilitarian arguments) deny this claim?  Can anyone convince me that the state is, upon these understandings, _philosophically_ justified - or, perhaps more appropriately - a logically consistent entity to proactively advocate?

This is generally how one makes an argument: by making a claim and substantiating why they make that claim.  One does not make an argument by making a claim, full stop.  If a person expects their claim to be considered, that person should make an effort to explain how and why they make it.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> You cannot say A *protects* B, when it *must* violate B *to exist*.
> 
> You cannot say _the state_ *protects* _private property_, when it _must_ *violate* it _to exist_.
> 
> Try reason your way out of that.


Ha!  Even more succinctly!   

That is the essence of it, right there.  And that is the claim: that to advocate on behalf of the state is a logically inconsistent position.

----------


## Jake Ralston

> Sadly, it seems you are incapable of recognizing that none of the above "money-quote" in any way, shape or form counters the argument that Hoppe and advocates of statelessness here make...
> 
> The above "money-quote" is not at all an argument - a reasoned, logically consistent position - against the philosophy of Hoppe and advocates of statelessness, but essentially an ad hominem.  There is no case being made by the above, "money-quote", and it seems you consider it to be a "money-quote" because it appeals viscerally to your _emotion-based_ distaste for anarchism and anarchists.


Listen guy, the money-quote is a conclusion drawn after the critical debunking of HHH. Did you even read the article? Obviously not. 
Did you even read the excerpts of the article I posted which debunked HHH? Obviously not. 




> That is the essence of it, right there.  And that is the claim: that to advocate on behalf of the state is a logically inconsistent position.


Why does supporting the State need to be logical?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Listen guy, the money-quote is a conclusion drawn after the critical debunking of HHH. Did you even read the article? Obviously not. 
> Did you even read the excerpts of the article I posted which debunked HHH? Obviously not.


I guess if I were interested in convincing people of my position, the "money-quote" would be the one which debunked the philosophy of my opponent.




> Why does supporting the State need to be logical?


Because logic and reason is what separates man from beasts.  Animals act upon emotion, which is not of the intellect and is not reasoned, and considered.  The ability to reason, to cogitate and to come to logical conclusions carries humanity forward.  Disregarding reason and logic abandons that which makes humans superior to the creatures of the earth.

----------


## Jake Ralston

> I guess if I were interested in convincing people of my position, the "money-quote" would be the one which debunked the philosophy of my opponent.


I'll never convince the anarchists to abandon their ways. But I can highlight their critical logic errors for all to see. And what was quoted was not MY position, but merely a reflection of the good Dr's. 




> Because logic and reason is what separates man from beasts.  Animals act upon emotion, which is not of the intellect and is not reasoned, and considered.  The ability to reason, to cogitate and to come to logical conclusions carries humanity forward.  Disregarding reason and logic abandons that which makes humans superior to the creatures of the earth.


I thought animals act upon instinct, but you say it's emotion? Wow, where did I go wrong. Oh well, lets not get sidetracked.

You need hundreds of millions of people to advocate for anarchy before it will ever be seen in America. 

You think logic alone is your tool for this conversion?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I'll never convince the anarchists to abandon their ways. But I can highlight their critical logic errors for all to see. And what was quoted was not MY position, but merely a reflection of the good Dr's.


But you don't highlight their errors - you highlight ad hominems.  Your "money-quote" was essentially highlighting an ad hominem attack on Hoppe, not highlighting how his philosophy was in error.  I'm therefore inclined to believe that you consider it the "money-quote" because (again) it appeals to your visceral, emotion-based objection to anarchism and anarchists. 




> I thought animals act upon instinct, but you say it's emotion? Wow, where did I go wrong. Oh well, lets not get sidetracked.


Yeah, I'm not a biologist, but it would seem to me that instinct is not logic-based but emotion-based.  But yes, it isn't consequential.  The point is that man has the ability to reason, which animals do not.  




> You need hundreds of millions of people to advocate for anarchy before it will ever be seen in America.


Once again, Jake:




> As an advocate of statelessness, I merely seek to enlighten more people to that undeniable, incontrovertible fact, in the hopes of spreading peace and true liberty.


I am under no illusion that I'll see this in my lifetime, nor will my children in theirs.  

Why don't you give up on minarchism?  You're just as unlikely to see it as I am to see statelessness.  Why do you waste your time?




> You think logic alone is your tool for this conversion?


Did I make that claim?  Did I say, "logic alone is how I will seek to convert millions of people"?  

I'm interested in my life, and the lives of my loved ones; but I'm also interested in the long-term track of humanity.  Little by little, mankind moves toward some point in the future.  I'm merely doing my small, relatively inconsequential part to see to it that this point is peace and true liberty.  I do this by using logic, by living peacefully, by raising my children peacefully... by any number of ways.  


Why wouldn't you want to hold a logically consistent position, at least philosophically?  I personally grant the utilitarian arguments, and I grant that I hold common ground with minarchists on almost all issues, and want to work with them toward their goals.

A personal philosophy provides the foundation for how that person attempts to operate in society.

----------


## newbitech

> That's exactly what he said agreed to: "self-government *instead* of a return to the constitution". "That's really my end goal".
> 
> He's literally, explicitly said it... cognitive dissonance. 
> 
> think about what you are saying... hahaha


So you have as much of a hard time hearing as you do reading?

Conza, it is YOU who are hearing what you want to hear and putting words in to people's mouths.  Not sure how this post slipped by me, but until you go back and correct your "mistake" about what Ron Paul has said in this video, I don't think anything that you have to say on the topic is valid.

Folks who disagree with you on this for the last 3 years have been telling you and pointing out how you have completely misunderstood what Ron Paul has said in this video and tried to explain to you why he answered the way he did.  Mind you these are folks, (me for one) who have spoken directly to the man, face to face, and asked him the question in an unbiased manner, and have gotten a straight up "NO, I do not advocate anarcho-capitalism" answer from him.  

Keep on "arguing" all you want, but you sound pretty stupid trying to quote Ron Paul in this video and royally screwing up his words.  You treat us all like idiots by acting like we can't hear what he said.  You even went as far as to bold and underline the word that you so desperately needed Ron Paul to say (that he didn't say) in order for your conclusion to be valid.  

Sorry bud, you heard wrong.

----------


## Conza88

> So you have as much of a hard time hearing as you do reading?
> 
> Conza, it is YOU who are hearing what you want to hear and putting words in to people's mouths.  Not sure how this post slipped by me, but until you go back and correct your "mistake" about what Ron Paul has said in this video, I don't think anything that you have to say on the topic is valid.
> 
> Folks who disagree with you on this for the last 3 years have been telling you and pointing out how you have completely misunderstood what Ron Paul has said in this video and tried to explain to you why he answered the way he did.  Mind you these are folks, (me for one) who have spoken directly to the man, face to face, and asked him the question in an unbiased manner, and have gotten a straight up "NO, I do not advocate anarcho-capitalism" answer from him.  
> 
> Keep on "arguing" all you want, but you sound pretty stupid trying to quote Ron Paul in this video and royally screwing up his words.  You treat us all like idiots by acting like we can't hear what he said.  You even went as far as to bold and underline the word that you so desperately needed Ron Paul to say (that he didn't say) in order for your conclusion to be valid.  
> 
> Sorry bud, you heard wrong.


*Unfathomably wrong.*  No, the reason why essentially no-one over the last three years has made any in-depth comment about it - is because it's so crystal clear. The above quote of mine isn't verbatim, fine. I'll do an exact transcript of the video. We'll see how Ron Paul responds when he is asked: "So, and I know you stand for the constitution, but *what do you say to people who advocate for self-government rather than a return to the constitution?"*. We'll see what he explicitly agrees with, and whether that has changed my point at all .

LOL... do you have any evidence of speaking to him? Did you record his answer? No doubt you'd be spamming that video every time you got the chance. Why do you think he rejects that label? Maybe it's because it has the "anarcho" in it, right? He accepts the labels of self-government & voluntarism, as do I. If I was running for office, I wouldn't call myself an anarcho-capitalist either.

But the above from you is so far hearsay. The following video Ron Paul is asked by voluntarist Peter Eyre. ... the same question essentially, it's on video. I'll take this response to your _imaginary_ one anyway.  



_3:56+_


*Interviewer:* You can tell the harm from like the federal government, and you know coercion and all this stuff, using force. You emphasise individual responsibility and freedom.  So, and I know you stand for the constitution, *but 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.* Isn't it interesting that if you have a government, you know they will want us to be all socialistic and use us, but they will never allow an enclave go and become libertarian and just accept nothing, receive nothing, accept no obligations. But if we had a libertarian society, we'd have no qualms, if a group of people want to go over and run things socialistic, like, you had some of these in our early history, they literally lived as socialist enclaves. 

And as long as they didn't have to live of us, I mean even today the people today - the Amish - and other like that, they'd like to be left alone. They should never be required, to be paying social security, or income tax, so libertarianism is much more tolerant than socialism. Socialism has to live off those who produce and that's why they have to use coercion. 

*Interviewer:* So you've been around a lot of people and you've read a lot, what advice do you have for us, the motorhomediaries guys or like other freedom activist around the country. They want to make a change, some people are sitting around on the couch, they feel they can't do to much, they're just one person, what advice do you have? 

*Ron Paul:* I think the most important thing is to understand the philosophy and the issues....

You were saying? You'll also need to explain his explicit support of *private courts*, *all taxation is theft*, *recommended reading* of _For a New Liberty_,* Rothbard*, _Abolish Government_,* Lysander Spooner* & _Democracy: God that failed_, *Hans-Hermann Hoppe*... 

The last part is added epicness... given all you hear from the 'minheads' is _"eww theory, eww philosophy, I'm practical ohhh blah blah blah, votes are the only thing that matters". 
_
I'd suggest you guys actually listen to Ron Paul.

----------


## newbitech

I have video, why the hell would I spam it?  It's kind of hard to make out the question and answer so I am not sure I'd submit that as evidence of my brief encounter.  However, the forum owner was there along with his girlfriend, and Matt Collins was there along with many others from this forum.  

The question I asked was not framed from any bias like this question from motor home diaries.  It wasn't an interview after all, it was my opportunity to ask Ron Paul one important question and look him in the eye for his answer.  It was pretty straight forward.  I asked him if he knew that people were calling him an anarcho-capitalist and what did he think about that.  He said no, I don't think so.  I asked him if his goal was to restore the constitution.  He said yes.  He began to speak about the founders of the United States and the visionary goal of maintaining freedom and liberty by holding our government accountable to the rule of law documented by the founding documents.  

If it matters to you so much what he said to me, I suggest you ask him yourself, rather than asking me to post my video.  

I really think you are struggling with the context of the question, and even more so with how Dr. Paul diplomatically answered.  I think you struggle with the definition of self-government.  I think you struggle with the phrase "return to the constitution".   I have already made it clear and you agreed that advocating the two at the same time is ok.

Now you are just hung up on what Dr. Paul's goal is.  Which he did not in fact explicitly state.  If you paid attention to the context, he talks about tolerance and allowing socialist enclaves under a free society.  So why wouldn't he be fine with people wanting to advocate something other than what he advocates?  Why wouldn't his goal be to really allow people to govern themselves?  Isn't that the point the founders made when they created the constitution?  No, the constitution by itself doesn't maintain freedom!  People have to actually advocate for it, get in to politics, get in to the courts (which Ron Paul says makes him nervous, but also says that is the last chance we have!), practice civil disobedience ( he mentions Gandhi and MLK and their philosophies, while not mentioning all those other people you keep trying to slam down my throat), and educate.  

So it's pretty clear there are different roles to play as well.  Yes what can people do?   Besides understanding the philosophies and the issues, he also says we must be compassionate in order to win the hearts and minds.  Clearly you are slipping on this as well.

I think you struggle with the fact that the philosophy of freedom and liberty are what Ron Paul is wanting to share, NOT the philosophy of anacp, voluntaryism, constitutionalism, etc etc.  

Maybe when you meet the man in person, you can ask him point blank if he is any of these things, rather than falsely labeling people on these forums year after year after year.  

As far as self-government goes, I think this is the most important lesson for you to learn out of your misunderstanding.  Self-government is not a philosophy, it is a state of being.  self-government occurs primarily at the individual level and works outward from there to the global level.  The further self-government spreads, the smaller "the state" gets.  

Unfortunately, it will be impossible to have self-government on a global scale, and in fact, that scale is going to be a curve up to the limits of human communication and organization.  There is also a matter of resources and consumption that play a role in the ability of the state of self-government to be spread as well.  

You'll need to dig in more to the philosophy of freedom and liberty and maybe augment some of your education with some lessons from some of the more well known people that Ron Paul looks to for guidance.

----------


## Conza88



----------


## Wesker1982

Nice uploads. I have the whole video in my reference thread but having short clips can be really useful.

----------


## Conza88

> Nice uploads. I have the whole video in my reference thread but having short clips can be really useful.


Yep. That's where I found it, haha. New video editing software, so getting used to it. 

Smaller clips; people morel likely to watch. Easier for us to link to specific parts .

----------


## Conza88



----------


## Conza88

So.... in the chat room:

I responded to an individual who was saying "to donate more, more, more..."

That it might be an idea to better donate your time to a liberty worthy cause, than simply ads.

CaseyJones considered that "discouraging political activism". 

Which is completely dillusional.

I responded that I was encouraging it, but in a more productive fashion. And that I'm not against political activism, and that he should go read Hans-Hermann Hoppe's "What Must Be Done".

I was then banned.

Intellectual honesty?





This bump is dedicated to CaseyJones.

----------


## CCTelander

> So.... in the chat room:
> 
> I responded to an individual who was saying "to donate more, more, more..."
> 
> That it might be an idea to better donate your time to a liberty worthy cause, than simply ads.
> 
> CaseyJones considered that "discouraging political activism". 
> 
> Which is completely dillusional.
> ...



I feel you brother.

The one time I got banned was for pretty much the same thing. I expressed the opinion that some of the money spent on political campaigns might be better spent on other forms of activism, was accused of "discouraging political activism," and banned.

There probably isn't much point in making too big a stink about it though. It's unlikely to get much better. In fact, over the years it's gotten worse.

Such is life.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Unfortunately, it will be impossible to have self-government on a global scale, and in fact, that scale is going to be a curve up to the limits of human communication and organization.  There is also a matter of resources and consumption that play a role in the ability of the state of self-government to be spread as well.


How do you feel about Misesian micro-secession, if I may ask?  The concept is not anarchist per se, but it is certainly contrary to Federalism and leaves open the possibility of "self government" on a global scale.

----------


## newbitech

> How do you feel about Misesian micro-secession, if I may ask?  The concept is not anarchist per se, but it is certainly contrary to Federalism and leaves open the possibility of "self government" on a global scale.


I think that people are doing this daily.  One easy example would be speed limits.  Tax "cheats" abound.  Not filing until they come knocking is another example possibly.  I would have to see more about this idea, the only link I found was from a mises forum discussion with the search term "Misesian micro-secession".

As far as the possibility of global self government, I think you have to really take a look at how human organize and communicate.  I'll use traffic as an example.

There is a place on the way home from work, and I am sure everyone has seen this, where the lanes merge.  The merge is about a mile long.

You have people that get out of the "fast" lane in to the merge lane to pass.  You also have people who realize that traffic is jammed, but they decide to pass everyone up until the very end of the merge lane then expect to just be let in.

The illustration here is simple.  Humans travel in packs, herds, schools, flocks, and ant trails.  There is a spontaneous order that arises out of this and some very noticeable patterns.  The primary pattern I am pointing out here is that of the "bottle neck".  It really doesn't matter how wide the road is.  More people will try to pass through the opening than there is space for.  This is just human nature.  

Now, scale globally the same problem.  The question simply becomes, how large of a group can self govern?  From what I see on my way home from work everyday?  I'd say somewhere in the neighborhood of 10's of 1000's.  100,000's of thousands is becoming possible thanks to better communications, but I believe once you start having groups in 500-1million range, self-governance starts to break down.  Not bad, some authority is desirable at this point, some force or coercion will be helpful to the larger group at the expense of a few.   This too can be avoided as long as the authorities are just, accountable, responsible etc....  innocents can be exonerated or people can be forgiven without the rigid enforcement we see today.

In the millions, I really believe autonomy starts breaking down.  This is because of human nature.  We are pack/heard animals.

To me, the solution to this is by being honest about what weaknesses humans have, and working to refine those weaknesses.  

Humans are absolutely terrible at being organized outside of the individual and in large groups.  This is probably because human communication is absurdly overrated by the species.  We cannot agree what language to speak, much less the meaning of words in that language.  All other ques besides verbal seem to be completely ignored.  Until humans learn or adapt or evolve better means of communication and organization, I believe self governance is limited to acutely defined boundaries, protected by defensive force, and maintained with honor, morals, trust, and good will.

----------


## Wesker1982

> I think that people are doing this daily.  One easy example would be speed limits.  Tax "cheats" abound.  Not filing until they come knocking is another example possibly.  I would have to see more about this idea, the only link I found was from a mises forum discussion with the search term "Misesian micro-secession".


This isn't really what he is talking about. He is talking about _legally_ seceding all the way down to the level of the individual. People who break speed limit laws or avoid paying taxes are doing so illegally, and if caught they will face the threat of violence for their actions. 

The question is:




> But more profoundly, would a laissez-fairist recognize the right of a region of a country to secede from that country? Is it legitimate for West Ruitania to secede from Ruritania? If not, why not? And if so, then how can there be a logical stopping-point to the secession? May not a small district secede, and then a city, and then a borough of that city, and then a block, and then finally a particular individual? Once admit any right of secession whatever, there is no logical stopping-point short of the right of individual secession, which logically entails anarchism, since then individuals may secede and patronize their own defense agencies, and the State has crumbled.


Which Mises supported.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> This isn't really what he is talking about. He is talking about _legally_ seceding all the way down to the level of the individual. People who break speed limit laws or avoid paying taxes are doing so illegally, and if caught they will face the threat of violence for their actions. 
> 
> The question is:
> 
> 
> 
> Which Mises supported.


qft.  Microsecession FTW!

----------


## Seraphim

I'm really fond of that concept. No free society should disillusion itself into thinking that it's freedom exists unless individuals can own land within said "free" society without the right to break away from the State.




> qft.  Microsecession FTW!

----------


## Conza88

No-one's been able to convince me .

----------


## nayjevin

> No-one's been able to convince me .


Division of labor.  Some will always wish to be out of the business of rulemaking.  These will willingly submit to those who desire to be in the business of rulemaking.

Therefore, bind the inevitable state by the chains of a Constitution, declaration of individual rights, restrictions of government power.  Make apparatus such that corruption can be rooted out.  Maximize individual liberty, minimize government power.

Or, build a hut in the forest and invite only those who agree with you 100%.  I'd move there.

----------


## Conza88

> Division of labor.  Some will always wish to be out of the business of rulemaking.  These will willingly submit to those who desire to be in the business of rulemaking.


Right...

*The Solution: Private Law Society*

*Daily Bell:* How would law and order be provided in this society? How would your ideal justice system work?

*Dr. Hans-Hermann Hoppe:*  In a private law society the production of law and order - of security -  would be undertaken by freely financed individuals and agencies  competing for a voluntarily paying (or not-paying) clientele - just as  the production of all other goods and services. How this system would  work can be best understood in contrast to the workings of the present,  all-too-familiar statist system. If one wanted to summarize in one word  the decisive difference - and advantage - of a competitive security  industry as compared to the current statist practice, it would be:  contract.

The state operates in a legal vacuum.  There exists no contract between the state and its citizens. It is not  contractually fixed, what is actually owned by whom, and what,  accordingly, is to be protected. It is not fixed, what service the state  is to provide, what is to happen if the state fails in its duty, nor  what the price is that the “customer” of such “service” must pay.  Rather, the state unilaterally fixes the rules of the game and can  change them, per legislation, during the game. Obviously, such behavior  is inconceivable for freely financed security providers. Just imagine a  security provider, whether police, insurer or arbitrator, whose offer  consisted in something like this: I will not contractually guarantee you  anything. I will not tell you what I oblige myself to do if, according  to your opinion, I do not fulfill my service to you - but in any case, I  reserve the right to unilaterally determine the price that you must pay  me for such undefined service. Any such security provider would  immediately disappear from the market due to a complete lack of  customers.

Each private, freely financed security producer must  instead offer its prospective clients a contract. And these contracts  must, in order to appear acceptable to voluntarily paying consumers,  contain clear property descriptions as well as clearly defined mutual  services and obligations. Each party to a contract, for the duration or  until the fulfillment of the contract, would be bound by its terms and  conditions; and every change of terms or conditions would require the  unanimous consent of all parties concerned.

Specifically, in  order to appear acceptable to security buyers, these contracts must  contain provisions about what will be done in the case of a conflict or  dispute between the protector or insurer and his own protected or  insured clients as well as in the case of a conflict between different  protectors or insurers and their respective clients. And in this regard  only one mutually agreeable solution exists: in these cases the  conflicting parties contractually agree to arbitration by a mutually  trusted but independent third party. And as for this third party: it,  too, is freely financed and stands in competition with other arbitrators  or arbitration agencies. Its clients, i.e., the insurers and the  insured, expect of it, that it come up with a verdict that is recognized  as fair and just by all sides. Only arbitrators capable of forming such  judgments will succeed in the arbitration market. Arbitrators incapable  of this and viewed as biased or partial will disappear from the market. 




> Therefore, bind the inevitable state by the chains of a Constitution, declaration of individual rights, restrictions of government power.  Make apparatus such that corruption can be rooted out.  Maximize individual liberty, minimize government power.
> 
> Or, build a hut in the forest and invite only those who agree with you 100%.  I'd move there.


NO. There is no _"therefore"_... all _there is_ just a massive _non sequitur_.

*THEREFORE* - you go ahead and re-read *Point 1* of the OP.

There is nothing inevitable about the state. There is EVERYTHING inevitable about 'anarchy'. *You can't even escape it now, nor ever.*

Take it or leave it fallacy at the end. Why don't you tell that to victims of sexual assault, or rape as well? 

... You WERE aggressed (assault by taxation), but too bad.. take it or leave it (and go build a hut in the forest)...

Want to defend the logical conclusion of your position mate?

----------


## nayjevin

How is the private court system differentiated from a de-facto state?  I might not be insurable in your system, and might essentially find myself driven to the hut anyway.

So I say bind all such potential justice systems which might arise with a Constitution.  Ensure jury nullification.  Enshrine individual rights.  Codify rule of law.  Then rogue courts won't find me guilty of remaining present within the arbitrary boundaries of jurisdiction they have created for themselves (possibly without my consent.)

----------


## Sam I am

> I am intellectually honest and open to reason. If you would like to _fix_ my _unrealistic_ political philosophy, I eagerly await your _enlightenment_! I'm so sick and tired of being _wrong_.


It seems as though you're being sarcastic here.  Especially about the intellectually honest and open to reason part.

----------


## Sam I am

> Right...
> 
> *The Solution: Private Law Society*
> 
> *Daily Bell:* How would law and order be provided in this society? How would your ideal justice system work?
> 
> *Dr. Hans-Hermann Hoppe:*  In a private law society the production of law and order - of security -  would be undertaken by freely financed individuals and agencies  competing for a voluntarily paying (or not-paying) clientele - just as  the production of all other goods and services. How this system would  work can be best understood in contrast to the workings of the present,  all-too-familiar statist system. If one wanted to summarize in one word  the decisive difference - and advantage - of a competitive security  industry as compared to the current statist practice, it would be:  contract.
> 
> The state operates in a legal vacuum.  There exists no contract between the state and its citizens. It is not  contractually fixed, what is actually owned by whom, and what,  accordingly, is to be protected. It is not fixed, what service the state  is to provide, what is to happen if the state fails in its duty, nor  what the price is that the “customer” of such “service” must pay.  Rather, the state unilaterally fixes the rules of the game and can  change them, per legislation, during the game. Obviously, such behavior  is inconceivable for freely financed security providers. Just imagine a  security provider, whether police, insurer or arbitrator, whose offer  consisted in something like this: I will not contractually guarantee you  anything. I will not tell you what I oblige myself to do if, according  to your opinion, I do not fulfill my service to you - but in any case, I  reserve the right to unilaterally determine the price that you must pay  me for such undefined service. Any such security provider would  immediately disappear from the market due to a complete lack of  customers.
> ...


As it is written, So it shall be done!

----------


## Wesker1982

> How is the private court system differentiated from a de-facto state?


1. Not funded through coercion 
2. Does not claim a coerced territorial monopoly

It is like asking "what is the difference between current private arbitration and the State courts?". See 1 and 2.

----------


## Conza88

> How is the private court system differentiated from a de-facto state?


The voluntary part... the one where one is based on contract, and the other isn't... lol 




> I might not be insurable in your system, and might essentially find myself driven to the hut anyway.
> 
> So I say bind all such potential justice systems which might arise with a Constitution.  Ensure jury nullification.  Enshrine individual rights.  Codify rule of law.  Then rogue courts won't find me guilty of remaining present within the arbitrary boundaries of jurisdiction they have created for themselves (possibly without my consent.)


 so repeat everything that didn't work? 

You can't be that dense... so sure, go create a "constitution" for your private property covenant operating within an anarcho-capitalist private law framework, and go play 'founding fathers' or 'socialist communes' for all I care... you're still fundamentally accepting a private law society, a libertarian one.

----------


## Conza88

> It seems as though you're being sarcastic here.  Especially about the intellectually honest and open to reason part.


It seems as though you're not one of the sharpest tools in the shed. 




> As it is written, So it shall be done!


As it already exists, it shall be done!













As your ignorance is displayed, you shall be shown a fool!

----------


## nayjevin

> In a private law society the production of law and order - of security -   would be undertaken by freely financed individuals and agencies   competing for a voluntarily paying (or not-paying) clientele


Serious question.  What if I'm uninsurable?  Or what if one of their paying clients 'sues' me?  And what if I'm not insured?  What if my thugs are smaller thugs or what have you.  And what if the other guys' thugs declare me an enemy combatant?  For say, not recognizing them as having any authority to 'undertake' law and order.

----------


## Cabal

What if an elephant falls out of the sky and lands on your head?

What if the free market has the capacity to provide solutions to <insert what-if scenario here>?

----------


## nayjevin

> What if an elephant falls out of the sky and lands on your head?


That's not even close to analagous.  Private entities in a free market are said to undertake law and order.  They operate to compete for clientele.  Winning lawsuits is liable to be profitable.  Therefore, I might be sued in a free market, as a free man, and lose.

What is to protect me from rogue courts in a free market?




> What if the free market has the capacity to provide solutions to <insert what-if scenario here>?


So many competing courts would determine the best way?  Wasn't that done over millennia, and we came up with 12 jurors?  And jury nullification of bad law?

So, private courts are better, and haven't been done.  Why are they better?

----------


## nayjevin



----------


## Cabal

> That's not even close to analagous.


It wasn't meant to be an analogy. 




> So many competing courts would determine the best way?  Wasn't that done over millennia, and we came up with 12 jurors?  And jury nullification of bad law?
> 
> So, private courts are better, and haven't been done.  Why are they better?


I don't know what the best way would be; nor do I claim to know such things. I suspect that the free market would be able to adequately determine such things, however--be they through some sort of private arbitration model, a DRO model, an insurance model, or what have you.

For anyone to suggest they have the one-size-fits all answer for hundreds of millions of people is beyond arrogant, as well as naive. That's one of the beauties of the free market--one needn't necessarily have to find such answers because they will naturally arise with adequate demand. It's not just about a free market of industry, but it's also a free market of ideas which may never otherwise see the light of day.

----------


## Conza88

> Serious question.  What if I'm uninsurable?  Or what if one of their paying clients 'sues' me?  And what if I'm not insured?  What if my thugs are smaller thugs or what have you.  And what if the other guys' thugs declare me an enemy combatant?  For say, not recognizing them as having any authority to 'undertake' law and order.


Lmao, *you mean like what happens now?* How does a monopoly help you there? IT DOESN'T.

There are things that are not, and cannot be viably insurable - things you have direct control over. There would be no valid unemployment insurance. If you want more info on this ask, or google search.

----------


## Conza88

> That's not even close to analagous.  Private entities in a free market are said to undertake law and order.  They operate to compete for clientele.  Winning lawsuits is liable to be profitable.  Therefore, I might be sued in a free market, as a free man, and lose.
> 
> What is to protect me from rogue courts in a free market?


What is to protect you from "rogue statist courts" (and that means all of "them")... 

*Law and Appeals in a Free Society* - Bob Murphy




> So many competing courts would determine the best way?  Wasn't that done over millennia, and we came up with 12 jurors?  And jury nullification of bad law?
> 
> So, private courts are better, and haven't been done.  Why are they better?


Lmao, no. Private courts have been done, there is a rich history... except you're ignorant of it. You're stuck in a statist mindset.. many courts need not determine the ONE BEST way... there would be many differing procedures.

You didn't watch the "How Private Law Works" video above did you?

*Nope... it's blatantly obvious.*

----------


## nayjevin

So I'm beginning to accept that private courts might work out a way to deal with problems, even if there's not one universal system for all of them, perhaps there'd be ISO standards and whatnot.

But if I decide that stateless society might work, do I have to act like Conza or can I just try to chill out and make peace with the world?  I mean it seems like he's wearing full body armor in preparation for Mad Max or something.

I just want a society that works, can I do that without acting like an asshat or is statelessness = asshattery axiomatic?

----------


## nayjevin

> You didn't watch the "How Private Law Works" video above did you?


I can't watch videos, my internet is capped, and I'm already over.  Ass umptions

Jeez, some real complaints and I'm just so close to believing in the free market but the hardest part is associating myself with the group to which asshats belong.

----------


## nayjevin

> Originally Posted by nayjevin
> 
> Serious question.  What if I'm uninsurable?  Or what if one of their  paying clients 'sues' me?  And what if I'm not insured?  What if my  thugs are smaller thugs or what have you.  And what if the other guys'  thugs declare me an enemy combatant?  For say, not recognizing them as  having any authority to 'undertake' law and order.
> 
> 
> Lmao, *you mean like what happens now?* How does a monopoly help you there? IT DOESN'T.


Slow down turbo, a 'monopoly' as you call it, doesn't help me at all, but the traditional, modern, status quo courts have systems in place to help me in such a situation.  I can go pro se, hire an attorney, get a public defender, examine case law and build a defense based on prior decisions and court reasoning.

In your free market, a 'private' court 'undertakes' a monopoly on law over a territorial area, and may or may not treat all individuals within that area as equals, and may or may not allow precedent as evidence in whatever they decide are 'proceedings.'




> There are things that are not, and cannot be viably insurable - things you have direct control over. There would be no valid unemployment insurance. If you want more info on this ask, or google search.


Now you're clearly off your rocker.  Anyone can choose to insure anything for any reason, anyone can choose to purchase any available insurance for any reason.  I can buy insurance against my team losing in the Super Bowl.  Surely you don't say that's not allowed in your free market?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> So I'm beginning to accept that private courts might work out a way to deal with problems, even if there's not one universal system for all of them, perhaps there'd be ISO standards and whatnot.
> 
> But if I decide that stateless society might work, do I have to act like Conza or can I just try to chill out and make peace with the world?  I mean it seems like he's wearing full body armor in preparation for Mad Max or something.
> 
> I just want a society that works, can I do that without acting like an asshat or is statelessness = asshattery axiomatic?


I'm a pretty relaxed ancap, and I'm with you - I want to chill out and live in peace with the rest of humanity.  

:thumbs:

----------


## nayjevin

> I'm a pretty relaxed ancap, and I'm with you - I want to chill out and live in peace with the rest of humanity.  
> 
> :thumbs:


So does Conza, he's taken a burden upon his shoulders few are willing to take, and with that comes incredible frustration.  Ron has the patience of a saint, and if you look at some of his early interviews, it took a long time to get where he is.  I'm not good at that myself.

I estimate about 5% of the population is currently open to enlightenment through sound logical reasoning, and for that segment, Conza is uniquely talented.

----------


## nayjevin

http://mises.org/daily/4683




> In a civilized community, especially if it had a sophisticated market  economy, people wouldn't want "vigilante justice" to be the norm.  Instead, most people would want to reassure their neighbors and business  associates that they were justified in the way they handled property.
> 
>  For  example, if I pull into my driveway one day only to see Thad the thief  running out of my back door with a laptop under his arm, I personally  might feel justified in marching over to his house and breaking down the  door. That's _my_ computer, and I'm taking it back! I would also  feel justified in bringing a few of my burly friends with me, in case  Thad and I have a failure to communicate.
> 
>  But in reality, it  would be foolish for me to act like this, at least if my neighbors in  this hypothetical scenario were anything like my actual neighbors in the  real world. _They_ couldn't be sure that Thad had really stolen the laptop, especially if he runs around accusing me of breaking into _his_ house with my fellow gang members.
> 
>  Now  we see the quite pragmatic function of disinterested judges. Without a  state monopolizing the industry, in free-market anarchy private judges  would offer their services. In my scenario, I might present Thad the  thief with a list of ten reputable judges in the area, who all  specialized in cases of burglary. I would tell Thad that I had the  original receipt for the laptop (with its serial number), and that I had  caught him on my home surveillance system. I would then invite Thad to  pick any of the judges he wished, and we would go to court.
> 
>  If  Thad agreed, then we would give our testimony, perhaps call character  witnesses, and so on, according to the procedures of the judge that Thad  and I had both chosen. The judge would tailor his procedures so that  his or her "opinion" on the matter would be likely to accord with the  notion of justice held by at least a fraction of the community.  Remember: in a system of private, voluntary law, plaintiffs and  defendants aren't assigned to a particular judge because of his  "jurisdiction."
> ...


This is the answer -- 95% of the population being able to understand and visualize it (without building walls and conjuring defense mechanisms in the process) is the obstacle.

----------


## Conza88

> So I'm beginning to accept that private courts might work out a way to deal with problems, even if there's not one universal system for all of them, perhaps there'd be ISO standards and whatnot.
> 
> But if I decide that stateless society might work, do I have to act like Conza or can I just try to chill out and make peace with the world?  I mean it seems like he's wearing full body armor in preparation for Mad Max or something.
> 
> I just want a society that works, can I do that without acting like an asshat or is statelessness = asshattery axiomatic?


No you don't have to act like me, lol. You can also discriminate against me.. bar me from your property etc. Whatever  

And I'll definitely reel back on the asshattery.. but you generally have to work your way to that point with me. If you don't watch the videos, or things I link to - if you're not curious about learning and reading (what I read and which convinced me I was wrong... and since I held the exact same position as you currently do at one point) then you're not intellectually honest, and open to reason.

If you're not here asking questions because you're curious about how something works, it comes off as you being here to bash and troll a position you have no interest in understanding.. which in fact is *RON PAUL'S POSITION*. 

My apologies if you actually are interested in learning about a free, stateless society... my suggestion would be to actually watch the videos (when you can) before continuing to flap your gums in a state of blatant ignorance.  




> I can't watch videos, my internet is capped, and I'm already over.  Ass umptions
> 
> Jeez, some real complaints and I'm just so close to believing in the free market but the hardest part is associating myself with the group to which asshats belong.


What are you talking about _ass_ - umptions? 

*I was right.* You didn't , and haven't watched the video about Private Law. The fact that I can _easily tell_, reflects poorly upon _you_,_ not_ me.




> I'm a pretty relaxed ancap, and I'm with you - I want to chill out and live in peace with the rest of humanity.  
> 
> :thumbs:


Thumbs as well, and @nayjevin - I'm super chill. I just can't put up with fakers. Look, if you're into liberty, passion about justice.. if you call yourself a Ron Paul supporter... then you should be doing what he has suggested -> first and fore most... learning about the philosophy, and Austrian Economics. FOR all the supporters here that means:






When you accept the same premises... self-ownership and origional appropriation (i.e libertarianism), but then fail to see it to it's logical conclusion... that irks me a bit. You're a fellow traveller, fine, I can happily accept that if you're a radical abolitionist (as all RP supporters are)... but when you go ahead and bash *Ron Paul's position of self-government and voluntarism*, then that pisses me off...

----------


## nayjevin

> But what if Thad _didn't_ agree to any of the judges on my list?  Suppose he recommended instead that we use his brother-in-law, who was  actually a car mechanic but, according to Thad, "is a really stand-up  guy"? Obviously every reasonable person in the community would see that  Thad almost certainly _was_ a thief, and that I was telling the truth. If I went to a reputable judge and presented my case against Thad in his absence, _and_  if the judge agreed with me, then the community would have little  sympathy for Thad if I went with professional repo men to retrieve my  laptop from Thad's house.


This was the issue I brought up - and I can conceive of societal resolution occuring in such a manner.  But I don't think it will convert people, it's too iffy.  Too much room for imagining things might not go that way.

----------


## Conza88

> Slow down turbo, a 'monopoly' as you call it, doesn't help me at all, but the traditional, modern, status quo courts have systems in place to help me in such a situation.  I can go pro se, hire an attorney, get a public defender, examine case law and build a defense based on prior decisions and court reasoning.
> 
> In your free market, a 'private' court 'undertakes' a monopoly on law over a territorial area, and may or may not treat all individuals within that area as equals, and may or may not allow precedent as evidence in whatever they decide are 'proceedings.'


The state IS a monopoly. You're clearly ignoring ALL the bad it does (essentially everything) and only focusing on what it is considered a legitimate function... i.e dispute resolution.

Seriously, wait till you cap is fixed... and watch the Bob Murphy video on how private law works. Ok? Your concerns are valid, but misplaced. He clears them up.




> Now you're clearly off your rocker.  Anyone can choose to insure anything for any reason, anyone can choose to purchase any available insurance for any reason.  I can buy insurance against my team losing in the Super Bowl.  Surely you don't say that's not allowed in your free market?


I am?



> *Uncertainty and Its Exigencies: The Critical Role of Insurance in the Free Market by Hans-Hermann Hoppe*
> 
> .....*The Limitations of Insurability*
> 
> *Now by exclusion we can also approach the complementary questions: What sorts of events are uninsurable? When is the pooling of risks impossible?*
> 
> An uninsurable risk is one where the following condition holds: If I know with regard to a particular risk some or all of the factors that determine its outcome, then such a thing is no longer accidental; its likelihood can be individually affected, and therefore cannot possibly be insured. Or, to formulate it somewhat differently, everything that is within either full or partial control of an individual actor cannot be insured — cannot be risk-pooled — but falls within the realm of personal or individual responsibility.
> 
> Every risk that may be influenced by one's actions is therefore uninsurable; only what is not controllable through individual actions is insurable, and only if there are long-run frequency distributions. And it also holds that if something that was initially not controllable becomes controllable then it would lose its insurability status. With respect to the risk of a natural disaster — floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, fires — insurance is obviously possible. These events are out of an individual's control, and I know nothing about my individual risk except whether or not I am a member of a group that is, as a group, exposed to a certain flood or earthquake or fire risk.
> ...





Surely the person setting up a _suicide_ insurance company is the one off their rocker, not me .

----------


## nayjevin

> If you're not here asking questions because you're curious about how something works, it comes off as you being here to bash and troll a position you have no interest in understanding.. which in fact is *RON PAUL'S POSITION*.


Ron's positions are in 'Liberty Defined,' the book he wrote, and most of the quotes in this thread are not from him.  I understand his intellectual heirs and feel comfortable in saying he agrees with Bastiat, for instance, but it's a bit much (appeal to authority?) to namedrop him in place of an argument.  I leveled very real objections that real people have (Hi, I'm human!) and your consistent implication is that I'm stupid or venomous for doing so.




> My apologies if you actually are interested in learning about a free, stateless society...


Hi, I'm here at Ron Paul forums... yes I am interested in such things.  In fact I am constantly trying to find ways to get good and new arguments in favor of such out of bright and knowledgable minds.   How to do so without bad blood?




> my suggestion would be to actually watch the videos (when you can) before continuing to flap your gums in a state of blatant ignorance.


If a student asks a question, which is answered on page 433 of his or her textbook, how should a teacher respond?




> *I was right.* You didn't , and haven't watched the video about Private Law. The fact that I can _easily tell_, reflects poorly upon _you_,_ not_ me.


Your implication was that it makes me stupid, stubborn, blatantly ignorant, closed minded, etc etc.  THAT is not true.




> I'm super chill. I just can't put up with fakers. Look, if you're into liberty, passion about justice.. if you call yourself a Ron Paul supporter... then you should be doing what he has suggested -> first and fore most... learning about the philosophy, and Austrian Economics.


Man, Economy, and State, or The Philosophy of Liberty?  Boil down the basics for easy consumption.




> When you accept the same premises... self-ownership and origional appropriation (i.e libertarianism), but then fail to see it to it's logical conclusion... that irks me a bit.


If ignorance irks you, that must be resolved if you wish to be effective.  Else, prosthelatizing is not your calling.




> but when you go ahead and bash *Ron Paul's position of self-government and voluntarism*,


I don't believe you are capable of formulating a proof for this claim.

----------


## Conza88

> This was the issue I brought up - and I can conceive of societal resolution occuring in such a manner.  But I don't think it will convert people, it's too iffy.  Too much room for imagining things might not go that way.


Well you're right... it didn't always use to be this way, it used to be on the other foot. 


“To answer the last of these questions first - of course there  were wars  and crime. Has there ever been a society statist or otherwise  - without  war and crime? But Irish wars were almost never on the scale  known among  other civilized* European peoples. Without the coercive  apparatus of  the State which can through taxation and conscription  mobilize large  amounts of arms and manpower, the Irish were unable to  sustain any large  scale military force in the field for any length of  time. Irish wars,  until the last phase of the English conquest in the  16th and 17th  centuries, were pitiful brawls and cattle raids by  European standards.

 The contemporary Irish historian, Kathleen Hughes, has remarked that   one reason why the English conquest, begun in the 12th century under   Henry II and completed only under William III in the late 17th century,   was so long in being achieved was the lack of a well organized State in  Celtic Ireland.

*A people not habituated to a Statist conception of authority  are  incapable of considering a defeat in war as anything more than a   temporary limitations upon their liberty.* Submission to the  enemy is  viewed as no more than a necessary and temporary expedient to  preserve  one’s life until opportunity for revolt and recovery of  liberty presents  itself. The English, of course, considered the Irish  notorious in their  faithlessness (they repeatedly repudiated oaths of  submission and  allegiance to their English conquerors); they were  repeatedly  characterized by English commentators as natural-born,  incorrigible  rebels, barbarians, savages who refused to submit to the  kind of law and  order offered by the English State. *The   Irish, unfettered by the slave mentality of people accustomed to the   tyranny of the State, simply refused to surrender their liberty and   libertarian ways.*”

 ~ Stateless Societies: Ireland by Joseph R. Peden (Ancient Celtic Ireland lasted 1,000 years).

----------


## Conza88

> This was the issue I brought up - and I can conceive of societal resolution occuring in such a manner.  But I don't think it will convert people, it's too iffy.  Too much room for imagining things might not go that way.





> "A final caveat: the anarchist is always at a disadvantage in attempting to forecast the shape of the future anarchist society. For it is impossible for observers to predict voluntary social arrangements, including the provision of goods and services, on the free market. Suppose, for example, that this were the year 1874 and that someone predicted that eventually there would be a radio-manufacturing industry. To be able to make such a forecast successfully, does he have to be challenged to state immediately how many radio manufacturers there would be a century hence, how big they would be, where they would be located, what technology and marketing techniques they would use, and so on? Obviously, such a challenge would make no sense, and in a profound sense the same is true of those who demand a precise portrayal of the pattern of protection activities on the market. Anarchism advocates the dissolution of the state into social and market arrangements, and these arrangements are far more flexible and less predictable than political institutions. The most that we can do, then, is to offer broad guidelines and perspectives on the shape of a projected anarchist society.
> 
> One important point to make here is that the advance of modern technology makes anarchistic arrangements increasingly feasible. Take, for example, the case of lighthouses, where it is often charged that it is unfeasible for private lighthouse operators to row out to each ship to charge it for use of the light. Apart from the fact that this argument ignores the successful existence of private lighthouses in earlier days, as in England in the eighteenth century, another vital consideration is that modern electronic technology makes charging each ship for the light far more feasible. Thus, the ship would have to have paid for an electronically controlled beam which could then be automatically turned on for those ships which had paid for the service."
> 
> Society Without a State - MNR


Which is why you make the point that *anarchy is inescapable*.

----------


## nayjevin

> The state IS a monopoly. You're clearly ignoring ALL the bad it does (essentially everything) and only focusing on what it is considered a legitimate function... i.e dispute resolution.





> Insurance re: HHH


That cleared up the semantics issue, if the word insurance is to have meaning, gambling must be differentiated.

I took issue that it seemed you were implying certain types of insurance would disappear in a free market by virtue of someone's claim that they are 'illegitimate' or 'invalid', whereas it seems to me people decide what business they want to be in and what they want to purchase.  So I can see that if it is sensible, it will survive in a free market, as sensible people would want it.  And that unemployment, a decision by the insured, would not be sensible, similar to suicide insurance.

In other words, YOU WERE RIGHT! 




> Surely the person setting up a _suicide_ insurance company is the one off their rocker, not me .


Do you say profitability in a free market is justification?  How then to reconcile that profitabilty can also be generated by fraud?  I've heard it said that fraud is not profitable when there is no market distortion to protect such practices.  For instance, leaving Ron Paul out of a list of candidates for the nomination is fraud.  Yet, political ties between newspapers, defense industries, and lobbyists makes the small number of thinking readers who might drop the paper as a result of it profitable in the long run.  Without government and political corruption, the bottom line of satisfying the reader is the only issue.

But, though I recognize stateless society does not seek Utopia, and perfection is not the goal, but rather the best way - how can one be convinced that a free market will respond quickly enough to fraud to protect consumers who do not understand industries (like say, software with embedded virii - maybe 1% of the population could have a chance to find)?

----------


## Conza88

> Ron's positions are in 'Liberty Defined,' the book he wrote, and most of the quotes in this thread are not from him.  I understand his intellectual heirs and feel comfortable in saying he agrees with Bastiat, for instance, but it's a bit much (appeal to authority?) to namedrop him in place of an argument.  I leveled very real objections that real people have (Hi, I'm human!) and your consistent implication is that I'm stupid or venomous for doing so.









4min+... 

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

*Ideas are the only things that count, and politicians are, for the most part, pretty much irrelevant,* Ron Paul told the London Independent in December.

*Ron Paul and Private Courts*... quotes from Liberty Defined.




> Hi, I'm here at Ron Paul forums... yes I am interested in such things.  In fact I am constantly trying to find ways to get good and new arguments in favor of such out of bright and knowledgable minds.   How to do so without bad blood?


 .. well just mitigate the dismissal, and the "no it wouldn't work because of this".. as if it;s some kind of earth shattering objection that people who have thought about this for ages simply didn't realise.

ALL those instantaneous objections that come to mind immediately, or after some thought - are the EXACT same ones - that everyone generally has to ponder and seek answers for. That's the way to approach it without 'bad blood'.. or how I react anyway (everyones different). The other is to have a 'debate' attitude, as opposed to a joint discovering via socratic method. The latter is better and more enjoyable, the former - which is taking place now, is more 'combative', debate - 'winner' and 'loser', so even if you positon is demented, you feel obliged to defend the bs and waste my time.

This whole thread started out as an exercise in the Socratic method. 




> If a student asks a question, which is answered on page 433 of his or her textbook, how should a teacher respond?


Well this is assumes I'm a teacher. I'd suggest I'm a fellow student, in which case I'd response.. read the friggin' text before you start spouting your mouth as if you knew what you were talking about... and wasting everyones time (the teachers and the other classmates) when you could have simply watched the damn video, or read the damn text before typing and spouting out ignorant questions..




> Your implication was that it makes me stupid, stubborn, blatantly ignorant, closed minded, etc etc.  THAT is not true.


Not stupid, but the latters yes. It's a natural assumption to make. There is no way I could have known you were cap'd. I apologise. The way forward would be to then perhaps pause the discussion till you're no longer...




> Man, Economy, and State, or The Philosophy of Liberty?  Boil down the basics for easy consumption.


Well intro-books are generally the place to start. Economcis For Real People, Economics in One Lesson, Economic Science and the Austrian Method, The Lessons for the Young Economist..

For a New Liberty, Ethics of Liberty, Economics and Ethics of Private Property... 




> If ignorance irks you, that must be resolved if you wish to be effective.  Else, prosthelatizing is not your calling.


 I set low standards like Ron. It's just when I get fellow travellers, people who say they support such and such... and their idol in fact supports self-government... but then they 'attack it', that specifically is the 'wtf?' I don't understand... I was ignorant of anarcho-capitalism, economics etc.. but I knew it.. I didn't understand alot of it to begin with, so I just learnt and listened... I didn't go around attacking it, whilst deluded.

That's what a lot of clowns around here do (most of them no longer), which is why I hardly post much anymore. Which is fine by me.




> I don't believe you are capable of formulating a proof for this claim.


Maybe you should wait till you can view the video... before dismissing it, yeah?

The claim is simple, Ron Paul prefers self-government OVER a return to the constitution... self-government is his END GOAL. All his words. In video. In an interview. In the video above.

Simple.

----------


## otherone

> .[I] I would tell Thad that I had the original receipt for the laptop (with its serial number), and that I had caught him on my home surveillance system. I would then invite Thad to pick any of the judges he wished, and we would go to court.
> 
> If Thad agreed, then we would give our testimony, perhaps call character witnesses, and so on, according to the procedures of the judge that Thad and I had both chosen.


What if Thad does not agree?  What if their is no surveillance system? What if Thad just slams his door in your face?

----------


## nayjevin

> ALL those instantaneous objections that come to mind immediately, or after some thought - are the EXACT same ones - that everyone generally has to ponder and seek answers for. That's the way to approach it without 'bad blood'.. or how I react anyway (everyones different). The other is to have a 'debate' attitude, as opposed to a joint discovering via socratic method. The latter is better and more enjoyable, the former - which is taking place now, is more 'combative', debate - 'winner' and 'loser', so even if you positon is demented, you feel obliged to defend the bs and waste my time.


So you see people who have not 'reached the logical conclusion' as you say, as demented?  Think about that for a while.  And no one can waste your time.  Only you are responsible for that.




> This whole thread started out as an exercise in the Socratic method.


That's one way to put it.  Try to put yourself outside the situation for a moment.  How open minded were you, really, to the possiblity of changing your mind in this thread?  My assumption of the answer to that question is the reason this thread came off to me as snarky, elitist, crusading.




> Well this is assumes I'm a teacher. I'd suggest I'm a fellow student, in which case I'd response.. read the friggin' text before you start spouting your mouth as if you knew what you were talking about...


I will not add to the foolery you're bound to feel as you read back over this in the coming years.




> and wasting everyones time (the teachers and the other classmates) when you could have simply watched the damn video, or read the damn text before typing and spouting out ignorant questions.


Here is your fallacy:

As a student, raising an objection or asking a question of the teacher is only valid when the resolution of that objection is not available elsewhere in the universe but in the teacher's mind.

Take that to the logical conclusion, and no one will have ever learned anything, speaking is immoral, sharing information between humans is futile, teaching is foolishness.  Is this your position?




> Not stupid, but the latters yes. It's a natural assumption to make. There is no way I could have known you were cap'd. I apologise. The way forward would be to then perhaps pause the discussion till you're no longer...


Natural, perhaps - as in others would do the same.  But logical, no - it's a leap of faith, drawing conclusions without evidence.




> I set low standards like Ron. It's just when I get fellow travellers, people who say they support such and such... and their idol in fact supports self-government... but then they 'attack it', that specifically is the 'wtf?'


I understand the feeling, believe me.  But it's not logical to view it as an attack.  That's over-sensitivity, and allowing emotion to drive faulty thinking.  You are lumping me in with a characterized version of an enemy that you visualize on the other side of the Internet abyss.  I am not that person.  But I am an expert at what I am accusing you of in this paragraph - therefore I teach.




> I don't understand... I was ignorant of anarcho-capitalism, economics etc.. but I knew it.. I didn't understand alot of it to begin with, so I just learnt and listened... I didn't go around attacking it, whilst deluded.


The use of the word attack.  To me it shows projection when accusing me of wanting a debate form vs. a peaceful learning process.




> Maybe you should wait till you can view the video... before dismissing it, yeah?


Nowhere did I dismiss the video.




> The claim is simple, Ron Paul prefers self-government OVER a return to the constitution... self-government is his END GOAL. All his words. In video. In an interview. In the video above.


Emotion, desire to defend perceived threat, rush, frustration - have all contributed to reading comprehension.  I understand Ron's view on self-government, and have not changed my opinion on it since 2007.  Never have I disagreed with you on this point.  However, I do not think Ron Paul is an anarchist, except by a very few people's definition of the word - and those people don't differentiate that word from voluntaryism.  I think he believes in volunteering over being forced to do things, but I doubt he wants to start a punk band or throw bricks through windows.

----------


## Conza88

> Nowhere did I dismiss the video


Great. So let me know when you've actually be able to watch them, yeah?

----------


## Wesker1982

> Emotion, desire to defend perceived threat, rush, frustration - have all contributed to reading comprehension.  I understand Ron's view on self-government, and have not changed my opinion on it since 2007.  Never have I disagreed with you on this point.  However, I do not think Ron Paul is an anarchist, except by a very few people's definition of the word - and those people don't differentiate that word from voluntaryism.  I think he believes in volunteering over being forced to do things, but I doubt he wants to start a punk band or throw bricks through windows.


Have you checked out this thread? http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Private-Courts

I am going to respond to all of your questions when I have time. I have to go to work soon.

I thought you were already on the Voluntaryism bandwagon?

----------


## nayjevin

> I thought you were already on the Voluntaryism bandwagon?


I am a voluntaryist.  Private courts scare me, as I do not have good arguments as to why they will work better than the utterly failed U.S. justice system.  If thousands of years of civilization have resulted in the corruption we see today - take jury selection processes - I don't yet see how a private court system will improve upon the model.

I've read alot about it, but it is simply very difficult to visualize for those who have grown up without the understanding.  Compelling arguments against the movie 'Death Race' are as difficult to come by as those against corporations becoming 'Skynet.'

So I'm looking for better ones.  I'd be surprised to find them from Bob Murphy, as he also caters to those who are sympathetic to sound reasoning.  I like him alot though, and will watch the video.

----------


## Wesker1982

Can you watch videos yet? I would start here




I have to go for now.

----------


## Wesker1982

> Therefore, bind the inevitable state by the chains of a Constitution, declaration of individual rights, restrictions of government power.


One thing to remember is that all of this is compatible with Voluntaryism. I think universal contracts would arise in the absence of a violent monopoly. You could call this universal contract a "Constitution". People _want_ conflict to be minimized. There could easily be a standard "Constitution" that becomes the norm for defense agencies and courts. Any of them who do not agree will likely lose customers to companies who make such promises. The only, but vital difference, is that the arbitrators and insurance agencies/PDAs would not claim a violent territorial monopoly funded through coercion. 

Is it really a stretch to say that the vast majority of people want conflict minimized? The reason why the State gets the support it does is _exactly because_ people want conflict minimized. The problem is that they falsely believe the State is the best at conflict resolution. 




> Serious question.  What if I'm uninsurable?  Or what if one of their paying clients 'sues' me?


Remember that everywhere you are standing will either be privately owned land, or abandoned land. If your debts are bad enough, your credit/reputation rating would get to the point where people would view you as a risky person to do business with. Since all property is private, you would removed from any property who doesn't want to deal with you. 

If you have insurance, they will obviously pay for it. Then either make your rates higher or lower your reputation rating until you pay it off. 

These are only some ideas...




> And what if I'm not insured?


_If an individual didn’t carry insurance, other people would have  no guaranteed recourse should the individual damage or steal their  property. Such an individual would therefore be viewed with suspicion, and people would be reluctant to deal with him except for single  transactions involving small sums. He would probably be unable to  get a full-time job, a bank loan, or a credit card. Many residential  and commercial areas would probably require that all visitors carried valid policies before allowing them to even enter.

So we see that those without insurance would have their options,  including their freedom of movement, greatly restricted. At the  same time, the premiums for basic contract insurance, at least forpeople without a criminal history, would be quite low. So there wouldn’t be very many people walking around without this type  of insurance. It’s true, some people would still commit crimes and  would have no insurance company to pay damages, but such cases  are going to occur under any legal system._ http://mises.org/books/chaostheory.pdf




> What is to protect me from rogue courts in a free market?


I have expanded on this numerous times so I don't feel bad for pasting this wall of text. 




> We have saved for the last this problem: What if police or judges and courts should be venal and biased — what if they should bias their decisions, for example, in favor of particularly wealthy clients? We have shown how a libertarian legal and judicial system could work on the purely free market, assuming honest differences of opinion — but what if one or more police or courts should become, in effect, outlaws? What then?
> 
> In the first place, libertarians do not flinch from such a question. In contrast to such Utopians as Marxists or left-wing anarchists (anarcho-communists or anarcho-syndicalists), libertarians do not assume that the ushering in of the purely free society of their dreams will also bring with it a new, magically transformed Libertarian Man. We do not assume that the lion will lie down with the lamb, or that no one will have criminal or fraudulent designs upon his neighbor. The "better" that people will be, of course, the better any social system will work, in particular the less work any police or courts will have to do. But no such assumption is made by libertarians. What we assert is that, given any particular degree of "goodness" or "badness" among men, the purely libertarian society will be at once the most moral and the most efficient, the least criminal and the most secure of person or property.
> 
> Let us first consider the problem of the venal or crooked judge or court. What of the court which favors its own wealthy client in trouble? In the first place, any such favoritism will be highly unlikely, given [p. 235] the rewards and sanctions of the free market economy. 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. This is his "brand name." Should word of any venality leak out, he will immediately lose clients and the courts will no longer have customers; for even those clients who may be criminally inclined will scarcely sponsor a court whose decisions are no longer taken seriously by the rest of society, or who themselves may well be in jail for dishonest and fraudulent dealings. If, for example, Joe Zilch is accused of a crime or breach of contract, and he goes to a "court" headed by his brother-in-law, no one, least of all other, honest courts will take this "court's" decision seriously. It will no longer be considered a "court" in the eyes of anyone but Joe Zilch and his family.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Furthermore, the temptation for venality and bias would be far less for another reason: business firms in the free market earn their keep, not from wealthy customers, but from a mass market by consumers. Macy's earns its income from the mass of the population, not from a few wealthy customers. The same is true of Metropolitan Life Insurance today, and the same would be true of any "Metropolitan" court system tomorrow. It would be folly indeed for the courts to risk the loss of favor by the bulk of its customers for the favors of a few wealthy clients. But contrast the present system, where judges, like all other politicians, may be beholden to wealthy contributors who finance the campaigns of their political parties.
> ...


That is the text of the video I linked earlier. You really need to read it or watch the video.

----------


## nayjevin

> One thing to remember is that all of this is compatible with Voluntaryism. I think universal contracts would arise in the absence of a violent monopoly. You could call this universal contract a "Constitution". People _want_ conflict to be minimized. There could easily be a standard "Constitution" that becomes the norm for defense agencies and courts. Any of them who do not agree will likely lose customers to companies who make such promises. The only, but vital difference, is that the arbitrators and insurance agencies/PDAs would not claim a violent territorial monopoly funded through coercion.


Do you have any conception of how long it might take for these universal contracts to pare down into those that might be acceptible to folk like you and me?  It would be no argument against a stateless society, but it would seem to me that those in power today, if forced to usher in such a system, would jump out front with contract language that codifies a permanent personal advantage.




> Is it really a stretch to say that the vast majority of people want conflict minimized? The reason why the State gets the support it does is _exactly because_ people want conflict minimized. The problem is that they falsely believe the State is the best at conflict resolution.


I tend to agree - but the state is people.  And who'da thunk judges wouldn't suffer from a bad reputation in America today?  I've seen this concept as an argument against humanity - defeatistlike - 'no form of society will overcome man's greed' ('especially capitalism!' they often say).  But my position is almost the opposite: _any_ form of society will work - provided it is small enough, and the people using it believe in it.

That's really why I'm for a free market - people ought to have the freedom to form whatever type of enclave they wish.  And I'd hope everyone can agree that conquest is wrong (property rights) and that people can move if they want (individual liberty).




> Remember that everywhere you are standing will either be privately owned land, or abandoned land. If your debts are bad enough, your credit/reputation rating would get to the point where people would view you as a risky person to do business with. Since all property is private, you would removed from any property who doesn't want to deal with you. 
> 
> If you have insurance, they will obviously pay for it. Then either make your rates higher or lower your reputation rating until you pay it off. 
> 
> These are only some ideas...


I can conceptualize that, and it seems like personal responsibility to the extreme, which would only sell to a small portion of the public.  Especially since, right now, lots more people have bad 'credit' than are bad people.




> If an individual didn’t carry insurance, other people would have  no guaranteed recourse should the individual damage or steal their  property. Such an individual would therefore be viewed with suspicion, and people would be reluctant to deal with him except for single  transactions involving small sums. He would probably be unable to  get a full-time job, a bank loan, or a credit card. Many residential  and commercial areas would probably require that all visitors carried valid policies before allowing them to even enter.


How bad are we talkin here before I get ostracized?  Cause lets say I just got turned down for a car loan here in real life.... I wouldn't buy this as better than the status quo, seems like I wouldn't even be able to get a job in this system.




> So we see that those without insurance would have their options,  including their freedom of movement, greatly restricted.


It sounds elitist, oligarchic in conclusion - where the dregs of society are not allowed to wine and dine, and upward mobility becomes non-existent.  'You're uninsurable, you're a member of the Jones family.'

I would hope that insurers would find it profitable to insure higher 'risk' folks for justice, but I couldn't be sure it would be profitable, and I find it hard to see how they could operate within a framework where cooperation in contract would have to occur with businesses that don't want to transact with these 'high risk' insureds.  Mind you, I'm definitely willing to try it, and can't imagine it's worse than where the U.S. is headed.  Google turned down my adsense application....




> At the  same time, the premiums for basic contract insurance, at least for people without a criminal history, would be quite low.


But it seems to me that criminal history to be considered is determined by the insurance company.  Some would ignore decisions, possibly based on court rendered, possibly based on judge presiding, possibly based on a codified, universal principle (NAP, or 'former U.S. Founding Principles' or 'Liberty Defined').  And employers, for instance, would only accept insureds from certain insurance companies, or insurance companies which use their standard.  Where might this lead?  Sure it's all a guess, but I think many things people do predict scare them out of the idea altogether.

If the answer is truly 'trust the market,' then perhaps more effort should be placed there, than in the details of the future.  Thoughts?




> I have expanded on this numerous times so I don't feel bad for pasting this wall of text.
> 
> That is the text of the video I linked earlier. You really need to read it or watch the video.


Lord no, where does this meme come from?  Scrolling, the horror. I'm glad to read it, thanks for putting it here.  And for all of it.

----------


## Wesker1982

> Do you have any conception of how long it might take for these universal contracts to pare down into those that might be acceptible to folk like you and me?


I think they would arise even before we reach the free society. What I mean is that the State is not going to vanish overnight. As people start to see the State crumble, they will start to rely on other means of dispute resolution. This is even happening today. The private arbitration market has been steadily growing for a long time. As the State courts become more inefficient, run out of money, are clogged up with waiting lines, are too expensive, etc. then more people will turn to private arbitration. I think it would get to the point where people stop relying on the State altogether. 

By universal, I am talking about things that almost everyone opposes. Theft, fraud, initiated violence, etc. It is easy to imagine this being the standard since almost everyone already opposes violence and theft. 

Moreover, as the result of competition between insurers for voluntarily paying clients, a tendency toward falling prices per insured property values would come about. At th_e same time, a tendency toward the standardization and unification of property and contract law would be set in motion_. _Protection contracts with standardized property and product descriptions would come into existence; and out of the steady cooperation between different insurers in mutual arbitration proceedings, a tendency toward the standardization and unification of the rules of procedure, evidence, and conflict resolution (including compensation, restitution, punishment, and retribution), and steadily increasing legal certainty would result._ Everyone, by virtue of buying protection insurance, would be tied into a global competitive enterprise of striving to minimize ag-gression (and thus maximize defensive protection), and every single conflict and damage claim, regardless of where and by or against whom, would fall into the jurisdiction of exactly one or more enumerable and specific insurance agencies and their mutually defined arbitration procedures. - Hans Hoppe http://mises.org/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_2.pdf

There is no reason to assume that what Hoppe said there could not be set in motion before the free society fully develops. 




> which would only sell to a small portion of the public. Especially since, right now, lots more people have bad 'credit' than are bad people.


There is obviously a large range that could include "bad credit". That is why I said _if your debts are bad enough_. The lots of people who have bad credit today probably are not so bad that you would look at them and find them untrustworthy for small contracts or transactions. There would be a large range of "ratings". 

Someone might have a reputation/credit rating of X, which is considered bad. Does this automatically mean he is ostracized and will starve? Well...not exactly. This guy might find it hard to get a loan for a house, but that does not mean people won't deal with him on smaller transactions. 

There is obviously a large range between a guy who is so sketchy that you won't let him in your store, vs a guy who is behind a few payments on a contract or loan. The people you are talking about today are probably closer to the side that still makes them beneficial to trade with.




> How bad are we talkin here before I get ostracized?


This kind of follows my last response. I don't mean this in an insulting way, but I think you are being intellectually lazy here. 

Is an employer or property owner going to refuse to do business with you over minor mistakes? No. Why? Because if they ostracized everyone who was not perfect, their customer base would be very small. Imagine Bob, he will only deal with and sell to saints. How profitable is he going to be? How many people will he deal with? He might as well be a hermit in Antarctica. 




> seems like I wouldn't even be able to get a job in this system.


Unless you are a violent rapist or rampant serial mugger, I don't know why this would be the case. Again, if employers only hired perfect angels, they would not survive. Even if some employers did have strict standards, there would be a huge competitive labor market for the other employers.

This idea is already in effect today. People with criminal records still get jobs. They might have a harder time getting this job or that job depending on their crime. 

At one end we have serial killers and rapists, the other end we have a kid who shoplifted bubblegum when he was 10. Most people will be closer to the 10 year old than the violent sociopaths. 




> It sounds elitist, oligarchic in conclusion - where the dregs of society are not allowed to wine and dine, and upward mobility becomes non-existent.


The only people this would generally apply to is the people who earned it. I shouldn't have to do business or interact with a sociopath if I do not want to.




> If the answer is truly 'trust the market,' then perhaps more effort should be placed there, than in the details of the future. Thoughts?


_Suppose, for example, that this were the year 1874 and that someone predicted that eventually there would be a radio manufacturing industry. To be able to make such a forecast successfully, does he have to be challenged to state immediately how many radio manufacturers there would be a century hence, how big they would be, where they would be located, what technology and marketing techniques they would use, and so on? Obviously, such a challenge would make no sense, and in a profound sense the same is true of those who demand a precise portrayal of the pattern of protection activities on the market._ - Murray Rothbard

Yeah, it is impossible to say _exactly_ how society would order itself. It doesn't mean that we can't try to predict what would likely happen.

----------


## nayjevin

> I think they would arise even before we reach the free society. What I mean is that the State is not going to vanish overnight. As people start to see the State crumble, they will start to rely on other means of dispute resolution. This is even happening today. The private arbitration market has been steadily growing for a long time. As the State courts become more inefficient, run out of money, are clogged up with waiting lines, are too expensive, etc. then more people will turn to private arbitration. I think it would get to the point where people stop relying on the State altogether.


Interesting... is there political motivation to quell these types of arbitration?  As we've seen the state attack other fundamental aspects of liberty and free societies, such as property rights>eminent domain; individual liberty>group benefits; 1st Amendment>censorship; wouldn't we see some action against private court or arbitration?  Sharia law comes to mind.




> By universal, I am talking about things that almost everyone opposes. Theft, fraud, initiated violence, etc. It is easy to imagine this being the standard since almost everyone already opposes violence and theft.


I see, I doubt the simplicity of what would be agreed upon comes readily to the mind when we're so used to a complex and confusing justice system.




> Moreover, as the result of competition between insurers for voluntarily paying clients, a tendency toward falling prices per insured property values would come about. At th_e same time, a tendency toward the standardization and unification of property and contract law would be set in motion_. _Protection contracts with standardized property and product descriptions would come into existence; and out of the steady cooperation between different insurers in mutual arbitration proceedings, a tendency toward the standardization and unification of the rules of procedure, evidence, and conflict resolution (including compensation, restitution, punishment, and retribution), and steadily increasing legal certainty would result._ . - Hans Hoppe http://mises.org/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_2.pdf
> 
> There is no reason to assume that what Hoppe said there could not be set in motion before the free society fully develops.


So just like precedent law, the inclination is always toward lower prices and more understanding of the legal scenarios that occur in life.  But with private arbitration Incentives are more natural and unhindered whereas political interference in the process inherently distorts understanding and raises prices.




> There is obviously a large range that could include "bad credit". That is why I said _if your debts are bad enough_. The lots of people who have bad credit today probably are not so bad that you wo]ld look at them and find them untrustworthy for small contracts or transactions. There would be a large range of "ratings". 
> 
> Someone might have a reputation/credit rating of X, which is considered bad. Does this automatically mean he is ostracized and will starve? Well...not exactly. This guy might find it hard to get a loan for a house, but that does not mean people won't deal with him on smaller transactions. 
> 
> There is obviously a large range between a guy who is so sketchy that you won't let him in your store, vs a guy who is behind a few payments on a contract or loan. The people you are talking about today are probably closer to the side that still makes them beneficial to trade with.


Okay, so the picture is getting clearer, the range here is unhindered and incentivized properly.  When it's a mutually beneficial transaction, there will be people willing to make it - so whatever trustworthiness is profitable will sustain some sort of market.  If hoardes of people are uninsured, there's money there - just like high risk auto insurance - even with all the regulations in place distorting the market.

Currently there are cases where people are uninsurable by the market.  The state of Florida would argue that people in hurricane zones would not be able to get insurance for their homes without government intervention.  Insurance companies can't be profitable rebuilding homes every few years, even if it's just the roof of a large and expensive beach home.  So the state of florida regulates what can and cannot be turned down for insurance, making coverage mandatory in areas based on negotiations between the insurance companies and the state Insurance commission.

In a free market, is it just tough luck for living on the beach?  What morality do you see in an entity which codifies the position: you can't insure people in Florida unless you insure Everyone in Florida?




> This kind of follows my last response. I don't mean this in an insulting way, but I think you are being intellectually lazy here.


I'm sure of it!  I collect ways to be lazy right next to my arguments for the state.




> Is an employer or property owner going to refuse to do business with you over minor mistakes? No. Why? Because if they ostracized everyone who was not perfect, their customer base would be very small. Imagine Bob, he will only deal with and sell to saints. How profitable is he going to be? How many people will he deal with? He might as well be a hermit in Antarctica. 
> 
> Unless you are a violent rapist or rampant serial mugger, I don't know  why this would be the case. Again, if employers only hired perfect  angels, they would not survive. Even if some employers did have strict  standards, there would be a huge competitive labor market for the other  employers.


I see this better now, but still it seems to me, since we are in speculative territory, there is room for valid objection.  Perhaps, and in fact it could probably be argued as expected - society will adapt in areas with some crazy notions.  Such as that black people aren't human, that women cannot reason a vote, or the like.  In these situations, perhaps people are seen as 'witches' who oughtn't be insured by society.  What if some state is necessary, only for those scenarios.  What if the answer is to learn from the Constitution and limit it this time.  If that fails, do a little better next time - just as athenian courts, parliamentary procedure, common law, rule of law has come about.  A free market would only be deciding to improve upon attempts past itself - as men and women in heirarchies making decisions with varying guiding principles.

Suspend disbelief a moment - lots, most people believe this.  That it  requires an irate tireless minority, but just the same, keep a small  government in check, along with Insurance companies, Wal-Marts, and  Hollywood's, keep track of the limited, low payed employees (elected  officials) and ensure they only aide in ensuring basic human rights are  not violated, and that no great armies of conquest will invade or expand  from within by force.  I'm talking about way different from today even -  for the minarchist, national defense across states themselves is  prudent.  Do you hold that 'states' (territorial contract/constitution  societies) would form again, or nation-state/walled cities/ home owners  associations will always form, and in some cases enter defense contracts  together?  When exactly do you think this becomes an unacceptable  'state'?

If the amount of appropriate organization ends at an individual being coerced to do something against his or her will, a few questions arise.

- In status quo, which occurrences of these violations (if any) are proper to take action against, what action to take, and how does one decide?
- In theoretical free market, what do people do when a state attempts to form?  At what point, if any, is it proper to take action?  At what point, if any, is it proper to take coercive action?
- In a likely transition in our real future, if our politicians don't reign in the spending (if not too late), if the state fails in part or in full, is forced economically to fire, close down portions, what is likely to happen, what do we expect?  What is the prudent action for individuals with the knowledge we have?

_



			
				Suppose, for example, that this were the year 1874 and that someone predicted that eventually there would be a radio manufacturing industry. To be able to make such a forecast successfully, does he have to be challenged to state immediately how many radio manufacturers there would be a century hence, how big they would be, where they would be located, what technology and marketing techniques they would use, and so on? Obviously, such a challenge would make no sense, and in a profound sense the same is true of those who demand a precise portrayal of the pattern of protection activities on the market.
			
		

_


> - Murray Rothbard
> 
> Yeah, it is impossible to say _exactly_ how society would order itself. It doesn't mean that we can't try to predict what would likely happen.


But should we?

----------


## Wesker1982

> Interesting... is there political motivation to quell these types of arbitration?


I don't think it would get the popular support it would require. At the same time people move more towards private dispute resolution, the State would be losing support. I know the State gets away with some crazy stuff, but I don't know how they would convince a increasingly skeptical public that resolving disputes is dangerous. 




> In a free market, is it just tough luck for living on the beach?


In a free market, there would be no legalized right to use violence to make other people pay for your risky choices. Certain beaches might be profitable to insure, some might not. 




> Perhaps, and in fact it could probably be argued as expected - society will adapt in areas with some crazy notions. Such as that black people aren't human, that women cannot reason a vote, or the like. In these situations, perhaps people are seen as 'witches' who oughtn't be insured by society.


Without a coerced territorial monopoly on law this would not be a problem. Communities like that would be relatively isolated and maintained only through people voluntarily staying there. 

Think of the Amish communities right now. People are there because they want to be, and they claim no violent territorial monopoly. 




> Do you hold that 'states' (territorial contract/constitution societies) would form again


In a society where people still believe in the *myth* of government, if they believe that a violent monopoly is necessary for people to peacefully exist, then this is what society will produce. I see no way to avoid this unless people in general change their minds. The rise of the libertarian movement and the Ron Paul campaign lead me to believe that although it might be a slow process, the truth will become evident and people will change their minds. And with the internet, I think this process will progress more rapidly than in the past.

If there is a violent revolution or the government totally collapses and then market institutions took over, I think it would be very temporary if society believes in the myth of government. If the government collapsed tonight, I see people overwhelmingly putting their faith in the first charismatic leader who denounces the evil free market that lead to this catastrophe and who promises them the recovery of America. And this would be because people do not yet understand the nature of the problem (government), which is why I think education is a necessary precondition.  1

But I think if you combine:

1. "As the State courts become more inefficient, run out of money, are clogged up with waiting lines, are too expensive, etc. then more people will turn to private arbitration. I think it would get to the point where people stop relying on the State altogether."

2. Education

Then I think there is a very good chance at sustaining a libertarian society. 

And once people see that the government is not necessary, it would be like trying to convince people that the world is flat. People will never go back to a flat earth theory. So I think a reemergence of the State would be near impossible if you obtain the free society in the way I advocate (1. and 2. above).

IMO, it really is THIS simple...



_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._- Murray N. Rothbard




> In status quo, which occurrences of these violations (if any) are proper to take action against


Taking action against any violation is justified. Good idea though? I don't think so.

"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

He is obviously talking about a violent revolution there. 




> what action to take, and how does one decide?


Depends on the situation. Violence will hurt our cause and help the propaganda campaign of the State. So although I would consider it justified if you used force to defend yourself from having to pay taxes, I would not say it is a good idea. 

What someone decides to do depends on their priorities. Maybe civil disobedience in protest of taxes is a good idea for someone. It isn't for me though because I have decided that although something like that may be a worthy cause, I am more efficient at spreading liberty not being in jail. But it might be the right move for someone who is not very good at exposing the violence of the State in other ways... etc. 




> At what point, if any, is it proper to take coercive action?


The moment the coercion is defensive. 




> if the state fails in part or in full, is forced economically to fire, close down portions, what is likely to happen, what do we expect?


If that happened right now, I would expect the State to come back. If it happened soon, my hope is that enough people have been woken up to the point where secession is generally accepted. As in, there would be no possible way to gain enough support to start a war against secessionists. 

But again, there would be a radically different result if the State crumbled in the way that I advocate. At this point though, people are still caught up in the myths. 




> But should we?


I don't see why not. Just because it is impossible to know the exact future does not mean that it is not useful to make predictions based on historical fact and economic laws.

----------


## onlyrp

> I am a voluntaryist.  Private courts scare me, as I do not have good arguments as to why they will work better than the utterly failed U.S. justice system.


Because it's done by voluntary people in the market, not by force, that's why it'll be better!




> If thousands of years of civilization have resulted in the corruption we see today - take jury selection processes - I don't yet see how a private court system will improve upon the model.


Thousands of years of civilization was just perfect, all the way until the US civil war, and then 1913 federal reserve, without it, there is no corruption, that's why every country other than the US has a perfect criminal justice balance, that's why they also have health care , and no death penalty.




> I've read alot about it, but it is simply very difficult to visualize for those who have grown up without the understanding.  Compelling arguments against the movie 'Death Race' are as difficult to come by as those against corporations becoming 'Skynet.'


but corporations are harmless without government!




> So I'm looking for better ones.  I'd be surprised to find them from Bob Murphy, as he also caters to those who are sympathetic to sound reasoning.  I like him alot though, and will watch the video.


never heard of this guy, I shall check him out.

----------


## onlyrp

> In a free market, there would be no legalized right to use violence to make other people pay for your risky choices. Certain beaches might be profitable to insure, some might not.


........but there would be a legalized right to use violence in self defense?

----------


## nayjevin

Re: should we spend time predicting future occurrences in a free market? 




> I don't see why not. Just because it is impossible to know the exact future does not mean that it is not useful to make predictions based on historical fact and economic laws.


In other words, what value has predicting specifics when other options are available?

Each individual has a different goal.  Getting people to understand 'liberty.'  Getting people to understand Ron Paul.  Preparing families for economic collapse.  What value has free market prognostication, today, given the facts we have about the world?

The answer, in my mind, depends wholly on how out of control the currency collapse is.  If tomorrow is bread lines, different answer than if tomorrow is a minor 'recovery' of the Dow.

So my answer to 'why not' is just that perhaps there are more prudent actions to take than to try to convince statists by creating free market scenarios.  Or even that there's a more prudent way to convince statists than that, if that is the goal.

My opinion is that each has his calling, and we each struggle to determine the best route, and none should say for another what is or isn't worthy of time.  But of course those who have a strong opinion of how time is best spent will spread their ideas, and should.

I'm not getting at 'ya'all are wasting your time,' that's not my point at all.  Just curious if I can learn more from some bright minds as to how you've analyzed this subject.

----------


## Conza88

> 


... the last one mostly.

----------


## soulcyon

Hahah great OP, I am now convinced of a stateless society xD

----------


## Black Flag

> Thank you for the bumps... I appreciate the new opporunity for others to read the OP of this thread! 
> 
> Just a FYI folks.. in case you decided to skip the last 50 pages; _no_, there _still_ hasn't been a legitimate justification of the state... and the 'opposition' doesn't even seem to try.


...Opps, let's be clear, Conza.

There are plenty of "legitimate" justifications.....

There are no MORAL justifications.

----------


## Conza88

.. Yeah, I'm not sure how that adds any clarity.

----------


## Black Flag

> .. Yeah, I'm not sure how that adds any clarity.


Hmmm....

Ok, think about this.

It is a _legitimate_ desire to not be subject to someone's violence.
It is legitimate to organize a defense against someone wishing to do harm to you.
It is legitimate to gather allies in this defense.

...the legitimacy: self-defense.
...the moral way: voluntary defenders.
...the immoral way: conscription.

Statists certainly have many legitimate concerns - social justice, self-defense, norms of behavior... etc. In their mind, they justify the State because they see the State as a means to achieve or solve these legitimate concerns.

The nuance: is the means moral or immoral - is the means good or evil - to achieve these ends? This is where Statism fails - as it is inherently immoral and evil in its means to achieve these legitimate ends.

----------


## Conza88

> There are plenty of "legitimate" justifications.....


There's a reason you put the word in quotation marks, and there's a reason I didn't.

----------


## Voluntary Man

I got nothing.

----------


## Black Flag

Conza88
And the reason is....?

----------


## Conza88

Legitimate; in the sense of being valid / correct / true / right... 

Those who give "justifications" for the state are all wrong. They are engaged in a _performative contradiction_. 

Your attempt to provide a distinction is completely erroneous. If you were trying to make a joke, sure I can understand that - but it appears you're serious?

You haven't clarified anything at all, in fact nothing I said needed clarification. 

_



			
				"there still hasn't been a legitimate justification of the state... and the 'opposition' doesn't even seem to try."
			
		

_

Yeah, you can _try_ provide a _justification_ for the state i.e arbitration, dispute resolution etc.. but it's not going to be legitimate [valid]. (The last point above indicates that those in this thread have hardly even tried to provide any of those arguments.. not good ones anyway). 

They've all failed because they're trying to square a circle. 

What consists of 'legitimacy' / valid I was using in regards to arguments put forward; they could be either moral, practical, whatever. You've just decided to re-case it as moral or not, big whoop.




> ...the legitimacy: self-defense.
> ...the moral way: voluntary defenders.
> ...the immoral way: conscription.


Yeah, and there's a fck load of stuff that statists want that ISN'T LEGITIMATE AS AN END GOAL.. and yet you've assumed as much in your "breakdown".

----------


## Black Flag

> Legitimate; in the sense of being valid / correct / true / right...


So as often is the case, someone uses a word in a sentence without really knowing what the word means.


Legitimate:
1. according to law; lawful
2.in accordance with established rules, principles, or standards.
3.(not applicable - has to do with children)
4.in accordance with the laws of reasoning; logically inferable; logical: a legitimate conclusion.
5.resting on or ruling by the principle of hereditary right

Ok, now those are the definitions for "legitimate" - now which one does not apply to the State.

Is it legal? Yes (1) Check
Does it exist on a set of rules/standards? Yes (2) Check
Does it have legitimate children ...oops, irrelevant.
Does it exist within the laws of reason, can be logically inferred? Yes (4) Check
Does it exist by hereditary right - or does it exist because it has been around for a really long time? Yes (5) Check.

The "State" is only required to meet but one of these definitions - however, it meets all of the applicable definitions.

So how you can claim it does not have "legitimacy", I cannot understand.



> Yeah, and there's a fck load of stuff that statists want that ISN'T LEGITIMATE AS AN END GOAL.. and yet you've assumed as much in your "breakdown".


Does everyone on this blog have memory problems or what?

To remind you - *it was you who brought up the word 'legitimate' in your post* and in a way and place that was -frankly- bizarre.

I was attempting to help you not trip into a pile of quicksand based on -what now is completely apparent- your misunderstanding of what "legitimate" means.

So, before you go off half-baked, and twice twisted - perhaps you need to review your own post and _correct it_.... that is, (what I believe you meant) use the word "moral" instead.

----------


## Cabal

Legitimate and moral are one in the same to me. If something is immoral, such as taxation, I'll never view it as legitimate regardless of what some law says.

----------


## Black Flag

> Legitimate and moral are one in the same to me. If something is immoral, such as taxation, I'll never view it as legitimate regardless of what some law says.


Eek!
The definition I posted regarding "legitimate" blew right through you and you invented your own.....

So the (1) definition of legitimate - that which is legal....

Definition of moral:
_founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities_

So, for you - you believe that moral (right regardless of legal) is the same as legitimate (legal regardless of right or wrong)....

...having the conclusion that right,wrong,legal,not legal are all the same thing....

...whew!

----------


## Cabal

Oh yay, semantics...

il·le·git·i·mate
Logic . not in accordance with the principles of valid inference.

If I'm not mistaken this began with Conza claiming arguments for the State to be invalid (illegitimate) which is cohesive with the above definition since he was making arguments from logic, i.e. performative contradiction.

My point, however, was simply that laws which are immoral ought not be laws at all, if indeed there are to be laws.

----------


## Conza88

> Oh yay, semantics...
> 
> il·le·git·i·mate
> Logic . not in accordance with the principles of valid inference.
> 
> If I'm not mistaken this began with Conza claiming arguments for the State to be invalid (illegitimate) which is cohesive with the above definition since he was making arguments from logic, i.e. performative contradiction.
> 
> My point, however, was simply that laws which are immoral ought not be laws at all, if indeed there are to be laws.


*F$cken spot on.*

What absolute pretentious and erroneous bull$#@! is being spewed from the other conversant in this thread. Learn to differentiate between legal positivism / legislation and REAL LAW (principles) bro, jeezus

----------


## Conza88

Convince me LE

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Welcome back, Conza!

Maybe someone can take advantage of your return to finally present arguments to convince you -- and me! -- of the state.  It certainly would be a lot easier to be able to join in solidarity with the vast majority of people, rather than holding an unpopular view.  So please convince us!

----------


## erowe1

> Welcome back, Conza!
> 
> Maybe someone can take advantage of your return to finally present arguments to convince you -- and me! -- of the state.  It certainly would be a lot easier to be able to join in solidarity with the vast majority of people, rather than holding an unpopular view.  So please convince us!


Nobody needs to convince me of the state. I've seen it with my own eyes.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Nobody needs to convince me of the state. I've seen it with my own eyes.


 Yes, but convince me to support it -- to love it! -- and then I can stop opposing it and being dissatisfied.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

Lemme take a stab at it:  we have to have the state because people are bad.  They rob, they steal, they kill.  So we have to have an entity in society which enjoys authority over all other human beings to adjudicate over the robbing and killing of other human beings.  How are we going to administer this entity, you ask?  Well, with humans, obviously.  Yes, that's correct - we are going to create an entity in human society with the authority to adjudicate theft and killing which will be populated with human beings.  

What's the problem?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Lemme take a stab at it:  we have to have the state because people are bad.  They rob, they steal, they kill.  So we have to have an entity in society which enjoys authority over all other human beings to adjudicate over the robbing and killing of other human beings.  How are we going to administer this entity, you ask?  Well, with humans, obviously.  Yes, that's correct - we are going to create an entity in human society with the authority to adjudicate theft and killing which will be populated with human beings.  
> 
> What's the problem?


You forgot to use Orwellian terminology.

----------


## Travlyr

> Lemme take a stab at it:  we have to have the state because people are bad.  They rob, they steal, they kill.  So we have to have an entity in society which enjoys authority over all other human beings to adjudicate over the robbing and killing of other human beings.  How are we going to administer this entity, you ask?  Well, with humans, obviously.  Yes, that's correct - we are going to create an entity in human society with the authority to adjudicate theft and killing which will be populated with human beings.  
> 
> What's the problem?


Of course, that is not what John Locke said, is it?

He called your definition of a state illegitimate. A state is not people. A state is a concept. Laws are not humans either. Government administrators who use laws to enforce the concept of a state is a legitimate state... according to Locke, Mises, Hume, Paul, Mason, and all the really smart liberty lovers in the world.




> The aim of such a legitimate government is to preserve, so far as possible, the rights to life, liberty, health and property of its citizens, and to prosecute and punish those of its citizens who violate the rights of others and to pursue the public good even where this may conflict with the rights of individuals. In doing this it provides something unavailable in the state of nature, an impartial judge to determine the severity of the crime, and to set a punishment proportionate to the crime. This is one of the main reasons why civil society is an improvement on the state of nature. An illegitimate government will fail to protect the rights to life, liberty, health and property of its subjects, and in the worst cases, such an illegitimate government will claim to be able to violate the rights of its subjects, that is it will claim to have despotic power over its subjects. - John Locke


Or we can take your advice and just let the bad people keep killing and stealing.

----------


## DamianTV

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


Guess I better get to it.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Of course, that is not what John Locke said, is it?
> 
> He called your definition of a state illegitimate. A state is not people. A state is a concept. Laws are not humans either. Government administrators who use laws to enforce the concept of a state is a legitimate state... according to Locke, Mises, Hume, Paul, Mason, and all the really smart liberty lovers in the world.


Some really smart liberty lovers, but not ALL the really smart liberty lovers.  

Can't believe you haven't been banned for your belligerence, Travlyr.  I guess the standards are pretty low here.  Whatever.




> Or we can take your advice and just let the bad people keep killing and stealing.


That's your advice, obviously, since you advocate the creation of a super-social entity mysteriously made up of human beings who have the authority to kill and steal.

----------


## Travlyr

> Some really smart liberty lovers, but not ALL the really smart liberty lovers.  
> 
> Can't believe you haven't been banned for your belligerence, Travlyr.  I guess the standards are pretty low here.  Whatever.
> 
> 
> 
> That's your advice, obviously, since you advocate the creation of a super-social entity mysteriously made up of human beings who have the authority to kill and steal.


Yeah. I do happen to believe that Locke, Hume, Mises, Paul, Mason and millions upon millions of liberty lovers are smarter than you. I admit that.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Yeah. I do happen to believe that Locke, Hume, Mises, Paul, Mason and millions upon millions of liberty lovers are smarter than you. I admit that.


Appeal to authority.  Logical fallacies are your forte.

----------


## Travlyr

> Appeal to authority.  Logical fallacies are your forte.


I confess. I think there are a lot of people a lot smarter than me. Not you, but a lot of people are.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Of course, that is not what John Locke said, is it?
> 
> He called your definition of a state illegitimate. A state is not people. A state is a concept. Laws are not humans either. Government administrators who use laws to enforce the concept of a state is a legitimate state... according to Locke, Mises, Hume, Paul, Mason, and all the really smart liberty lovers in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> Or we can take your advice and just let the bad people keep killing and stealing.


Mises was in favor of micro-secession and no friend of statism.  

"The whole of mankinds progress has had to be achieved against the resistance and opposition of the state and its power of coercion." Liberalism, pg 58
"How fine the world would be if the State were free to cure all ills! It is one step only from such a mentality to the perfect totalitarianism of Stalin and Hitler." Beaurocracy, pg 7576
"Louis XIV was very frank and sincere when he said: I am the State. The modern etatist is modest. He says: I am the servant of the State; but, he implies, the State is God." 
Bureaucracy, Beaurocracy, pg 7576
The state is a human institution, not a superhuman being. He who says state means coercion and compulsion. He who says: There should be a law concerning this matter, means: The armed men of the government should force people to do what they do not want to do, or not to do what they like. He who says: This law should be better enforced, means: the police should force people to obey this law. He who says: The state is God, deifies arms and prisons. Omnipotent Government, pg. 47

etc, etc, etc.  Much more here.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I confess. I think there are a lot of people a lot smarter than me. Not you, but a lot of people are.


In your assertion that there are a lot of people smarter than you, I could not agree more.  

I personally have come across more intellectually compelling grade-schoolers.
I may not be "smarter" than you, Travlyr, depending upon one's definition of "smart".  I'm not here to make such assertions, myself.  My conclusions are logically and morally consistent, yet they seem to have escaped your intellect.  Whatever you, I or anyone may think of our individual intellectual capacity, you have never made a successful counter to that position.  That is readily apparent.

----------


## Travlyr

> Mises was in favor of micro-secession and no friend of statism.  
> 
> "The whole of mankinds progress has had to be achieved against the resistance and opposition of the state and its power of coercion." Liberalism, pg 58
> "How fine the world would be if the State were free to cure all ills! It is one step only from such a mentality to the perfect totalitarianism of Stalin and Hitler." Beaurocracy, pg 7576
> "Louis XIV was very frank and sincere when he said: I am the State. The modern etatist is modest. He says: I am the servant of the State; but, he implies, the State is God." 
> Bureaucracy, Beaurocracy, pg 7576
> The state is a human institution, not a superhuman being. He who says state means coercion and compulsion. He who says: There should be a law concerning this matter, means: The armed men of the government should force people to do what they do not want to do, or not to do what they like. He who says: This law should be better enforced, means: the police should force people to obey this law. He who says: The state is God, deifies arms and prisons. Omnipotent Government, pg. 47
> 
> etc, etc, etc.  Much more here.


I don't need anymore reading assignments from you guys. Answer me this: "What is micro-secession?"

----------


## Travlyr

> In your assertion that there are a lot of people smarter than you, I could not agree more.  
> 
> I personally have come across more intellectually compelling grade-schoolers.
> I may not be "smarter" than you, Travlyr, depending upon one's definition of "smart".  I'm not here to make such assertions, myself.  My conclusions are logically and morally consistent, yet they seem to have escaped your intellect.  Whatever you, I or anyone may think of our individual intellectual capacity, you have never made a successful counter to that position.  That is readily apparent.


Which places you... where?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Which places you... where?


Given that you've never mounted a successful intellectual counter-argument here?  Ahead of you, obviously.

----------


## Travlyr

> Given that you've never mounted a successful intellectual counter-argument here?  Ahead of you, obviously.


You must have missed this post: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...62#post4665662

Or do you consider yourself to be the smartest liberty loving human being to have ever lived?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> You must have missed this post: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...62#post4665662
> 
> Or do you consider yourself to be the smartest liberty loving human being to have ever lived?


I recognize moral and logical consistency, Travlyr.  This is a concept with which you most unfortunately struggle.  I don't consider myself the smartest anything.  I simply recognize some self-evident principles, which seem to evade you.  You can grapple with the consequences of that all you like.  I really don't care.  You cannot challenge my assertions; in fact you have never tried.  Your arguments typically amount to appeal to authority until you get frustrated, and then you resort to arguing against strawmen and ultimately name-calling and internet-bullying.  I'm really not interested in having a discussion with you.  I'm just enjoying the opportunity you're giving me to expose you for the intellectual fraud that you are.  Thanks, by the way.

----------


## Travlyr

> I recognize moral and logical consistency


If what you say is true, then you should be able to explain to the rest of us what this means. You said it ... explain in detail.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

Because it would be the first time it'd been explained here in this forum?  Right, Travlyr.  It's been explained to you.  In fact, it's been explained to you that it's been explained to you.  

Here's where you say, "well gee I guess you can't explain yourself, so that means I'm right!"

:lol:

----------


## Travlyr

> I recognize moral and logical consistency, Travlyr.  This is a concept with which you most unfortunately struggle.  I don't consider myself the smartest anything.  I simply recognize some self-evident principles, which seem to evade you.  You can grapple with the consequences of that all you like.  I really don't care.  You cannot challenge my assertions; in fact you have never tried.  Your arguments typically amount to appeal to authority until you get frustrated, and then you resort to arguing against strawmen and ultimately name-calling and internet-bullying.  I'm really not interested in having a discussion with you.  I'm just enjoying the opportunity you're giving me to expose you for the intellectual fraud that you are.  Thanks, by the way.


BTW... I am very impressed that you can read that post in 6 minutes, click the links, and understand it. Bravo!

----------


## Travlyr

> Because it would be the first time it'd been explained here in this forum?  Right, Travlyr.  It's been explained to you.  In fact, it's been explained to you that it's been explained to you.  
> 
> Here's where you say, "well gee I guess you can't explain yourself, so that means I'm right!"
> 
> :lol:


Yes, indeed. That would be a first. Now you can go hide behind Mama's skirt instead of elaborating on what you meant with your gibberish.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Yes, indeed. That would be a first. Now you can go hide behind Mama's skirt instead of elaborating on what you meant with your gibberish.


Mama's skirt, Travlyr?  That's you and the state.  You're the one who's afraid to be a big boy and deal with the rest of us like an adult.  You gotta have your mommy look out for you, because you're too afraid that someone like me is going to come and push you off your big wheel and take it from you.  You're a coward.  You're the one hiding behind your mama's skirt.

----------


## Travlyr

> Mama's skirt, Travlyr?  That's you and the state.  You're the one who's afraid to be a big boy and deal with the rest of us like an adult.  You gotta have your mommy look out for you, because you're too afraid that someone like me is going to come and push you off your big wheel and take it from you.  You're a coward.  You're the one hiding behind your mama's skirt.


My mother has already passed on, Son. You need to put the big boy pants on and help the rest of us understand what you meant when you said, "I recognize moral and logical consistency." Because I am quite confident that I am not the only one reading the forums who doesn't understand what six words poorly formed into a sentence means.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I don't need anymore reading assignments from you guys. Answer me this: "What is micro-secession?"


If you've actually read Mises, you would know.  I'm not going to spoon-feed you.  Time to hit the books instead of being foolish on the internetz for you, Trav.

----------


## Travlyr

> Mises was in favor of micro-secession and no friend of statism.  
> 
> "The whole of mankinds progress has had to be achieved against the resistance and opposition of the state and its power of coercion." Liberalism, pg 58
> "How fine the world would be if the State were free to cure all ills! It is one step only from such a mentality to the perfect totalitarianism of Stalin and Hitler." Beaurocracy, pg 7576
> "Louis XIV was very frank and sincere when he said: I am the State. The modern etatist is modest. He says: I am the servant of the State; but, he implies, the State is God." 
> Bureaucracy, Beaurocracy, pg 7576
> The state is a human institution, not a superhuman being. He who says state means coercion and compulsion. He who says: There should be a law concerning this matter, means: The armed men of the government should force people to do what they do not want to do, or not to do what they like. He who says: This law should be better enforced, means: the police should force people to obey this law. He who says: The state is God, deifies arms and prisons. Omnipotent Government, pg. 47
> 
> etc, etc, etc.  Much more here.


HB34, you do not get a free pass tonight. Either explain what you mean by micro-secession, or quit using it as a curtain to hide behind.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> My mother has already passed on, Son. You need to put the big boy pants on and help the rest of us understand what you meant when you said, "I recognize moral and logical consistency." Because I am quite confident that I am not the only one who doesn't understand what six words poorly formed into a sentence means.


Those words mean that you are a coward.  You're not a man.  You rely on imaginary creatures to protect you.  Superman is coming to save you, Travlyr, you coward.  Just sit there and wait, and everything will be okay.  No need to take care of your own life.  No need to deal with other human beings.  You just sit there and wait for Superman to come and change your diapers, okay? 

:lol:

----------


## Travlyr

> If you've actually read Mises, you would know.  I'm not going to spoon-feed you.  Time to hit the books instead of being foolish on the internetz for you, Trav.


I've read a lot of Mises. I have no clue what you are talking about. Quote him.

----------


## Travlyr

> Those words mean that you are a coward.  You're not a man.  You rely on imaginary creatures to protect you.  Superman is coming to save you, Travlyr, you coward.  Just sit there and wait, and everything will be okay.  No need to take care of your own life.  No need to deal with other human beings.  You just sit there and wait for Superman to come and change your diapers, okay? 
> 
> :lol:


I must say... for certain... you are a true anarchist. Bravo!

----------


## Travlyr

> If you've actually read Mises, you would know.  I'm not going to spoon-feed you.  Time to hit the books instead of being foolish on the internetz for you, Trav.


You must have missed this post too! Can you read it in 6 minutes or less, click on the links, and understand it as well? If not, then sonny boy has you beat.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4665662

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I must say... for certain... you are a true anarchist. Bravo!


Thanks!  There's hope for you yet!

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I've read a lot of Mises. I have no clue what you are talking about. Quote him.


"The right of self-determination in regard to the question of membership in a state thus means: whenever the inhabitants of a particular territory, whether it be a single village, a whole district, or a series of adjacent districts, make it known, by a freely conducted plebiscite, that they no longer wish to remain united to the state to which they belong at the time, but wish either to form an independent state or to attach themselves to some other state, their wishes are to be respected and complied with. This is the only feasible and effective way of preventing revolutions and civil and international wars." -Liberalism, "The Right Of Self-Determination".  Now will you admit you haven't read Mises?  I'm not doing your homework for you anymore.

----------


## Travlyr

> Thanks!  There's hope for you yet!


True anarchist for sure. You are a human who degrades others so that you feel good about yourself. You stomp your hands and feet on the floor when you don't get your way. You steal music and art from others because you can. You are a low life but claim moral superiority. You are a good representative of anarchy. Well done Son.

----------


## Travlyr

> "The right of self-determination in regard to the question of membership in a state thus means: whenever the inhabitants of a particular territory, whether it be a single village, a whole district, or a series of adjacent districts, make it known, by a freely conducted plebiscite, that they no longer wish to remain united to the state to which they belong at the time, but wish either to form an independent state or to attach themselves to some other state, their wishes are to be respected and complied with. This is the only feasible and effective way of preventing revolutions and civil and international wars." -Liberalism, "The Right Of Self-Determination".  Now will you admit you haven't read Mises?  I'm not doing your homework for you anymore.


I admit I have not read everything Mises ever wrote, nor Locke, nor Paul, not even HB34. Yet, I have read plenty. For anyone to claim that they have read everything anyone else has ever written is asinine. 

However, what part of this do you not understand? 


> wish to remain united to the *state* to which they belong at the time, but wish either to form an independent *state* or to attach themselves to some other *state*


And you take that to mean micro-secession eh? From state to state to state? Where are you going to go? What state will you choose?

Now I understand that Mises was not necessarily a Constitutionalist, but Ron Paul is. I agree with both of them.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> True anarchist for sure. You are a human who degrades others so that you feel good about yourself. You stomp your hands and feet on the floor when you don't get your way. You steal music and art from others because you can. You are a low life but claim moral superiority. You are a good representative of anarchy. Well done Son.


That's a fascinating description, Travlyr.  It's a shame it's reflective only of your fevered, childish imagination rather than reality.  You favor the state, albeit in some mystical limited fashion.  The state is your Mommy, or your Big Brother, if you will.  You're afraid of me... not the real me, the 'me' you've conjured in your childish imagination.  You had a bad dream about me in the middle of the night, and like a child, you ran to Mommy.  Yet I have taken NOTHING from you.  I haven't even threatened to take anything from you.  And even on the off chance that what you fear of me is real, you'd prefer to run to your mommy, rather than deal with me as a man.  

As I said, Travlyr, you are no man.  You are a coward.

----------


## Travlyr

> That's a fascinating description, Travlyr.  It's a shame it's reflective only of your fevered, childish imagination rather than reality.  You favor the state, albeit in some mystical limited fashion.  The state is your Mommy, or your Big Brother, if you will.  You're afraid of me... not the real me, the 'me' you've conjured in your childish imagination.  You had a bad dream about me in the middle of the night, and like a child, you ran to Mommy.  Yet I have taken NOTHING from you.  I haven't even threatened to take anything from you.  And even on the off chance that what you fear of me is real, you'd prefer to run to your mommy, rather than deal with me as a man.  
> 
> As I said, Travlyr, you are no man.  You are a coward.


You think I am a coward eh? Will you say that to my face? Or do you just want to be a big boy on the Internet? I'll meet you anytime anywhere.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> You think I am a coward eh? Will you say that to my face? Or do you just want to be a big boy on the Internet? I'll meet you anytime anywhere.


Yes I would say that to your face because you are a coward.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> However, what part of this do you not understand?


There's no context in which to understand this disembodied bit of text.




> And you take that to mean micro-secession eh? From state to state to state? Where are you going to go? What state will you choose?


I would choose individual level secession.  All other interactions I choose from there would be voluntary.




> Now I understand that Mises was not necessarily a Constitutionalist, but Ron Paul is. I agree with both of them.


You can't agree with Mises and be a true Constitutionalist.  These are mutually exclusive systems of thought.

----------


## muzzled dogg

Relax trav you've been banned before for physical threats

----------


## Travlyr

> Relax trav you've been banned before for physical threats


I did not threaten him. I just stood up for myself like we should all be doing.

----------


## Travlyr

> There's no context in which to understand this disembodied bit of text.
> 
> 
> I would choose individual level secession.  All other interactions I choose from there would be voluntary.
> 
> 
> You can't agree with Mises and be a true Constitutionalist.  These are mutually exclusive systems of thought.


Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist.

----------


## Travlyr

> Yes I would say that to your face because you are a coward.


You think so. Where would you like to meet?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> You think so. Where would you like to meet?


3 o'clock, after school.  In the parking lot.  Make sure your mommy is there to chase me around with her purse.

----------


## Travlyr

> 3 o'clock, after school.  In the parking lot.  Make sure your mommy is there to chase me around with her purse.


Your reading skill are horrible. I already told you I lost my mother a long time ago. Now if you are still in school, then that's very different. I thought you were a man.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Your reading skill are horrible. I already told you I lost my mother a long time ago.


While I am sincerely sorry for your loss, I think it was fairly evident that I was referring to a metaphoric "mommy" of the state.

----------


## Travlyr

> While I am sincerely sorry for your loss, I think it was fairly evident that I was referring to a metaphoric "mommy" of the state.


Like Locke, Hume, Mises, Paul, Mason, et. al.  Like that? 
Or like sonny boy?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Like Locke, Hume, Mises, Paul, Mason, et. al.  Like that? 
> Or like sonny boy?


Here's Travlyr's mythical limited state, all grown up:




Either your constitution sanctions the government we have, or it is powerless to stop it.  

Disabuse yourself of the fairy tale that is the state.  Until enough humans do, our species will be doomed to suffer under it.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> 3 o'clock, after school.  In the parking lot.  Make sure your mommy is there to chase me around with her purse.


LOL

----------


## Travlyr

> Here's Travlyr's mythical limited state, all grown up:
> 
> Either your constitution sanctions the government we have, or it is powerless to stop it.  
> 
> Disabuse yourself of the fairy tale that is the state.  Until enough humans do, our species will be doomed to suffer under it.


Here is the dumbassness of anarchism. Ignore Locke, Mises, Hume, Paul, Mason and others who spent their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor for liberty. Just be an idiot. Ignorance is Bliss.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Here is the dumbassness of anarchism. Ignore Locke, Mises, Hume, Paul, Mason and others who spent their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor for liberty. Just be an idiot. Ignorance is Bliss.


Appeal to authority.  Realize you've said nothing of substance.  You've used the "word" "dumbassness", and implicitly called me an ignorant idiot.  You do nothing to respond to the assertion that the U.S. constitution either sanctions the government we presently suffer under or is powerless to stop it (presumably because you cannot).  

This is your modus operandi, Travlyr.  It is a shame, because beneath the surly exterior I suspect there actually is an intelligent human being in there.  For whatever reason, you have closed him off, perhaps terminally.  I hope this is not the case because you are not a young man, and I would hate for your years to pass before you give yourself the opportunity to truly recognize the objective truth of individual sovereignty.  However, if you continue to choose to ignore this fact, I will nevertheless continue to make use of your self-imposed ignorance to perchance unlock one or two more minds.

Make yours one of them.

----------


## Travlyr

> Appeal to authority.  Realize you've said nothing of substance.  You've used the "word" "dumbassness", and implicitly called me an ignorant idiot.  You do nothing to respond to the assertion that the U.S. constitution either sanctions the government we presently suffer under or is powerless to stop it (presumably because you cannot).  
> 
> This is your modus operandi, Travlyr.  It is a shame, because beneath the surly exterior I suspect there actually is an intelligent human being in there.  For whatever reason, you have closed him off, perhaps terminally.  I hope this is not the case because you are not a young man, and I would hate for your years to pass before you give yourself the opportunity to truly recognize the objective truth of individual sovereignty.  However, if you continue to choose to ignore this fact, I will nevertheless continue to make use of your self-imposed ignorance to perchance unlock one or two more minds.
> 
> Make yours one of them.


Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist.


I like Guinness.

----------


## CCTelander

> Appeal to authority.  Realize you've said nothing of substance.  You've used the "word" "dumbassness", and implicitly called me an ignorant idiot.  You do nothing to respond to the assertion that the U.S. constitution either sanctions the government we presently suffer under or is powerless to stop it (presumably because you cannot).  
> 
> This is your modus operandi, Travlyr.  It is a shame, because beneath the surly exterior I suspect there actually is an intelligent human being in there.  For whatever reason, you have closed him off, perhaps terminally.  I hope this is not the case because you are not a young man, and I would hate for your years to pass before you give yourself the opportunity to truly recognize the objective truth of individual sovereignty.  However, if you continue to choose to ignore this fact, I will nevertheless continue to make use of your self-imposed ignorance to perchance unlock one or two more minds.
> 
> Make yours one of them.



Here, here!

Too bad your plea will certainly fall ondeaf ears. Then you'll probably be treated to another plethora of logical fallacies and indults, and finally, Trav will probably threaten to "throat punch" you. 

It's a shame, really.

----------


## Travlyr

> Appeal to authority.


Again, I do believe that people smarter than I lived before me.



> Realize you've said nothing of substance.


That is because your reading skills are incredibility horrible. You either didn't read this post of mine or your read it so fast that you did not understand what I wrote. Others have actually praised me for taking the time to write is and they understand it as well.




> You've used the "word" "dumbassness", and implicitly called me an ignorant idiot.


I actually do view you that way. I read your posts.




> You do nothing to respond to the assertion that the U.S. constitution either sanctions the government we presently suffer under or is powerless to stop it (presumably because you cannot).


In what way? The constitution does not allow for standing armies, or fiat money, or Superior Court judicial review. So, in what way?




> This is your modus operandi, Travlyr.  It is a shame, because beneath the surly exterior I suspect there actually is an intelligent human being in there.  For whatever reason, you have closed him off, perhaps terminally.  I hope this is not the case because you are not a young man, and I would hate for your years to pass before you give yourself the opportunity to truly recognize the objective truth of individual sovereignty.  However, if you continue to choose to ignore this fact, I will nevertheless continue to make use of your self-imposed ignorance to perchance unlock one or two more minds.
> 
> Make yours one of them.


Attack the messenger... not the message. That is your modus operandi.

----------


## green73

Travlyr is too old to wake up. It's damn hard for people to wake up after 30 and nigh impossible after 50. You're more likely to knock over a brick wall with your head.

----------


## Travlyr

> Here, here!
> 
> Too bad your plea will certainly fall ondeaf ears. Then you'll probably be treated to another plethora of logical fallacies and indults, and finally, Trav will probably threaten to "throat punch" you. 
> 
> It's a shame, really.


I didn't threaten anybody. Your claims of logical fallacies is unfounded. Did you read this post of mine? Can you refute the facts, or will you just come on the forums to attack the messenger rather than the message itself?

----------


## green73

Please don't throat punch me, Trav, k?

----------


## Travlyr

> Travlyr is too old to wake up. It's damn hard for people to wake up after 30 and nigh impossible after 50. You're more likely to knock over a brick wall will your head.


Did you bother reading this post of mine? Why do you attack the messenger rather than the message?

----------


## Travlyr

> Please don't throat punch me, Trav, k?


Then get out of the way of liberty. You will get run over.

----------


## green73

LOL

----------


## Travlyr

> LOL


Was it too hard to read? Should I have dumbed it down for you?

----------


## CCTelander

> LOL



Better watch out or "you will get run over." At least according to Trav. Me? I'm not too worried about it.

----------


## Travlyr

> Better watch out or "you will get run over." At least according to Trav. Me? I'm not too worried about it.


I really didn't think I needed to dumb it down for people in their 50s. Perhaps I was mistaken about that.

----------


## green73

It's not about having to dumb it down. It's more about the impossibility of breaking through a wall of indoctrination 50+ years thick.

----------


## Travlyr

> It's not about having to dumb it down. It's more about the impossibility of breaking through a wall of indoctrination 50+ years thick.


Again, attacking the messenger rather than the message. Did you read my post?

----------


## CCTelander

> You think I am a coward eh? Will you say that to my face? Or do you just want to be a big boy on the Internet? I'll meet you anytime anywhere.



This constitutes a veiled threat of physical violence. Men of peace and good will do not resort to this kind of behavior over something as trivial as a few cross words posted on an internet message forum. Ergo, the person acting like this clearly cannot be a man of peace and good will.

----------


## Travlyr

> This constitutes a veiled threat of physical violence. Men of peace and good will do not resort to this kind of behavior over something as trivial as a few cross words posted on an internet message forum. Ergo, the person acting like this clearly cannot be a man of peace and good will.


Chris, did you even bother to do your own homework? Did you read my post? If not, then do because others are reading it. If you want to get me banned from the world, then fine. Meet me and kill me. Outside of that, I'm going to be a thorn in the side of anarchy.

----------


## steph3n

> Chris, did you even bother to do your own homework? Did you read my post? If not, then do because others are reading it. If you want to get me banned from the world, then fine. Meet me and kill me. Outside of that, I'm going to be a thorn in the side of anarchy.


Sounds more like a thorn in your own side....need me to supply you some sterile equipment to remove it?

----------


## Travlyr

> Sounds more like a thorn in your own side....need me to supply you some sterile equipment to remove it?


The only way to remove me is to kill me. That's it. I will not stop otherwise. Freedom for my children and grandchildren are too important.

----------


## CCTelander

> Chris, did you even bother to do your own homework? Did you read my post? If not, then do because others are reading it. If you want to get me banned from the world, then fine. Meet me and kill me. Outside of that, I'm going to be a thorn in the side of anarchy.



Sorry Trav but you must be confusing me with someone else, Perhaps yourself or your buddy Rev9. You two are, after all, the ones who have repeatedly threatened others with physical violence, both here and over on RevBox. I don't want to "kill" anyone, and, in fact, find it quite odd that you'd even suggest such a thing. I'm really quite at a loss as to where such a thought even came from.

----------


## Travlyr

> Sorry Trav but you must be confusing me with someone else, Perhaps yourself or your buddy Rev9. You two are, after all, the ones who have repeatedly threatened others with physical violence, both here and over on RevBox. I don't want to "kill" anyone, and, in fact, find it quite odd that you'd even suggest such a thing. I'm really quite at a loss as to where such a thought even came from.


That's because you are are patsy. Grow some balls.

----------


## CCTelander

> That's because you are are patsy. Grow some balls.



So, you're saying that because I lack the desire to kill someone whom I've never met, and who has not aggressed aginst me, that I need to "[ g]row some balls"? 

Interesting.

----------


## Travlyr

> So, you're saying that because I lack the desire to kill someone whom I've never met, and who has not aggressed aginst me, that I need to "[ g]row some balls"? 
> 
> Interesting.


No, Not at all. I am making the claim that you are an inferior human being based on your inability to do proper research. You can't do it or you won't do it. Whatever.

----------


## Lowkey

So many An-Caps.

----------


## CCTelander

> So many An-Caps.



"[It's] catching on, I'm tellin' you!"

----------


## A Son of Liberty

LOL Travlyr considers anarchists to be the great threat to his and his children's and grandchildren's liberty.  His leviathan is collapsing right on top of him, and he considers the people who warn him of staying away from the state to be his enemy!  :LOL:!

Either your constitution gives sanction to the state we suffer under, Travlyr, or IT IS POWERLESS TO STOP IT.

It's time to grow up and realize that the path to true human freedom lies in demolishing the illogical, immoral concept of the state in the minds of your fellow men.

----------


## CCTelander

> LOL Travlyr considers anarchists to be the great threat to his and his children's and grandchildren's liberty.  His leviathan is collapsing right on top of him, and he considers the people who warn him of staying away from the state to be his enemy!  :LOL:!
> 
> Either your constitution gives sanction to the state we suffer under, Travlyr, or IT IS POWERLESS TO STOP IT.
> 
> It's time to grow up and realize that the path to true human freedom lies in demolishing the illogical, immoral concept of the state in the minds of your fellow men.



Exactly. 

The people who are willing to actually pledge NOT to aggress against him, and who are willing to accept his word, if he were only willing to give it, that he will behave likewise, WITHOUT some third psrty holding guns to everyone's heads he considers his enemies.

The people who will not interact with him in any significant way unless they have that third party holding a gun to his head, these he considers friends. 

Thix is logical in Trav's Bizzaro World reality.

Go figure.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

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


//

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> In what way? The constitution does not allow for standing armies, or fiat money, or Superior Court judicial review. So, in what way?


In the way that we actually have a standing army.  So as I said, the constitution either sanctions the government we suffer under, or it IS POWERLESS TO STOP IT.  It IS powerless to stop it, by direct observation - we have a standing army.  The Constitution does not prevent the U.S. government from maintaining a standing army.  How do I know this?  Because the U.S. government maintains a standing army.  It also cannot prevent the U.S. government from issuing a fiat currency.  How do I know this?  Because the U.S. government has granted the Federal Reserve to issue a fiat currency.  While it is true that the constitution says that the U.S. government cannot maintain a standing army or issue a non-commodity currency, it does.  So, AGAIN, it is POWERLESS to stop it.  BY DIRECT OBSERVATION.  The CONSTITUTION DOES NOT LIMIT GOVERNMENT.  How do I know this?  BECAUSE I HAVE EYES.  

The only way you will ever "limit" government is to utterly destroy its legitimacy in the eyes of mankind.  Once you allow that some men may have some measure of power over others, all discussion as to its extent is merely "haggling over the price", to paraphrase Shaw.  You can either allow that the scope of government is open to interpretation (representative democracy), or you can impose a dictatorship over society, against which men will inevitably, rightly, rebel!  It is not a question of how much government, but whether government at all.  This is the only logical question.  You have NO LOGICAL ARGUMENT AGAINST THIS.  Government CANNOT be contained, as marvelously demonstrated RIGHT HERE IN THE U.S. under the constitution.

I'm not sure how many times or ways I can say this before it sinks into that thick skull of yours.  You may make a utilitarian argument for the state, but you CANNOT MAKE A MORALLY AND LOGICALLY CONSISTENT case for it.  IT CANNOT BE DONE.  IT DOES NOT EXIST.  Morality and logic are objective quantities.  You cannot drive a square peg into a round hole.  

Fin.

----------


## erowe1

What is the point of these debates?

They seem like a way for people to push away their most likely allies.

Here are two facts that I consider nearly impossible to reject:
1) We are never going to have no state.
2) We are never going to have a federal government that obeys the Constitution.

It's like arguing about who would win in a fight between Superman and the Hulk.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> What is the point of these debates?
> 
> They seem like a way for people to push away their most likely allies.
> 
> Here are two facts that I consider nearly impossible to reject:
> 1) We are never going to have no state.
> 2) We are never going to have a federal government that obeys the Constitution.
> 
> It's like arguing about who would win in a fight between Superman and the Hulk.


Well, it's very unlikely, but I wouldn't rule out a collapse of the State due to utter mismanagement and various other factors.  It's happened numerous times before. (I doubt anyone here will be alive when that happens, though)

----------


## erowe1

> Well, it's very unlikely, but I wouldn't rule out a collapse of the State due to utter mismanagement and various other factors.  It's happened numerous times before. (I doubt anyone here will be alive when that happens, though)


I can see a state collapsing. I just can't see it being replaced with statelessness. As I see it, wherever theft exists, the state exists, even if only a very small one.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I can see a state collapsing. I just can't see it being replaced with statelessness. *As I see it, wherever theft exists, the state exists, even if only a very small one*.


You have an interesting way of defining "State" which I've not seen before.  May I ask how you arrived at this?

----------


## erowe1

> You have an interesting way of defining "State" which I've not seen before.  May I ask how you arrived at this?


Theft, kidnapping, and murder are always wrong. The ideal by which we should just any society is that all of them be reduced to nonexistence. But between where we are now, and that ideal of no theft, murder, or kidnapping, I don't see some clear threshold that can get crossed that signifies a shift from state to no state. And if there is some way of defining where such a threshold exists, I would probably regard that way as arbitrary and unimportant. The important threshold, and the one toward which we should always strive, even if we see it merely as an asymptote to approach, rather than a goal to achieve, is the elimination of all theft, murder, and kidnapping.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

Coercion defines the state.  Not theft, not murder, and not slavery.  These are all things that always have and always will exist in human society.  But asserting the authority to do these things as a right, and on behalf of some segment of society, is what defines the state.  

Slavery was once regarded as a perfectly reasonable and natural human institution.  It is not at all unreasonable to assume that at some point in the future humans will regard the state in the same way that the institution of slavery is now regarded.

----------


## erowe1

> Coercion defines the state.  Not theft, not murder, and not slavery.  These are all things that always have and always will exist in human society.  But asserting the authority to do these things as a right, and on behalf of some segment of society, is what defines the state.


Those are some typical kinds of coercion.

But yes, let's say "coercion defines the state." Doesn't that still support my point? If there exists any crucial threshold to cross at which point you can say we've achieved statelessness, then that threshold is the elimination of all coercion, because wherever coercion exists, there is the state. Right?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Those are some typical kinds of coercion.
> 
> But yes, let's say "coercion defines the state." Doesn't that still support my point? If there exists any crucial threshold to cross at which point you can say we've achieved statelessness, then that threshold is the elimination of all coercion, because wherever coercion exists, there is the state. Right?


Yes, achieving statelessness requires that there is no entity in society which asserts the authority - and enjoys general social sanction - to kill, steal, and kidnap.  Killing, stealing, and kidnapping will exist without the state, but when humanity finally recognizes that these are evil acts always and everywhere, no matter who commits them, we will have acheived statelessness.

----------


## erowe1

> Yes, achieving statelessness requires that there is no entity in society which asserts the authority - and enjoys general social sanction - to kill, steal, and kidnap.  Killing, stealing, and kidnapping will exist without the state, but when humanity finally recognizes that these are evil acts always and everywhere, no matter who commits them, we will have acheived statelessness.


What does "general social sanction" mean?

And how can "humanity" finally realize something? Humanity doesn't have a mind, it's a bunch of individuals. And those individuals change their minds a lot, in addition to being born and dying, they never finally realize anything.

----------


## Travlyr

> What is the point of these debates?
> 
> They seem like a way for people to push away their most likely allies.
> 
> Here are two facts that I consider nearly impossible to reject:
> 1) We are never going to have no state.
> 2) We are never going to have a federal government that obeys the Constitution.
> 
> It's like arguing about who would win in a fight between Superman and the Hulk.


The purpose of these debates is to get people to understand how to live free lives. To argue for statelessness would be to burn the constitutions or ignore them. That is what we endure today. That is the problem we have not the solution. The solution is to obey the law. End the Fed. It is an unconstitutional institution. 

We won't have a government that ever 100% obeys the constitution, true enough, but just two generations ago they did obey it fairly closely. They respected it so much that they used an amendment to prohibit alcohol. Law makers in those days respected their profession and prosperity was abundant. The Fed must be ended and sound money implemented. It is the only way. It is not an impossible task, but it does require enough people working in the same direction to get it done.

----------


## erowe1

> The purpose of these debates is to get people to understand how to live free lives. To argue for statelessness would be to burn the constitutions or ignore them. That is what we endure today.


Do you really believe that the problem we endure today is statelessness?

----------


## Travlyr

> Do you really believe that the problem we endure today is statelessness?


I do. Big illegitimate government is tyrannical. A legitimate state, as John Locke points out, reins in tyranny and protects liberty. The Federal Reserve System is the enabler for illegitimate government who claims to have despotic power over its subjects. i.e. Kill lists. A proper state is needed. 




> The aim of such a legitimate government is to preserve, so far as possible, the rights to life, liberty, health and property of its citizens, and to prosecute and punish those of its citizens who violate the rights of others and to pursue the public good even where this may conflict with the rights of individuals. In doing this it provides something unavailable in the state of nature, an impartial judge to determine the severity of the crime, and to set a punishment proportionate to the crime. This is one of the main reasons why civil society is an improvement on the state of nature. An illegitimate government will fail to protect the rights to life, liberty, health and property of its subjects, and in the worst cases, such an illegitimate government will claim to be able to violate the rights of its subjects, that is it will claim to have despotic power over its subjects. - John Locke

----------


## erowe1

> A legitimate state, as John Locke points out, reigns in tyranny


I assume you meant "reins." But I agree with the way you wrote it.

By the way, I notice that Locke doesn't call the legitimate government he refers to a state. I can conceive of a legitimate government, but I can't conceive of a legitimate state.

----------


## Travlyr

> I assume you meant "reins." But I agree with the way you wrote it.
> 
> By the way, I notice that Locke doesn't call the legitimate government he refers to a state. I can conceive of a legitimate government, but I can't conceive of a legitimate state.


I did mean "reins" and edited it to reflect what I meant. 

Mises defined the state this way. "We call the social apparatus of compulsion and coercion that induces people to abide by the rules of life in society, the state;" I agree with him.

Can you imagine a stateless society that allows for ownership of land? I can't. I do not see how it is possible to allow for trespassing laws unless a state is formed. The original intent of the stateless society was to prevent land ownership because it was thought to be the source of violence. It still seems that way to me.

Nonetheless, If everyone in the United States wanted to stop the Federal Reserve from counterfeiting the currency, then government would be small and the people would be prosperous and mostly peaceful. That is essentially what Ron Paul's message is too.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> What does "general social sanction" mean?
> 
> And how can "humanity" finally realize something? Humanity doesn't have a mind, it's a bunch of individuals. And those individuals change their minds a lot, in addition to being born and dying, they never finally realize anything.


General social sanction means that the majority of people in society give legitimacy to the state.  

I should have said, "but when a majority of humans finally recognize...".  

The state doesn't seize legitimacy.  It enjoys it because people believe it is a mythical entity which, though it is made up of human beings, has powers that a human being not acting under the auspices of the state does not have.  Except for Travlyr.  He's allowed to throat punch people.  Especially anarchists.  Because they - above all - threaten his liberty.  I guess that's how it works - if you're a mental midget, you either work for the state, advocate for it, or are Travlyr.

----------


## erowe1

> General social sanction means that the majority of people in society give legitimacy to the state.  
> 
> I should have said, "but when a majority of humans finally recognize...".  
> 
> The state doesn't seize legitimacy.  It enjoys it because people believe it is a mythical entity which, though it is made up of human beings, has powers that a human being not acting under the auspices of the state does not have.


So if you can take a poll of society and the majority of the people don't approve of the state, that means the state doesn't exist any more?

And what's a society anyway? Can a society be a group of 3 people who meet in an alley where 2 of them (i.e. the majority) decide to rob the other? And if so, would that be the state?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> So if you can take a poll of society and the majority of the people don't approve of the state, that means the state doesn't exist any more?


If enough people in society individuals take the realization that the state has no legitimacy, and begin to deny its authority, yes, it essentially means that the state doesn't exist anymore.




> And what's a society anyway? Can a society be a group of 3 people who meet in an alley where 2 of them (i.e. the majority) decide to rob the other? And if so, would that be the state?


No, the state is not just one or more people robbing another.  Certainly that's a key characteristic of the state.  It is that entity which enjoys a monopoly on force within a given geographic region.  But, again, if enough people reject that it has this monopoly, then it no longer has it, because the state depends upon a compliant population.  

One person can stand up in the middle of a room of 50 people and declare himself the state, and start demanding that people pay a tax to him, "or else", but if everyone tells him to bugger off, he isn't much of a state.

----------


## erowe1

> It is that entity which enjoys a monopoly on force within a given geographic region.


When three people are in an alley and two of them are robbing the other, don't those two have a monopoly of force in that alley?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> When three people are in an alley and two of them are robbing the other, don't those two have a monopoly of force in that alley?


At that moment, they do.  However, the victim isn't defending their right to rob him, and if two more people who recognize theft as theft every time they see it come along and assist the man being robbed, they no longer have a monopoly on force.  

The state is as much a state of mind as anything else.

----------


## erowe1

> At that moment, they do.  However, the victim isn't defending their right to rob him, and if two more people who recognize theft as theft every time they see it come along and assist the man being robbed, they no longer have a monopoly on force.  
> 
> The state is as much a state of mind as anything else.


So any time some regime rules over its subjects without the consent of at least half of them, you say such a regime is not a state?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> So any time some regime rules over its subjects without the consent of at least half of them, you say such a regime is not a state?


I'm saying that if the people reject the state - refuse to obey its edicts, refuse to serve in its offices, etc., then it doesn't exist anymore.

The state is made up of people.  If a certain threshold of people don't give it legitimacy, sanction, power, etc., then it cannot function as a state.

----------


## erowe1

> If a certain threshold of people don't give it legitimacy, sanction, power, etc., then it cannot function as a state.


Is there an objective definition of that threshold?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Is there an objective definition of that threshold?


There's not a quantifiable one, that I'm aware of.  I'm not sure what you'd be looking for in terms of an "objective definition".

----------


## erowe1

> There's not a quantifiable one, that I'm aware of.  I'm not sure what you'd be looking for in terms of an "objective definition".


The problem I'm having is that the way I read what you're saying, you're illustrating what I said when I said:



> Theft, kidnapping, and murder are always wrong. The ideal by which we should just any society is that all of them be reduced to nonexistence. But between where we are now, and that ideal of no theft, murder, or kidnapping, I don't see some clear threshold that can get crossed that signifies a shift from state to no state. And if there is some way of defining where such a threshold exists, I would probably regard that way as arbitrary and unimportant. The important threshold, and the one toward which we should always strive, even if we see it merely as an asymptote to approach, rather than a goal to achieve, is the elimination of all theft, murder, and kidnapping.


It seems like you're not willing to define the state simply by what the state does, but also by the presence of some number of people who "give it legitimacy."

But if you can't quantify objectively what that number of people is, then how can it be part of the definition? On the other hand, if you don't include that as part of your definition, then you're back to defining the state according to what it does, without regard for however many people "give it legitimacy."

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> The problem I'm having is that the way I read what you're saying, you're illustrating what I said when I said:
> 
> 
> It seems like you're not willing to define the state simply by what the state does, but also by the presence of some number of people who "give it legitimacy."
> 
> But if you can't quantify objectively what that number of people is, then how can it be part of the definition? On the other hand, if you don't include that as part of your definition, then you're back to defining the state according to what it does, without regard for however many people "give it legitimacy."


I agree with you that eliminating theft, murder, etc., would be an admirable goal. 

I can't limit the state to just what it does, because the sanction of people is such a part of what defines it.

I admit, I do not know what that threshold is, in terms of a number or a percentage of people.  But it seems that there is a very clear difference _in the minds of most people_ between murder, theft, and kidnapping when the state performs these acts and when other individuals not acting on behalf of the state performs these acts.  In the minds of most people, these acts are justified when the state performs them.  I agree, ending those acts in and of themselves is the ultimate and admirable goal, but reaching a point where those acts enjoy no general sanction amongst individuals under certain conditions (i.e., when the state performs them) is just as admirable on account of their ubiquity.  Random acts of violence by individuals are just that - random.  The state performs these acts on a regular basis as a function of its existence.  Indeed, one giant leap toward eliminating those acts - murder, theft and kidnapping, etc., - would be the elimination of the state.

----------


## erowe1

> But it seems that there is a very clear difference _in the minds of most people_ between murder, theft, and kidnapping when the state performs these acts and when other individuals not acting on behalf of the state performs these acts.  In the minds of most people, these acts are justified when the state performs them.


I think that what you're talking about is true of some states, certainly the ones we're used to. But is it really part of the definition? Haven't there been states throughout history and in some places today, where the regime rules over its subjects without any regard for their consent, where people are conquered by a force whose legitimacy they do not accept, and their compliance is based on fear, just as the compliance of a shop owner paying taxes the criminal gang that controls his neighborhood is? The people of Gaza may not acknowledge the right of the government of Israel to rule over them, but that doesn't make them stateless.




> Indeed, one giant leap toward eliminating those acts - murder, theft and kidnapping, etc., - would be the elimination of the state.


But from all you've said, I don't think there is any line we could cross between here and total elimination of those things that would allow you to say, on account of that right there, the state is no more.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I think that what you're talking about is true of some states, certainly the ones we're used to. But is it really part of the definition? Haven't there been states throughout history and in some places today, where the regime rules over its subjects without any regard for their consent, where people are conquered by a force whose legitimacy they do not accept, and their compliance is based on fear, just as the compliance of a shop owner paying taxes the criminal gang that controls his neighborhood is? The people of Gaza may not acknowledge the right of the government of Israel to rule over them, but that doesn't make them stateless.


Yeah, I guess that's generally true.  For the purposes of this discussion, however, I wasn't really referring to an occupying force such as that but rather a "domestic" state-government.  Even in the case of a monarchy, all the kings horses and all the kings men couldn't maintain the power of the monarchy if enough individuals refused to acknowledge his authority.




> But from all you've said, I don't think there is any line we could cross between here and total elimination of those things that would allow you to say, on account of that right there, the state is no more.


I think there is a line.  However, I'm not presently able to say what that line is at this particular time.

----------


## erowe1

> Even in the case of a monarchy, all the kings horses and all the kings men couldn't maintain the power of the monarchy if enough individuals refused to acknowledge his authority.


But the monarchs inherited their positions over generations going back to some original point where their ancestors conquered some people and established rule over them without their consent. Moving forward in time from that origin of the monarchy, I don't think there's any specific generation you can point to and say that it wasn't a state before but from here on it is. I'd rather call it a state all the way back at the beginning.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> But the monarchs inherited their positions over generations going back to some original point where their ancestors conquered some people and established rule over them without their consent. Moving forward in time from that origin of the monarchy, I don't think there's any specific generation you can point to and say that it wasn't a state before but from here on it is. I'd rather call it a state all the way back at the beginning.


Yeah, I guess that depends on how exactly the state evolved.  

Nevertheless, I agree with you in principle.  But I do think that the legitimacy the state receives in the minds of people is a very big part of what makes it the state.

----------


## robert68

> General social sanction means that the majority of people in society give legitimacy to the state.  
> 
> I should have said, "but when a majority of humans finally recognize...".  
> 
> The state doesn't seize legitimacy.  It enjoys it because people believe it is a mythical entity which, though it is made up of human beings, has powers that a human being not acting under the auspices of the state does not have...


I disagree that a majority or any particular percentage of public support for an entity to coerce a population is what defines a state. Its *the power* of that entity to exempt itself from the rules it imposes on others that defines it. Significant public support is usually needed for that power, but the realness of the power is what makes that entity a state.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

I agree.  But the degree of public support certainly helps it maintain it's power.

----------


## robert68

> I agree.  But the degree of public support certainly helps it maintain it's power.


Indeed.

----------


## robert68

> I disagree that a majority or any particular percentage of public support for an entity to coerce a population is what defines a state. Its *the power* of that entity to exempt itself from the rules it imposes on others that defines it. Significant public support is usually needed for that power, but the realness of the power is what makes that entity a state.


I need to give a better definition of the state: the agency that commits institutionalized aggression.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

Bookmarked

----------


## Conza88

Still not convinced

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

I'm not going to read through 24 pages over however many years, but the best argument I've seen for monopolizing defense and rights protection (though not necessarily through a"state") is the free rider problem. I've never seen a convincing argument why competing DROs wouldn't be crippled by said issue. It's one of the things that brought me from anarcho-capitalism to Heathian anarchism, or absolute monarchy.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I'm not going to read through 24 pages over however many years, but the best argument I've seen for monopolizing defense and rights protection (though not necessarily through a"state") is the free rider problem. I've never seen a convincing argument why competing DROs wouldn't be crippled by said issue. It's one of the things that brought me from anarcho-capitalism to Heathian anarchism, or absolute monarchy.


*
Civilization itself is highly unnatural.

Civilization itself is one gigantic free-rider problem.

When the day comes that people assiduously take advantage of every free-rider problem they can find, that is a day that their civilization has long since ceased to exist.

Human nature is the basis for society, not political systems.
*
A system of competing DROs would work fine in a high "C,"(ivilization) moderate "V"(igor) temperament society.  Probably also in a high "C," high "V" one.  So would your preferred system, absolute monarchy (competing DRMs -- Dispute-Resolving Monarchs).

Our bigger problem is that our C is collapsing.  Privatizing the roads, and even the justice system, will not solve that.  It would be the right thing to do, and I am very much in favor of it, but it will not fix our problems.  Nor will anointing a king, Paleo.  Our civilization is in the midst of a collapse.  Trying new political systems will be like shuffling deck chairs.

http://www.biohistory.org/

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *
> Civilization itself is highly unnatural.
> 
> Civilization itself is one gigantic free-rider problem.
> 
> When the day comes that people assiduously take advantage of every free-rider problem they can find, that is a day that their civilization has long since ceased to exist.
> 
> Human nature is the basis for society, not political systems.
> *
> ...


+rep

----------


## Conza88

> I'm not going to read through 24 pages over however many years, but the best argument I've seen for monopolizing defense and rights protection (though not necessarily through a"state") is the free rider problem. I've never seen a convincing argument why competing DROs wouldn't be crippled by said issue. It's one of the things that brought me from anarcho-capitalism to Heathian anarchism, or absolute monarchy.


_"monopolizing defense and rights protection (though not necessarily through a"state")"_

= That's only possible through a state... and that's only understandable if you understand economics. 




> is the free rider problem.


"A and B decide to pay for the building of a dam for their uses; C benefits though he did not pay.... This is the problem of the Free Rider. Yet it is difficult to understand what the hullabaloo is all about.* Am I to be specially taxed because I enjoy the sight of my neighbor's garden without paying for it?* A's and B's purchase of a good reveals that they are willing to pay for it; if it indirectly benefits C as well, no one is the loser" (I, p. 25).
—Murray Rothbard,  Logic of Action

Go ahead.... tell me how that justifies the state (monopoly of ultimate decision making including conflicts involving itself w/ the ability to tax). 




> I've never seen a convincing argument why competing DROs wouldn't be crippled by said issue.


Have you actually looked? 




https://mises.org/library/anarchist-...nce-free-rider
https://mises.org/library/solving-problem-free-riding

----------


## Conza88

still haven't been convinced.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> still haven't been convinced.


The best argument is that it is unavoidable, the corrupt will organize and impose themselves on others if allowed to and the only way to successfully defend against them is to create a limited government.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The best argument is that it is unavoidable, the corrupt will organize and impose themselves on others if allowed to and the only way to successfully defend against them is to create a limited government.


Poor reasoning. We could use this same argument against Constitutionalism. That is, the Constitution has never restrained government, therefore something else must be tried. See? I can do inductive reasoning too.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Poor reasoning. We could use this same argument against Constitutionalism. That is, the Constitution has never restrained government, therefore something else must be tried. See? I can do inductive reasoning too.


It has restrained government, it may not have restrained it enough but we are better off because of it.

The natural state of the world is tyranny, the farther away from tyranny you get the harder it is to defeat the gravitational pull back to the natural state, on the other hand you can't take the guilt on yourself for creating and maintaining a system that is too close to tyranny so you must create a limited government to protect the rights of the citizens from enemies foreign and domestic and engage in eternal vigilance to stop or at least slow the decay back to tyranny.

Man doesn't have the capacity to create paradise in this mortal life.

----------


## timosman

> Poor reasoning. We could use this same argument against Constitutionalism. That is, the Constitution has never restrained government, therefore something else must be tried. See? I can do inductive reasoning too.


You can't.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> It has restrained government, it may not have restrained it enough but we are better off because of it.
> 
> The natural state of the world is tyranny, the farther away from tyranny you get the harder it is to defeat the gravitational pull back to the natural state, on the other hand you can't take the guilt on yourself for creating and maintaining a system that is too close to tyranny so you must create a limited government to protect the rights of the citizens from enemies foreign and domestic and engage in eternal vigilance to stop or at least slow the decay back to tyranny.
> 
> Man doesn't have the capacity to create paradise in this mortal life.


Meh, nice regurgitating Locke, but not really true. Theory has come a long way since the Scots Enlightenment, bro. The natural state of man is to form societies and work together to serve their respective rational self-interest. You really need to read Human Action.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> You can't.


I did in the post you quoted. It's called asserting the consequent. I give you an F for formal logic toady, comrade.

----------


## timosman

> Meh, nice regurgitating Locke, but not really true. Theory has come a long way since the Scots Enlightenment, bro. The natural state of man is to form societies and work together to serve their respective rational self-interest. You really need to read Human Action.


How do you explain the deep state, Mr. Rational Self-Interest?

----------


## timosman

> I did in the post you quoted. It's called asserting the consequent. I give you an F for formal logic toady, comrade.


What you did was a simple straw man. I will not be revealing my grade.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Meh, nice regurgitating Locke, but not really true. Theory has come a long way since the Scots Enlightenment, bro. The natural state of man is to form societies and work together to serve their respective rational self-interest. You really need to read Human Action.


Nice try at ignoring the corrupt, it is more efficient to steal than to build and many unscrupulous people understand that, they will organize and prey on everyone else.

If the natural state of man is to "form societies and work together to serve their respective rational self-interest" how did we get where we are?

Did aliens come down and create tyranny?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> How do you explain the deep state, Mr. Rational Self-Interest?


I'm not in the mood to write this essay for you, so I'll quote Doug Casey.

*The Deep State*
 The concept of the Deep State originated in Turkey, which is  appropriate since it’s the heir to the totally corrupt Byzantine and  Ottoman empires. And in the best Byzantine manner, the Deep State has  insinuated itself throughout the fabric of what once was America. Its  tendrils reach from Washington down to every part of civil society. Like  a metastasized cancer, it can no longer be easily eradicated.
 I used to joke that there was nothing wrong with Washington that 10  megatons on the capital couldn’t cure. But I don’t say that anymore.  Partially because it’s too dangerous, but mainly because it’s now  untrue. What’s now needed is 10 megatons on the capital and four more  bursts in a quadrant 10 miles out.
 In many ways, Washington models itself after another city with a Deep  State, ancient Rome. Here’s how a Victorian freethinker, Winwood Reade,  accurately described it:
Rome lived upon its principal till ruin stared it in the  face. Industry is the only true source of wealth, and there was no  industry in Rome. By day the Ostia road was crowded with carts and  muleteers, carrying to the great city the silks and spices of the East,  the marble of Asia Minor, the timber of the Atlas, the grain of Africa  and Egypt; and the carts brought out nothing but loads of dung. That was  their return cargo.The Deep State controls the political and economic essence of the  U.S. This is much more than observing that there’s no real difference  between the left and right wings of the Demopublican Party. It’s well  known by anyone with any sense (that is, by everybody except the average  voter) that although the Republicans say they believe in economic  freedom (but don’t), they definitely don’t believe in social freedom.  And the Democrats say they believe in social freedom (but don’t), but  they definitely don’t believe in economic freedom.
*Who Is Part of the Deep State?*
 The American Deep State is a real, but informal, structure that has arisen to not just profit from, but control, the State.
 The Deep State has a life of its own, like the government itself.  It’s composed of top-echelon employees of a dozen Praetorian agencies,  like the FBI, CIA, and NSA…top generals, admirals, and other military  operatives…long-term congressmen and senators…and directors of important  regulatory agencies.
 But Deep State is much broader than just the government. It includes  the heads of major corporations, all of whom are heavily involved in  selling to the State and enabling it. That absolutely includes Silicon  Valley, although those guys at least have a sense of humor, evidenced by  their “Don’t Be Evil” motto. It also includes all the top people in the  Fed, and the heads of all the major banks, brokers, and insurers. Add  the presidents and many professors at top universities, which act as  Deep State recruiting centers…all the top media figures, of course…and  many regulars at things like Bohemian Grove and the Council on Foreign  Relations. They epitomize the status quo, held together by power, money,  and propaganda.
 Altogether, I’ll guess these people number a thousand or so. You  might analogize the structure of the Deep State with a huge pack of  dogs. The people I’ve just described are the top dogs.
 But there are hundreds of thousands more who aren’t at the nexus, but  who directly depend on them, have considerable clout, and support the  Deep State because it supports them. This includes many of the wealthy,  especially those who got that way thanks to their State connections…the  1.5 million people who have top-secret clearances (that’s a shocking,  but accurate, number)… plus top players in organized crime, especially  the illegal drug business, little of which would exist without the  State. Plus mid-level types in the police and military, corporations,  and non-governmental organizations.
 These are what you might call the running dogs.
 Beyond that are the scores and scores of millions who depend on  things remaining the way they are. Like the 50%-plus of Americans who  are net recipients of benefits from the State…the 60 million on Social  Security…the 66 million on Medicaid…the 50 million on food stamps…the  many millions on hundreds of other programs… the 23 million government  employees and most of their families. In fact, let’s include the many  millions of average Joes and Janes who are just getting by.
 You might call this level of people, the vast majority of the  population, whipped dogs. They both love and fear their master, they’ll  do as they’re told, and they’ll roll over on their backs and wet  themselves if confronted by a top dog or running dog who feels they’re  out of line. These three types of dogs make up the vast majority of the  U.S. population. I trust you aren’t among them. I consider myself a Lone  Wolf in this context and hope you are, too. Unfortunately, however,  dogs are enemies of wolves and tend to hunt them down.
 The Deep State is destructive, but it’s great for the people in it.  And, like any living organism, its prime directive is: Survive! It  survives by indoctrinating the fiction that it’s both good and  necessary. However, it’s a parasite that promotes the ridiculous notion  that everyone can live at the expense of society.
 Is it a conspiracy, headed by a man stroking a white cat? I think  not. I find it’s hard enough to get a bunch of friends to agree on what  movie to see, much less a bunch of power-hungry miscreants bent on  running everyone’s lives. But, on the other hand, the top dogs all know  each other, went to the same schools, belong to the same clubs,  socialize, and, most important, have common interests, values, and  philosophies.
 The American Deep State rotates around the Washington Beltway. It  imports America’s wealth as tax revenue. A lot of that wealth is  consumed thereby useless mouths. And then, it exports things that  reinforce the Deep State, including wars, fiat currency, and destructive  policies. This is unsustainable simply because nothing of value comes  out of the city.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/08/...hor/deep-state

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Nice try at ignoring the corrupt, it is more efficient to steal than to build and many unscrupulous people understand that, they will organize and prey on everyone else.
> 
> If the natural state of man is to "form societies and work together to serve their respective rational self-interest" *how did we get where we are?*
> 
> Did aliens come down and create tyranny?


As even RP will tell ya, thugs got hold of the reigns of gov'ment (Hamilton, Lincoln, etc). RP's comrades go into much more detail in their books.

----------


## timosman

> I'm not in the mood to write this essay for you, so I'll quote Doug Casey.


Thanks for the essay but all you have to do is admit you were wrong. We are not that noble.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> As even RP will tell ya, thugs got hold of the reigns of gov'ment (Hamilton, Lincoln, etc). RP's comrades go into much more detail in their books.


And those thugs were what?..........................................MEN
Their kind has existed since Cain and will exist until GOD ends the world and separates the goats from the sheep.
Tyranny is the natural state of man.

----------


## timosman

> Tyranny is the natural state of man.


Despite of all the efforts of the tyrants to convince you it is not.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Despite of all the efforts of the tyrants to convince you it is not.


And to convince you that they are not tyrants and that you are free.

----------


## timosman

> And to convince you that they are not tyrants and that you are free.


This is where the metaphor "Elephant in the room" comes from.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_in_the_room

----------


## Origanalist

> And those thugs were what?..........................................MEN
> Their kind has existed since Cain and will exist until GOD ends the world and separates the goats from the sheep.
> Tyranny is the natural state of man.


Just because tyranny exists doesn't mean it's the natural state of man.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Just because tyranny exists doesn't mean it's the natural state of man.


If it is what happens when nobody stops it then it is the natural state.
Because of the existence of corrupt men tyranny is the natural state of man.

----------


## timosman

> Just because tyranny exists doesn't mean it's the natural state of man.


Semantics.

----------


## Origanalist

> *If it is what happens when nobody stops it then it is the natural state.*
> Because of the existence of corrupt men tyranny is the natural state of man.


That same logic can be applied to anything, thus rendering it meaningless.

----------


## Origanalist

> Semantics.


Idiotic response.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> That same logic can be applied to anything, thus rendering it meaningless.


Not really, tyranny abounds and has powerful incentives that appeal to the human psyche, liberty is rare and requires people to overcome their base inclinations.

Tyranny is the natural state of the world and it requires deliberate action to defend against.

----------


## Origanalist

> Not really, tyranny abounds and has powerful incentives that appeal to the human psyche, liberty is rare and requires people to overcome their base inclinations.
> 
> Tyranny is the natural state of the world and it requires deliberate action to defend against.


I don't see it that way at all. In fact I manage to live my life almost entirely free of tyranny. Granted it requires avoiding government and all it's agents studiously, which is where most tyranny emanates from. However in my dealings with those outside of government I don't find tyranny to be the natural state at all.




> and it requires deliberate action to defend against


^^ This I will agree with.

----------


## timosman

> Idiotic response.


Your argument is the natural state, as observed throughout our history is irrelevant and not natural. Not idiotic at all.

----------


## timosman

> I don't see it that way at all. In fact I manage to live my life almost entirely free of tyranny. Granted it requires avoiding government and all it's agents studiously, which is where most tyranny emanates from. However in my dealings with those outside of government I don't find tyranny to be the natural state at all.


Which bridge do you live under?

----------


## timosman

> That same logic can be applied to anything, thus rendering it meaningless.


Really?

----------


## Origanalist

> Really?


Yes, really.

----------


## timosman

> Yes, really.


I bow to your intellectual power.

----------


## Origanalist

> Which bridge do you live under?


What rodent infested room do you sit in 24 hrs. a day in front of your computer screen? I live in a house and do actual work so my time in front of a computer is limited, unlike yourself.

----------


## timosman

> What rodent infested room do you sit in 24 hrs. a day in front of your computer screen? I live in a house and do actual work so my time in front of a computer is limited, unlike yourself.


Nobody said life was supposed to be fair. Apologies if this bothers you.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> I don't see it that way at all. In fact I manage to live my life almost entirely free of tyranny. Granted it requires avoiding government and all it's agents studiously, which is where most tyranny emanates from. However in my dealings with those outside of government I don't find tyranny to be the natural state at all.


You are an exception most people don't have the opportunity to live as you do, not only all of the present world but all of history shows tyranny to be the norm.

----------


## timosman

> You are an exception most people don't have the opportunity to live as you do, not only all of the present world but all of history shows tyranny to be the norm.


Communism seems like a path forward.

----------


## Origanalist

> You are an exception most people don't have the opportunity to live as you do, not only all of the present world but all of history shows tyranny to be the norm.


Opportunities are created, most people simply haven't been taught they CAN live like me. And they never will as long as they're taught all their life that they can't. Remember that whole liberty message thing?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Opportunities are created, most people simply haven't been taught they CAN live like me. And they never will as long as they're taught all their life that they can't. Remember that whole liberty message thing?


Opportunities are created some but they are also determined by outside forces to a great degree, most people don't have the opportunity to create the opportunity to live like you and if more of those that could did the forces of tyranny would activate to crush enough of you to drive most of them back into the system.

----------


## CaptUSA

> Opportunities are created some but they are also determined by outside forces to a great degree, *most people don't have the opportunity to create the opportunity to live like you* and if more of those that could did the forces of tyranny would activate to crush enough of you to drive most of them back into the system.


No - *Everyone* has those opportunities.  All it takes is awareness.  If an idiot like me can escape my humble beginnings, anyone can.  You just need to figure out how to capitalize on the opportunities when presented.  That's where most people fail.

The mentality that tells people they are a victim of their circumstances is exactly the mentality that feeds the State.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> No - *Everyone* has those opportunities.  All it takes is awareness.  If an idiot like me can escape my humble beginnings, anyone can.  You just need to figure out how to capitalize on the opportunities when presented.  That's where most people fail.
> 
> The mentality that tells people they are a victim of their circumstances is exactly the mentality that feeds the State.


+rep Creating and reinforcing victim mentality is how statist lefties got poor blacks dependent on their welfare and thus a reliable voting bloc.

----------


## CaptUSA

> +rep Creating and reinforcing victim mentality is how statist lefties got poor blacks dependent on their welfare and thus a reliable voting bloc.


Yep.  "You're a victim of your circumstance - I'm going make those circumstances better for you!"  And the State grows....



(ETA:  By the way, that works on so-called "conservatives" as well.)

----------


## Origanalist

> Opportunities are created some but they are also determined by outside forces to a great degree, most people don't have the opportunity to create the opportunity to live like you and if more of those that could did the forces of tyranny would activate to crush enough of you to drive most of them back into the system.



You're a true inspiration to those seeking liberty.

----------


## Origanalist

> No - *Everyone* has those opportunities.  All it takes is awareness.  If an idiot like me can escape my humble beginnings, anyone can.  You just need to figure out how to capitalize on the opportunities when presented.  That's where most people fail.
> 
> The mentality that tells people they are a victim of their circumstances is exactly the mentality that feeds the State.


Hear, hear!

----------


## Origanalist

Maybe I should check muh privilege.

----------


## timosman

> No - *Everyone* has those opportunities.  All it takes is awareness.  If an idiot like me can escape my humble beginnings, anyone can.  You just need to figure out how to capitalize on the opportunities when presented.  That's where most people fail.
> 
> The mentality that tells people they are a victim of their circumstances is exactly the mentality that feeds the State.


How different it is, what you are flaunting, from communism?

Traffic congestion during commute could be solved in a very simple way if only everybody left to work two hours earlier.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> No - *Everyone* has those opportunities.  All it takes is awareness.  If an idiot like me can escape my humble beginnings, anyone can.  You just need to figure out how to capitalize on the opportunities when presented.  That's where most people fail.
> 
> The mentality that tells people they are a victim of their circumstances is exactly the mentality that feeds the State.





> +rep Creating and reinforcing victim mentality is how statist lefties got poor blacks dependent on their welfare and thus a reliable voting bloc.





> Yep.  "You're a victim of your circumstance - I'm going make those circumstances better for you!"  And the State grows....
> 
> 
> 
> (ETA:  By the way, that works on so-called "conservatives" as well.)





> You're a true inspiration to those seeking liberty.


The state is the number one factor reducing opportunities for most people, the rest is just the chance you take in life.

What is clear is that pretending that tyranny is not imposed from the outside to a great degree is not going to help solve it, tyranny is the natural state of man because evil people exist and impose it on the rest of us, just "living free" will not end it.

----------


## timosman

> The state is the number one factor reducing opportunities for most people, the rest is just the chance you take in life.
> 
> What is clear is that pretending that tyranny is not imposed from the outside to a great degree is not going to help solve it, tyranny is the natural state of man because evil people exist and impose it on the rest of us, just "living free" will not end it.


This is where communists and libertarians align. Both advocate for a state of nirvana where everybody is virtuous and doesn't cheat. While it would be very nice to live in such a world, it is extremely unstable. A single cheater or a group of them, can gain a tremendous advantage over everybody else still playing by the rules. Let's stop being infantile, nobody will leave you alone. They will either try to extract wealth from you or use you to extract wealth from others.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> This is where communists and libertarians align. Both advocate for a state of nirvana where everybody is virtuous and doesn't cheat. While it would be very nice to live in such a world, it is extremely unstable. A single cheater or a group of them, can gain a tremendous advantage over everybody else still playing by the rules. Let's stop being infantile, nobody will leave you alone. They will either try to extract wealth from you or use you to extract wealth from others.


It is a matter of intellectual laziness for both of them, it is easier to just reject the state entirely than to figure out the best way to structure and limit it, it also seems easier to "live free" with the monstrous state theoretically banished from existence than to maintain the eternal vigilance that is required to keep minarchy from degenerating into tyranny.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *This is where communists and libertarians align. Both advocate for a state of nirvana where everybody is virtuous and doesn't cheat.* While it would be very nice to live in such a world, it is extremely unstable. A single cheater or a group of them, can gain a tremendous advantage over everybody else still playing by the rules. Let's stop being infantile, nobody will leave you alone. They will either try to extract wealth from you or use you to extract wealth from others.


Not really. Libertarians recognize this isn't actually possible, which makes the legitimacy of State authority an impossibility.  A common theme in both "left" and "right" anarchist and general libertarian literature of the last 200+ years. People write books, essays, and treatises on private law/justice and general law/justice fairly regularly too. It seems you aren't actually familiar with libertarian theory, comrade. But that's pretty common. Know-it-all lefties on the webbernets act like that too.

----------


## timosman

> Not really. Libertarians recognize this isn't actually possible, which makes the legitimacy of State authority an impossibility.  A common theme in both "left" and "right" anarchist and general libertarian literature of the last 200+ years. People write books, essays, and treatises on private law/justice and general law/justice fairly regularly too. It seems you aren't actually familiar with libertarian theory, comrade. But that's pretty common. Know-it-all lefties on the webbernets act like that too.


Why don't you go back and read what was said in the thread instead of chiming in with a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy?

----------


## Origanalist

> This is where communists and libertarians align. Both advocate for a state of nirvana where everybody is virtuous and doesn't cheat. While it would be very nice to live in such a world, it is extremely unstable. A single cheater or a group of them, can gain a tremendous advantage over everybody else still playing by the rules. Let's stop being infantile, nobody will leave you alone. They will either try to extract wealth from you or use you to extract wealth from others.


WTF are you talking about Willis? Nobody said anything of the kind. You and Swordsmith like to make $#@! up out of thin air. Show me one libertarian than says all people are virtuous and don't cheat. That's part of being free, having to gain the ability to learn to avoid such people, including and especially those representing the state.

Talk about intellectual laziness, you have to make stuff up that's patently false to try to make your argument sound valid, which it isnt.

----------


## timosman

> WTF are you talking about Willis? Nobody said anything of the kind. You and Swordsmith like to make $#@! up out of thin air. Show me one libertarian than says all people are virtuous and don't cheat. That's part of being free, having to gain the ability to learn to avoid such people, including and especially those representing the state.
> 
> Talk about intellectual laziness, you have to make stuff up that's patently false to try to make your argument sound valid, which it isnt.

----------


## Origanalist

> 


That's about what I expected from you. Another dumb ass accusation with no basis in reality.

----------


## timosman

> WTF are you talking about Willis? Nobody said anything of the kind. You and Swordsmith like to make $#@! up out of thin air. Show me one libertarian than says all people are virtuous and don't cheat. That's part of being free, having to gain the ability to learn to avoid such people, including and especially those representing the state.
> 
> Talk about intellectual laziness, you have to make stuff up that's patently false to try to make your argument sound valid, which it isnt.


Does this explain how Pauls ended up with somebody like Jesse Benton?

----------


## timosman

> That's about what I expected from you. Another dumb ass accusation with no basis in reality.


Five stages of grief - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%B...tages_of_grief

----------


## Origanalist

> Five stages of grief - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%B...tages_of_grief


I'm sorry, I shouldn't pick on retarded people.

----------


## Origanalist

For those so ignorant or just willfully so, the NAP doesn't retard self defense in any manner shape or form, only unjustified aggression.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I'm sorry, I shouldn't pick on retarded people.





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


That's exactly why I gave up on Swordsmyth.

----------


## Origanalist

> That's exactly why I gave up on Swordsmyth.


I never gave up on him, I knew he was phony the day he showed up.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> For those so ignorant or just willfully so, the NAP doesn't retard self defense in any manner shape or form, only unjustified aggression.


But an unorganized anarchic society will be at a disadvantage compared to well organized tyrannical forces.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> That's exactly why I gave up on Swordsmyth.





> I never gave up on him, I knew he was phony the day he showed up.


I gave up on you two the first time I read one of your posts on anarchy.

----------


## timosman

> But an unorganized anarchic society will be at a disadvantage compared to well organized tyrannical forces.


Any Native American can confirm that. Thank you for taking us back.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Any Native American can confirm that. Thank you for taking us back.


So can any ancient Celt tell you about the Roman Empire.

----------


## timosman

> So can any ancient Celt tell you about the Roman Empire.


You mean the world didn't begin in 1776? How could they exist without Austrian economy?

----------


## Origanalist

> But an unorganized anarchic society will be at a disadvantage compared to well organized tyrannical forces.


Who said it had to be unorganized? You, that's who.

----------


## Origanalist

> I gave up on you two the first time I read one of your posts on anarchy.


You didn't give up on us, don't lie. You marked us out as enemies of your statist agenda.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Who said it had to be unorganized? You, that's who.


Without taxes and laws it will be much less organized than a tyrannical state.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> You didn't give up on us, don't lie. You marked us out as enemies of your statist agenda.




This kind of rhetoric is why nobody listens to you but fellow kool-aid drinkers.

----------


## Origanalist

> Without taxes and laws it will be much less organized than a tyrannical state.


Again showing your complete $#@!ing ignorance or feigning such. The law is you don't agress  unprovoked, taxes are left to those less civilized.

----------


## timosman

> Again showing your complete $#@!ing ignorance or feigning such. The law is you don't agress  unprovoked, taxes are left to those less civilized.


Those less civilized have been $#@!ing with you your entire life or did you just arrive from another planet?

----------


## Origanalist

> This kind of rhetoric is why nobody listens to you but fellow kool-aid drinkers.


Lol, I have no Kool aid drinkers you jack ass. Your non stop spamming of this forum means nothing, if anything you've driven down membership. Look at the numbers since you Johnny came lately.

----------


## Origanalist

> Those less civilized have been $#@!ing with you your entire life or did you just arrive from another planet?


I'm sorry, i don't really know how to converse with "challenged" people.

----------


## CCTelander

> Who said it had to be unorganized? You, that's who.



His understanding of voluntaryism is, apparently, just as shallow and immature as his understanding of economics. No big surprise there. If you don't wholeheartedly embrace the tribalistic, right-Hegelian, collectivist bull$#@! that passes for "liberty" advocacy around here of late, he doesn't appear to comprehend avword that you say.

----------


## timosman

> Lol, I have no Kool aid drinkers you jack ass. Your non stop spamming of this forum means nothing, if anything you've driven down membership. Look at the numbers since you Johnny came lately.


Zippy has joined almost 5 years before you.

----------


## timosman

> I'm sorry, i don't really know how to converse with "challenged" people.


This is what spending too much time in a circle jerk can do to you. There is a cooking thread you might want to check.

----------


## Origanalist

> This is what spending too much time in a circle jerk can do to you. There is a cooking thread you might want to check.


I'm sorry, i don't really know how to converse with "challenged" people.

----------


## timosman

> I'm sorry, i don't really know how to converse with "challenged" people.


I am just trying to help.

----------


## Origanalist

In the absence of all the great posters that were here and left I'm happy to put the statist garbage you two are putting out to rest.

----------


## CCTelander

> Lol, I have no Kool aid drinkers you jack ass. Your non stop spamming of this forum means nothing, if anything you've driven down membership. Look at the numbers since you Johnny came lately.



^^^^This^^^^ 

I've seen several quality posters from the past state that they no longer participate much here at all due to exactly that kind of thing.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Lol, I have no Kool aid drinkers you jack ass. Your non stop spamming of this forum means nothing, if anything you've driven down membership. Look at the numbers since you Johnny came lately.


Not having a Presidential candidate or much hope for one until 2024 is behind the drop in numbers and you and the other anarchists demonstrate your kool-aid addiction every time you deny the obvious, ignore human nature and resort to name calling.

----------


## timosman

> In the absence of all the great posters that were here and left I'm happy to put the statist garbage you two are putting out to rest.


Aratus is still here. You can read his quality posts whenever you want.

----------


## timosman

> Not having a Presidential candidate or much hope for one until 2024 is behind the drop in numbers and you and the other anarchists demonstrate your kool-aid addiction every time you deny the obvious, ignore human nature and resort to name calling.


Showing the true human nature in the process.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> His understanding of voluntaryism is, apparently, just as shallow and immature as his understanding of economics. No big surprise there. If you don't wholeheartedly embrace the tribalistic, right-Hegelian, collectivist bull$#@! that passes for "liberty" advocacy around here of late, he doesn't appear to comprehend avword that you say.


Your understanding of human nature is as shallow and immature as your understanding of economics.

----------


## Origanalist

> ^^^^This^^^^ 
> 
> I've seen several quality posters from the past state that they no longer participate much here at all due to exactly that kind of thing.


It's not even debatable. This non stop spamming of disgruntled republican crap from people who apparently have unlimited time to spend online and rebuke any real libertarian ideals has reduced participation.

----------


## Origanalist

> Your understanding of human nature is as shallow and immature as your understanding of economics.


LO $#@!ing L

----------


## Origanalist

> Not having a Presidential candidate or much hope for one until 2024 is behind the drop in numbers and you and the other anarchists demonstrate your kool-aid addiction every time you deny the obvious, ignore human nature and resort to name calling.


Muh government!

----------


## timosman

> Muh government!


Has your yelling change anything or do you just like going off the rails once in a while?

----------


## Origanalist

> Has your yelling change anything or do you just like going off the rails once in a while?


Has your schilling changed anything? I thought the point of this forum was to promote liberty not government.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Has your schilling changed anything? I thought the point of this forum was to promote liberty not government.


And without a minimal government liberty will fall to big government tyranny.

----------


## Origanalist

> And without a minimal government liberty will fall to big government tyranny.


HA HA HA HA HA

----------


## CCTelander

> It's not even debatable. This non stop spamming of disgruntled republican crap from people who apparently have unlimited time to spend online and rebuke any real libertarian ideals has reduced participation.



It's sad to see that this place has degenerated from a hotbed of radical liberty advocacy and philosophical discussion to the cesspool of mouth-breathing partisan hackery that it's become. Even sadder is the fact that it's only a very small handful of extremely prolific posters that have affected that change, at least that part that has occurred over the last 2-3 years or so. As you noted, it seems like these people have nothing else to do but spam this forum with their partisan, anti-liberty horse$#@!. I liked the place better when achieving actual liberty was the predominant goal.

----------


## CCTelander

> Has your schilling changed anything? I thought the point of this forum was to promote liberty not government.



It doesn't seem like there's much interest in promoting actual liberty any more. Tribalism? Sure. Right-Hegelian collectivism? Definitely. Actual liberty? Well, that's passe.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> It's not even debatable. This non stop spamming of disgruntled republican crap from people who apparently have unlimited time to spend online and rebuke any real libertarian ideals has reduced participation.





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


  KURWA. Damn repper doesn't want to work. ~kicks repper swiftly~

----------


## CCTelander

> KURWA. Damn repper doesn't want to work. ~kicks repper swiftly~



I'd cover you but I'm out of ammo too.

----------


## timosman

> KURWA. Damn repper doesn't want to work. ~kicks repper swiftly~


Classy.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Classy.

----------


## CaptUSA

> ^^^^This^^^^ 
> 
> I've seen several quality posters from the past state that they no longer participate much here at all due to exactly that kind of thing.


I think that's the point of swordsmyth and timosman and several others.  Dismantle any semblance of a liberty "movement" and to convince us that the cause of liberty is not worth trying to beat into their heads.

----------


## CaptUSA

> It's not even debatable. This non stop spamming of disgruntled republican crap from people who apparently have unlimited time to spend online and rebuke any real libertarian ideals has reduced participation.


Yep.  Mission successful.

----------


## CaptUSA

> It's sad to see that this place has degenerated from a hotbed of radical liberty advocacy and philosophical discussion to the cesspool of mouth-breathing partisan hackery that it's become. Even sadder is the fact that it's only a very small handful of extremely prolific posters that have affected that change, at least that part that has occurred over the last 2-3 years or so. As you noted, it seems like these people have nothing else to do but spam this forum with their partisan, anti-liberty horse$#@!. I liked the place better when achieving actual liberty was the predominant goal.


I suppose we should feel flattered that the statists recognized us as a threat.  Unfortunately, they've used our weapon of fealty to the principles of liberty against us in that we can't ban them from the site without violating our own principles.  I think Brian is looking for suggestions - I'm just fresh out.

----------


## Krugminator2

> It's sad to see that this place has degenerated from a hotbed of radical liberty advocacy and philosophical discussion to the cesspool of mouth-breathing partisan hackery that it's become. Even sadder is the fact that it's only a very small handful of extremely prolific posters that have affected that change, at least that part that has occurred over the last 2-3 years or so. As you noted, it seems like these people have nothing else to do but spam this forum with their partisan, anti-liberty horse$#@!. *I liked the place better when achieving actual liberty was the predominant goal.*


The Trump stuff can be a bit much.  That said, this thread is defining statism as just people who want any government at all.

I would never want to live in a Rothbard/Hoppe society. Never. I think it would be on par with Communism. I think it would not only not be freer, I think it would be an almost total loss of freedom.

I guess that makes me a statist using the definition this thread.  All of the super radical anarchist threads from 10 years ago are interesting thought experiments.  Never really said is why anarchism would be worth it.  Life is pretty good and pretty free in the United States right now.  There would be a huge cost to set up a society that in my view probably wouldn't even work There is no need for total overhaul. Gradual course corrections like Hayek talks about in his political books are what are needed.  

All the doomsday stuff about collapses and tyranny remind me of grandma who was always talking about the rapture. What is needed is just more education to public about what the proper role of government should be and a basic understanding of economics which will lead to better policy outcomes.

----------


## Madison320

> I am intellectually honest and open to reason. If you would like to _fix_ my _unrealistic_ political philosophy, I eagerly await your _enlightenment_! I'm so sick and tired of being _wrong_.


My argument is that statism is like air, it exists everywhere. Within any geographic location there's going to be some person or group with the most force that makes the decisions. Therefore the best use of your time is to minimize statism or control it as best as possible. Not eliminate it, because that's impossible.

----------


## Conza88

> The best argument is that it is unavoidable, the corrupt will organize and impose themselves on others if allowed to and the only way to successfully defend against them is to create a limited government.


Nope. See, there currently exists anarchy still between states... 

*For the aspiring Austro-Libertarian: What to read? #4*

I  thought I would recommend some of the not so well known but  nevertheless mind-blowing journal articles that should be read by  everyone in the movement, especially by those outside it. This is the _fourth_ in a series of many.


*Do We Ever Really Get Out of Anarchy?*_ [voluntarism]_ by Alfred G. Cuzan



A  major point of dispute among libertarian theorists and thinkers today  as always revolves around the age-old question of whether man can live  in total anarchy or whether the minimal state is absolutely necessary  for the maximization of freedom. Lost in this dispute is the question of  whether man is capable of getting out of anarchy at all. Can we really  abolish anarchy and set up a Government in its place? Most people,  regardless of their ideological preferences, simply assume that the  abolition of anarchy is possible, that they live under Government and  that anarchy would be nothing but chaos and violence.  The purpose of  this paper is to question this venerated assumption and to argue that  the escape from anarchy is impossible, that we always live in anarchy,  and that the real question is what kind of anarchy we live under, market  anarchy or non-market (political) anarchy.

Government is an agent external to society, a third party with the power to coerce all other parties to relations in society into accepting its conceptions of those relations.  However, that the idea of Government exists is no proof of its empirical existence.  That  societies may have some form of organization they call the government  is no reason to conclude that those governments are empirical  manifestations of the _idea_ of Government.  A closer look at  these earthly governments reveals that they do not get us out of  anarchy at all. They simply replace one form of anarchy by another and  hence do not give us real Government. Lets see how this is so
(Source: mises.org)

----------


## Conza88

> If it is what happens when nobody stops it then it is the natural state.
> Because of the existence of corrupt men tyranny is the natural state of man.


No. Given:

 			Suppose, for example, that we were all suddenly dropped down on the  earth de novo and that we were all then confronted with the question of  what societal arrangements to adopt. And suppose then that someone  suggested: “We are all bound to suffer from those of us who wish to  aggress against their fellow men. Let us then solve this problem of  crime by handing all of our weapons to the Jones family, over there, by  giving all of our ultimate power to settle disputes to that family. 

In  that way, with their monopoly of coercion and of ultimate decision  making, the Jones family will be able to protect each of us from each  other.” I submit that this proposal would get very short shrift, except  perhaps from the Jones family themselves. And yet this is precisely the  common argument for the existence of the state. 
*
When we start from the  zero point, as in the case of the Jones family, the question of “who  will guard the guardians?” becomes not simply an abiding lacuna in the  theory of the state but an overwhelming barrier to its existence. 			*— Murray Rothbard, Society Without A State
Whatever the case, it is irrelevant - the existence of a state (monopoly etc.) makes thigns worse, whatever the nature of man. 

You are regurgitating the Hobbesian myth.




> *Private Production of Defense*
> 
>  The myth of collective security can also be called the Hobbesian myth.  Thomas Hobbes, and countless political philosophers and economists after  him, argued that in the state of nature, men would constantly be at  each others’ throats. _homini lupus est_. Put in modern  jargon, in the state of nature a permanent underproduction of security  would prevail, each individual, left to his own devices and provisions,  would spend too little on his own defense, and hence, permanent  interpersonal warfare would result. 
> 
> The solution to this  presumably intolerable situation, according to Hobbes and his followers,  is the institution of a state. In order to institute peaceful  cooperation among themselves, two individuals, A and B, require a third  independent party, S, as ultimate judge and peacemaker. However, this  third party, S, is not just another individual, and    the good provided by S, that of security, is not just another “private”  good. Rather, S is a _sovereign_ and has as such two unique powers.  On the one hand, S can insist that his subjects, A and B, not seek  protection from anyone but him; that is, S is a compulsory territorial  monopolist of protection. On the other hand, S can determine  unilaterally how much A and B must spend on their own security; that is,  S has the power to impose taxes in order to provide security  “collectively.”
> 
> *In commenting on this argument, there is little use in quarreling over  whether man is as bad and wolf-like as Hobbes supposes*, except to note  that Hobbes’s thesis obviously cannot mean that man is driven only and  exclusively by  aggressive instincts. If this were the case, mankind  would have died out long ago. The fact that he did not demonstrates that  man also possesses reason  and is capable of  constraining his natural  impulses. *The quarrel is only with  the Hobbesian solution.* Given man’s  nature as a rational animal, is the proposed solution to the problem  of   insecurity  an  improvement? Can  the institution of a state reduce  aggressive behavior and promote peaceful cooperation, and thus provide  for better private security and protection? *The difficulties with  Hobbes’s argument are obvious.* For one, regardless of how bad men are,  S—whether king, dictator, or elected president—is still one of them.  Man’s nature is not transformed upon becoming S. Yet how can there be  better protection for A and B, if s must tax them in order to provide  it? Is there not a contradiction within the very construction of s as an  expropriating property protector? 
> 
> In fact, is this not exactly what is also—and more appropriately—referred to as a _protection racket_?  To be sure, S will make peace between a and B but only so that he  himself in turn can rob both of them more profitably. Surely S is better  protected, but the more he is protected, the less A and B are protected  from attacks by S. Collective security, it  would  seem, is not better  than private    security. Rather, it is the private security of the state, S, achieved  through the expropriation, i.e., the economic disarmament, of its  subjects. Further, statists from Thomas Hobbes to James Buchanan have  argued that a protective state S would come about as the result of some  sort of “constitutional” contract.[1] Yet, who in his right mind would  agree to a contract that allowed one’s protector to determine  unilaterally—and irrevocably—the sum that the protected must pay for his  protection; and the fact is, no one ever has![2] 
> ...

----------


## Conza88

> The Trump stuff can be a bit much.  That said, this thread is defining statism as just people who want any government at all.


Nope. Not even close. 




> *Government is not the state*
> 
> ”Government  is not the state any more than roads or education are the state. The  state coopts institutions but this does not make them inherently or  necessarily part of the state. Libertarians are against the state–the  institutionalized monopoly on law and force–but not against the  governing institutions of society, i.e. law.
>  The reason this  matters: supporters of the state (such as minarchists) will use  equivocation to try to trap you – they assume there must be a state, in  order for there to be law and order (“government”), just like  mainstreamers think there must be a state, in order for there to be  education or roads. And so they equate law and order with the state.  They ask you if you support law and order, and you say “yes”; they then  say “okay well then you believe in government.” Which means state. To  them. I’ve seen this trick thousands of times.
> 
> The solution is to  make clear what you mean by the state, and by government. By state we  mean a territorial monopolist of law and violence. We libertarians oppose this *because we oppose aggression*—and states  must commit aggression to either tax and/or to outlaw competing  agencies.  
> 
> Now if by government you mean “state"—then we oppose that too, and for  the same reasons. But if by government you mean governing institutions  of society —  law and order, courts, security etc. —  then no, we don’t  oppose this. In fact we count on this. We think the state undermines  "government” in this conception. (Left-libertarians may differ, since  they seem to hate “authority” and “hierarchies” of all kinds, but this  is not normal libertarianism, if it is libertarianism at all.)
> 
> ...

----------


## Conza88

> My argument is that statism is like air, it exists everywhere. Within any geographic location there's going to be some person or group with the most force that makes the decisions. Therefore the best use of your time is to minimize statism or control it as best as possible. Not eliminate it, because that's impossible.


Aggression will always exist (murder etc.) its institutionalisation though, need not be the case. Eliminating anarchy is impossible. See: this .




> Once one concedes that a single world government is not necessary,  then where does one logically stop at the permissibility of separate  states? If Canada and the United States can be separate nations without  being denounced as being in a state of impermissible “anarchy,” why may  not the South secede from the United States? New York State from the  Union? New York City from the state? Why may not Manhattan secede? Each  neighborhood? Each block? Each house? Each person? But, of course, if  each person may secede from government, we have virtually arrived at the  purely free society, where defense is supplied along with all other  services by the free market and where the invasive State has ceased to  exist. 			
> 
> 
>  			— Murray N. Rothbard

----------


## Krugminator2

> Nope. Not even close.


I just got slightly dumber after reading your link.

----------


## The Gold Standard

People are corrupt and will steal from and kill us, so it follows that we need to submit ourselves to the rule of a group of humans that steal from and kill us on a scale unmanageable by individuals.

----------


## CCTelander

> People are corrupt and will steal from and kill us, so it follows that we need to submit ourselves to the rule of a group of humans that steal from and kill us on a scale unmanageable by individuals.



You don't "get it." It's the ONLY WAY to insure that people don't steal from and kill us. Or so I'm constantly told by statists.

----------


## Krugminator2

> People are corrupt and will steal from and kill us, so it follows that we need to submit ourselves to the rule of a group of humans that steal from and kill us on a scale unmanageable by individuals.



The United States  has a population of 320 million people. How many people are clearly wrongly killed by the government each year? Like 15? 25 maybe?  Getting killed by the government isn't something that anyone  needs to worry about on a daily basis. Even when a cop shoots someone in the hood, let's face it, 98% of the time the people shot brought it on themselves. They usually weren't reading the Ethics of Liberty and all of a sudden got blown away.

I would rather pay taxes and have a rule of law than live as a serf in anarchotopia. Trust would evaporate without a predictable rule of law.  Markets would not work on a grand scale in anarchy.  No government would be a much bigger infringement on liberty than taxes are. And far more people would die because of anarchism. You would have "sovereign citizens" with all sorts of crazy ideas of justice.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Nope. See, there currently exists anarchy still between states... 
> 
> *For the aspiring Austro-Libertarian: What to read? #4*
> 
> I  thought I would recommend some of the not so well known but  nevertheless mind-blowing journal articles that should be read by  everyone in the movement, especially by those outside it. This is the _fourth_ in a series of many.
> 
> 
> *Do We Ever Really Get Out of Anarchy?*_ [voluntarism]_ by Alfred G. Cuzan
> 
> ...


You don't get to redefine anarchy, if there are states then you do not have anarchy.

Even if we compare the relationships between states to anarchy all that means is that if you are a state or have the power of a state anarchy is possible for you, the rest of us cn't have anarchy because states will arise and take it away from us.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> No. Given:
>              Suppose, for example, that we were all suddenly dropped down on the  earth de novo and that we were all then confronted with the question of  what societal arrangements to adopt. And suppose then that someone  suggested: “We are all bound to suffer from those of us who wish to  aggress against their fellow men. Let us then solve this problem of  crime by handing all of our weapons to the Jones family, over there, by  giving all of our ultimate power to settle disputes to that family. 
> 
> In  that way, with their monopoly of coercion and of ultimate decision  making, the Jones family will be able to protect each of us from each  other.” I submit that this proposal would get very short shrift, except  perhaps from the Jones family themselves. And yet this is precisely the  common argument for the existence of the state. 
> *
> When we start from the  zero point, as in the case of the Jones family, the question of “who  will guard the guardians?” becomes not simply an abiding lacuna in the  theory of the state but an overwhelming barrier to its existence.            * — Murray Rothbard, Society Without A State
> Whatever the case, it is irrelevant - the existence of a state (monopoly etc.) makes thigns worse, whatever the nature of man. 
> 
> You are regurgitating the Hobbesian myth.


You are knocking down a straw-man, you can have a state without turning all weapons over to it and it remains the responsibility of the people to alter or overthrow it should it become tyrannical.

You also have done nothing to disprove the contention that there are corrupt men who will establish tyranny if they are not restrained by a minarchical government created by good men to safeguard society.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Aggression will always exist (murder etc.) its institutionalisation though, need not be the case. Eliminating anarchy is impossible. See: this .


The answer is that the state can't be eliminated because the corrupt will establish them, the optimal size of a state set up to restrain tyranny is limited on the small send by how large it must be to successfully defend itself and maintain its independence and on the large end by which peoples and areas voluntarily wish to join it and remain part of it.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> People are corrupt and will steal from and kill us, so it follows that we need to submit ourselves to the rule of a group of humans that steal from and kill us on a scale unmanageable by individuals.


You can limit the theft and killing if you create and control the state, the corrupt individuals will create a state designed to maximize the plunder and murder if you don't.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> You don't "get it." It's the ONLY WAY to insure that people don't steal from and kill us. Or so I'm constantly told by statists.


It's the only way to keep them from creating a state designed to maximize the stealing and killing.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> The United States  has a population of 320 million people. How many people are clearly wrongly killed by the government each year? Like 15? 25 maybe?  Getting killed by the government isn't something that anyone  needs to worry about on a daily basis. Even when a cop shoots someone in the hood, let's face it, 98% of the time the people shot brought it on themselves. They usually weren't reading the Ethics of Liberty and all of a sudden got blown away.
> 
> I would rather pay taxes and have a rule of law than live as a serf in anarchotopia. Trust would evaporate without a predictable rule of law.  Markets would not work on a grand scale in anarchy.  No government would be a much bigger infringement on liberty than taxes are. And far more people would die because of anarchism. You would have "sovereign citizens" with all sorts of crazy ideas of justice.


And it wouldn't last, the corrupt would organize a tyrannical state to take advantage of the vacuum.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> The United States  has a population of 320 million people. How many people are clearly wrongly killed by the government each year? Like 15? 25 maybe?  Getting killed by the government isn't something that anyone  needs to worry about on a daily basis. Even when a cop shoots someone in the hood, let's face it, 98% of the time the people shot brought it on themselves. They usually weren't reading the Ethics of Liberty and all of a sudden got blown away.
> 
> I would rather pay taxes and have a rule of law than live as a serf in anarchotopia. Trust would evaporate without a predictable rule of law.  Markets would not work on a grand scale in anarchy.  No government would be a much bigger infringement on liberty than taxes are. And far more people would die because of anarchism. You would have "sovereign citizens" with all sorts of crazy ideas of justice.


Between wars and killing their own people, states slaughtered well over 300 million people in the 20th century. The crackhead you're terrified of because he's trying to steal your car radio isn't capable of anything like that.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> You can limit the theft and killing if you create and control the state, the corrupt individuals will create a state designed to maximize the plunder and murder if you don't.


Yes, that is working well.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Yes, that is working well.


If we didn't try to limit it it would be worse.

Even if you call our current situation a total failure that doesn't mean that success is impossible or that anarchy would succeed any better. 

As I have already explained anarchy would end up with worse results.

----------


## timosman

> And it wouldn't last, the corrupt would organize a tyrannical state to take advantage of the vacuum.


You mean they wouldn't live happily ever after?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> You mean they wouldn't live happily ever after?


Man began in a state of anarchy and look how things turned out.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Between wars and killing their own people, states slaughtered well over 300 million people in the 20th century. The crackhead you're terrified of because he's trying to steal your car radio isn't capable of anything like that.


This^^  

Listen up, bootlickers in this thread. In 2017, the cops murdered 1147 people. There were only 14 days on which someone was NOT murdered by a cop. https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/ Yup, I'd say we have more to fear from our gov'ment Overlords than from run of the mill criminals if you ask me.

----------


## Krugminator2

> This^^  
> 
> Listen up, bootlickers in this thread. In 2017, the cops murdered 1147 people.



Okay. Well. That's factually wrong.  Most of the animals who get shot by police deserved to be shot. That isn't being a statist bootlicker. It is a pure fact that most people cops shoot are subhuman trash. That doesn't mean the cops are good or they don't abuse power. It just means the people they usually shoot are much worse.  Watch Flint Town on Netlfix. I would never want to be a cop dealing with the dregs of society.  You are dealing with animals.

12 cops were charged last year. I get that bad cops get acquitted and many don't get charged. Let's say all 12 who were charged were guilty and 13 more cops never got charged. So 25 people were wrongly shot by cops. And most of those people could have avoided it if they weren't mouthy and aggressive.  Like the guy who got shot in South Carolina fleeing the cop. The cop should have been convicted but the guy who was shot was running from the cop.  The cop got lazy and didn't want to run. But I can't really say I feel bad for the guy who was shot. He was running from a cop.

Sp 25 (maybe) not 1147. The idea that cops murder over a 1000 people a year is just wrong.

----------


## Krugminator2

> This^^  
> 
> Listen up, bootlickers in this thread. In 2017, the cops murdered 1147 people. There were only 14 days on which someone was NOT murdered by a cop. https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/ Yup, I'd say we have more to fear from our gov'ment Overlords than from run of the mill criminals if you ask me.



There are legitimately bad things the police do. Planting evidence. Shooting dogs on raids. Stealing people's money through civil asset forfeiture. Using attack dogs on people who aren't resisting arrest.

There is no need to make up an outrageous stat that they murder 1150 people.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Okay. Well. That's factually wrong.  Most of the animals who get shot by police deserved to be shot. That isn't being a statist bootlicker. It is a pure fact that most people cops shoot are subhuman trash. That doesn't mean the cops are good or they don't abuse power. It just means the people they usually shoot are much worse.  Watch Flint Town on Netlfix. I would never want to be a cop dealing with the dregs of society.  You are dealing with animals.
> 
> 12 cops were charged last year. I get that bad cops get acquitted and many don't get charged. Let's say all 12 who were charged were guilty and 13 more cops never got charged. So 25 people were wrongly shot by cops. And most of those people could have avoided it if they weren't mouthy and aggressive.  Like the guy who got shot in South Carolina fleeing the cop. The cop should have been convicted but the guy who was shot was running from the cop.  The cop got lazy and didn't want to run. But I can't really say I feel bad for the guy who was shot. He was running from a cop.
> 
> Sp 25 (maybe) not 1147. The idea that cops murder over a 1000 people a year is just wrong.


To be fair though, you ARE a statist bootlicker.

----------


## Krugminator2

> To be fair though, you ARE a statist bootlicker.


I guess.  Or maybe just logical and fair.

----------


## timosman

> I guess.  Or maybe just logical and fair.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> I guess.  Or maybe just logical and fair.


Would your ego tell you if you weren't? 

IOW, anyone asked would consider themselves logical, fair, and reasonable.

When you get into implicitly justifying summary execution for the non-crime of evading code enforcers, well, you certainly aren't fair and after simply scratching the surface of the issue, you aren't quite as logical as you think, or rather as YOU have made YOURSELF to believe.

----------


## timosman

> Would your ego tell you if you weren't? 
> 
> IOW, anyone asked would consider themselves logical, fair, and reasonable.
> 
> When you get into implicitly justifying summary execution for the non-crime of evading code enforcers, well, you certainly aren't fair and after simply scratching the surface of the issue, you aren't quite as logical as you think, or rather as YOU have made YOURSELF to believe.


Is  @Krugminator2 the only one guilty of this or are there other co-conspirators as well ?

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Is  @Krugminator2 the only one guilty of this or are there other co-conspirators as well ?


After the retarded mole rat smoking a cigarette picture, I am sure there are. Lol.

In all seriousness, I haven't followed this thread since 2012-2013

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> There are legitimately bad things the police do. Planting evidence. Shooting dogs on raids. Stealing people's money through civil asset forfeiture. Using attack dogs on people who aren't resisting arrest.
> 
> There is no need to make up an outrageous stat that they murder 1150 people.


I didn't make it up. I linked to the source.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> I didn't make it up. I linked to the source.


He is arguing the difference between killing and murder.

So that you understand his logic, someone running from police who is summarily executed was _killed_ (and at some level deserved what happened to them).

A crooked cop shooting a man to take over his drug territory, well, that man was _murdered_ (and sometimes charges are brought but sometimes the cop goes free).

So. 25 murders a year. Because. Logic.

----------


## Krugminator2

> So that you understand his logic, someone running from police who is summarily executed was _killed_ (and at some level deserved what happened to them).
> 
> So. 25 murders a year. Because. Logic.


Ummm... I explicitly said the cop was guilty of murder. Why would you say otherwise? Seems pretty clear what I said. Here it is again. He would have been one of the 25 of actual real murders. Instead you want to use phony numbers like 1150.  Shooting people who are armed and using violence against you is okay in a libertarian society. It might not be in anarchotopia. It isn't murder.

Acting like the police just execute thousands of people. is wrong. It isn't my opinion. It is what the facts say. It is a clownish argument that takes away from real police abuses.

Even that guy's murder in South Carolina was completely avoidable. If didn't behave like a degenerate, he would be alive. I am NEVER getting shot by cop in that situation. NEVER.  It isn't because I am white either.  It is very easy to not get in a chase with a cop.







> O
> * The cop should have been convicted but the guy who was shot was running from the cop.* The cop got lazy and didn't want to run. But I can't really say I feel bad for the guy who was shot. He was running from a cop.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Ummm... I explicitly said the cop was guilty of murder. Why would you say otherwise? Seems pretty clear what I said.


It ALL gets muddied when going from 1150 people murdered to X amount of cops were charged with murder and X amount of cops were convicted of murder and so therefore doubling the amount of cops charged with murder would equate to the total number of people murdered by police officers.

I apologize for the mischaracterization but feel that in spirit, the statement stands. Insofar as it relates to the cases of the countless, or rather uncounted, tens of thousands of people murdered by the police since its existence.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Okay. Well. That's factually wrong.  *Most of the animals who get shot by police deserved to be shot.* Source? Sounds like $#@! you made up. That isn't being a statist bootlicker. It very much is. It is a pure fact that most people cops shoot are subhuman trash. No, you made it up. That doesn't mean the cops are good or they don't abuse power. It just means the people they usually shoot are much worse.  Watch Flint Town on Netlfix. I would never want to be a cop dealing with the dregs of society.  You are dealing with animals. I'm sure I'm sure a documentary maker would always be perfectly unbiased and impartial. *ahem* Michael Moore *ahem*
> 
> 12 cops were charged last year. I get that bad cops get acquitted and many don't get charged. Let's say all 12 who were charged were guilty and 13 more cops never got charged. So 25 people were wrongly shot by cops. And most of those people could have avoided it if they weren't mouthy and aggressive.  Like the guy who got shot in South Carolina fleeing the cop. The cop should have been convicted but the guy who was shot was running from the cop.  The cop got lazy and didn't want to run. But I can't really say I feel bad for the guy who was shot. He was running from a cop. Srsly? Self defense against illegal aggression from the cops is still legal in Murica, according to SCOTUS, and fleeing is a form of self-defense (threat avoidance).
> 
> Sp 25 (maybe) not 1147. The idea that cops murder over a 1000 people a year is just wrong. You are mistaken.


FIFY.

----------


## Krugminator2

> I didn't make it up. I linked to the source.


It is only a legitimate number if you make the assumption that 100% of people killed by cops are murders.

----------


## Krugminator2

> Source? Sounds like $#@! you made up


Nope didn't make it up.

*"Wash Post Analysis: Police Justified in Fatal Shootings At Least 95 Pct. of the Time"*


https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb...gs-95-pct-time


Apology accepted. 

So on the one hand you believe 100% of people killed by police are murders. The police are just executing people for sport I guess. It is the Hungers Games out there. Who will be the next sacrifice? It could be you. On the other hand, people who, you know, actually have studied this say almost 100%, almost, are completely justified shootings.





> I'm sure a documentary maker would always be perfectly unbiased and impartial. *ahem* Michael Moore *ahem*


So you think Flint being a violent $#@!hole is just a big conspiracy?

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Nope didn't make it up.
> 
> *"Wash Post Analysis: Police Justified in Fatal Shootings At Least 95 Pct. of the Time"*
> 
> 
> https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb...gs-95-pct-time
> 
> 
> Apology accepted. 
> ...


It is very telling of your logic that you cannot see why those numbers might be a tidbit underepresented.

Especially in relation to communicating with many limited government folks.

(Hint: Many laws shouldn't be laws and those fleeing or defending themselves against unjust laws are not morally wrong).

----------


## Krugminator2

> It is very telling of your logic that you cannot see why those numbers might be a tidbit underepresented.
> 
> Especially in relation to communicating with many limited government folks.
> 
> (Hint: Many laws shouldn't be laws and those fleeing or defending themselves against unjust laws are not morally wrong).


So to confirm, because drug laws are morally wrong (everyone would agree on that), if the police came armed to arrest El Chapo then El Chapo would be justified in shooting at the police. And if the police shot El Chapo, the police would be the bad guys in your world?

What about insider trading? Those laws are morally wrong. If the police raid a hedge fund, then it is okay to shoot the police? Is that what you are saying?

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> So to confirm, because drug laws are morally wrong (everyone would agree on that), if the police came armed to arrest El Chapo then El Chapo would be justified in shooting at the police. And if the police shot El Chapo, the police would be the bad guys in your world?
> 
> What about insider trading? Those laws are morally wrong. If the police raid a hedge fund, then it is okay to shoot the police? Is that what you are saying?


That's not logical at all.

What I am saying is that what a responsible law abiding citizen would do is sit in the gulag until reprieve is granted (and an apology!).

----------


## Krugminator2

> That's not logical at all.
> 
> What I am saying is that what a responsible law abiding citizen would do is sit in the gulag until reprieve is granted (and an apology!).


I am struggling here.  I guess you are on like 8th level sarcasm. You will have to dumb it down for me. Here was your helpful hint.  I don't know how else to interpret other than you believe it is okay to use violence against police who are trying to arrest someone for morally wrong laws.




> (Hint: Many laws shouldn't be laws and those fleeing or defending themselves against unjust laws are not morally wrong).

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> I am struggling here.  I guess you are on like 8th level sarcasm. You will have to dumb it down for me. Here was your helpful hint.  I don't know how else to interpret other than you believe it is okay to use violence against police who are trying to arrest someone for morally wrong laws.


Here's a rhetorical question: if a slave managed a firearm and shot a slave holder who was looking to capture him-- what would your response be?

Should he just follow the process for law? Appeal to the local commissioner? Write a writ of habeas corpus? Sign a petition? Vote for city council?

----------


## Krugminator2

> Here's a rhetorical question: if a slave managed a firearm and shot a slave holder who was looking to capture him-- what would your response be?
> 
> Should he just follow the process for law? Appeal to the local commissioner? Write a writ of habeas corpus? Sign a petition? Vote for city council?


I think a slave can murder a slaveholder.

Not being able to engage in insider trading or dealing drugs is not slavery.

Yes. You should follow drug and insider trading laws even if they are morally wrong.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Nope didn't make it up.
> 
> *"Wash Post Analysis: Police Justified in Fatal Shootings At Least 95 Pct. of the Time"*
> 
> 
> https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb...gs-95-pct-time
> 
> 
> Apology accepted. 
> ...


Odd, as no apology was offered. It's not accurate to say 100% of police killings are murders. (killing=/=murder) And for all we know, it could well be the Hunger Games out there. As of 10/2017, every database has been vastly under-counting victim stats. https://psmag.com/social-justice/how...-united-states






> So you think Flint being a violent $#@!hole is just a big conspiracy?


Nah. Actually, "Roger And Me" is an exception to Moore's propagandistic approach and quite good.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> This^^  
> 
> Listen up, bootlickers in this thread. In 2017, the cops murdered 1147 people. There were only 14 days on which someone was NOT murdered by a cop. https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/ Yup, I'd say we have more to fear from our gov'ment Overlords than from run of the mill criminals if you ask me.


Even if your numbers are correct anarchy will end up being replaced by a state that is as bad or much worse than what we have.
We might be able to reform our government and keep it from being as bad as it is.

----------

