# Think Tank > Political Philosophy & Government Policy >  Where do Ron Paul's ideas come from?

## Conza88

> Ron Paul says that "ideas are the only things that count". So where do Ron Paul's ideas come from?
> 
> Ludwig von Mises, Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard stand behind Ron Paul and his message of peace and liberty. Their strategy is to awaken and educate the masses to the idea of liberty, for when the State is widely recognized as unethical and uneconomic, it's days are numbered, since all States rest ultimately upon the support, active or merely passive, of the masses.
> 
> Ron Paul speaks to the masses, educates them, and introduces them for the first time to the ideas of liberty, in the hope that they will embrace the message and join the intellectual and moral battle against State power. He encourages all his supporters to discover for themselves the philosophy of liberty, directing them to Mises, Rockwell and Rothbard.
> 
> http://www.mises.org
> http://www.lewrockwell.com
> http://www.vforvoluntary.com

----------


## low preference guy

from the founding fathers

----------


## Conza88

> from the founding fathers


Of the Austrian School of Economics, correct. Well done!

----------


## AFPVet

When you read the Federalist Papers and other writings of the Founders, you then understand the framework for the Constitution and what it meant....

----------


## Conza88

> When you read the Federalist Papers and other writings of the Founders, you then understand the framework for the Constitution and what it meant....


When you read Austrian Economics and other writings of the adherents of that school, you then understand the framework of liberty and what Ron Paul means...
*
Mises and Austrian Economics: A Personal View* by Ron Paul

----------


## TheTexan

> Of the Austrian School of Economics, correct. Well done!


+rep

----------


## sailingaway

from his creator....

Ask him.  He says he was born with them.

----------


## Conza88

> from his creator....
> 
> Ask him.  He says he was born with them.


If that was his drive, he wouldn't be running for office. Ask him.




> "'Well, at first I thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter, and I think it's a theory, a theory of evolution, and I don't accept it, you know, as a theory, but I think [it probably doesn't bother me. It's not the most important issue for me to make the difference in my life to understand the exact origin. I think] the Creator that I know created us, everyone of us, and created the universe, and the precise time and manner, *I just don't think we're at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side.* [So I just don't...if that were the only issue, quite frankly, I would think it's an interesting discussion, I think it's a theological discussion, and I think it's fine, and we can have our...*if that were the issue of the day, I wouldn't be running for public office.*'


"As you can see, half of RP's words were censored. His real message was, 'We're fighting for freedom and can't afford to be split over a debate about fossils.'"

----------


## AFPVet

> When you read Austrian Economics and other writings of the adherents of that school, you then understand the framework of liberty and what Ron Paul means...
> *
> Mises and Austrian Economics: A Personal View* by Ron Paul


Unfortunately, I have not read the Austrian economic philosophy; however, I happen to own an Austrian Glock 20 10mm

----------


## Athan

He is a prophet! He has a direct line to GOD!

----------


## Conza88

> He is a prophet! He has a direct line to GOD!


What's his number? Seriously though...




> "The believer in a rationally established natural law must, then, face the hostility of both camps: the one group sensing in this position an antagonism toward religion; and the other group suspecting that God and mysticism are being slipped in by the back door. To the first group, it must be said that they are reflecting an extreme Augustinian position which held that faith rather than reason was the only legitimate tool for investigating man's nature and man's proper ends. In short, in this fideist tradition, theology had completely displaced philosophy. [3] The Thomist tradition, on the contrary, was precisely the opposite: vindicating the independence of philosophy from theology and proclaiming the ability of man's reason to understand and arrive at the laws, physical and ethical, of the natural order. If belief in a systematic order of natural laws open to discovery by man's reason is per se anti-religious, then anti-religious also were St. Thomas and the later Scholastics, as well as the devout Protestant jurist Hugo Grotius. *The statement that there is an order of natural law, in short, leaves open the problem of whether or not God has created that order; and the assertion of the viability of man's reason to discover the natural order leaves open the question of whether or not that reason was given to man by God. The assertion of an order of natural laws discoverable by reason is, by itself, neither pro- nor anti-religious.**[4]*"


Leave whatever "god" is out of if thanks. It's completely irrelevant to political philosophy.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Leave whatever "god" is out of if thanks. It's completely irrelevant to political philosophy.






> “I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior, and I endeavor every day to follow Him in all I do and in every position I advocate.”
> 
> -Ron Paul





> *"But it is to Christianity that we owe individual freedom and capitalism. ;*It is no coincidence that capitalism developed in Christian Europe after the transnational church limited the state. In ancient Greece and Rome, the individual was merely part of the city state or the empire, unimportant in his own right. Christianity changed that by stressing the infinite worth of each individual soul."
> 
> -Murray Rothbard


....

----------


## Hospitaller

> "But it is to Christianity that we owe individual freedom and capitalism. ;It is no coincidence that capitalism developed in Christian Europe after the transnational church limited the state. In ancient Greece and Rome, the individual was merely part of the city state or the empire, unimportant in his own right. Christianity changed that by stressing the infinite worth of each individual soul."


Does anyone have a counter argument to this?

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

Conza you should realize that Austrian Economics is not a normative pronouncement. You can be an Austrian Economist and a Socialist if you so happen to believe that being poor and destitute is preferable for instance or you believe in egalitarianism, or something. In other words -- Classical Liberalism / libertarianism has nothing to do with Austrian Economics. It just so happens Austrian Economics gives us valuable insights which, most people value prosperity so, they promote actions which increases our prosperity, hence, them then being Classical Liberals / libertarians. 

Ron Paul got his economic ideas from Austrians, and his Political ideas from Classical Liberals / libertarians such as Lysander Spooner and William Graham Sumner for instance.

----------


## Fr0m_3ur0pe

This video is showing the true meaning of awesome

----------


## Conza88

> Conza you should realize that


I already do. I've made the same point to many others, many times before. I can go quote if you wish. I responded to dismissive comment lazily, add the label of 'Austro-Libertarian' then. Yes, I understand the distinction clearly. 




> Ron Paul got his economic ideas from Austrians, and his Political ideas from Classical Liberals / libertarians such as Lysander Spooner and William Graham Sumner for instance.


He got his political philosophy ideas from folks like Murray N. Rothbard, For a New Liberty, Abolish Government by Lysander Spooner and Democracy: The God that Failed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

Voluntarists. Not classical liberals. The above is part of his recommended reading list.

----------


## Conza88

> Does anyone have a counter argument to this?


That presumes an argument was actually made. And I'd like to see the primary source thanks. Not secondary, and not out of context. Then I'll offer what I'm going to say anyway (more than the below quote).




> In "*Big-Government Libertarians*," MNR:
> 
> "*Libertarianism is logically consistent with almost any attitude toward culture, society, religion, or moral principle.* In strict logic, libertarian political doctrine can be severed from all other considerations; logically one can be - and indeed most libertarians in fact are: hedonists, libertines, immoralists, *militant enemies of religion in general and Christianity in particular - and still be consistent adherents of libertarian politics.* In fact, in strict logic, one can be a consistent devotee of property rights politically and be a moocher, a scamster, and a petty crook and racketeer in practice, as all too many libertarians turn out to be. Strictly logically, one can do these things, but psychologically, sociologically, and in practice, it simply doesn't work that way."

----------


## Sola_Fide

Conza,

If secularism is the foundation that brings voluntarism to societies, why isn't Europe a voluntarist dream land?

----------


## osan

> Ron Paul says that "ideas are the only things that count". So where do Ron Paul's ideas come from?


Is that really a quote of Ron Paul?  It is mistaken.  Many times, and perhaps most of the time, ideas without action are worthless, save as titillations to the mind.




> [The  founding fathers...] Of the Austrian School of Economics, correct. Well done!


Is there no direct quote from Dr. Paul on this?  I am not terribly fond of placing such words into anyone's mouth.

For myself I can say that my ideas came primarily from within myself, from the innate sense of sovereignty that I can recall experiencing even as a very young person.  Many years of thought, reading, and discussion helped bring those thoughts and feelings into sharper focus and better articulation, but they originated within myself and I might be willing to bet a small sum that the same is so for many people, maybe even Ron Paul.  Perhaps it is a personality type and some do not hold such a sense of individuality.  I cannot speak for others.  

Anyone have a quote from RP on this question?

----------


## Conza88

> Conza,
> 
> If secularism is the foundation that brings voluntarism to societies, why isn't Europe a voluntarist dream land?


Did you miss the point where religion is directly irrelevant to political philosophy? You can be religious, or anti-religious - you have the FREEDOM to do so. 

Your question is built on a strawman premise. Try again.

----------


## osan

> "As you can see, half of RP's words were censored. His real message was, 'We're fighting for freedom and can't afford to be split over a debate about fossils.'"


Agreed.  The large network media are all scum for their dishonest editing - whether against RP or anyone else.  It is disgusting.

That said, in some ways Ron is not very cagey at all - something I admire in some ways but also recognize as a terrible drawback in a game where forthrightness can be turned fatally against one. I would have stated things differently, perhaps to no better effect, but I would have left "them" with a far narrower choice than editing; basically whether to air my words at all.  IMO a key strategy in dealing with the media for persons such as RP is to give them very little with which to work.  This paints them into corners where edits become more obvious.  This is a VERY tough thing to do and one has to be extremely fast on the feet to produce responses that are difficult to edit without screwing the pooch, but I think it is a goal toward which all persons of RP's ilk must aspire in order to neutralize the power of dishonest media to the greatest extent possible.

----------


## Conza88

> Is that really a quote of Ron Paul?  It is mistaken.  Many times, and perhaps most of the time, ideas without action are worthless, save as titillations to the mind.


*Yes, it is*. No, it's _not_ mistaken.


"But in the US, his books now become instant best-sellers and he tours university campuses pushing a libertarian agenda. Where once he believed he was seeding the ground for a movement that would triumph well after his own career is over, to his own astonishment, policies he has espoused to almost universal ridicule for decades might just be about to go into law.

And this is why the economic and political establishment fears Ron Paul as one of the most dangerous men in America. His innocuous-sounding plan to subject the US central bank to a regular audit of its activities is a Trojan horse for the wider aim to End the Fed – the title of his latest book. Behind the liberal-sounding policies lies an audacious agenda to erase 100 years of economic orthodoxy and take the US back to a Nineteenth-century version of every-man-for-himself capitalism. Inch by inch, he is making progress.

"The college kids I think are interested in the anti-war position, in personal civil liberties and allowing them to do with their own lives what they want – but I tell them, if you ruin your own life don't come begging the government to take care of you."

Paul greets The Independent at his rooms in Congress, decked out in the formal regalia of public office, with flags and seals, but with portraits in one corner that reveal his inspirations: members of the Austrian school of economists whose founder Friedrich von Hayek predicted government attempts to intervene in the economy would set their people on "the road to serfdom".

*"Ideas are the only things that count, and politicians are, for the most part, pretty much irrelevant," he says.* "What was boiling out there I just brought to life. This material has been available in a quiet way on the internet and from a few libertarian think-tanks, but I was pretty shocked when college kids started calling out 'End the Fed, End the Fed.'"

Growing up in Pittsburgh, Paul was fascinated by the jar of coins that his parents kept on the kitchen shelf. He became a stamp and coin collector – still is – and he is fascinated by what gives money value. He's got a proportion of his savings in gold. Currencies come and currencies go, he says, but when people wanted to escape Vietnam during the war, they paid with gold coins at the border. "Most people think gold is beautiful, that's why it's money. It's because it's beautiful and rare and divisible and it lasts a long time. We don't use lead."

He decided to go into politics on the day, in 1971, when Richard Nixon said the dollar could no longer be exchanged for gold. Since then, the global financial architecture has been built entirely on the world's faith in the good credit of the US government. Paul is crouched under it, convinced the architecture will collapse."

Ideas *without action* are worthless.... yes, did you watch the video in this thread?  Ideas are what matters, politicians are irrelevant does _NOT_ thus mean, do nothing. 




> Is there no direct quote from Dr. Paul on this?  I am not terribly fond of placing such words into anyone's mouth.
> 
> For myself I can say that my ideas came primarily from within myself, from the innate sense of sovereignty that I can recall experiencing even as a very young person.  Many years of thought, reading, and discussion helped bring those thoughts and feelings into sharper focus and better articulation, but they originated within myself and I might be willing to bet a small sum that the same is so for many people, maybe even Ron Paul.  Perhaps it is a personality type and some do not hold such a sense of individuality.  I cannot speak for others.  
> 
> Anyone have a quote from RP on this question?


Yes, and I have already referenced the link. Introduction_ (more there)_, great read.


"I decided to run for Congress because of the disaster of wage and price controls imposed by the Nixon administration in 1971. When the
stock market responded euphorically to the imposition of these controls and the closing of the gold window, and the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce and many other big business groups gave enthusiastic support, *I decided that someone in politics had to condemn the controls, and offer the alternative that could explain the past and give hope for the future:* *the Austrian economists’ defense of the free market.* At the time I was convinced, like Ludwig von Mises, that no one could succeed in politics without serving the special interests of some politically powerful pressure group."[...]

Because of my interest in individual liberty and the free market, I became closely associated over the years with friends and students of Mises, those who knew the greatness of Mises from a long-term personal friendship with him. My contact, however, was always through his writings, except on one occasion. In 1971, during a busy day in my medical office, I took a long lunch to drive 60 miles to the University of Houston to hear one of the last formal lectures Mises gave—this one on socialism. 

Although 90 a the time, he was most impressive, and his presentation* inspired me to more study of Austrian economics.* My subsequent meetings and friendship with the late Leonard Read and his Foundation for Economic Education also inspired me to work harder for a society unhampered by government intrusion into our personal and economic lives. My knowledge has been encouraged and bolstered through the extraordinary work of the Mises Institute, with its many publications and conferences, and its inspiring work among students choosing academic careers. 

*My friendships with two important students of Mises, Hans Sennholz and Murray Rothbard, were especially helpful in getting first-hand explanations of how the market functions. They helped me to refine my answers to the continual barrage of statist legislation that dominates the U.S. Congress. Their personal assistance was invaluable to me in my educational and political endeavors.*"

@all - Reality folks. Accept it. Don't be like some moderators here at this forum who called individuals who went to Mises.org (to study Austrian Economics) trolls. They were simply following the suggestions and recommendations of Ron Paul. Embrace it, don't hate it.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> “I have many friends in the libertarian movement who look down on those of us who get involved in political activity,” he acknowledged, but “eventually, if you want to bring about changes … what you have to do is participate in political action.” -- Ron Paul


http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/sep/22/00019/

----------


## LibertyEagle

> @all - Reality folks. Accept it. Don't be like some moderators here at this forum who called individuals who went to Mises.org (to study Austrian Economics) trolls. They were simply following the suggestions and recommendations of Ron Paul. Embrace it, don't hate it.


Actually, Conza, a few were called trolls in the past because of this thread over on Mises.org mentioning plans to come over to RonPaulForums to convert minarchist to anarchists.  Interestingly enough, you were in that thread too.
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/8184.aspx

----------


## Travlyr

*FREE MARKETS, HONEST MONEY, PRIVATE PROPERTY*
Ron Paul



> The Economics of a Free Society
> 
> These selections lay out my views of the proper role of government, namely that it should serve only to protect the life and property of its citizens. I respect the Constitution not because of a nostalgic attachment to an anachronistic document, but because the Founders knew the danger in allowing government to overstep its legitimate functions. It is unfortunate that many Americans today dont understand the Founders wisdom in framing our government on the principles of federalism and republicanismas opposed to democracy. A free society can only work when its members agree that there are certain things left to the discretion of individualsno matter what a temporary ma ority might think. In practice this means the government must respect private property and the rule of law, or what is also called free market capitalism.

----------


## Conza88

> http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/sep/22/00019/


I'm sorry, was that quote meant to be a "refutation" of anything?  




> Actually, Conza, a few were called trolls in the past because of this thread over on Mises.org mentioning plans to come over to RonPaulForums to convert minarchist to anarchists.  Interestingly enough, you were in that thread too.
> http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/8184.aspx


LibertyEagle, interestingly enough - my posts in that thread are near exact replicas of word for words posts I had made here, prior to the creation of that thread. Funnily enough, when I wrote that exact post I had YOU in mind as the number 2 two of minarchist. The intellectually dishonest and close minded type.

If you go look at my early posts here in this forum, I arrived largely ignorant of Austrian Economics and Libertarianism. I came from the DailyPaul. Keep diggin'.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Conza, you could benefit from reading this.  

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3568127

----------


## sailingaway

> He is a prophet! He has a direct line to GOD!


If you are Christian, you believe EVERYONE has a direct line to God.

But I don't even get your point with threads like this, because no one here, whether they believe in God or not, thinks _Ron Paul_ is God.  And wouldn't just change our entire philosophy because he did.  We'd have to agree with it.  We support him because we agree with him, and because of his remarkable consistency and integrity.  We don't worship him.

----------


## Conza88

> Conza, you could benefit from reading this.  
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3568127


And *you* could benefit from *actually listening to Ron Paul*. 




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFYRHZpavX4#t=324s

_"The most important thing is to understand the philosophy and the issues."_

That is literally his advice when asked what activists should do.

----------


## Conza88

Yeah Trav, most of RP's quotes in the video come from his latest book. Keep trying. It's explicitly clear. I think that's what the governments role SHOULD BE too. Whether IT ACTUALLY IS or NOT is a completely different question. And Ron Paul provides those answers. 

I respect the constitution compared to what we have now. RP talking about individuals and government, yeah self-government *

Quotes and Audio Clips*

0:04-0:09 - quote from Mises and Austrian Economics: A Personal View by Ron Paul

0:07-0:11 - audio from Ron Paul at the MSNBC debate, 3rd May 2007.  Full video.

0:11-0:16 - quote from Ron Paul from Time Magazine.

0:26-0:29 - quote from Mises and Austrian Economics: A Personal View by Ron Paul

0:31-0:42 - quote from Human Action by Ludwig von Mises.

0:46-1:39 - quote from The Revolution: A Manifesto by Ron Paul.

2:00-2:05 - quote from The Revolution: A Manifesto by Ron Paul.

2:07-2:12 - quote from Lew Rockwell in an interview for The Liberal Post.

2:21-2:38 - quote from Murray Rothbard: In Memoriam chapter by Ron Paul.

2:40-2:52  - quote from The Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard.

2:53-3:25  - quote from Ron Paul: A Most Unusual Politician by Murray Rothbard.

4:46-4:49 - audio from Ron Paul interview with Adam Kokesh for Adam vs. The Man.  Full video

4:46-4:53 - quote from Freedom Under Siege by Ron Paul.

4:55-5:03 - quote and audio from The Arena with Eliot Spitzer, CNN, 13th May 2011.  Full video.

5:06-5:13 - quote from Liberty Defined by Ron Paul.

5:11-5:20 - audio of Ron Paul being interviewed for Motorhome Diaries.  Full video.

5:22-5:32 - quote from What is to be done? - 1961 Confidential Memorandum to the Volker Fund by Murray Rothbard.

5:37-5:41 - quote from Ron Paul from Time Magazine.

5:42-5:44 - audio from Ron Paul and Rand Paul interview by Neil Cavuto.  Full video.

5:42-5:47 - quote from Liberty Defined by Ron Paul.

5:57-6:02 - quote from The Revolution: A Manifesto by Ron Paul.

6:03-6:07 - quote from End The Fed by Ron Paul.

6:13-6:21 - quote from No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority by Lysander Spooner.

6:20-6:33 - quote and audio from question posed to Ron Paul after his  speech at the New Hampshire Lincoln-Regan Dinner, 25th March 2011.  Full video.

6:23-6:33 - quote from Liberty Defined by Ron Paul.

6:41-6:48 - audio of Ron Paul being interviewed for Motorhome Diaries.  Full video.

6:57-7:08 - audio of Ron Paul's speech at the Rally for the Republic.  Full video.

7:07-7:29 - quote from The Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard. 

7:27-7:36 - audio from CNN Presidential Debate, 5th June 2007.  Full video.

7:38-7:47 - quote from Liberty Defined by Ron Paul.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> _"The most important thing is to understand the philosophy and the issues."_
> 
> That is literally his advice when asked what activists should do.





> “I have many friends in the libertarian movement who look down on those of us who get involved in political activity,” he acknowledged, but “eventually, if you want to bring about changes … what you have to do is participate in political action.” -- Ron Paul


http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/sep/22/00019/

----------


## BuddyRey

I'm sure Ron has been hugely impacted by both Classical Liberal/Constitutionalist and Voluntaryist thinkers, much as a lot of us have been.  Both variant groups of the liberty message are vitally necessary to the wider movement, and bring a lot to the table.  For example, without the Voluntaryists, the liberty movement might become rudderless and lose its primary guiding principle (the NAP).  But without the Minarchists, us intransigent no-gov't folks would just scare the Hell out of everybody and make few converts.

----------


## josh b

Ok, this is a total nitpick Conza, but how do we know that Nock was a Voluntaryist?  I know he wasn't overly fond of the Constitution, however he never really displayed any knowledge of polycentric legal systems.  The same could be said for Boetie.

This is the most in depth video on this yet and I love it, but I don't think it's going to change anyone's mind here.

----------


## Voluntary Man

natural rights come from God, so .... you do the math.

----------


## newbitech

> And *you* could benefit from *actually listening to Ron Paul*. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFYRHZpavX4#t=324s
> 
> _"The most important thing is to understand the philosophy and the issues."_
> 
> That is literally his advice when asked what activists should do.


Out of context quote.  There isn't a period on the end of that sentence.  Also, please listen to the entire answer, not just the pieces that you want to use for your own purposes.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I'm sure Ron has been hugely impacted by both Classical Liberal/Constitutionalist and Voluntaryist thinkers, much as a lot of us have been.  Both variant groups of the liberty message are vitally necessary to the wider movement, and bring a lot to the table.  For example, without the Voluntaryists, the liberty movement might become rudderless and lose its primary guiding principle (the NAP).  But without the Minarchists, us intransigent no-gov't folks would just scare the Hell out of everybody and make few converts.


qft.  There's enough room in this movement for everyone, IMO.

----------


## Nate-ForLiberty

didn't read thread. Just wanted to say that, yes, people learn their ideas from external sources, but how they put them together has a lot to do with a person's character. So although citing thinkers who have influenced Ron Paul is good, we should never think that a person is the sum of what they have studied. 

Intellectual learning =/= wisdom

----------


## Conza88

> Ok, this is a total nitpick Conza, but how do we know that Nock was a Voluntaryist?  I know he wasn't overly fond of the Constitution, however he never really displayed any knowledge of polycentric legal systems.  The same could be said for Boetie.
> 
> This is the most in depth video on this yet and I love it, but I don't think it's going to change anyone's mind here.


I didn't make the video, but get credit for finding a lot of the quotes - along with Wesker and Nielsio. 

I will quote from elsewhere, where I have addressed Nock.




> Of similarity to Nock, that's what he called himself. I wasn't  referring to the wiki which lists them. Anyway, it's not too clear,  because Nock uses the word anarchist etc to describe himself:
> 
>       "Likewise, also, when occasion required that I should label myself with  reference to particular social theories or doctrines, the same decent  respect for accuracy led me to describe myself as an anarchist, an  individualist, and a single-taxer."
>     ....
>     "The single tax impressed me as the most equitable and convenient way  of paying the cost of such matters as can be done better collectively  than individually. As a matter of natural right it seemed to me that as  individually created values should belong to the individual, so socially  created values should belong to society, and that the single tax was  the best method of securing both the individual and society in the full  enjoyment of their respective rights. To the best of my knowledge these  two propositions have never been successfully controverted. There were  other considerations, too, which made the single tax seem the best of  all fiscal systems, but it is unnecessary to recount them here.
> 
>     Probably I ought to add that I never entered on any crusade for these  beliefs or sought to persuade anyone into accepting them. Education is  as much a matter of time as of anything else, perhaps more, and I was  well aware that anything like a general realization of this philosophy  is a matter of very long time indeed." 
>   But again, didn't quite get there - i.e single tax.. and his opinion of  no need to crusade etc, is probably similar to Herbert Spencers  conception and that of Walter Block's about society slowly advancing  socially _[probably haven't characterized that right]_. In any  case, Mises was probably much closer - but this is where the radicalness  and worth part comes in, Mises didn't violate Rothbard's law... [specialise in what you are worst at i.e Friedman and money] and  neither did Nock. All you hear from Nock is how evil the state is.. it's  one of the first books I read, real radical - and I never really got  the impression he wasn't fully there.





> _"So I recon it'd be more accurate to kind of call him a  "philosophical anarchist" like Albert J. Nock, as opposed to a  minarchist or supporter of "government" because he is far better than  the classical liberals or other minarchists today.. who don't advocate  individual or even anything close to village secession at all."_





> And                  closer to our own day, such early influences on me as Albert Jay                  Nock, H. L. Mencken, and Frank Chodorov were magnificently and                  superbly radical. Hatred of "Our                  Enemy, the State" (Nocks title) and all of its works                  shone through all of their writings like a beacon star. So what                  if they never quite made it all the way to *explicit* anarchism?                  Far better one Albert Nock than a hundred anarcho-capitalists                  who are all too comfortable with the existing status quo.

----------


## Conza88

> http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/sep/22/00019/


*Again*, is that meant to be some kind of refutation? 

Because if so, you are fundamentally demented if you think I disagree with politician action entirely. Get a grip on reality LE. It still stands that according to Ron Paul, the *MOST IMPORTANT* thing is understanding the philosophy, secondary etc comes other types of action.

Or do you deny the logic to this? Yuh huh. What was the last book you read about Austrian economics, or libertarianism LE? And when was that? 1970, right?

----------


## Nate-ForLiberty

> *Again*, is that meant to be some kind of refutation? 
> 
> Because if so, you are fundamentally demented if you think I disagree with politician action entirely. Get a grip on reality LE. It still stands that according to Ron Paul, the *MOST IMPORTANT* thing is understanding the philosophy, secondary etc comes other types of action.
> 
> Or do you deny the logic to this? Yuh huh. What was the last book you read about Austrian economics, or libertarianism LE? And when was that? 1970, right?


man, $#@! you. be respectful or shut the $#@! up.

----------


## CaseyJones

conza is gonna take a week off

----------


## newbitech

> conza is gonna take a week off


You should quote the part of his favorite video where Dr. Paul says we need to be compassionate in order to win the hearts and minds.  I have been trying to get him to understand that for YEARS...

----------


## Acala

Ron Paul gets his ideas from the Sacred Sampo of Win

----------


## Conza88

> You should quote the part of his favorite video where Dr. Paul says we need to be compassionate in order to win the hearts and minds.  I have been trying to get him to understand that for YEARS...


Supporting a state is compassionate? LOL. Notice I have little respect for those that wish to use force against me... and openly defend such notions, and attack true liberty. Those who are civil to me and don't support a criminal gang writ large receive the same in kind.

----------


## Conza88

> man, $#@! you. be respectful or shut the $#@! up.


Legit question, deserves legit answer.




Nate, I'm going to demand an apology for your irrational and uncalled for outburst. 

*If you do not* - I will post a link on Ron Paul's 2010 twitter (which has 4,000 followers), that which I control. The link will be to the "Ron Paul is a voluntaryist video" and "Where does Ron Paul get his ideas" video.

LE - an apology for $#@! stirring would also stop the above from happening.

----------


## newbitech

> Supporting a state is compassionate? LOL. Notice I have little respect for those that wish to use force against me... and openly defend such notions, and attack true liberty.


strawman Conza, strawman

You and I both know that "the state" is a vast collection of psychological aberrations.  How do you intend on winning the hearts and minds of the individual statist?  

Do you intend to take Ron Paul's advice and do so with compassion?  Or do you intend to continue to bludgeon "them" with your "superior" logic and youtube compilation videos?

You are claiming self defense, you are claiming you are being forced, you are claiming to defend truth.

Who is attacking you?  Who are you defending yourself from and what force is being used?  How is it possible to defend the truth, when the truth must be used to defend itself?

Conza, please, open your eyes and allow your world to be diverse, share in the beauty of perspective, allow yourself to see the truth from another's perspective.  Your tunnel vision is blinding, and your tactics are counter productive and self-defeating. 

Stop and smell the roses, listen to nature and hear the truth without voice, without reason, without thought.

----------


## newbitech

> Legit question, deserves legit answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nate, I'm going to demand an apology for your irrational and uncalled for outburst. 
> 
> *If you do not* - I will post a link on Ron Paul's 2010 twitter (which has 4,000 followers), that which I control. The link will be to the "Ron Paul is a voluntaryist video" and "Where does Ron Paul get his ideas" video.
> ...


A threat of force.  Lost all credibility right there pal.

----------


## Conza88

> strawman Conza, strawman
> 
> You and I both know that "the state" is a vast collection of psychological aberrations.


Lmao, it's not a strawman at all. I rejected your bs fallacious point. You have to make the case I have no compassion, you also need to make the case that everyone is intellectually honest and open to reason, to in effect - have their hearts and minds be won over. 

Good luck.

The additional point I was making is that, those who aren't intellectually honest and open to reason - rarely have their hearts and minds available to be persuaded of their error.  Not my fault, it's their own. 

To those that are like that, I am fine with them nut... WHEN THEY START ATTACKING the concept of a free society, that is when they become active in the defense of the state, they get no respect from me. It's not hard to understand bro, something you've failed to grasp for years. 

"The State has its own agenda, that is, . . . all States everywhere are run by a ruling class, the people running the State, and one of their interests is to extend as well as maintain the power and wealth arising from that rule." ~ Robert Higgs' Memoriam on Rothbard




> How do you intend on winning the hearts and minds of the individual statist?  
> 
> Do you intend to take Ron Paul's advice and do so with compassion?  Or do you intend to continue to bludgeon "them" with your "superior" logic and youtube compilation videos?


Ohhhh yeah, totally no compassion in this video. 







> You are claiming self defense, you are claiming you are being forced, you are claiming to defend truth.
> 
> Who is attacking you?  Who are you defending yourself from and what force is being used?  How is it possible to defend the truth, when the truth must be used to defend itself?


"Attack" the concept of true liberty. Openly "defend" [against] such notions [of statist supporters]. If you support a state (and do not allow for individual secession down to the individual level), then what makes you different from a guy in a guy supporting the cause?




> A threat of force.  Lost all credibility right there pal.


A threat of force? Excuse me? Back up that baseless claim. Define force. It certainly isn't a libertarian definition. How absurd.

You never had any credibility to begin with newbitech, such words from you are hallow.

----------


## Jeremy

Guys, please refrain from attacking each other, the ad homs, the off topic jabs at each other, etc.

----------


## newbitech

> lmao, it's not a strawman at all. (_yeah, it is because conza responded to "supporting a state" and that had nothing to do with what newbitech said. Classic strawman_) i rejected your bs fallacious point. (_just because conza rejects it, doesn't make it bs or fallacious, isn't this the fallacy fallacy? Hmmm.._)  you have to make the case i have no compassion (_no conza go ahead, conza is better at it than newbitech_ ), you also need to make the case that everyone is intellectually honest and open to reason, to in effect - have their hearts and minds be won over. (_no newbitech dosen't need to do any of that because newbitech is not trying to convince everyone to do anything.  What newbitech will do is find one more person to register republican and vote for ron paul, and teach them how to find 1 person to do the same.  And newbitech will do that exactly how ron paul suggests to do it, with compassion_)
> 
> good luck. (_newbitech_ _doesn't need luck, newbitech has the truth, but thanks_)
> 
> the additional point i was making is that (_doesn't conza need a first point to make an additional one?_), those who aren't intellectually honest and open to reason (_in other words, those who don't agree with everything conza says_) - rarely have their hearts and minds available to be persuaded of their error (_by Conza_).  Not my fault (_oh no, it never is, is it_), it's their own.  (_of course someone else is to blame_)
> 
> to those that are like that (_not like conza_), i am fine with them nut... When they start attacking (_or questioning_) the (_conza's_) concept of a free society, that is when they become active in the defense of the state (_because all it takes to defend the state is to disagree with conza_), they get no respect from me (_of course not, why would anyone respect someone with a different opinion?_). It's not hard to understand bro (_it's not that it's hard to understand, it's that newbitech would be stupid for acting that way when newbitech knows better_), something (_care to explain?_) you've failed to grasp for years (_conza has grasped this for years, everyone should grasp what conza grasps for years, grasping for years is fun_). 
> 
> "the state has its own agenda, that is, . . . All states everywhere are run by a ruling class, the people running the state, and one of their interests is to extend as well as maintain the power and wealth arising from that rule." ~ robert higgs' memoriam on rothbard (_clearly newbitech is part of the elite ruling class and newbitech is here to defend "the state" that has treated newbitech so good, even if newbitech doesn't even know newbitech is doing it, yep the goal of "the state" is to create robot newbitech ron paul supporters who spread ron paul's idea's around.  What a strange "state"_)
> ...


q.e.d.

----------


## Conza88

*Because linking to a Ron Paul video that is nothing but Ron Paul's own words, audio and excerpts from his books... is some how using his name for personal use?* 

What a lemming.

I have no qualms about supporting Ron Paul's true message of liberty. You, LE and others however DO.

I understand the political expediency of not necessairly putting forward that RP is a voluntarist. I understand that all you guys want is "votes". I understand that the other lemmings [***** boobus] out there don't often understand things clearly... it takes time and education. [Hence the 'boos' are doctor Ron Paul in the debates].

newbitech - how about you be intellectually *HONEST and PROVIDE A LINK TO THE SOURCE OF MY QUOTE [that you have put in your sig] SO OTHERS CAN GO TO IT and decide for themselves* the point being made.

*If you do not* - "I will post a link on Ron Paul's 2010 twitter (which has 4,000 followers), that which I control. The link will be to the "Ron Paul is a voluntaryist video" and "Where does Ron Paul get his ideas" video."

And it'll be all yourrr fault. 

I have no qualms about spreading the message of liberty. I have no qualms with spreading the message of truth.* I have no qualms in spreading Ron Paul's message.* YOU GUYS DO. It's not a threat of force newbitech... what I am doing is permissible in a free society. The fact you don't understand that is case and point.








What's it going to be... dun, dun, dun haha

----------


## Conza88

> q.e.d.


Incomprehensible. All that writing and you failed to define how you were using the definition of 'force'. It's nice to know you've inadvertently conceded your position was untenable.

----------


## Conza88

You three (LE, Nate, newbitech) have by the end of the weekend to reply. Don't just ignore this and feign ignorance either.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

Conza, I love ya, but you just don't know how to sell ideas.  I suggest you read "How To Win Friends And Influence People".

----------


## Conza88

> Conza, I love ya, but you just don't know how to sell ideas.  I suggest you read "How To Win Friends And Influence People".


I'm not currently trying to sell ideas. I've got the book. I've read it. It's great.

I'm merely looking for:
(1) An apology from Nate, for the irrational outburst. To answer your neg rep comment Nate, 'what's my problem?'.. I don't have one, not with you anyway... you're the one who told me to $#@! off and shut the $#@! up... so Nate, what's_ your_ problem mate? You had nothing to do with the discussion. As you admitted; you didn't even read the thread...
(2) What was the last book LE read about Austrian economics, or libertarianism? And when was that? 
(3) newbitech - alter his sig that currently has a quote of mine, so that it properly links to the comment made. Then others can visit it and read the thing in actual context. That'd be the intellectually honest thing to do.

Who is going to step up to the plate?  ... otherwise, it's 4,000 individuals exposed to Ron Paul's voluntarist message of liberty! Wooo 

Are these requests unreasonable?

----------


## Conza88

"I have no idea how to sell ideas..." as I host this video on how to sell ideas... 




Btw update: All 3 individuals have been informed of this thread.

If you doubt the twitter is real - *www.twitter.com/ronpaul2010* join

----------


## osan

> Conza, I love ya, but you just don't know how to sell ideas.  I suggest you read "How To Win Friends And Influence People".


I will say that Conza gets too worked up - too strident in his tone - not a good method for getting a point across.

That said, Dale Carnegie?  WTF?  I've despised that man's ideas forever.

For one thing, I do not endeavor to "win" friends.  I build friendships.  They are not prizes.  As for influencing people, I don't do that either.  I put out the truth as I see it and let it speak for itself.  Forget Carnegie's bankrupt world view.

----------


## newbitech

> I will say that Conza gets too worked up - too strident in his tone - not a good method for getting a point across.
> 
> That said, Dale Carnegie?  WTF?  I've despised that man's ideas forever.
> 
> For one thing, I do not endeavor to "win" friends.  I build friendships.  They are not prizes.  As for influencing people, I don't do that either.  I put out the truth as I see it and let it speak for itself.  Forget Carnegie's bankrupt world view.


I thought this website had a very good blog that hits the nail on the head when it comes to our OP friend.

http://www.theadvocates.org/blog/187

I am thinking about picking up the recommended book for my own library, along with some of the other libertarian material like this.

http://store.theadvocates.org/This_is_NOT_a_tip_Quiz_p/tip100.htm

----------


## Conza88

So I take it newbitech, you'd prefer to keep the quote of mine in your sig (having deleted the source, so individuals cannot click it and see the comment in context)... rather than change it?

No qualms with the aforementioned videos being shown to 4k Ron Paul supporters?* Obviously not.* In Austrian Economics it's called, demonstrated preference .

----------


## newbitech

> So I take it newbitech, you'd prefer to keep the quote of mine in your sig (having deleted the source, so individuals cannot click it and see the comment in context)... rather than change it?
> 
> No qualms with the aforementioned videos being shown to 4k Ron Paul supporters?* Obviously not.* In Austrian Economics it's called, demonstrated preference .


My demonstrated preference has nothing to do with your threat of force.  Your exploitation of Ron Paul's name is encapsulated within the quote, and I do not feel the need to go out of my way to link to the source of the quote since you do not feel the need to refute the claim made in my signature.  Apparently your demonstrated preference is to exploit Ron Paul's name for your personal use.  

You are setting a fine example, threat of force not withstanding.

----------


## Conza88

> My demonstrated preference has nothing to do with your threat of force.  Your exploitation of Ron Paul's name is encapsulated within the quote, and I do not feel the need to go out of my way to link to the source of the quote since you do not feel the need to refute the claim made in my signature.  Apparently your demonstrated preference is to exploit Ron Paul's name for your personal use.  
> 
> You are setting a fine example, threat of force not withstanding.


Second request: define "force". (Since you failed so remarkably in the first).

Nothing I've done is threatening force. Drop the demagoguery, be intellectually honest bro. C'mon, you can do it.

Exploiting Ron Paul's name? HOW? HOW ARE THESE EXPLOITING HIS NAME? Legit question, deserves legit answer. Good luck. 









*Ron Paul's OWN WORDS*. Wake up.

Awesome, so newbitech's demonstrates his preference for me posting the above videos. Excellent, thanks man... I give you a way out, but your ego can't handle it. Sad really .

Like my new sig . Don't you realise that the more you 'attack' the truth, the more damage you do to your very own position?

----------


## Conza88

This is me "exploiting Ron Paul's name" according to newbitech.


*Ron Paul is a Voluntaryist*




*Sources*




> 0:02-0:08 - quote from Ron Paul from Time Magazine.
> 
> 1:04-1:20 - quote from Liberty Defined by Ron Paul.
> 
> 1:28-1:47 - clip from The Arena with Eliot Spitzer, CNN, 13th May 2011.  Full video.
> 
> 1:58-2:16 - quote from Freedom Under Siege by Ron Paul.
> 
> 2:26-2:36 - quote from The Revolution: A Manifesto by Ron Paul.
> ...



*Where do Ron Paul's ideas come from?*





*Quotes and Audio Clips*




> 0:04-0:09 - quote from Mises and Austrian Economics: A Personal View by Ron Paul
> 
> 0:07-0:11 - audio from Ron Paul at the MSNBC debate, 3rd May 2007.  Full video.
> 
> 0:11-0:16 - quote from Ron Paul from Time Magazine.
> 
> 0:26-0:29 - quote from Mises and Austrian Economics: A Personal View by Ron Paul
> 
> 0:31-0:42 - quote from Human Action by Ludwig von Mises.
> ...

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

God, The Founders, the Austrians, and the Old Right.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

I'll say this much:

Rockwell has devoted a large portion of his life to promoting Ron Paul, and defending him from opponents.

Also, any frequenters of LRC can pick up the times when Ron uses ideas recently floated by Lew and others in speeches and interviews. Which are legion.

----------


## Conza88

Ohhh Liberty Eagle.... Nate....

Where are youuuu? 

LE especially, you constantly give me neg rep's for promoting the ideas of Ron Paul above. 

AND yet, when all you have to do is answer a legitimate simple question.... that would see me from not posting the above videos [which you hate me so much for posting] to 4k people, you're unable to get over your ego.

Interesting to say the least .

----------


## Revolution9

Ron Paul is a Republican candidate in the primaries for election to Office of the President of The united States. Ron Paul gets his ideas from ruminating on many sources of info, various authors and real world interaction. Ron's broad swatch of philosophy cannot be labeled as it fails as soon as you add another part of his philosophy into the mix. Labels are so 20th century. 

Rev9

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I will say that Conza gets too worked up - too strident in his tone - not a good method for getting a point across.
> 
> *That said, Dale Carnegie?  WTF?  I've despised that man's ideas forever.
> 
> For one thing, I do not endeavor to "win" friends.  I build friendships.  They are not prizes.  As for influencing people, I don't do that either.  I put out the truth as I see it and let it speak for itself.  Forget Carnegie's bankrupt world view.*


It's not an ideological book.  It's about effective communication and persuasive speech.  I'm not a fan of the Carnegie ideological legacy either. If you want to influence the political thought in our society, you do have to learn how to "win" friends.  Here are the bullet points on the back cover:
Here are the 12 things it(the book) will do for YOU:
*Get you out of a mental rut, give you new thoughts, new visions, new ambitions
*Enable you to make friends easily
*Increase your popularity
*Help you win people to your way of thinking
*Increase your influence, your ability to get things done.
*Enable you to win new clients, new customers
*Increase your earning power
*Make you a better salesman, a better executive
*Help you to handle complaints, avoid arguments, keep your human contacts smooth and pleasant
*Make you a better speaker, a more entertaining conversationalist
*Make the principles of psychology easy for you to apply in your daily contacts
*Help you to arouse enthusiasm among your associates

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> ron paul is a republican candidate in the primaries for election to office of the president of the united states. Ron paul gets his ideas from ruminating on many sources of info, various authors and real world interaction. Ron's broad swatch of philosophy cannot be labeled as it fails as soon as you add another part of his philosophy into the mix. *labels are so 20th century. 
> *
> rev9


qft!!

----------


## Conza88

> Ron Paul gets his ideas from ruminating on many sources of info, various authors and real world interaction. Ron's broad swatch of philosophy cannot be labeled as it fails as soon as you add another part of his philosophy into the mix. Labels are so 20th century.


And he recommends reading/ provides a list what has directly influenced him. He has so stated that Austrian Economics is such a school of thought, that and Rothbard directly influenced his thinking.

It's in his book; the one you haven't read. His words, not mine champ.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Ron Paul is a Republican candidate in the primaries for election to Office of the President of The united States. Ron Paul gets his ideas from ruminating on many sources of info, various authors and real world interaction. Ron's broad swatch of philosophy cannot be labeled as it fails as soon as you add another part of his philosophy into the mix. Labels are so 20th century. 
> 
> Rev9


Well said.

----------


## Revolution9

> And he recommends reading/ provides a list what has directly influenced him. He has so stated that Austrian Economics is such a school of thought, that and Rothbard directly influenced his thinking.
> 
> It's in his book; the one you haven't read. His words, not mine champ.


I too provide books and authors to people who wish to follow my opinions source of thinking. That said, I have never agreed 100% with any book that I have read..even hard core non-fiction is still rife with theories, opinions and conclusions. I run all of those through my own experience filter and come up with my opinion. That is what Ron Paul does as well. It is why he can speak for a few hours without a teleprompter. He has internalised it and does not need to quote to elucidate his thoughts. He is well aware of what he thinks.

Best Regards
Rev9

----------


## Conza88

And yet that doesn't mean hw's not supportive of a particular school of thought. He openly acknowledges being a libertarian, and a member of the Austrian School of Economics.

*HE HELPED SET UP THE MISES INSTITUTE.* 

LE has acknowledged the existence of this... but refuses to answer a simple, legitimate question. To be expected.

----------


## Becker

> And yet that doesn't mean hw's not supportive of a particular school of thought. He openly acknowledges being a libertarian, and a member of the Austrian School of Economics.
> 
> *HE HELPED SET UP THE MISES INSTITUTE.* 
> 
> LE has acknowledged the existence of this... but refuses to answer a simple, legitimate question. To be expected.


he doesn't openly acknowledge to being an anarchist of any kind, am I right?

----------


## Becker

> And yet that doesn't mean hw's not supportive of a particular school of thought. He openly acknowledges being a libertarian, and a member of the Austrian School of Economics.
> 
> *HE HELPED SET UP THE MISES INSTITUTE.* 
> 
> LE has acknowledged the existence of this... but refuses to answer a simple, legitimate question. To be expected.


he doesn't openly acknowledge to being an anarchist of any kind, am I right?

----------


## Conza88

> he doesn't openly acknowledge to being an anarchist of any kind, am I right?


Who ever made the claim he is an anarchist? 

He openly claims to support self-government over a return to the constitution. He openly supports voluntarism.

----------


## Becker

> Who ever made the claim he is an anarchist? 
> 
> He openly claims to support self-government over a return to the constitution. He openly supports voluntarism.


you said that was his goal
"Ron Paul’s real goal is self government / anarcho-capitalism"
If you're going to tell me anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism, then by all means, admit anarcho-capitalism requires there to be a government. And not all governments are force, not all governments are bad. Dare?

----------


## Conza88

> you said that was his goal
> "Ron Paul’s real goal is self government / anarcho-capitalism"
> If you're going to tell me anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism, then by all means, admit anarcho-capitalism requires there to be a government. And not all governments are force, not all governments are bad. Dare?


It's not the form of anarchism Mises attacks, or Ron Paul rejects... that which I also reject. That type of anarchism is utopian, requires a change in human nature etc.. this is what Rev, LE.. rile against (just see one of Rev's latest responses where he makes the exact same point Mises does... i.e relating to compulsion.)

They attack a strawman. They love using the word that I do not associate with, a label I reject. It's more for their own self they do it, so they can feel righteous (however misguidedly so).




> *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.


There is also this:




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


So.. if you are better than the classical liberals like Mises is. If you allow for secession down to the individual level... that makes the "government" voluntary. You can thus have competing "governments" in the market for security, defense. 

Then I have no problem with that, since you're no longer a statist (there is no MONOPOLY or aggression). You support DRO's, PDA's etc.. you just call them "government" in the sense that essentially no-one else uses the term. lol, fine, whatever.

Anarchy is often used as a synonymous with "chaos". I don't support chaos. Government planning is chaos.

----------


## Wesker1982

> It should be pointed out in this context that a synthesis of anarchism and capitalism was regarded as impossible by traditional proponents of both doctrines. While the defenders of capitalism such as the classical liberals of the nineteenth century believed that government should be kept strictly limited and as much as possible handled by the market, it should not be thought that they allied themselves with anarchism. On the contrary, it would not be too strong to describe classical liberalism's attitude toward anarchism as one of both contempt as well as fear. It was contemptuous because as one classical liberal philosopher wrote, anarchism "would be practicable only in a world of angels" and the "liberal understands quite clearly" that "one must be in a position to compel the per son who will not respect lives,health, personal feelings, or private property of others to acquiesce in the rules of life in society." And classical liberalism had feared anarchism because , while encompassing a broad spectrum of thought ranging from the rampant individualism of Max Stirner to the communism of Peter Kropotkin, the dominant strain of anarchism ostensibly place it squarely within the socialist camp. Daniel Guerin put the matter suc cinctly. Anarchism, he says, "is really a synonym for socialism." And, while acknowledging "Stirner's complete rejection of all political, moral, and traditional ties of the individual", " Max Adler goes so far as to argue that Stirner cannot even be considered an anarchist since anarchism is only "a definite political trend within the socialist labor movement," and Stirner was not a socialist.
> 
> 
> Hence, not just the state but the capitalist economic system were the principle evils for the majority of the anarchist thinkers of the nineteenth century. It was not accidental that in Kropotkin's delineation of the three cardinal aims of anarchist communism the first was an injunction against capitalism: "Emancipation from the yoke of capital; production in common and free consumption of all the products of common labor."Only after his exhortation to abolish capitalism does one find a call for "emancipation from government" and "emancipation from religion." The views of the Italian anarchist, Errico Malatesta, and the Britisher, William Morris, were similar. Both equated anarchism with communism and called for the free distribution of all goods. Bakunin, while a collectivist rather than a communist, also advocated the liberation from capitalism. Even in the writings of the more individualist-oriented anarchists one finds condemnations of capitalism coupled with panegyrics to socialism. In a striking phrase, Proudhon not only declared that "Property is theft" , but also exclaimed "What is the capitalist? Everything! What should he be? Nothing!" Similarly, the English anarchist, William Godwin, asserted that "it follows upon the principles of equal and impartial justice, that the good things of the world are a common stock, upon which one man has as valid title as another to draw for what he wants." And the American anarchist, Benjamin Tucker, contended that there were "two schools of Socialistic thought," the State Socialism of Karl Marx and the Anarchism of Proudhon and the American Josiah Warren. Tucker placed himself in the anarcho-socialist camp. Thus, it is not surprising that anarchism was abhorrent to the classical liberals. "Liberalism," wrote Ludwig von Mises, "is not anarchism, nor has it anything to do with anarchism," and the twentieth century followers of classical liberalism, the minarachists, have followed their mentors in rejecting anarchism.
> 
> But while a quick glance at the major anarchist thinkers of Europe and England, and America would ostensibly indicate that all were firmly ant-capitalistic, a closer look will show that this is incorrect, for the term "capitalism" has been used in socialist literature in two contradictory manners. On the one hand, the term is used to denote production according to the dictates of the market, or in socialist terminology, "commodity production." On the other, capitalism is defined in terms of class relations, i.e., the ownership of the means of production by the "bourgeois," or ruling, class. The former may be termed the economic definition and the latter the sociological definition. If the economic definition is used, it follows that the more things are handled by the market, the more capitalistic the society. This means that price controls, tariffs, licensing restrictions, state unemployment compensation, state poor relief, etc., whether they are considered beneficial or not, must be classified as anti-capitalistic institutions since they constitute modifications or restrictions of the market. Since the state does not sell its services on the market, "state capitalism," according to the economic definition, is a contradiction in terms.
> 
> But if the sociological definition is used, the state becomes compatible with capitalism, for whatever serves to entrench the bourgeois class, the owners of the means of production, in power is, ipso-facto, "capitalistic." Since both proponents and critics of capitalism were in general agreement that market competition would force the "rate of profit" to fall, the two definitions lead to mutually exclusive consequences. Since the economic or market definition posits pure laissez faire, any government intervention to protect the interests of the bourgeois is anathema. But that is precisely what is entailed in the sociological definition: state intervention to protect profits and institutionalize the position of the property-owning class. When the sociological definition is used, capitalism becomes incomprehensible  without control of the state by the bourgeois. For with the power of the sate behind them, the bourgeoisie are able to protect their privileged positions from the threat of competition by the establishment of tariff barriers, licensing restrictions, and other statist measures.
> 
> The proponents of capitalism, however, had only the economic definition in mind when they defended capitalism. Far from intending to defend state intervention to preserve artificially high profits, it was, in fact, such pro-capitalist writers as Adam Smith who vehemently condemned such "mercantilist" arrangements and urged their replacement by free trade capitalism. Since comparison can only be made when definitions tap the same domain, confusion occurred because of these definitional differences, and critics and opponents of capitalism talked past each other when many were in basic agreement. But if the economic spectrum is analyzed from the point of view of the economic definition only, then comparison can be made on the following basis: capitalism would be equated with the market, communism with the absence of the market, and mercantilism with a mixed or restricted market.



http://mises.org/books/osterfeld_freedom.pdf

Even Rothbard denied the anarchist label at one point:




> Considering the dominant anarchists, it is obvious that the question "are libertarians anarchists?" must be answered unhesitatingly in the *negative*.


Are Libertarians "Anarchists"?

I wish Rothbard would have never coined the term "anarcho-capitalism". It is such a useless label when both anarchy and capitalism have a hundred different meanings to millions of different people.

----------


## Becker

> It's not the form of anarchism Mises attacks, or Ron Paul rejects... that which I also reject. That type of anarchism is utopian, requires a change in human nature etc.. this is what Rev, LE.. rile against (just see one of Rev's latest responses where he makes the exact same point Mises does... i.e relating to compulsion.)
> 
> They attack a strawman. They love using the word that I do not associate with, a label I reject. It's more for their own self they do it, so they can feel righteous (however misguidedly so).
> 
> 
> 
> There is also this:
> 
> 
> ...


anarchy is not synonymous with chaos, no anarchist would say he supports chaos. 

If you do not support anarchy, don't bash every form of government as if they are equal, they are not. 

Government planning is not chaos, it's order which you dislike. 




> *"That type of anarchism is utopian, requires a change in human nature etc."*


Double standard, as if your form of anarchism or whatever system you advocate, does not require a change in human nature. Ever notice that your system only exists in your head and in the past? There's a reason why, human nature rejects it via the market. 




> They attack a strawman. They love using the word that I do not associate with, a label I reject.


it's not a strawman, you always beat people up at the first mention of the word government, then you turn around and say you are for "self government", as if any criminal, any person isn't for it. If you are not an anarchist, admit you support government. If you always reject all forms of government without actually knowing what it is, then you cannot blame people for mistaking you as an anarchist or complain it's a strawman.

----------


## Wesker1982

> anarchy is not synonymous with chaos, no anarchist would say he supports chaos.


He said it is _often_ used as a synonym. I am sure a lot of anarchists do not advocate chaos, but the vast majority of the population equate anarchy with chaos.




> If you do not support anarchy, don't bash every form of government as if they are equal, they are not.


He doesn't advocate what most people view anarchy as (chaos and lawlessness). And his posts on monarchy vs democracy demonstrate he definitely does not view every form of government as equal. Some forms of government are most definitely more tyrannical than others.

A problem is that most people conflate society with government. If someone says they don't want a monopolistic (governmental) legal system, it is assumed they don't want a legal system at all. And since anarchy is seen as synonymous with chaos and lawlessness, it is not very useful to classify us as anarchists. 




> The great _non sequitur_ committed by defenders of the State, including classical Aristotelian and Thomist philosophers, is to leap from the necessity of _society_ to the necessity of the _State_. - Murray Rothbard


So if I am against coercive monopolies known as governments, but I am for law and order, am I an anarchist? Some would say yes since I am against all forms of coercive monopolies (governments), some would say no since I don't advocate chaos,lawlessness, or socialism. 




> Double standard, as if your form of anarchism or whatever system you advocate, does not require a change in human nature.


It doesn't. Private property and property rights are already valued by humans, most people are just mistaken as to what is necessary to protect them. 




> 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. - Murray Rothbard

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Wesker1982 again.


Wow.  Well said, Wesker.  You even convinced me, and I didn't need convincing.

----------


## Becker

> He said it is _often_ used as a synonym. I am sure a lot of anarchists do not advocate chaos, but the vast majority of the population equate anarchy with chaos.
> 
> He doesn't advocate what most people view anarchy as (chaos and lawlessness). And his posts on monarchy vs democracy demonstrate he definitely does not view every form of government as equal. Some forms of government are most definitely more tyrannical than others.


Ok, but does he advocate what ANARCHISTS call anarchism? 





> A problem is that most people conflate society with government. If someone says they don't want a monopolistic (governmental) legal system, it is assumed they don't want a legal system at all. And since anarchy is seen as synonymous with chaos and lawlessness, it is not very useful to classify us as anarchists.


I don't conflate society with government, so you're not talking about me. 
You don't want a monopolistic legal system? What legal system do you want and how would it be enforceable?





> So if I am against coercive monopolies known as governments, but I am for law and order, am I an anarchist? Some would say yes since I am against all forms of coercive monopolies (governments), some would say no since I don't advocate chaos,lawlessness, or socialism.


I'm for non-coercive monopolies.






> It doesn't. Private property and property rights are already valued by humans, most people are just mistaken as to what is necessary to protect them.


no, they are not. 
at least, it's not a universal instinct what is or can be considered property. 
also, just because most people WANT property rights for themselves, does not follow they will respect the rights others demand.

----------


## Wesker1982

> Ok, but does he advocate what ANARCHISTS call anarchism?


Are you talking about the socialist anarchists? Anarchist is still a pretty vague term. It is probably safe to say he advocates anything that is voluntary, regardless of what it is called.




> I don't conflate society with government, so you're not talking about me.


Great! 




> You don't want a monopolistic legal system? What legal system do you want and how would it be enforceable?


Right. Monopolies are inefficient at providing services, this doesn't somehow change when it comes to the provision of law. I want a legal system that is voluntarily funded and open to competition.

Check out: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...62#post3315262





> I'm for non-coercive monopolies.


Great! 




> no, they are not.


You don't think it is accurate to say most people value property? Property is necessary to live, humans value food, shelter, water, etc. Those people who don't value property would starve. If you cannot own property in food or water, you would be dead. Any human who is alive values property by the virtue of the fact that he is living. 




> at least, it's not a universal instinct what is or can be considered property.


Do you mean property law is not a universal instinct? I don't quite know what you mean, but I would still argue that property is valued by humans because it is necessary to sustain life.




> also, just because most people WANT property rights for themselves, does not follow they will respect the rights others demand.


Some people will always invade the rights of others, that is why monopolies on defense services are so bad. Accepting that there will always be bad people, why give them a chance to gain control of a coercive monopoly? Imagine there are 30,000 defense agencies, it is a relatively minor situation if one turns into a criminal gang, especially compared to a criminal gang gaining control of the one and only monopolized defense service.

----------


## Becker

> Are you talking about the socialist anarchists? Anarchist is still a pretty vague term. It is probably safe to say he advocates anything that is voluntary, regardless of what it is called.


No, anarchism is not a vague term. All anarchists have one thing in common, they do not believe in a formal government entity forced on people who disagree with them. Does he advocate letting murderers and rapists "voluntarily" submitting to a justice system? Or does he believe it's justified to FORCE them to be punished by a system they disagree with? Is there a voluntary DRO or PDA that will solve this problem of "force"?




> Great! 
> 
> Right. Monopolies are inefficient at providing services, this doesn't somehow change when it comes to the provision of law. I want a legal system that is voluntarily funded and open to competition.
> 
> Check out: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...62#post3315262


"voluntarily funded and open to competition."
I was about to say Blackwater, but then you'd say they're tax funded. If I hired a PDA voluntarily to protect myself against you, what's stopping my PDA from excessively aggressing against you? I allow competition, except when I can get away with it. What's to keep me from stopping your competition? A mediation agency which I'll never agree to? (we call that force, or government). Or a mediation agency I agreed to in advance (which would mean you have zero power over people who never signed up to your DRO)






> Great! 
> 
> You don't think it is accurate to say most people value property? Property is necessary to live, humans value food, shelter, water, etc.


No, it's not accurate. It may be accurate in the modern world, but the fact most people may be greedy and possessive does not mean they have an instinct as to what is property, what is properly acquired...etc. WRONG, property is NOT necessary to live, it's only necessary when either there is limited resources, or there is competition for it. WHile this may be true in most cases in the modern world, it's not necessarily human nature.

Valuing something does not mean they value it as property, or will automatically respect another's claim to it as property. I value money, doesn't mean I will automatically respect the fact you own yours. 




> Those people who don't value property would starve. If you cannot own property in food or water, you would be dead. Any human who is alive values property by the virtue of the fact that he is living.


Those who do not respect property will strive, as we've seen in history. You conflate value of resources to value of property. A person may value and believe he has reasonable claim to a food resource if it was his labor or hunting or gathering, or even if he farmed his resources, but it is not always necessary. 

By your logic, the fact I am alive means I value lack of competition, therefore it's human nature to want my competitors dead.




> Do you mean property law is not a universal instinct? I don't quite know what you mean, but I would still argue that property is valued by humans because it is necessary to sustain life.


Yes, property law is not a universal instinct. At least, the sense of what is considered property, what is considered proper acquisition, what is reasonable means of defense, are not universal, not instinct. Greed and possessiveness, desire to eliminate competition, however, is mostly instinctual. Again, property is NOT necessary to sustain life, otherwise animals wouldn't exist. Animals live by opening their mouths and walking around, not by hunting, farming, negotiating, hoarding...etc. Humans CAN live on that alone, it may not be comfortable or sufficient by modern standards, but it would be , SUSTAINING LIFE.





> Some people will always invade the rights of others, that is why monopolies on defense services are so bad. Accepting that there will always be bad people, why give them a chance to gain control of a coercive monopoly?


because they are in the minority and have a lessor chance? I don't know. Why do you assume competition is always better for justice? By this logic, all countries which there is less monopoly of force is better and safer to live in. 




> Imagine there are 30,000 defense agencies, it is a relatively minor situation if one turns into a criminal gang, especially compared to a criminal gang gaining control of the one and only monopolized defense service.


how convenient that you provide zero context. 
30,000 defense agencies in a population of how many people? 
why is it automatically assumed that it's a minor situation if one turns bad?
and without government to force people to respect each their property, who's to stop one group of agencies from turn against another?
better yet, who ensures that 30,000 are created to begin with? Are you completely ignoring the fact that the first 1,000 or 10,000 will do their best to prevent competition, with zero regard to another's rights to compete (oh yeah, silly me, its instinctual so it'll just never happen, or there's some natural force that'll prevent them from preventing competition, why didn't I see that all over the world)

----------


## Wesker1982

> they do not believe in a formal government entity forced on people who disagree with them.


What Voluntaryists believe is all relationships and interactions between people should be on a voluntary basis. Force is only justified in reaction to force. 




> Does he advocate letting murderers and rapists "voluntarily" submitting to a justice system?


In the free society that I advocate, all property would be privately owned. No one would allow a known violent criminal on their property (anyone who did would also likely be ostracized). Since removing unwanted people from your property is legitimate, the criminals would be effectively outcast from society if they didn't submit to the justice system. 

The way your question is framed is a bit odd. If someone invades another, the situation is no longer voluntary. By asking if criminals would "voluntarily" submit to the justice system, are you implying it is wrong to use force against someone who created a non-voluntary (forceful) situation? Once they initiate an involuntary act, they have demonstrated that they accept their actions and thus the situation (if they did not, they would not have acted).




> Or does he believe it's justified to FORCE them to be punished by a system they disagree with?


If they initiated force, then they demonstrated that they agree with force. This isn't to say they enjoy it when force is used against _them_, but as a principle, it would be self-contradictory for a criminal to say they disagree with force (for at least at the time they used force, they agreed with it). Force is only justified against criminals. Although I believe it is justified to use force against a criminal (someone who initiated aggression), I advocate restitution and ostracism rather than punishment. 




> If I hired a PDA voluntarily to protect myself against you, what's stopping my PDA from excessively aggressing against you?


Because it is a PDA and not a criminal gang. How I come to this conclusion is the fact that it became a PDA in the first place. What I mean is that it is highly unlikely that a violent and aggressive criminals would turn into a successful business. A business does not become successful on the voluntary market by being violent (in contrast to business that use the force of government to impose barriers to competition). Violence is not only inefficient, but it is expensive, _very_ expensive. The high costs and low efficiency of aggression will cause consumers to subscribe to competitors. Not only that, but unlike the current government apparatus, there would be no illusion of legitimacy if a defense agency becomes criminal. People would instantly see them for exactly what they are (a criminal gang), and would stop doing business with them. Also, any PDA that became violent would be a huge insurance liability, they would find it impossible to be insured, which would make their business that much more costly. 

Remember that since the defense is funded voluntarily, people would not pay for expensive and inefficient services when there are better alternatives. When a government is violent, the actual people organizing the violence do not pay for it. The costs are forcefully burdened on the tax payer. In a market where defense is funded voluntarily, any additional costs would have to be funded by the consumer (and these huge costs would be blatantly obvious since there would be no inflation to hide the _real_ costs). If one argues that the bulk of the population might be willing to pay for violent and invasive defense agencies, then I would reply that with a society composed of such individuals would be violent _no matter what_.




> A mediation agency which I'll never agree to? (we call that force, or government).


Force is not justified on a non-criminal. It would be in your best interest to provide defense for yourself to better your chances of not being declared a criminal, but no force would be allowed unless you were a proven criminal.

But if it were found that you initiated force (i.e. you are a criminal), then it would evident that you _do_ agree with force. It would be an obvious contradiction if you initiate force and then say you don't agree to force. 




> Or a mediation agency I agreed to in advance (which would mean you have zero power over people who never signed up to your DRO)


You wouldn't have to be a part of the same DRO, reputable agencies would cooperate (standardization would also eventually form over time, making it even less likely that conflict would occur). When they disagree on a decision, it would go to a third party.

If you aren't insured (i.e. you have no one representing you), you would effectively voluntarily outcast yourself. People would be hesitant to do business with you because it would be unnecessarily difficult to settle possible disputes. Someone who owns a road would probably not allow uninsured drivers use it because they would be a large liability, employers would be less likely to hire you, people in general would be much less likely to enter contracts, etc. 




> property is NOT necessary to live


If you could not have exclusive control over what is necessary to sustain life, then you could not live. 




> it's only necessary when either there is limited resources


In other words then, since resources are always limited, property is always necessary. 




> Valuing something does not mean they value it as property


Not everything that is valued is property, but everything that is property is valued (or else it would be unowned).




> You conflate value of resources to value of property.


Once the resources are owned, they become property. If you bother to acquire a resource (thus owning it), you must value it or else you would not have acquired it.




> Humans CAN live on that alone, it may not be comfortable or sufficient by modern standards, but it would be , SUSTAINING LIFE.


If you walk up to an unowned cob of corn in the wild and take a bite out of it to sustain your life, you have homesteaded it, it is now your property. If you were not allowed to make food your property, you could not sustain life. 




> Why do you assume competition is always better for justice?


This basically is asking why I think a forceful monopoly is good. Competition is better because violent monopolies are bad. If you really want, I can tell you why I think monopolies are bad at providing goods and services, but hopefully I don't need to.




> how convenient that you provide zero context. 
> 30,000 defense agencies in a population of how many people?


I wasn't trying to give an exact blueprint for a future market that is impossible to precisely predict (number was random). What I can do though is apply economic principles to future markets.




> why is it automatically assumed that it's a minor situation if one turns bad?


_Relatively_ minor. Sure, it is very bad if a group of 100 gangsters that are decentralized (as in they are confined to a relatively small effective area) from most of society go on a killing spree, but it is _relatively_ minor compared to a gang with a monopoly on defense over the whole society going on a killing spree.




> who's to stop one group of agencies from turn against another?


This has been discussed ad nauseam, so I will refer you to:

Law without Government: Conflict Resolution in a Free Society
Answering the Warring Defense Agencies Objection
Warring Defense Agencies and Organized Crime
Criminal Private Courts
But Wouldn't Warlords Take Over?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...62#post3315262

----------


## CCTelander

> *Government planning is not chaos, it's order* which you dislike.


Wow.

You can't possibly REALLY believe this, can you?

Even a cursory look at the world in which we live reveals the enormous error of such a statement. There is certainly no shortage of "government planning" in the world. But there is VERY LITTLE by way of order. In fact, almost everywhere governments attempt to plan things, they invariably wind up being LESS WELL ORDERED and MORE chaotic.

NOTHING government touches winds up better off as a result. Nothing.

----------


## Becker

> Wow.
> 
> You can't possibly REALLY believe this, can you?
> 
> Even a cursory look at the world in which we live reveals the enormous error of such a statement. There is certainly no shortage of "government planning" in the world. But there is VERY LITTLE by way of order. In fact, almost everywhere governments attempt to plan things, they invariably wind up being LESS WELL ORDERED and MORE chaotic.
> 
> NOTHING government touches winds up better off as a result. Nothing.


Under your logic, ALL countries with less government are preferable to live compared to ALL countries with more government power and higher taxes. No exceptions are allowed. Go ahead and make your million excuses of why this country is still better based on crime, resources, history, ...etc, you've proven your argument null. 

Be honest enough to admit SOMETIMES, SOME PLACES, government does a better job at taking care of an issue or project compared to private based alternatives, even if it comes at a price you're unwilling to pay.

----------


## Becker

> What Voluntaryists believe is all relationships and interactions between people should be on a voluntary basis. Force is only justified in reaction to force.


Oh yes, and you get to subjectively define what is "force" you are reacting to, thus always justifying YOUR use of force. 





> In the free society that I advocate, all property would be privately owned. No one would allow a known violent criminal on their property (anyone who did would also likely be ostracized).


That's the society I already live in, we start by demonizing, labeling and designating who is a criminal and terrorist, then we deny them rights. You simply want to become the government you hate.




> Since removing unwanted people from your property is legitimate, the criminals would be effectively outcast from society if they didn't submit to the justice system.


As such, libertarians, anarchists, and voluntaryists are justly labeled as criminals in the status quo, and denying them rights under the system they openly despise and disrespect is giving them exactly what they ask for. 




> The way your question is framed is a bit odd. If someone invades another, the situation is no longer voluntary. By asking if criminals would "voluntarily" submit to the justice system, are you implying it is wrong to use force against someone who created a non-voluntary (forceful) situation? Once they initiate an involuntary act, they have demonstrated that they accept their actions and thus the situation (if they did not, they would not have acted).


WOW, how convenient. So you simply start by saying "you did it first" and then you are justified to use force against a person who never agreed to YOUR RULES of judging who was wrong to begin with?

Here's an example : "I" start out by saying Wesker is not allowed to wear a t-shirt, doing so would be a violation of my code, my property. So the minute he puts on a t-shirt, I can say he's "violated me, broken my rules of voluntary" and then I am justified to use force against him based on my arbitrary rules he never agreed to. 

In the real world : YOU, Mr. Wesker, have decided that the government has no right to violate your property via taxation, therefore you are justified in complaining. What you didn't know, or knowingly ignore, is that YOU arbitrarily decided YOU have rights to property, which the government NEVER granted you, and thus they are NOT in violation by THEIR standards. 

*Obviously, whoever makes the rules will say the other guy is in violation.*

----------


## LibertyEagle

> What you didn't know, or knowingly ignore, is that YOU arbitrarily decided YOU have rights to property, which the government NEVER granted you, and thus they are NOT in violation by THEIR standards.


Huh?  The government does not grant rights.  That was never intended to be their role in our country.

Note:  By the way, I notice Conza is still trying to convince you that Ron Paul is an Ancap.     Don't buy it.

----------


## Becker

> Remember that since the defense is funded voluntarily, people would not pay for expensive and inefficient services when there are better alternatives.


But they will if the alternatives are not better. Which you cannot guarantee will exist in absence of a force which will ensure property rights to begin with. 




> When a government is violent, the actual people organizing the violence do not pay for it.


When somebody is not violent, they are powerless. What's your point?




> The costs are forcefully burdened on the tax payer. In a market where defense is funded voluntarily, any additional costs would have to be funded by the consumer (and these huge costs would be blatantly obvious since there would be no inflation to hide the _real_ costs).


Yes, and in a case where there is no superceding organization, the consumer or tax payer becomes whoever has the least force and most money. 




> If one argues that the bulk of the population might be willing to pay for violent and invasive defense agencies, then I would reply that with a society composed of such individuals would be violent _no matter what_.


Thus conceding that your world is no better, other than superficial labels.




> Force is not justified on a non-criminal. It would be in your best interest to provide defense for yourself to better your chances of not being declared a criminal, but no force would be allowed unless you were a proven criminal.


As I've just demonstrated, it's easy to solve this problem. Invent a name for a crime you wish to charge a person with, since there is no law to prevent you do arbitrarily assign crimes, provide due process, or pay for wrongdoing, you can literally do whatever you can get away with. Proving a person a criminal is at the mercy of the person with most money, force, resources and popular support. 




> But if it were found that you initiated force (i.e. you are a criminal), then it would evident that you _do_ agree with force. It would be an obvious contradiction if you initiate force and then say you don't agree to force.


No, just because I agree with using force against you, doesn't mean I agree  to have  force used against me. Why do you assume I treat every person equally, what forces me to accept that other than you saying so?




> You wouldn't have to be a part of the same DRO, reputable agencies would cooperate (standardization would also eventually form over time, making it even less likely that conflict would occur). When they disagree on a decision, it would go to a third party.


Why would it go to a 3rd party?





> If you aren't insured (i.e. you have no one representing you), you would effectively voluntarily outcast yourself. People would be hesitant to do business with you because it would be unnecessarily difficult to settle possible disputes.


So the poor and weak become more poor and weak, good. 




> Someone who owns a road would probably not allow uninsured drivers use it because they would be a large liability, employers would be less likely to hire you, people in general would be much less likely to enter contracts, etc.


That's what we have today, government forcing drunks off the road and decreasing liability for themselves. Employers forced to some extent to hire people which they never needed to pre-civil rights movement. 




> If you could not have exclusive control over what is necessary to sustain life, then you could not live.


Wrong, you only need sufficient control, not exclusive. 




> In other words then, since resources are always limited, property is always necessary.


Resources are limited, but not always so much that it needs be rationed or privatized. 




> Not everything that is valued is property, but everything that is property is valued (or else it would be unowned).


what is something valued, but not property?

----------


## Conza88

> anarchy is not synonymous with chaos, no anarchist would say he supports chaos. 
> 
> If you do not support anarchy, don't bash every form of government as if they are equal, they are not. 
> 
> *Government planning is not chaos*, it's order which you dislike.



Ron Paul:_ "Government planning leads to chaos."__- Mises and Austrian Economics: A personal view_ 

Your thoughts? 




> Double standard, as if your form of anarchism or whatever system you advocate, does not require a change in human nature. Ever notice that your system only exists in your head and in the past? There's a reason why, human nature rejects it via the market.


Wrong.


It is you who requires a change in human nature.





> Note:  By the way, I notice Conza is still trying to convince you that Ron Paul is an Ancap.     Don't buy it.


By the way, I notice Liberty Eagle has never actually addressed the argument or videos raised, she prefers to live in a world of cognitive dissonance.. rocking back and forth chanting the same things in an effort to try convince herself she's right. 

First thread in my sig, LE, in bold... GO FORTH AND REFUTE RON PAUL'S OWN WORDS, all sourced. Good luck

----------


## LibertyEagle

> GO FORTH AND REFUTE RON PAUL'S OWN WORDS, all sourced. Good luck


His words are just great.  The way you twist them to suit your own agenda, is not.

Have you asked Lew Rockwell about Ron yet?  No, I didn't think so, because you don't want to hear the answer.

----------


## Becker

> Ron Paul:_ "Government planning leads to chaos."__- Mises and Austrian Economics: A personal view_


Unless he says always and only, you've taken him out of context. 






> Your thoughts? 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> 
> It is you who requires a change in human nature.


Nope, I'm with the status quo. I know humans and use them to my advantage on a daily basis, you're the one who can only cite books and post on the internet. 






> 


Again, are you for abolishment of ALL FORMS OF GOVERNMENT? or just the forms which you disagree with?

----------


## Wesker1982

> Oh yes, and you get to subjectively define what is "force" you are reacting to, thus always justifying YOUR use of force.


HUH? If society in general does not have a common basic agreement on what is considered force, no form of social organization could function. I find the basis for my belief in natural law and self-ownership, others find it in religion etc. But the conclusions most people come to are pretty much the same. That is, the vast majority of people would look at me like I am insane if I use violence on someone who is wearing a green shirt because I feel physically threatened by the color green. Most people will conclude that it was I who initiated violence, not the green shirt wearer. Claiming wearing the color green is an act of violence is simply not based in reality. For when has the color green ever initiated violence on anyone? 

For _objective law_ see *Chapter 12* or *Listen Here*

It is also apparent that you could benefit from reading this Ron Paul recommended author: *Antimarket Ethics: A Praxeological Critique*, *Part 2*




> That's the society I already live in


No. Not all property is owned by voluntary means. The government arbitrarily claims ownership to _a lot_ of land, and it uses force to restrict freedom of association. This is in complete contrast to Voluntaryism. 




> You simply want to become the government you hate.


Baseless assertion. I do not want to restrict people's natural right of free association, nor do I want to arbitrarily claim ownership (and use violence to enforce it) of unused resources.




> As such, libertarians, anarchists, and voluntaryists are justly labeled as criminals in the status quo, and denying them rights under the system they openly despise and disrespect is giving them exactly what they ask for.


The government doesn't and cannot legitimately own any property (because whatever they own they stole from someone else and whatever money they use to buy property from a rightful owner was stolen). The government restricting free association on property that they have initiation violence to acquire is vastly different than someone who voluntarily acquired their property doing the same. 




> So you simply start by saying "you did it first" and then you are justified to use force against a person who never agreed to YOUR RULES of judging who was wrong to begin with?


It depends on _what_ they did. If they didn't use force, then it wouldn't be justified to react with force. 




> Here's an example : "I" start out by saying Wesker is not allowed to wear a t-shirt, doing so would be a violation of my code, *my property*.


Unless the t-shirt was your property, this claim would have absolutely no basis in reality. 




> So the minute he puts on a t-shirt, I can say he's "violated me, broken my rules of voluntary" and then I am justified to use _force_ against him based on my arbitrary rules he never agreed to.


No. Force is only justified in reaction to force. You are arguing against a strawman. What libertarians object to is the initiation of force, they do not advocate the use of force against someone who might be offensive or someone who hurt your feelings. Property rights ultimately make issues very easy. Do you have the right to wear this or that? Depends on who's property you are on. 




> YOU arbitrarily decided YOU have rights to property


No. I decided this based on natural law. You should read the links I posted above.




> which the government NEVER granted you, and thus they are NOT in violation by THEIR standards.


Rights are not granted by government, they are inherent in our nature. Government standards are in opposition to natural law.




> But they will if the alternatives are not better.


This is a big IF, considering efficient defensive services *do exist*. Your "what if" situation is not based in reality. 




> Which you cannot guarantee will exist in absence of a force which will ensure property rights to begin with.


The claim that you need to violate property rights in order to protect them is such a blatant contradiction that I will let you figure out on your own why it is so fallacious. 




> When somebody is not violent, they are powerless. What's your point?


That people are more likely to initiate violence if they can force others to pay for the costs of it. 




> Thus conceding that your world is no better


This is based on a false assumption. The assumption being that I believe the bulk of society would voluntarily fund a criminal organization. I do not believe they would. The government is legitimate in the eyes of most people, a necessary evil at best, so they accept the atrocities because they are fooled into thinking it is necessary. If a voluntarily funded defense agency were to become criminal, there would be absolutely no illusions in the eyes of the public.




> Invent a name for a crime you wish to charge a person with, since there is no law to prevent you do arbitrarily assign crimes, provide due process, or pay for wrongdoing, you can literally do whatever you can get away with.


Libertarian law would just be a legal expression of natural law. 




> Proving a person a criminal is at the mercy of the person with most money, force, resources and popular support.


This is very basic and obvious objection that has been discussed ad nauseam. No one has accepted Voluntaryism who first did not think of this objection and then figure out why it is not a problem.

Law without Government: Conflict Resolution in a Free Society
Answering the Warring Defense Agencies Objection
Warring Defense Agencies and Organized Crime
Criminal Private Courts
But Wouldn't Warlords Take Over?




> No, just because I agree with using force against you, doesn't mean I agree to have force used against me.


Duh. If you agreed it would not really be force. I already addressed this: "This isn't to say they enjoy it when force is used against them, but as a principle, it would be self-contradictory for a criminal to say they disagree with force (for at least at the time they used force, they agreed with it)."

What I mean is that it is initiating violence is obviously not against your own moral or ethical code (at least for the time being) if you engage in it. 




> Why would it go to a 3rd party?


Because consumers would rather disagreements be decided by an impartial 3rd party rather than the defense agencies resorting to violence.




> So the poor and weak become more poor and weak, good.


First of all, in a truly voluntary market, wealth would be in abundance. There would be very few poor, and those being poor would be so mostly by choice (because there would be plenty of jobs, for everyone). And secondly, charity would take care of the poor, especially with those contributing to charity being much wealthier. 

Another Ron Paul recommended author: *Springing the Poverty Trap*




> That's what we have today, government forcing drunks off the road and decreasing liability for themselves.


Government using violence to enforce laws on property they do not own is not even close to the same as rightful owners enforcing rules on their property. 



> Wrong, you only need sufficient control, not exclusive.


Exclusive is required for sufficient. What good is food if someone else has the right to take it from you? I recommend watching Hans Hoppes video _Private Law Society_.




> Resources are limited, but not always so much that it needs be rationed or privatized.


If scarce resources are not allocated rationally (by the market), there are shortages and conflict.




> what is something valued, but not property?


Friends and family, i.e. relationships.

----------


## brandon

I just reread Ron Paul's personal view on Mises for the first time in about 5 years (Thanks Conza).

I must say, I'm very happy to see how much importance he places on the subjective theory of value, as that has also been the cornerstone of my understanding and belief in liberty and freedom.

----------


## Becker

> HUH? If society in general does not have a common basic agreement on what is considered force, no form of social organization could function.


No kidding huh?





> I find the basis for my belief in natural law and self-ownership, others find it in religion etc.


Are you both right or just happen to agree?




> But the conclusions most people come to are pretty much the same. That is, the vast majority of people would look at me like I am insane if I use violence on someone who is wearing a green shirt because I feel physically threatened by the color green.


So why aren't you for democracy if you're willing to accept  what "vast majority" wants?




> Most people will conclude that it was I who initiated violence, not the green shirt wearer.


Democracy works for you then. Most people decide who is wrong. 




> Claiming wearing the color green is an act of violence is simply not based in reality. For when has the color green ever initiated violence on anyone?


I never claimed the color green initiated violence. I could say, that using green can be viewed as initiation of violence or violation of another's rights, if one defined it as such.





> No. Not all property is owned by voluntary means. The government arbitrarily claims ownership to _a lot_ of land, and it uses force to restrict freedom of association. This is in complete contrast to Voluntaryism.


Ok, good. so some property is not properly acquired. Glad we agree.
It's not complete contrast to voluntaryism, because if you claimed something and I didn't agree, it's not voluntary, you're forcing me to accept your claim.





> Baseless assertion. I do not want to restrict people's natural right of free association, nor do I want to arbitrarily claim ownership (and use violence to enforce it) of unused resources.


Yes, you DO want to restrict a person's rights. You just don't agree with them what rights they have so you think you are justified in doing so, while they think they are justified in their use of freedom. You don't want to arbitrarily claim ownership, but you do. 





> The government doesn't and cannot legitimately own any property (because whatever they own they stole from someone else and whatever money they use to buy property from a rightful owner was stolen). The government restricting free association on property that they have initiation violence to acquire is vastly different than someone who voluntarily acquired their property doing the same.


Why the double standard for government? Are they not humans? I see you don't view all humans as equal, you have a separate standard for people who have authority, power and means, that's just what socialists and communists want, they hold the rich and powerful to standard they'd never accept for themselves.




> It depends on _what_ they did. If they didn't use force, then it wouldn't be justified to react with force.


Redefine force, problem solved.




> Unless the t-shirt was your property, this claim would have absolutely no basis in reality.


There is no reality without words and definitions.




> No. Force is only justified in reaction to force. You are arguing against a strawman. What libertarians object to is the initiation of force, they do not advocate the use of force against someone who might be offensive or someone who hurt your feelings. Property rights ultimately make issues very easy. Do you have the right to wear this or that? Depends on who's property you are on.


Again, redefine and win. 
But you've just admitted as long as you're not on your own property you have no rights?

----------


## Wesker1982

> Are you both right or just happen to agree?


We reach the same conclusion.




> So why aren't you for democracy if you're willing to accept what "vast majority" wants?


Because democracy rests on the initiation of force. If by the market process, the majority "decides" that the market will produce more of X than Y, it would be fallacious to say all who prefer Y are having force used against them. For how could someone initiate violence by _not acting_, that is, by not producing Y? To say this would be force is to say _voluntary_ exchange and mutual benefit is aggression (which is a contradiction), it is to say the free and voluntary market itself is violent. In democracy, whatever the majority prefers is forcefully imposed on the minority. Read: Other Forms of Coercion: Economic Power




> I could say, that using green can be viewed as initiation of violence or violation of another's rights, if one defined it as such.


Claiming that using the color green is an initiation of violence has no basis in reality. Violence is not inherent in the nature of the color green. You could claim it, but it would just be a baseless assertion without any facts or historical precedence to back it up. 




> if you claimed something and I didn't agree


Then someone would be wrong.




> it's not voluntary


Depends on whether or not anyone's rights have been violated.




> you're forcing me to accept your claim.


If my claim is legitimate, then force used to defend my claim is justified. 




> you DO want to restrict a person's rights


The right to self-defense is not a restriction on one's right to violate another because one doesn't have the "right to aggress" in the first place. This is an old fallacy that was addressed decades ago.




> Why the double standard for government?


Individuals have no right to steal, groups of individuals calling themselves the government also do not have this right. 




> Redefine force, problem solved.


You would have to redefine reality. 




> But you've just admitted as long as you're not on your own property you have no rights?


*Human Rights as Property Rights*

----------


## Becker

> We reach the same conclusion.
> 
> Because democracy rests on the initiation of force.


No, it doesn't. It rests on what YOU say is force, what THEY say is justice. And your views are just the opposite. YOU decided that sicne MOST, vast majority would agree with YOUR standards of what rights and violations are, YOU are justified based on the market, or crowd, in using force to "defend" yourself.




> If by the market process, the majority "decides" that the market will produce more of X than Y, it would be fallacious to say all who prefer Y are having force used against them.


I agree, however, that's not what  I said. 

What I said was, if the majority "decides" that a person has no right to own something, he does not own it. This is true unless you have a non-flexible definition or enforcement of property. In a market, the price of something only increases by demand BECAUSE people are forced to not steal and rob, if otherwise, the price would be zero (due to legalized theft, for lack of better name).





> Claiming that using the color green is an initiation of violence has no basis in reality. Violence is not inherent in the nature of the color green. You could claim it, but it would just be a baseless assertion without any facts or historical precedence to back it up.


I don't need precedence, no more than you need precedence to tell me stealing is wrong/illogical/criminal. You only need to show me that there are people willing and able to use force to punish me if I don't listen to them. So as long as you can show me what the mob is willing to do to me, that's "reality" and a perfect basis for asking me to do something against my will.




> Then someone would be wrong.


So what? He can get away with it. 




> Depends on whether or not anyone's rights have been violated.


Who decides what rights are? 





> If my claim is legitimate, then force used to defend my claim is justified.


Obviously you'll say its legit, and I will say its not. Which is why you hate the present system and I love it. 




> The right to self-defense is not a restriction on one's right to violate another because one doesn't have the "right to aggress" in the first place. This is an old fallacy that was addressed decades ago.


"No right to aggress" is a self serving rule made up by property owners to protect themselves from competition and license  themselves to use force against anybody they dislike. YOU the property DEFINED that you have a right to not be aggressed by your own standards, and then everybody is your enemy from that point on.




> Individuals have no right to steal, groups of individuals calling themselves the government also do not have this right.


According to you. According to them they do. 




> You would have to redefine reality.


No need to, there is no set definition I am forced to accept (or, maybe I am forced to accept, which is according to you intolerable). You simply conveniently use what is commonly accepted by "vast majority" arbitrarily, and force it on people who disagree, with zero regard to their right of opinion or competition of defining rights.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

I stand with Conza88.  I thought you were banned.  Well, good to see that rescinded -- truth and reasonableness prevail on RPF.  LibertyEagle, why not just state when the last time you read an Austrian Economics book was?  What's the harm in that, whatever the answer?

Anyway, thank you for the videos, Conza88.  I've felt that Ron Paul was clearly advancing the cause of anarcho-capitalism (or whatever you want to call it) but these videos compile the evidence and state the case more convincingly than I've ever done.

Regardless of Ron Paul's personal beliefs, as a practical matter he is converting the young people to ancap.  You don't exactly see the John Birch Society teeming with interest and new young members.  Nobody's joining Constitutionalism.  It's a dying political philosophy, if you can even call it a philosophy -- affectation perhaps.  The Mises Institute, on the other hand, is prospering, spreading, and bursting at the seams.  Other Mises Institutes are being founded in countries around the world.  

The young people are converting to radical libertarianism -- to voluntarism/ancap -- not to Constitutionalism.  That is a bright sign for the future.

----------


## newbitech

> I stand with Conza88.  I thought you were banned.  Well, good to see that rescinded -- truth and reasonableness prevail on RPF.  LibertyEagle, why not just state when the last time you read an Austrian Economics book was?  What's the harm in that, whatever the answer?
> 
> Anyway, thank you for the videos, Conza88.  I've felt that Ron Paul was clearly advancing the cause of anarcho-capitalism (or whatever you want to call it) but these videos compile the evidence and state the case more convincingly than I've ever done.
> 
> Regardless of Ron Paul's personal beliefs, as a practical matter he is converting the young people to ancap.  You don't exactly see the John Birch Society teeming with interest and new young members.  Nobody's joining Constitutionalism.  It's a dying political philosophy, if you can even call it a philosophy -- affectation perhaps.  The Mises Institute, on the other hand, is prospering, spreading, and bursting at the seams.  Other Mises Institutes are being founded in countries around the world.  
> 
> The young people are converting to radical libertarianism -- to voluntarism/ancap -- not to Constitutionalism.  That is a bright sign for the future.


Or they are running as fast as they can away from it.  

http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/FactSheets/FS_08_exit_polls.pdf

I like that Ron Paul touts the youth vote, he really does deliver the message well to them, but to say that the young people are converting to radical libertarianism/ ancap/voluntarism, is an unsubstantiated claim.

Here is some more recent facts from the 2010 mid terms.

http://www.civicyouth.org/quick-facts/youth-voting/

It doesn't really seem that the ancap message is being heard with the voting youth.

I don't really see any young people converting to anything.  What I do see, is more young people getting involved and getting educated, and I credit Ron Paul's consistent constitutional message and constitutional voting practices over the years as an inspiration to young people.

Also, I'd say that you are still running in to problems with slapping labels on people.

----------


## Wesker1982

> No, it doesn't.


If you ignore the decisions that are made by the people in a democracy, men will eventually come to your house with guns and use physical violence to compel you to comply. The voluntary market doesn't use physical violence to compel consumers to buy a service or product.




> if the majority "decides" that a person has no right to own something, he does not own it.


The majority could use force to deny property to someone, but this establishes no justification for it. 




> I don't need precedence, no more than you need precedence to tell me stealing is wrong/illogical/criminal.


How is the color green violent by it's nature? What basis in reality is there for this claim? 

There are natural (hence natural law) consequences of stealing. What are the natural consequences of wearing green? 




> So what? He can get away with it.


Yeah... and??? No system of law could obtain perfection.




> You simply conveniently use what is commonly accepted by "vast majority" arbitrarily, and force it on people who disagree, with zero regard to their right of opinion or competition of defining rights.


I don't believe X Y or Z is aggression because the majority says so, nice strawman. What I maintain is that the majority of people happen to be right most of the time when it comes to identifying aggression.

----------


## Becker

> I
> *
> Regardless of Ron Paul's personal beliefs, as a practical matter he is converting the young people to ancap.  You don't exactly see the John Birch Society teeming with interest and new young members.  Nobody's joining Constitutionalism.  It's a dying political philosophy, if you can even call it a philosophy -- affectation perhaps.*  The Mises Institute, on the other hand, is prospering, spreading, and bursting at the seams.  Other Mises Institutes are being founded in countries around the world.  
> 
> The young people are converting to radical libertarianism -- to voluntarism/ancap -- not to Constitutionalism.  That is a bright sign for the future.


He'd be proud to hear that I'm sure.

----------


## Becker

> If you ignore the decisions that are made by the people in a democracy, men will eventually come to your house with guns and use physical violence to compel you to comply. The voluntary market doesn't use physical violence to compel consumers to buy a service or product.


Why do you assume "buy a service or product" are the only ways one can be forced against his will? Have you no imagination?
The so called "voluntary market" is either one which all people agree on rules, or one which oppresses those who do not recognize property rights.




> The majority could use force to deny property to someone, but this establishes no justification for it.


Who cares about justification if they can get away with it without punishment? 




> How is the color green violent by it's nature? What basis in reality is there for this claim?


Like I said, I don't need to make any clever arguments behind the simple facts : Somebody who has force says so, the somebody who does lives in reality, so he needs not convince you by logic.




> There are natural (hence natural law) consequences of stealing. What are the natural consequences of wearing green?


WRONG, there are NO consequences of stealing other than what people have learned and been brainwashed to do as punishment. 
Stealing has a net result of gaining with little work, and losing without compensation. 
The only consequences are the work of social contracts, that which a majority of the people have made, and forced the minority to accept. 





> Yeah... and??? No system of law could obtain perfection.
> 
> I don't believe X Y or Z is aggression because the majority says so, nice strawman.


You do, or else you'd never ever say "the vast majority would agree who is aggressing or justified". Let me know if you made a different argument.




> What I maintain is that the majority of people happen to be right most of the time when it comes to identifying aggression.


How convenient, and how do you know they are not right just because they said so, or just because they can get away with enforcing it?
If nobody was around to say what is aggression, would it still be aggression? (the act would be the act, but would it be a crime, violation, or punishable offense absent the enforcers?)

----------


## Wesker1982

> Why do you assume "buy a service or product" are the only ways one can be forced against his will?


I don't. I never said buying a service or product were the only things people could be forced to do. lol. 




> Who cares about justification if they can get away with it without punishment?


People who are interested in justice. 




> Like I said, I don't need to make any clever arguments behind the simple facts : Somebody who has force says so, the somebody who does lives in reality, so he needs not convince you by logic.


Just because rights can be violated does not mean rights do not exist. 




> WRONG, there are NO consequences of stealing other than what people have learned and been brainwashed to do as punishment.


Actions have consequences in human relationships, this is in the nature of man, a natural law. You don't have to be brainwashed to trust a thief less than you would a non-thief. Not being trusted is a natural consequence of stealing. 




> how do you know they are not right just because they said so


Because aggression has consequences, and the consequences can be observed. Unlike claiming the color green is violent, lol.

----------


## Becker

> I don't. I never said buying a service or product were the only things people could be forced to do. lol.


So then why did you bring it up?




> People who are interested in justice.


Yeah, I'm sure that's everybody. 




> Just because rights can be violated does not mean rights do not exist.


What do rights mean if they're not unviolateable? Need I say they're not "natural"? Do you concede they're social constructs?




> Actions have consequences in human relationships, this is in the nature of man, a natural law. You don't have to be brainwashed to trust a thief less than you would a non-thief. Not being trusted is a natural consequence of stealing.


Not being trusted isn't necessarily a negative consequence, depending on whether the person who you want to trust you has power over you.




> Because aggression has consequences, and the consequences can be observed. Unlike claiming the color green is violent, lol.


I never said aggression has no consequences, but the punishment, reaction, are not guaranteed results. Thus there's no reason to believe that punishment, social reactions, social attitudes towards "crime" are anything BUT social constructs, arbitrary and defined by those who are in power.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Or they are running as fast as they can away from it.  
> 
> http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/Fac...exit_polls.pdf


I see what you're saying, and would not disagree with it in the least.  The masses of young people are, just as the masses in all demographics, fairly mainstream and conventional and yes, they even tend strongly Democratic.

I was just referring to the much smaller universe of our movement, the liberty movement.  It is a growing movement.  New people are coming into it.  The older people in it, yes, they often are Constitutionalists or old-right conservatives.  The new young people, on the other hand, while they may start out Consties or conservies, almost always eventually find their way to Austrian Economics and a more radical brand of libertarianism.  This is unsurprising, as youth seem to be historically, perhaps naturally, more idealistic and radical in their political opinions than their elders.  The visions of Bill Buckley or Alexander Hamilton just aren't compelling to them.  Milton Friedman or Barry Goldwater's visions... perhaps a little more so, but still not there yet.  Murray Rothbard, L. Neil Smith, the Tannehills?  Now you're talking.  Young people want a powerful vision for a bright and exciting future, not merely a pining for an old document or a regurgitation of the ideas of the past.

So hopefully I have communicated my meaning to you more successfully this time.  Within the relatively small community of liberty-oriented Americans, it appears that the more moderate positions of Constitutionalism, conservatism, even minarchism, are concentrated in the older generations and thus desined to die out, while the more radical position of anarchocapitalism/voluntarism/free-marketeer-ism is concentrated in the younger generation and thus destined to dominate.  What's more, intellectually, the more moderate positions simply don't have a leg to stand on.  The great libertarian scholars today, save a very few (Tibor Machan comes to mind), are all ancap.




> Also, I'd say that you are still running in to problems with slapping labels on people.


 Taxonomy is one of the great acheivements of modern science.  To reject it would be tragic.  We should, and I do, deal with others as unique individuals.  Nevertheless, "labels" as you call them, are efficient, effective, and immensely valuable tools to quickly define aspects of our individuality to others.  Yes, I am ancap.  Just think of all the information about my political ideas I've communicated to you with that one five-letter word.  I am American.  That tells you something about my geographical location, the cultural mileu in which I have likely grown up, etc.  I am Mormon.  That tells you, aha, some of the assumptions about my cultural background that would be true of most Americans are not true of me.  I can communicate vast volumes of information about myself, to the informed and literate, by using "labels" as you call them to define my ideas, habits, and associations.  "Labels" help us understand each other as individuals.  Without "labels", we all just fall under one vast collectivistic label: human.

----------


## Becker

> Taxonomy is one of the great acheivements of modern science.  To reject it would be tragic.  We should, and I do, deal with others as unique individuals.


how is that not wanting it both ways?

----------


## Wesker1982

> So then why did you bring it up?


Because you asked me why I did not favor what the majority decides through democracy but still accept what the voluntary market produces.




> What do rights mean if they're not unviolateable? Need I say they're not "natural"?


If you managed to load an airplane with enough fuel to stay in flight for 50 years, it would not be said that the law of gravity does not exist for those 50 years. Gravity would still be a natural law, the people in the airplane would "breaking" this law, but the law still exists. Someone who interacts aggressively (or even peacefully I guess) towards other humans might be able to avoid the consequences of his actions for 50 years until he dies, but it is a natural law that human action in human relationships has consequences (good or bad). 




> Do you concede they're social constructs?


Statutory laws not based on natural law are arbitrary. A legal system based on natural law is objective. All legal systems are social constructs since they are not inherent in nature. A natural law legal system is just the _legal_ enforcement of natural laws.




> Not being trusted isn't necessarily a negative consequence, depending on whether the person who you want to trust you has power over you.


Right, but stealing still has natural consequences. I did not claim the consequence good or bad. The consequences, good or bad, are a natural result of the action. 




> Thus there's no reason to believe that punishment, social reactions, social attitudes towards "crime" are anything BUT social constructs, arbitrary and defined by those who are in power.


I think it depends on the nature of the "crime". I don't think someone's reaction towards an aggressive person is formed by social constructs. I think there is a natural reaction to aggression that would be present with or without social constructs. Now if someone in power decides that using the color green is a crime, I would consider this nothing but an arbitrary social construct with no basis in natural law.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> how is that not wanting it both ways?


 Come on, perhaps it's a little subtle, but not too much!  Another word for "_labels_" is "_language_".  We take pieces of reality and give them "_names_".  One rock may not be identical to another rock.  One vegetarian may not be identical to another vegetarian.  Do we thus say "don't go around '_labeling_' things or people as rocks or vegetarians"?  To say that would be to reject language, and thus ultimately to make impossible all conscious rational thought.

----------


## newbitech

> I see what you're saying, and would not disagree with it in the least.  The masses of young people are, just as the masses in all demographics, fairly mainstream and conventional and yes, they even tend strongly Democratic.
> 
> I was just referring to the much smaller universe of our movement, the liberty movement.  It is a growing movement.  New people are coming into it.  The older people in it, yes, they often are Constitutionalists or old-right conservatives.  The new young people, on the other hand, while they may start out Consties or conservies, almost always eventually find their way to Austrian Economics and a more radical brand of libertarianism.  This is unsurprising, as youth seem to be historically, perhaps naturally, more idealistic and radical in their political opinions than their elders.  The visions of Bill Buckley or Alexander Hamilton just aren't compelling to them.  Milton Friedman or Barry Goldwater's visions... perhaps a little more so, but still not there yet.  Murray Rothbard, L. Neil Smith, the Tannehills?  Now you're talking.  Young people want a powerful vision for a bright and exciting future, not merely a pining for an old document or a regurgitation of the ideas of the past.
> 
> So hopefully I have communicated my meaning to you more successfully this time.  Within the relatively small community of liberty-oriented Americans, it appears that the more moderate positions of Constitutionalism, conservatism, even minarchism, are concentrated in the older generations and thus desined to die out, while the more radical position of anarchocapitalism/voluntarism/free-marketeer-ism is concentrated in the younger generation and thus destined to dominate.  What's more, intellectually, the more moderate positions simply don't have a leg to stand on.  The great libertarian scholars today, save a very few (Tibor Machan comes to mind), are all ancap.
> 
>  Taxonomy is one of the great acheivements of modern science.  To reject it would be tragic.  We should, and I do, deal with others as unique individuals.  Nevertheless, "labels" as you call them, are efficient, effective, and immensely valuable tools to quickly define aspects of our individuality to others.  Yes, I am ancap.  Just think of all the information about my political ideas I've communicated to you with that one five-letter word.  I am American.  That tells you something about my geographical location, the cultural mileu in which I have likely grown up, etc.  I am Mormon.  That tells you, aha, some of the assumptions about my cultural background that would be true of most Americans are not true of me.  I can communicate vast volumes of information about myself, to the informed and literate, by using "labels" as you call them to define my ideas, habits, and associations.  "Labels" help us understand each other as individuals.  Without "labels", we all just fall under one vast collectivistic label: human.


I appreciate you taking the time to clarify your meaning.  It is tragic that the youth of this country are still brainwashed in to believing in the left right paradigm.  I see that changing.  I also think it is tragic that the nature of youth as you have described it, has tended to manifest itself in the voting youth by those young people moving in the direction of socialism.  

That being said, I don't think that the moderate version of our movement is destined to die out, even granting that the youth of this movement may lean more radical, just because that is where the youth lean.  I think what you are witnessing is the youth tending more to choose radical language because they have not yet had the opportunity to apply these principles in their lives.  

The adults and more seasoned have recognized that moderating the rhetoric allows them to find weaknesses in the system by gaining acceptance and tolerance and even sympathy from those folks outside of the movement.

I could go more in to this, but still don't agree that the youth are converting to radicalized libertarinism, especially when Ron Paul even says that the mainstream center is starting to move closer to his ideals.  This tells me that the radicalized aspect of the movement is really less radicalized than the youth might like it to be, granted the nature of the youth.  

Interesting topic that really deserves it's own thread, with more facts to paint a better picture for analysis.

----------


## Becker

> Because you asked me why I did not favor what the majority decides through democracy but still accept what the voluntary market produces.


So you accept the majority rule when it happens to agree with you. When the market is "voluntary" by your standards , or by the standards you've been led to believe is within your rights.




> If you managed to load an airplane with enough fuel to stay in flight for 50 years, it would not be said that the law of gravity does not exist for those 50 years. Gravity would still be a natural law, the people in the airplane would "breaking" this law, but the law still exists. Someone who interacts aggressively (or even peacefully I guess) towards other humans might be able to avoid the consequences of his actions for 50 years until he dies, but it is a natural law that human action in human relationships has consequences (good or bad).


And for his life's purposes, natural laws have no power on him.





> Statutory laws not based on natural law are arbitrary. A legal system based on natural law is objective. All legal systems are social constructs since they are not inherent in nature. A natural law legal system is just the _legal_ enforcement of natural laws.


What are natural laws and how are you so convinced you know them? How do you know they are not also social constructs forced on you, just because you happen to agree?




> Right, but stealing still has natural consequences. I did not claim the consequence good or bad. The consequences, good or bad, are a natural result of the action.


Ok, so stealing doesn't have necessarily bad consequences? Thanks. 




> I think it depends on the nature of the "crime". I don't think someone's reaction towards an aggressive person is formed by social constructs. I think there is a natural reaction to aggression that would be present with or without social constructs. Now if someone in power decides that using the color green is a crime, I would consider this nothing but an arbitrary social construct with no basis in natural law.


yeah, you don't think. natural reaction to aggression wouldn't exist unless there were first a social body of people (group of people), then, people will react any way they like, until they're told how to react is appropriate. There is no basis in nature or reality that says stealing must be punished by imprisonment or by hanging, it's a social construct. There's no reason stealing can't be rewarded with money, other than the fact our society has chosen not to, possibly because we cannot afford to.

----------


## Becker

> Come on, perhaps it's a little subtle, but not too much!  Another word for "_labels_" is "_language_".  We take pieces of reality and give them "_names_".  One rock may not be identical to another rock.  One vegetarian may not be identical to another vegetarian.  Do we thus say "don't go around '_labeling_' things or people as rocks or vegetarians"?  To say that would be to reject language, and thus ultimately to make impossible all conscious rational thought.


so collectivism isn't purely illogical, its just how we apply them, right?

----------


## Wesker1982

> So you accept the majority rule when it happens to agree with you.


No. If 51% decided that Mortal Kombat for the Sega Genesis is the best game ever and I agreed with them, I would not advocate they _force_ this view on to the 49% who prefer Donkey Kong. I would also not _force_ my view that shampoo is better if the other 49% thought conditioner was better.

When the market produces more of one good over another, no one is ruling over anyone. It is the result of voluntary exchange (i.e. no violence) and free association. Decisions made by democratic governments are backed by violence. 

“Other Forms of Coercion”: Economic Power




> And for his life's purposes, natural laws have no power on him.


Yeah, that was my point. The natural law still exists.




> What are natural laws?


Laws that are inherent in nature. For example, humans can run but they cannot jump from California to New York in a single leap. If humans do not drink enough water, they will die. Actions have consequences. 




> how are you so convinced you know them?


I observe them daily.




> Ok, so stealing doesn't have necessarily bad consequences? Thanks.


Of course. It depends on the values of the thief. But it necessarily has consequences. 




> natural reaction to aggression wouldn't exist unless there were first a social body of people


I definitely think people have a natural reaction to aggression. Humans are naturally defensive against people who initiate violence against them. Humans naturally avoid involuntary situations. 




> There is no basis in nature or reality that says stealing must be punished by imprisonment or by hanging


I never made this claim. 

"All legal systems are social constructs since they are not inherent in nature. A natural law legal system is just the _legal_ enforcement of natural laws."

----------


## Becker

> No. If 51% decided that Mortal Kombat for the Sega Genesis is the best game ever and I agreed with them, I would not advocate they _force_ this view on to the 49% who prefer Donkey Kong. I would also not _force_ my view that shampoo is better if the other 49% thought conditioner was better.
> 
> When the market produces more of one good over another, no one is ruling over anyone. It is the result of voluntary exchange (i.e. no violence) and free association. Decisions made by democratic governments are backed by violence. 
> 
> “Other Forms of Coercion”: Economic Power
> 
> Yeah, that was my point. The natural law still exists.


I apologize for not caring about things which have no power over me. Feel free to be "right" about it existing though.
Voluntary exchange is impossible without threatening violence against those who disrespect or disregard property.
You take for granted that people have accepted property , as if they were never forced or brainwashed to, as if they'd choose it if they has a choice without consequences.
You (or somebody in this thread) said that property is essential for survival, by that logic, theft, robbery or trespassing are all justified if it were for survival. 





> Laws that are inherent in nature. For example, humans can run but they cannot jump from California to New York in a single leap. If humans do not drink enough water, they will die. Actions have consequences.


You are conflating things with IMMEDIATELY GUARANTEED AND OBSERVABLE consequences, with things that MIGHT have consequences years or lifetimes later, which depend on PEOPLE to make them happen.





> I observe them daily.


No, you don't, you observe what's been forced and majority ruled on you by the populus.




> Of course. It depends on the values of the thief. But it necessarily has consequences. 
> 
> 
> 
> I definitely think people have a natural reaction to aggression. Humans are naturally defensive against people who initiate violence against them. Humans naturally avoid involuntary situations. 
> 
> 
> 
> I never made this claim. 
> ...


if it needs enforcement, it's by definition not a self enforcing "law". So unless natural law can enforce itself, it's just another imagination which we're supposed to believe is natural or inescapable, it isn't. It's a human invention, social construct, forced on people who disagree.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> so collectivism isn't purely illogical, its just how we apply them, right?


 Umm, if by "collectivism" you mean "grouping like things together mentally and giving them names", then collectivism is not illogical.  I don't know anyone else who would define collectivism this way, nor any reason to do so.  

Also, I don't know that collectivism by the normal definition is _illogical_ -- I just (largely) disagree with it.

Also, "collectivism" is not a "them".

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I could go more in to this, but still don't agree that the youth are converting to radicalized libertarinism, especially when Ron Paul even says that the mainstream center is starting to move closer to his ideals.  This tells me that the radicalized aspect of the movement is really less radicalized than the youth might like it to be, granted the nature of the youth.  
> 
> Interesting topic that really deserves it's own thread, with more facts to paint a better picture for analysis.


 Thank you for your kind response.  As long as an adequate number of ancaps arise so that we can try our version of society comewhere, I will be happy.  Actually, as long as Ron Paul is elected I will be happy.  Let's stick to that, I guess.  

If Ron Paul gets elected, we'll be on the right trajectory and all my libertarian dreams will likely be soon to come true.  And yours as well.  Yours first, mine later.  That's OK, I'm patient.

----------


## Becker

> Umm, if by "collectivism" you mean "grouping like things together mentally and giving them names", then collectivism is not illogical.  I don't know anyone else who would define collectivism this way, nor any reason to do so.  
> 
> Also, I don't know that collectivism by the normal definition is _illogical_ -- I just (largely) disagree with it.
> 
> Also, "collectivism" is not a "them".


how do you define collectivism? and how do you treat people like individuals?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

How you you define "people"? And how do you define "define"?

----------


## 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.

----------


## HigherVision

lol at half of us being crypto-anarchists

----------


## ConCap

> ...."But it is to Christianity that we owe individual freedom and capitalism. ;It is no coincidence that capitalism developed in Christian Europe after the transnational church limited the state. In ancient Greece and Rome, the individual was merely part of the city state or the empire, unimportant in his own right. Christianity changed that by stressing the infinite worth of each individual soul."
> 
> -Murray Rothbard



Why is it that Protestants who take the Bible very literally when it comes to sexual practices someone else engages in, are able to explain away the clear Biblical prohibitions on economic activities they engage in??)
http://www.rmbowman.com/catholic/econom2.htm

----------


## Conza88

Bump for the ignorant 'witch hunters'...

Ron Paul's a witch  !

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Legit question, deserves legit answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nate, I'm going to demand an apology for your irrational and uncalled for outburst. 
> 
> *If you do not* - I will post a link on Ron Paul's 2010 twitter (which has 4,000 followers), that which I control. The link will be to the "Ron Paul is a voluntaryist video" and "Where does Ron Paul get his ideas" video.
> 
> LE - an apology for $#@! stirring would also stop the above from happening.


Sounds like a threat.  Blackmail, if you will.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Lmao, it's not a strawman at all. I rejected your bs fallacious point. You have to make the case I have no compassion, you also need to make the case that everyone is intellectually honest and open to reason, to in effect - have their hearts and minds be won over. 
> 
> Good luck.
> 
> The additional point I was making is that, those who aren't intellectually honest and open to reason - rarely have their hearts and minds available to be persuaded of their error.  Not my fault, it's their own. 
> 
> To those that are like that, I am fine with them nut... WHEN THEY START ATTACKING the concept of a free society, that is when they become active in the defense of the state, they get no respect from me. It's not hard to understand bro, something you've failed to grasp for years. 
> 
> "The State has its own agenda, that is, . . . all States everywhere are run by a ruling class, the people running the State, and one of their interests is to extend as well as maintain the power and wealth arising from that rule." ~ Robert Higgs' Memoriam on Rothbard
> ...


I don't make the foolish presumption that I am always rigth and that I have found the inerrant path of right logic contained in my own 3 pound brain.  Forget about being an $#@! and using ad hominem attacks regularly, you clearly don't understand what it means to be humble.  Being humble is one of the most important aspects of having wisdom.

----------


## onlyrp

> I don't make the foolish presumption that I am always rigth and that I have found the inerrant path of right logic contained in my own 3 pound brain.  Forget about being an $#@! and using ad hominem attacks regularly, you clearly don't understand what it means to be humble.  Being humble is one of the most important aspects of having wisdom.


I think he knows what humble means, just doesn't know when to use it.

----------


## Conza88

> Sounds like a threat.  Blackmail, if you will.


Sounds like you're not a libertarian and are completely ignorant of their writings on the matter.

Yep. Check!

----------


## Conza88

> I don't make the foolish presumption that I am always rigth and that I have found the inerrant path of right logic contained in my own 3 pound brain.  Forget about being an $#@! and using ad hominem attacks regularly, you clearly don't understand what it means to be humble.  Being humble is one of the most important aspects of having wisdom.


Humble.. to those who are intellectually honest.

I don't need to be humble to a soundboard. A wall who doesn't think. Who is stuck in the foundation of cognitive dissonance.

I don't start there, but people who *continually* make it clear.. lead me to that conclusion.




> I think he knows what humble means, just doesn't know when to use it.


I do. 

Are you humble to your aggressors? People who want to inflict violence on you? Who support aggression against you?

If they are ignorant sure, they do not understand as well - but when you SHOULD be aware, when you SAY you support liberty and are interested in the ideas.. when you SAY you support Ron Paul... that's another whole kettle of fish, no?!

----------


## Conza88

> Ron Paul answering a question regarding the Great Depression. Running as the Libertarian Party candidate for President of the United States. Filmed at Drake University on January 22, 1988. Other things mentioned: Gold standard, Herbert Hoover, Mises, Business cycle, Inflation, Federal Reserve and Roosevelt.


Rothbard converted Ron Paul, his own words .

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *Rothbard converted Ron Paul, his own words* .


He's specifically talking about the correct (Rothbardian) view of the Great Depression.  But if that's what you mean, well done.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Why is it that Protestants who take the Bible very literally when it comes to sexual practices someone else engages in, *are able to explain away the clear Biblical prohibitions on economic activities they engage in??)*
> http://www.rmbowman.com/catholic/econom2.htm


This is a misinterpretation.  Aside from Rothbard's defense of Christians in the intellectual history of libertarianism, see here:  
http://mises.org/daily/1736
In 1920, Ludwig von Mises wrote a comprehensive critique of the economics of socialism that launched the "calculation debate." The significance of his seminal essay, "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth," as Mises Institute Senior Fellow Joseph Salerno writes in apostscript, is that it "extends far beyond its devastating demonstration of the impossibility of socialist economy and society. It provides the rationale for the price system, purely free markets, the security of private property against all encroachments, and sound money. Its thesis will continue to be relevant as long as economists and policy-makers want to understand why even minor government economic interventions consistently fail to achieve socially beneficial results."
But Mises also recognized that the economic fallacies of socialism were only part of the problem. He accordingly extended his critique of socialism into the full-scale book _Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis_. There he not only comprehensively analyzed all forms of interventionism, but addressed politics, history, property, ethics, and even religion.
Indeed, for someone who was an agnostic, Mises wrote a great deal about religion. The number of references he makes to religion is staggering, actually numbering over twenty-five hundred in his published corpus. He mentions God over two hundred and fifty times in his writings. There are seven references to religion on the opening page of _Human Action_. His books _Omnipotent Government, Theory and History,_ and _Socialism_ are permeated with references to religion.
So why should we be interested in what Mises had to say about religion? Did not Mises himself say: "I am an economist, not a preacher of morality"?[1] What Mises said about religion is important for two reasons.
Religion cannot be separated from the study of history. The Bible itself is primarily a history book, not a religious book. Mises had a keen sense of history, and was extremely well-read, which, in previous ages, would have included the Bible. He recognized not only the place of the Bible in history, but its authority, even if he didn't subscribe to its tenets. Mises actually "quotes" Scripture on thirty-two occasions throughout his writings.[2]
So unlike many who are irreligious, Mises was knowledgeable about religion. He mentions the doctrines, customs, occupations, and activities of various sects. He refers to religious people and events in history. Religious controversy and conflict is a theme he visits often: the "great schism" of the Eastern and Western Churches, anti-Semitism, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Reformation and Counter-Reformation.
Mises's writings are full of religious imagery:
"The _Philistine_ will be quite prepared to give up the tickets which admit him to art exhibitions in return for opportunities for pleasure he more readily understands."[3]"The idea of this third solution is very old indeed, and the French have long since _baptized_ it with a pertinent name."[4]Whether or not the Italian Fascists "knew that their _gospel_ was merely a replica of British guild socialism is immaterial."[5]From the Communist Manifesto the Progressives have learned "that the coming of socialism is inevitable and will transform the earth into a _Garden of Eden_."[6]Some maintain that "good economics should be and could be impartial, and that only bad economists _sin_ against this postulate."[7]Socialists have "proclaimed the socialist program as a doctrine of _salvation_."[8]"If it rains _manna_ for forty years, other things being equal, the price of _manna_ must go down."[9]According to Marxians, "Private ownership in the means of production is the _Red Sea_ which bars our path to this _Promised Land_ of general well-being."[10]Public opinion "looks askance at wealth acquired in trade and industry, and finds it pardonable only if the owner _atones_ for it by endowing charitable institutions."[11]Marx knew that "the final cause of historical evolution was the establishment of the socialist_millennium_."[12]Eminent writers of history "have _preached the gospel_ of war, violence, and usurpation."[13]One cannot avoid religion when studying the works of Mises. But there is another reason to note what Mises said about religion, for in Mises's day, as in ours, the religious arguments for socialism prove to be the most intractable; they stem from deep-rooted beliefs about God and man and the purpose of the universe. And yet the arguments must be addressed.
Writing in the middle of the twentieth century, Mises observed about Christianity and socialism: "The Christian churches and sects did not fight socialism. Step by step they accepted its essential political and social ideas. Today they are, with but few exceptions, outspoken in rejecting capitalism and advocating either socialism or interventionist policies which must inevitably result in the establishment of socialism."[14]
Unfortunately, nothing has changed since Mises wrote this almost fifty years ago. Liberal churches and denominations that have all but abandoned traditional orthodox Christianity have also abandoned the free market. Their pleas for "equity" and "social justice" are pleas for socialism, pure and simple.
Conservative churchmen today are for the most part interventionist to the core. Their support of government-financed "faith-based" initiatives and moral crusades, their incessant demands for constitutional amendments, and their acceptance of state intervention as long as it is on behalf of_their_ causes are only exceeded by their ignorance of the most basic economic principles. Read Mises? He was an agnostic Jew, why should I read Mises?
Mises did not shy away from engaging religious defenders of socialism. He rightly criticizes religious rejecters of capitalism whose only fault with Marxian socialists is "their commitment to atheism or secularism."[15] Mises perceptively points out that "many Christian authors reject Bolshevism only because it is anti-Christian."[16] The Church "opposes any Socialism which is to be effected on any other basis than its own. It is against Socialism as conceived by atheists, for this would strike at its very roots; but it has no hesitation in approaching socialist ideas provided this menace is resumed."[17]
But Mises did not condemn religious ideas because he was an agnostic. To the contrary: "The popular attacks upon the social philosophy of the Enlightenment and the utilitarian doctrine as taught by the classical economists did not originate from Christian theology, but from theistic, atheistic, and antitheistic reasoning."[18] It would therefore be a "serious mistake to conclude that the sciences of human action" and liberalism are "antitheistic and hostile to religion. They are radically opposed to all systems of theocracy. But they are entirely neutral with regard to religious beliefs which do not pretend to interfere with the conduct of social, political, and economic affairs."[19]
The fact is, not only atheists, but even religionists have almost universally accepted socialism and interventionism. They are all guilty, as Mises tragically recognized: "The atheists make capitalism responsible for the survival of Christianity. But the papal encyclicals blame capitalism for the spread of irreligion and the sins of our contemporaries, and the Protestant churches and sects are no less vigorous in their indictment of capitalist greed."[20]
Accordingly, Mises criticizes both religion and atheism at the same time for the same economic fallacies. Both "Christian Socialism" and "atheist socialism" have brought about the "present state of confusion" in the world today.[21] Both pious Christians and "radical atheists rejected the market economy."[22] Both divines and atheists rejected the ideas of laissez faire.[23] "Militant antitheists as well as Christian theologians are almost unanimous in passionately rejecting the market economy."[24]
One reason that Mises used so much religious terminology in his writings is that he viewed the supporters of the State as devotees of a religion. The state has its priests that people consider infallible,[25] as well as its monks to serve it.[26] Mises terms the idolization of the state "statolatry,"[27] which he classifies as a counterfeit religion along with socialism and nationalism.[28]Supporters of "the new religion of statolatry" are even more fanatical and intolerant than were the Mohammedan conquerors of Africa and Spain.[29]
If the supporters of the State are devotees of the religion of statolatry, the ultimate result is that the State is made into a god. How assorted socialists and interventionists make the State into a god is a theme that appears throughout Mises's works.[30] He often quotes or refers to the German socialist Ferdinand Lassalle (1825–1864), who actually said: "The State is God."[31] And once the State is made into a God: "He who proclaims the godliness of the State and the infallibility of its priests, the bureaucrats, is considered as an impartial student of the social sciences. All those raising objections are branded as biased and narrow-minded."[32] Mises relates that the state, like a religion, considers some things to be heresy.[33] In discussing how governments are intent on "restricting the freedom of economic thought," he points out how some believe that "government is from God and has the sacred duty of exterminating the heretic."[34]
But it is not just the religious arguments for socialism that are so deep-seated. Today it is the same with regard to the religious arguments for war. We can make a case against war, the most violent of all socialist means, and do it with economic, historical, and philosophical arguments. And yet, many supporters of war on Iraq care nothing about these issues. This is true about religious arguments for any subject. Make an issue a religious issue, and the indifferent and apathetic suddenly become interested. Connect religion with a cause and someone will be willing to die for it.
What drives many supporters of this war is faith. In particular, they have come to believe that Christianity has licensed this war and God has blessed it and the nation that pursues it, or at least that is what they outwardly profess. (Although I find it strange that over 1,400 dead American soldiers is God's way of blessing America.) Actually, however, Christian advocates of the war in Iraq are more like the Moslem armies that Mises refers to who "conquered a great part of the Mediterranean area" while believing that "their God was for the big, well-equipped, and skillfully led battalions."[35]
Those concerned about the future of freedom need to follow Mises's example and not shy away from engaging these religious arguments. I have made an attempt to do so in my book _Christianity and War and Other Essays Against the Warfare State_. There I contend that Christian enthusiasm for the state, its wars, and its politicians is an affront to the Savior, contrary to Scripture, and a demonstration of the profound ignorance many Christians have of history. Christians who condone the warfare state and its nebulous crusades against "evil" have been duped. There is nothing "Christian" about the state's aggressive militarism, its senseless wars, its interventions into the affairs of other countries, and its expanding empire.
Paul Craig Roberts has recently pointed out how "evangelicals, aghast at Vietnam era protests of America's war against 'godless communism,' turned to the military as the repository of traditional American virtues." Unfortunately, the same thing was basically done in regard to the Republican Party. A point I do not raise in any of the essays in my book is a possible reason why some evangelical Christians are so quick to support the state and its coercive arm of aggression, the military, in its various wars and interventions. That reason is their support of state intervention in general. Intervention at home leads inevitably to intervention abroad, as Mises says when writing about the economics of war: "What has transformed the limited war between royal armies into total war, the clash between peoples, is not technicalities of military art, but the substitution of the welfare state for the laissez-faire state."[36]
The religious arguments for socialism and war are really arguments for the state. Conservatives who decry the welfare state while supporting the warfare state are terribly inconsistent. Mises reminds us that "whoever wishes peace among peoples must fight statism."[37] Those who want "peace among nations must seek to limit the state and its influence most strictly."[38] Interventionism of any kind is a curse because "government interference always means either violent action or the threat of such action. Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning. Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom."[39]
There are no sensible, logical arguments, religious or otherwise, for socialism, interventionism, or war. Religious arguments can and should be dealt with at every opportunity.

----------


## onlyrp

> Humble.. to those who are intellectually honest.
> 
> I don't need to be humble to a soundboard. A wall who doesn't think. Who is stuck in the foundation of cognitive dissonance.
> 
> I don't start there, but people who *continually* make it clear.. lead me to that conclusion.


You just proved my point. You don't know when.




> I do. 
> 
> Are you humble to your aggressors? People who want to inflict violence on you? Who support aggression against you?


Yep, looks like you're either clueless or intentionally adversary.




> If they are ignorant sure, they do not understand as well - but when you SHOULD be aware, when you SAY you support liberty and are interested in the ideas.. when you SAY you support Ron Paul... that's another whole kettle of fish, no?!


nope.

----------


## Conza88

> You just proved my point. You don't know when.
> 
> Yep, looks like you're either clueless or intentionally adversary.
> 
> nope.


Your point was an assertion and you've done nothing to back it up, nor have I at all in any way validated it. On the contrary, you've confirmed it .


Congratulations dude, see if you can get higher than level 3.

----------


## Conza88

> He's specifically talking about the correct (Rothbardian) view of the Great Depression.  But if that's what you mean, well done.


Yep. And elsewhere he talks about favoring self-government _over_ a return to the constitution. Rothbard probably 'converted' him on that too .

----------


## A Son of Liberty

I'm really weary of this idea that people who are assertive in their arguments lack humility.  I will agree that at times Conza can come off like a hand-grenade... the problem that people have with that, however, is that he is generally right in his philosophical viewpoint.  There is no logically consistent argument against the notion that the state is an illegitimate entity which exerts force on others unjustly.  

I've found that making that argument is unsettling to people.  I've also found that stating that there is no logically consisent argument against that position causes people to make judgments not about that statement, but about the person making it.  People don't get mad and say that you lack humility when you tell them that the sky is blue.  Saying that the state lacks legitimacy is essentially the same thing - a self-evident fact.  Yet people are so repulsed by the idea that they almost reflexively rebel against it.

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

Well I've got to say, many of Ron's ideas are chock full of common sense. 
I don't like bragging, but as a kid, you know 5-10 years old... I had many of these same ideas, given that I might have been preoccupied with other things then playing with kids my age, I'm sure many other kids, if not most at least once in their lives understood the concepts of liberty.

For instance... In school, I knew very well about 'reputation', hard work, effort/reward. I knew stealing from other kids wasn't good, or being jealous. I found out that lending things to other people that aren't 'credit worthy' is a bad thing, even if you like them as a person... As they will bankrupt your pen supply. Basically in school, when I was a little freedom-lover, I understood the concept of real money and the free market... Didn't you trade and barter things in school ?? We had huge bubbles with kids trading in rubbish plastic things from serial boxes etc.

Really... To me, sure, Ron is influenced by the Austrians, he's influenced by the founding fathers, maybe the most by Jefferson. However, all of those ideas come down to a great deal of common sense, which is probably why they are such good ideas... And this is just some of my thoughts, but I thought they might be worth sharing.

----------


## newbitech

> I'm really weary of this idea that people who are assertive in their arguments lack humility.  I will agree that at times Conza can come off like a hand-grenade... the problem that people have with that, however, is that he is generally right in his philosophical viewpoint.  There is no logically consistent argument against the notion that the state is an illegitimate entity which exerts force on others unjustly.  
> 
> I've found that making that argument is unsettling to people.  I've also found that stating that there is no logically consisent argument against that position causes people to make judgments not about that statement, but about the person making it.  People don't get mad and say that you lack humility when you tell them that the sky is blue.  Saying that the state lacks legitimacy is essentially the same thing - a self-evident fact.  Yet people are so repulsed by the idea that they almost reflexively rebel against it.


Conza does not argue the sky is blue.  He is going way beyond self-confidence and that is evident in the way he speaks down to others.  His excuse?  He is defending himself.  the word contrived comes to mind when I think of Conza's brand of assertive humility if that is what you want to call it.  

Just look at how he continues to insist that Ron Paul is something that he is not.  He constantly goes back to that one out of context quote as if it is the lynch pin of his entire purpose.  I admit, I have learned plenty from observing and interacting with Conza.  Where his argument fails time and again is that he cannot seem to put his word in to actions.  Nor can he seem to, in this case, relate ALL of Ron Paul's actions to the source of what he claims to be Ron Paul's ideas.  The failure of Conza to make his point is not that he lacks humility or is overly self-confident.  Conza's failure lies exclusively in the fact that he is trying to use force to teach people the virtue of NOT using force.  

The side effect is that Conza comes off as someone who is unable to develop his own ideas while simultaneously insisting he has his head fully wrapped around the source of someone else's, Ron Paul's, ideas.  His contrivance is the source of his ideas, and I believe it is why he comes across as being dis-ingeniousness and constantly has his motives questioned by people who are also assertive but display more than a slight degree of humility.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

Shoot the messenger.

----------


## Conza88

> Conza's failure lies exclusively in the fact that he is trying to use *force* to teach people the virtue of NOT using force.

----------


## Conza88

*Ron Paul on Self-Government* 









> At a huge rally in Seattle: “If you had a perfectly ideal world, and  you had* liberty passed on back to the individual, it would be  self-government*, that would be the ultimate test. As long as we accept  one principle - *that we don’t force other people to try to live the way  we want to live.* Stay out of meddling with these peoples lives.”


 Self-government being synonymous with voluntarism and a private law society.




> “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, No More Military Socialism.





> 


Go on, deny 1 + 1 = 2...

----------


## Keith and stuff

> When you read the Federalist Papers and other writings of the Founders, you then understand the framework for the Constitution and what it meant....


The Anti-Federalist papers are the pro-liberty documents.  The Federalist papers are the big government, anti-human, anti-liberty documents.

----------


## Cabal

> The Anti-Federalist papers are the pro-liberty documents.  The Federalist papers are the big government, anti-human, anti-liberty documents.


Amazing how much the AFPs are ignored, even around here, isn't it?

http://www.utulsa.edu/law/classes/ri...st/antifed.htm

Amazing articles. It's very interesting to know that the A-F's predicted many of the problems which have resulted since...

----------


## Sola_Fide

Listen Conza.....

The great thing about Ron Paul is that he has taken elements of ideas from many different quarters of the world.

He has taken input from natural law atheists like Rothbard and Mises.
He has taken input from Scripture-alone Calvinists, from Calvin and Luther to John Robbins and Gary North.
He has taken input from Catholics, from classical to modern, from Bastiat to Tom Woods. 
He has taken input from Christian Austrian economists like Hans Sennholz and Tom Rose.
He has taken input from voluntaryists, anarchists, and Constitutionalists.
He has taken input from the social compact naturalist Founders.
He has taken input from the Covenantalist Puritans.
He has taken input from ancient Calvinists, like Augustine.
He bas taken input from ancient Catholics like Aquinas.

There are tons of influences I'm missing off the top of my head.  The point is:  its great that we can all find something in Dr. Paul that brings us together.  It's all about liberty and freedom man.

----------


## Conza88

> Listen Conza.....
> 
> The great thing about Ron Paul is that he has taken elements of ideas from many different quarters of the world.
> 
> He has taken input from natural law atheists like Rothbard and Mises.


Religion is completely irrelevant to political philosophy. A point made by Rothbard, in the exact place you said Ron Paul was influenced by:




> “The believer in a rationally established natural law must, then, face the hostility of both camps: the one group sensing in this position an antagonism toward religion; and the other group suspecting that God and mysticism are being slipped in by the back door.
> 
> To the first group, it must be said that they are reflecting an extreme Augustinian position which held that faith rather than reason was the only legitimate tool for investigating man’s nature and man’s proper ends. In short, in this fideist tradition, theology had completely displaced philosophy.[3] The Thomist tradition, on the contrary, was precisely the opposite: vindicating the independence of philosophy from theology, and proclaiming the ability of man’s reason to understand and arrive at the laws, physical and ethical, of the natural order, if belief in a systematic order of natural laws open to discovery by man’s reason is per se anti-religious, then anti-religious also were St. Thomas and the later Scholastics, as well as the devout Protestant jurist Hugo Grotius.
> 
> *The statement that there is an order of natural law, in short, leaves open the problem of whether or not God has created that order*; and the assertion of the viability of man’s reason to discover the natural order leaves open the question of whether or not that reason was given to man by God. *The assertion of an order of natural laws discoverable by reason is, by itself, neither pro- nor anti-religious.[4]*”


Which Ron Paul goes on to confirm:

Ron Paul: "So I just don't...if that were the only issue, quite frankly, I would think it's an interesting discussion, I think it's a theological discussion, and I think it's fine, and we can have our...*if that were the issue of the day, I wouldn't be running for public office*.'"

So lmao to your entire list of 'influences'. Greaaaaaaaaaaaat. 

The fact that Mises and Rothbard were atheists is irrelevant. Mises also, didn't support natural law. _Shows your ignorance, yet again._

----------


## Carson

*"Where do Ron Paul's ideas come from?"* 

He brains them.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Religion is completely irrelevant to political philosophy. A point made by Rothbard, in the exact place you said Ron Paul was influenced by:
> 
> 
> 
> Which Ron Paul goes on to confirm:
> 
> Ron Paul: "So I just don't...if that were the only issue, quite frankly, I would think it's an interesting discussion, I think it's a theological discussion, and I think it's fine, and we can have our...*if that were the issue of the day, I wouldn't be running for public office*.'"
> 
> So lmao to your entire list of 'influences'. Greaaaaaaaaaaaat.



You live in a fantasy land.  You have deceived yourself into thinking that you are some neutral moral entity out in the world....but you are a whitewashed tomb full of dead men's bones.  You are doomed to destruction and you think your fine and dandy.

Oh, it has everything to do with religion.  Your religion of empiricism is fallacious.  You can't justify why you believe anything.   Your worldview makes you illogical.  You worship your own will when you know deep down that God is sovereign.  Like the Johnny Cash song says, "sooner or later God's gonna cut you down".

Edit:  yes, I meant to say in my first sentence "natural law and anti natural law lawyers".  You got me bro. Good job.  It's just deflecting.  I can destroy your worldview but you run from it every time I engage you.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Religion is completely irrelevant to political philosophy. A point made by Rothbard, in the exact place you said Ron Paul was influenced by:
> 
> 
> 
> Which Ron Paul goes on to confirm:
> 
> Ron Paul: "So I just don't...if that were the only issue, quite frankly, I would think it's an interesting discussion, I think it's a theological discussion, and I think it's fine, and we can have our...*if that were the issue of the day, I wouldn't be running for public office*.'"
> 
> So lmao to your entire list of 'influences'. Greaaaaaaaaaaaat. 
> ...


Your Rothbard quote was ridiculous.  John Robbins already destroyed the entire theory of natural law decades ago.  You should check in to it.

----------


## Travlyr

How To End The Fed Now. 

Excerpt,



> The personal income tax provision of the Internal Revenue Code is private law rather than public law. “A private law is one which is confined to particular individuals, associations, or corporations”: 50 Am.Jur.: 12 p 28. In the instant case the revenue code pertains to taxpayers. A private law can be enforced by a court of competent jurisdiction when statutes for its enforcement are enacted: 20 Am.Jur.: 33. pg. 58, 59.
> The distinction between public and private acts is not always sharply defined when published statutes are printed in their final form: Case v. Kelly, 133 US 21 (1890). Statutes creating corporations are private acts: 20 Am.Jur. 35, p 60. In this connection, the Federal Reserve Act is private law. Federal Reserve banks derive their existence and corporate power from the Federal Reserve Act: Armano v. Federal Reserve Bank, 468 F.Supp. 674 (1979).
> A private act may be published as a public law when the general public is afforded the opportunity of participating in the operation of the private law. The Internal Revenue Code is an example of private law which does not exclude the voluntary participation of the general public. Had the Internal Revenue Code been written as substantive public law, the code would be repugnant to the Constitution, since no one could be compelled to file a return and thereby become a witness against himself.
> 
> Under the fifty titles listed on the preface page of the United States Code, the Internal Revenue Code (26 USC) is listed as having not been enacted as substantive public law, conceding that the Internal Revenue Code is private law. Bouvier declares that private law “relates to private matters which do not concern the public at large.” It is the voluntary use of private credit which imposes upon the user the quasi contractual or implied obligation to make a return of income. In Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust Co., 158 US 601 (1895), the Supreme Court had declared the income tax of 1894 to be repugnant to the Constitution, holding that taxation of rents, wages and salaries must conform to the rule of apportionment.


Why advocate for private law and an end to the Constitution along with the 'Bill of Rights'? That's not freedom.

----------


## Conza88

> How To End The Fed Now. 
> 
> Excerpt,
> 
> Why advocate for private law and an end to the Constitution along with the 'Bill of Rights'? That's not freedom.


"Compared to" arguments, 101 of philosophy... go educate yourself... and keep on ignoring Ron Paul's statements on self-government as being his* END GOAL*.

In the mean time, as transition - I, like him, support reducing and limiting the size of government. Every private law / voluntarist / self-government / anarcho-capitalist supporter WOULD SUPPORT a return to the size of government outlined in the US Constitution COMPARED TO WHAT WE HAVE NOW (even though, it'd just grow again).

If it was a decision between the Articles on Confederation and the US Constitution; RON PAUL HAS SAID HE'D PROBABLY BE AN ANTI-FEDERALIST.

I mean WHAT the F$())# how can you call yourself a Ron Paul supporter if you're so braindeadly not switched on to the nuances he is operating under, ffs.

----------


## Conza88

> Your Rothbard quote was ridiculous.  John Robbins already destroyed the entire theory of natural law decades ago.  You should check in to it.


Pathetic dismissal, followed up with a vague assertion backed by nothing... whilst failing to address the points that BLOW your bs out of the water.

*claps* *outstanding*

----------


## Conza88

> You live in a fantasy land.  You have deceived yourself into thinking that you are some neutral moral entity out in the world....but you are a whitewashed tomb full of dead men's bones.  You are doomed to destruction and you think your fine and dandy.
> 
> Oh, it has everything to do with religion.  Your religion of empiricism is fallacious.  You can't justify why you believe anything.   Your worldview makes you illogical.  You worship your own will when you know deep down that God is sovereign.  Like the Johnny Cash song says, "sooner or later God's gonna cut you down".
> 
> Edit:  yes, I meant to say in my first sentence "natural law and anti natural law lawyers".  You got me bro. Good job.  It's just deflecting.  I can destroy your worldview but you run from it every time I engage you.


Libertarianism isn't a worldview... it's a political philosophy.

Mate, keep opening your mouth and keep putting your foot in it. Hilarious. Nothing but:

*MORE IGNORANCE lmao...*  




> Libertarianism is not and does not pretend to be a complete moral, or aesthetic theory; it is only a political theory, that is, the important subset of moral theory that deals with the proper role of violence in social life. . . . Libertarianism holds that the only proper role of violence is to defend person and property against violence, that any use of violence that goes beyond such just defense is itself aggressive, unjust, and criminal. Libertarianism, therefore, is a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent invasion, should be free to do as he sees fit except invade the person or property of another. What a person does with his or her life is vital and important, but is simply irrelevant to libertarianism.
> 
> - Myth and Truth About Libertarianism

----------


## Travlyr

> "Compared to" arguments, 101 of philosophy... go educate yourself... and keep on ignoring Ron Paul's statements on self-government as being his* END GOAL*.
> 
> In the mean time, as transition - I, like him, support reducing and limiting the size of government. Every private law / voluntarist / self-government / anarcho-capitalist supporter WOULD SUPPORT a return to the size of government outlined in the US Constitution COMPARED TO WHAT WE HAVE NOW (even though, it'd just grow again).
> 
> If it was a decision between the Articles on Confederation and the US Constitution; RON PAUL HAS SAID HE'D PROBABLY BE AN ANTI-FEDERALIST.
> 
> I mean WHAT the F$())# how can you call yourself a Ron Paul supporter if you're so braindeadly not switched on to the nuances he is operating under, ffs.


Because I don't live in Conza's lala land. We do not live in a perfectly ideal world.




> *Ron Paul on Self-Government* 
> At a huge rally in Seattle: If you had a perfectly ideal world, and you had liberty passed on back to the individual, it would be self-government, that would be the ultimate test. As long as we accept one principle - that we dont force other people to try to live the way we want to live. Stay out of meddling with these peoples lives.
> Self-government being synonymous with voluntarism and a private law society.


Private Law sucks the big one. The Federal Reserve System and the IRS are private law. Ignoring the 'Bill of Rights' and the Constitution sucks. That is what we have NOW. Private law and ignoring the rule of law is today's reality. It sucks. And you keep bringing it up over and over again like it is some sort of salvation. Well, look outside dude, it sucks. It is getting a lot of people killed and impoverished around the world. Get a clue. Enforcing the rule of law and stopping the lawlessness brings freedom.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Because I don't live in Conza's lala land. We do not live in a perfectly ideal world.


Maybe not Conza's...




> Private Statist Monopoly Law sucks the big one. The Federal Reserve System and the IRS are involuntary private law supported by the state. Ignoring the 'Bill of Rights' and the Constitution sucks but agents of the state act within the interest of the state paradigm and don't care about limiting their power. That is what we have NOW. Private Statist monopoly edicts touted as law and ignoring the rule of natural law is today's reality. It sucks. And you keep bringing it up over and over again like it is some sort of salvation. Well, look outside dude, it the state sucks. It Statism is getting a lot of people killed and impoverished around the world. Get a clue. Enforcing the rule of natural law and stopping the lawlessness of statist edicts brings freedom.


fixed it 4 u.




> To believe in liberty is not to believe in any particular social and economic outcome. It is to trust in the spontaneous order that emerges when the state Land Laws™ does not intervene in human volition and human cooperation.


Hmm... nope still doesn't make sense...




> Liberty means to exercise human rights in any manner a person chooses so long as it does not interfere with the exercise of the rights of others. This means, above all else, *keeping government out of our lives*. _Only this path_ leads to the unleashing of human energies that *build civilizations*, *provide security*, generate wealth, and *protect the people* from *systematic rights violations*.


Hmm...




> Taxation is theft.


Hmm...

----------


## noneedtoaggress



----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Libertarianism isn't a worldview... it's a political philosophy.
> 
> Mate, keep opening your mouth and keep putting your foot in it. Hilarious. Nothing but:
> 
> *MORE IGNORANCE lmao...*


Interesting that Rothbard wrote this as well as Ethics Of Liberty.  I don't think your quote is something Murray would say later in his career.  Even Kinsella agrees that libertarianism is not "value-free" as you are trying to portray it.  http://mises.org/daily/3660  It seems you are confusing libertarian economic theory (which is value-free) with libertarianism in general.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Libertarianism isn't a worldview... it's a political philosophy.
> 
> Mate, keep opening your mouth and keep putting your foot in it. Hilarious. Nothing but:
> 
> *MORE IGNORANCE lmao...*



Where did I say anything about libertarianism in my post, genius?  

I said empiricism, I didn't say anything about libertarianism.

----------


## newbitech

Oh no, I got revenge rep'd by conza88!  What will I do?  Conza, just to catch you up, personally attacking someone in the rep system is on the same level as personally attacking that person in the thread.  So you may as well get the most bang for you buck and personally attack me in the thread you commented on.

It is interesting that while my comments were directed towards my observations of you, you can not claim ad hominem because what I have observed about your motives, hypocrisy, conduct, and character certainly speak to your argument of claiming to have the complete story on where Ron Paul's ideas come from.  

I am treating you gently here Conza.  I want you to know that while I agree that you have identified an area of influence concerning Ron Paul's ideas, you are far from realizing the truth about who Ron Paul is.  You are especially far from being someone to speak for Ron Paul, as you continuously either ignore much of what the man says or conveniently spin and weave his words in such a way that distorts what the man is doing and what the man represents.  

You won't accept that.  You want to cling to the belief that you have somehow tapped in to the very spigot where Ron Paul intellectually drinks from and deny that his intellectual philosophy may come from various sources.  You dismiss those other sources in a way that represents Ron Paul and his ideas as a paradox or outright fraud.  Of course in your mind, its easy to solve the paradox and deny the fraud, because in fact it is you, Conza, that have created that paradox and perpetuated that fraud of misrepresentation.  Others, including myself, point out the flaws in your contrivance and you attack attack attack.  The reality is, your futile defense of your distorted understanding of who Ron Paul is has garnered you some fractional level of support to those who are interested in your core issue, but as a whole, your efforts only make the small cracks in Ron Paul support seem like huge unbridgeable canyons.   

You and the conclusions you draw and foist upon the community of Ron Paul support could not be further from the truth.

----------


## RiseAgainst

> You live in a fantasy land.  You have deceived yourself into thinking that you are some neutral moral entity out in the world....but you are a whitewashed tomb full of dead men's bones.  You are doomed to destruction and you think your fine and dandy.
> 
> Oh, it has everything to do with religion.  Your religion of empiricism is fallacious.  You can't justify why you believe anything.   Your worldview makes you illogical.  You worship your own will when you know deep down that God is sovereign.  Like the Johnny Cash song says, "sooner or later God's gonna cut you down".
> 
> Edit:  yes, I meant to say in my first sentence "natural law and anti natural law lawyers".  You got me bro. Good job.  It's just deflecting.  *I can destroy your worldview but you run from it every time I engage you.*


God complex much?  Your "destruction" requires someone to fully accept your 'interpretation' and 'faith' in order to hold.  Your argument is essentially "They sky is not blue it is purple."  To which we reply, no it is clearly blue.  Your response is "If only you would accept that it is clearly purple, as I do, then you would so how thoroughly I have destroyed you."

----------


## onlyrp

> Interesting that Rothbard wrote this as well as Ethics Of Liberty.  I don't think your quote is something Murray would say later in his career.


Yeah, because Rothbard later grew up and accepted reality. Something that'll either never happen for conza88 or he'll never admit it.

----------


## JohnBalzer

Ron Paul's ideas come from the same place Gary Johnson's do. For starters, they are just plain common sense. The foundations of our concept of liberty dates back in history and cannot be attributed to one man, but the ruination of our liberties can closely be attributed to Obama. Gary Johnson supported Ron Paul in 2008 and come May, we will look to Ron Paul to throw his support to 
Gary Johnson and keep the Libertarian torch held high.

----------


## RiseAgainst

> Ron Paul's ideas come from the same place Gary Johnson's do. For starters, they are just plain common sense. The foundations of our concept of liberty dates back in history and cannot be attributed to one man, but the ruination of our liberties can closely be attributed to Obama. Gary Johnson supported Ron Paul in 2008 and come May, we will look to Ron Paul to throw his support to 
> Gary Johnson and keep the Libertarian torch held high.


1. You have to have some SERIOUS hatred blinders on to even consider saying something so ridiculous as "the ruination of our liberties can closely be attributed to Obama."  To be sure, Obama is no friend of liberty, but he is merely the latest in a centuries old game of the ruination of liberty.  He is no more (or less) to be blamed than George W., Billy C., George H.W., RWR, Carter...you see where this is going.

2. GJ has a loooooong way to go to be even in the same galaxy as RP on liberty.

----------


## onlyrp

> 1. You have to have some SERIOUS hatred blinders on to even consider saying something so ridiculous as "the ruination of our liberties can closely be attributed to Obama."  To be sure, Obama is no friend of liberty, but he is merely the latest in a centuries old game of the ruination of liberty.  He is no more (or less) to be blamed than George W., Billy C., George H.W., RWR, Carter...you see where this is going.
> 
> 2. GJ has a loooooong way to go to be even in the same galaxy as RP on liberty.


try winning Republican votes telling people Obama is no worse.

----------


## Conza88

> Because I don't live in Conza's lala land. We do not live in a perfectly ideal world.
> 
> Private Law sucks the big one. The Federal Reserve System and the IRS are private law. Ignoring the 'Bill of Rights' and the Constitution sucks. That is what we have NOW. Private law and ignoring the rule of law is today's reality. It sucks. And you keep bringing it up over and over again like it is some sort of salvation. Well, look outside dude, it sucks. It is getting a lot of people killed and impoverished around the world. Get a clue. Enforcing the rule of law and stopping the lawlessness brings freedom.





I await your amazing insights and refutation.

----------


## Conza88

> Interesting that Rothbard wrote this as well as Ethics Of Liberty.  I don't think your quote is something Murray would say later in his career.  Even Kinsella agrees that libertarianism is not "value-free" as you are trying to portray it.  http://mises.org/daily/3660  It seems you are confusing libertarian economic theory (which is value-free) with libertarianism in general.


What specifically would he not say? i.e Maintain the distinction and difference between Religion [appeals to super-natural] and Political philosophy? No,  _would be_ something he'd say later in his career. Absolutely. Now you're showcasing your ignorance... though I do like the appeal to Kinsella, and Rothbard.. which will make this much easier.

Kinsella and Rothbard _BOTH_ agree that libertarianism is "value-free". Lots more on this if you are interested.




> Here the praxeological proof of libertarianism has the advantage of offering *a completely value-free justification of private property*. It remains entirely in the realm of is-statements and never tries to derive an “ought” from an “is.”
>  -- Economics and ethics of private property, p345








> In order to come to a policy conclusion, I have long maintained, economists have to come up with some kind of ethical system. Note that all branches of modern "welfare economics" have attempted to do just that: to continue to be "scientific" and therefore value-free, and yet to make all sorts of cherished policy pronouncements (since most economists would like at some point to get beyond their mathematical models and draw politically relevant conclusions). Most economists would not be caught dead with an ethical system or principle, believing that this would detract from their "scientific" status.
> 
> And yet, remarkably and extraordinarily, Hans Hoppe has proven me wrong. He has done it: he has deduced an anarcho-Lockean rights ethic from self-evident axioms. Not only that: he has demonstrated that, just like the action axiom itself, it is impossible to deny or disagree with the anarcho-Lockean rights ethic without falling immediately into self-contradiction and self-refutation.





> Nevertheless, by coming out with a genuinely new theory (amazing in itself, considering the long history of political philosophy) Hoppe is in danger of offending all the intellectual vested interests of the libertarian camp. Utilitarians, who should be happy that value freedom was preserved, will be appalled to find that Hoppean rights are even more absolutist and "dogmatic" than natural rights. Natural rightsers, while happy at the "dogmatism" will be unwilling to accept an ethics not grounded in the board nature of things. Randians will be particularly upset on the satantic immanual kant and his "synthetic a priori".
> 
> Randians might be mollified, however, to learn that Hoppe is influence by a group of German Kantians (headed by mathematician Paul Lorenzen) who interpret Kant as a deeply realistic Aristotelian, in contrast to the Idealist interpretation common in the U. S.
> 
> As a natural rightser, I don't see any real contradiction here, or why one cannot hold to both the natural rights and the Hoppean rights ethic at the same time. Both rights ethics, after all, are grounded, like the realist version of Kantianism, in the nature of reality. Natural law, too, provides a personal and social ethic apart from libertarianism; this is an area Hoppe is not concerned with.


As for Kinsella, as you know, he's one of the biggest supporters of AE there is.

----------


## Conza88

> Where did I say anything about libertarianism in my post, genius?  
> 
> I said empiricism, I didn't say anything about libertarianism.


Right, excellent red herring fallacy.

Not to mention delusional strawman. Me an empiricist? Lmao.. you obviously haven't read "Economic Science and the Austrian Method" by Hoppe. 

Showcasing your ignorance once again.

Seeing you define empiricism in such a way as to apply to me, should be amusing. There's one way, though I'd be surprised if you get it.

----------


## Conza88

> Oh no, I got revenge rep'd by conza88!  What will I do?


Write up several paragraphs attacking me personally, instead of attempting to engage in the arguments put forward.. ie. the crystal clear evidence from Ron Paul's own words.

You'll continue to do what you and others here have always done, put your head in the sand.

With all due respect sir, 'cry me a river'.

----------


## Travlyr

> I await your amazing insights and refutation.


From your past responses, I'm not sure you read what I write before you retort, but I'll give this one more try.

The IRS, Federal Reserve System, SS, FBI, CIA, FSA, military, medical, & prison-industrial complexes are based on private law. Not even the experts are well enough versed to know the thousands upon thousand of pages of code written in their private laws. Free people are exempt from private law because private law is unconstitutional law. It only applies to people who agree to it. Private law sucks, imo.

Public law, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, clearly state some of the natural rights a free person inherits when they are born. Those rights are not to be infringed. The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The right to free speech, bear arms, travel, privacy, life, due process of law, trial by jury, etc. The supreme laws are superior to all lesser laws.




> *Article. VI.*
> 
> This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
> 
> 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.





> *Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).* 
> This is one of the leading cases in the history of the U.S. The opinion of the court was Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law; Clearly for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme was illogical; for certainly the supreme law would prevail over any other law, and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme law would be the basis for all laws, and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law. It would bear no power to enforce, it would bear no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as though it had never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded by a court of law. No courts are bound to uphold it, and no citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a mere nullity or a fiction of law, which means it doesn‟t exist in law.


Now if you wish to pay income taxes, use paper money, have your guns confiscated, be stopped and searched by law enforcement while traveling, agree to surveillance, give up your rights to due process of law and trial by jury, then it makes no difference to me. That is what private law has brought you. Count me out. 

I understand my rights and I am not giving them up for you, Murphy, or anybody else.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpvE...eature=related

----------


## Conza88

> From your past responses, I'm not sure you read what I write before you retort, but I'll give this one more try.
> 
> The IRS, Federal Reserve System, SS, FBI, CIA, FSA, military, medical, & prison-industrial complexes are based on private law. Not even the experts are well enough versed to know the thousands upon thousand of pages of code written in their private laws. Free people are exempt from private law because private law is unconstitutional law. It only applies to people who agree to it. Private law sucks, imo.
> 
> Public law, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, clearly state some of the natural rights a free person inherits when they are born. Those rights are not to be infringed. The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The right to free speech, bear arms, travel, privacy, life, due process of law, trial by jury, etc. The supreme laws are superior to all lesser laws.
> 
> Now if you wish to pay income taxes, use paper money, have your guns confiscated, be stopped and searched by law enforcement while traveling, agree to surveillance, give up your rights to due process of law and trial by jury, then it makes no difference to me. That is what private law has brought you. Count me out. 
> 
> I understand my rights and I am not giving them up for you, Murphy, or anybody else.
> ...


Oh no I read it the first time. It was a waste of time then, just as it was again.

So your position is that _I_ support: the "IRS, Federal Reserve System, SS, FBI, CIA, FSA, military, medical, & prison-industrial complexes".. because they are according to you "based on private law"?




There was a level of intellectual honesty & mental cognition I have come to expect from those 'opposed' to Ron Paul's end goal... but you sir have outdone yourself. Congratulations.




> *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.
> ...

----------


## Travlyr

> So your position is that _I_ support: the "IRS, Federal Reserve System, SS, FBI, CIA, FSA, military, medical, & prison-industrial complexes".. because they are according to you "based on private law"?


Now I am understanding ... it is your comprehension that fails you. My point was that *I* don't want anything to do with private law of Hoppe, Murphy, Conza, Marx, or anybody else, not what *you* support or don't support. I don't care what you do.

And that *I* don't want anything to do with the Federal Reserve private law either,
How To End The Fed Now. 

Excerpt,



> The personal income tax provision of the Internal Revenue Code is private law rather than public law. A private law is one which is confined to particular individuals, associations, or corporations: 50 Am.Jur.: 12 p 28. In the instant case the revenue code pertains to taxpayers. A private law can be enforced by a court of competent jurisdiction when statutes for its enforcement are enacted: 20 Am.Jur.: 33. pg. 58, 59.
> The distinction between public and private acts is not always sharply defined when published statutes are printed in their final form: Case v. Kelly, 133 US 21 (1890). Statutes creating corporations are private acts: 20 Am.Jur. 35, p 60. In this connection, the Federal Reserve Act is private law. Federal Reserve banks derive their existence and corporate power from the Federal Reserve Act: Armano v. Federal Reserve Bank, 468 F.Supp. 674 (1979).
> A private act may be published as a public law when the general public is afforded the opportunity of participating in the operation of the private law. The Internal Revenue Code is an example of private law which does not exclude the voluntary participation of the general public. Had the Internal Revenue Code been written as substantive public law, the code would be repugnant to the Constitution, since no one could be compelled to file a return and thereby become a witness against himself.
> 
> Under the fifty titles listed on the preface page of the United States Code, the Internal Revenue Code (26 USC) is listed as having not been enacted as substantive public law, conceding that the Internal Revenue Code is private law. Bouvier declares that private law relates to private matters which do not concern the public at large. It is the voluntary use of private credit which imposes upon the user the quasi contractual or implied obligation to make a return of income. In Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co., 158 US 601 (1895), the Supreme Court had declared the income tax of 1894 to be repugnant to the Constitution, holding that taxation of rents, wages and salaries must conform to the rule of apportionment.


Isn't it interesting that Karl Marx advocated for statelessness too. 


> Karl Marx
> He believed that socialism would, in its turn, eventually be replaced by a stateless, classless society called communism. Along with believing in the inevitability of socialism and communism, Marx actively fought for the former's implementation, arguing that both social theorists and underprivileged people should carry out organised revolutionary action to topple capitalism and bring about socio-economic change.

----------


## Conza88

> Now I am understanding ... it is your comprehension that fails you. My point was that *I* don't want anything to do with private law of Hoppe, Murphy, Conza, Marx, or anybody else, not what *you* support or don't support. I don't care what you do.


Demonstrated preference, you clearly do since you're responding. YOU do realise that the private law / voluntarism / self-government / anarcho-capitalism / libertarianism of "Hoppe, Murphy"... Rothbard, Mises AND RON PAUL is not the same as the bs conception of "private law" as outlined by yourself... where it OPENLY REFERS TO LEGISLATION, which operates through a framework of PUBLIC LAW.. they're trying to make a distinction WITHIN IT.

EPIC FAIL. 




> And that *I* don't want anything to do with the Federal Reserve private law either,
> How To End The Fed Now. 
> 
> Excerpt,
> 
> Isn't it interesting that Karl Marx advocated for statelessness too.





You're on my ignore list. You're no longer worth 'debating'.. because your position is so delusional that I doubt there is anyone reading who will succumb to it.

----------


## newbitech

> Write up several paragraphs attacking me personally, instead of attempting to engage in the arguments put forward.. ie. the crystal clear evidence from Ron Paul's own words.
> 
> You'll continue to do what you and others here have always done, put your head in the sand.
> 
> With all due respect sir, 'cry me a river'.


no nothing personal conza, everything I have commented is based on your actions and words on these forums and in this thread.  Nothing personal, but when the character, personal conduct, and motives of someone bringing distilled information, summaries, and opinions about Ron Paul ideas are in question, I think the people digesting your information deserve to know.  

It is not my fault that you come across with ulterior motives, conduct yourself with rudeness and insults as well as ignorance and misleading commentary.  You have done that.  I am simply summing you up in the same way that you have summed up Ron Paul, from my point of view.  Sorry if it sounds slanted and biased against you or makes you appear to be someone you are not.  At least you have the opportunity to point out how I might be wrong about you.  Since Ron Paul doesn't actively participate in this forum, you aren't really giving him that same opportunity to clarify for you.  

So I don't necessarily expect people or even want people to see you the same way I do.  But I do think it is fair that when you bring up other folks ideas, that you also deserve to have your own ideas scrutinized.

----------


## onlyrp

> From your past responses, I'm not sure you read what I write before you retort, but I'll give this one more try.
> 
> The IRS, Federal Reserve System, SS, FBI, CIA, FSA, military, medical, & prison-industrial complexes are based on private law. Not even the experts are well enough versed to know the thousands upon thousand of pages of code written in their private laws. Free people are exempt from private law because private law is unconstitutional law. It only applies to people who agree to it. Private law sucks, imo.


Indeed you don't live in Conza88's la la land where everything was perfect when there was no state. You live in the other la la land where everything was perfect until 1913.

----------


## onlyrp

> It is not my fault that you come across with ulterior motives, conduct yourself with rudeness and insults as well as ignorance and misleading commentary.


it's not your fault for understanding what he wants to be understood as.




> *But I do think it is fair that when you bring up other folks ideas, that you also deserve to have your own ideas scrutinized*.


Well guess what, he doesn't think that's fair.

----------


## onlyrp

> your position is so delusional that I doubt there is anyone reading who will succumb to it.

----------


## Travlyr

> Indeed you don't live in Conza88's la la land where everything was perfect when there was no state. You live in the other la la land where everything was perfect until 1913.


Everything was not perfect prior to 1913. I never made that claim. 

Liberty, peace, and prosperity for individuals was much more common prior to 1913, but the world has never been perfect.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Excerpt,
> 
> 
> Isn't it interesting that Karl Marx advocated for statelessness too.


Not exactly a fair comparison.  Marx used words like "anarchy" and "capitalism" differently than you and I.  His vision of "statelessness" was a "workers' paradise" in which classes cease to exist.  It's not bad to criticize opinions, but you need to compare apples to apples.

----------


## onlyrp

> Everything was not perfect prior to 1913. I never made that claim. 
> 
> Liberty, peace, and prosperity for individuals was much more common prior to 1913, but the world has never been perfect.


Much more common? Or everywhere? 

How do you define prosperity? Were blacks and women better off politically and socially in 1913?

----------


## Travlyr

> Much more common? Or everywhere? 
> 
> How do you define prosperity? Were blacks and women better off politically and socially in 1913?


 Thread Title: *Where do Ron Paul's ideas come from?*

----------


## onlyrp

> Thread Title: *Where do Ron Paul's ideas come from?*


I get it now, when you can't or don't want to answer my question, it's "thread title" "you don't know history" "liberty was everywhere".

----------


## Conza88

> no nothing personal conza, everything I have commented is based on your actions and words on these forums and in this thread.  Nothing personal, but when the character, personal conduct, and motives of someone bringing distilled information, summaries, and opinions about Ron Paul ideas are in question, I think the people digesting your information deserve to know.  
> 
> It is not my fault that you come across with ulterior motives, conduct yourself with rudeness and insults as well as ignorance and misleading commentary.  You have done that.  I am simply summing you up in the same way that you have summed up Ron Paul, from my point of view.  Sorry if it sounds slanted and biased against you or makes you appear to be someone you are not.  At least you have the opportunity to point out how I might be wrong about you.  Since Ron Paul doesn't actively participate in this forum, you aren't really giving him that same opportunity to clarify for you.  
> 
> So I don't necessarily expect people or even want people to see you the same way I do.  But I do think it is fair that when you bring up other folks ideas, that you also deserve to have your own ideas scrutinized.


Blah, blah, blah. 

*Ron Paul on Self-Government* 









> At a huge rally in Seattle: If you had a perfectly ideal world, and  you had* liberty passed on back to the individual, it would be  self-government*, that would be the ultimate test. As long as we accept  one principle - *that we dont force other people to try to live the way  we want to live.* Stay out of meddling with these peoples lives.


 Self-government being synonymous with voluntarism and a private law society.




> 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, No More Military Socialism.





> 


Go on, deny 1 + 1 = 2...

----------


## newbitech

> Blah, blah, blah. 
> 
> *Ron Paul on Self-Government* 
> [INDENT] 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Blah Blah Blah,

your comments are divorced from the content provided.  You are trying to bridge the gap in your own lack of understanding with words that do not have expressed meaning, or twisted from past meanings in to new meanings. 

You act as if I struggle to understand when the reality it the struggle is with those trying to force change the definition of words like voluntarism and self-government.

Why you do this seems to me a weakness in your ability to comprehend what these philosophers, politicians, and statesmen are saying, much less doing.  So you flail about the message boards re-posting the same content with no commentary from yourself, no relating from yourself to your everyday life.  You expect people to just accept that "self-government = voluntarism".  Sorry, you are wrong it does not. 

You don't even attempt to have it make sense other than, oh listen to what these guys are saying.  Rather than actually digging in to the understanding of not only the words, but of the actions, you just hope that by constantly repeating it over and over it will take hold.  The only people that I can think of that have that approach is people in public education and media.  At least the media puts a spin on it that TRIES to relate to the audience.  At least the public school has graduation levels.  Still, like the MSM and the public school system, here you are repeating the same thing over and over and over and over, thinking that it's going to change the minds of people.  

Yeah, it might work on some, who enjoy being lulled.  But, I'd like to think most people here can see past your droning and think for themselves.  

Self-government doesn't require a philosophy like voluntarism for it to work.  The two are not equal because both represent distinctly different ideas.

Oh and by adding private law in to the mix, you are further confounding the truth.  There really is no difference between public and private law once you accept the idea that a law is a law.

----------


## Conza88

> Self-government doesn't require a philosophy like voluntarism for it to work. The two are not equal because both represent distinctly different ideas.


Full of $hit as always.

*Ron Paul:* *"that we don’t force other people to try to live the way we want to live."* (From above).

That includes forcing them into your system, champ. 





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

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

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

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

Soooo different...  lmao. Elucidate away.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Much more common? Or everywhere? 
> 
> How do you define prosperity? Were blacks and women better off politically and socially in 1913?


Getting rid of the Fed doesn't mean one is traveling back in time to 1912.

----------


## newbitech

> Full of $hit as always.
> 
> *Ron Paul:* *"that we don’t force other people to try to live the way we want to live."* (From above).
> 
> That includes forcing them into your system, champ. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So since Adam Kokesh put words in to Ron Paul's mouth, it's ok if you do it?

----------


## Wesker1982

> So since Adam Kokesh put words in to Ron Paul's mouth, it's ok if you do it?


Ron then goes on to perfectly describe Voluntaryism, then explicitly advocate it.

Explains the philosophy:

1. _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._ 

Advocates the philosophy just explained:

2. _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._

----------


## Wesker1982

FYI, you guys still trying to deny the obvious are just convincing more people of the truth (Ron Paul is a Voluntaryist) by keeping this thread bumped.

Last post by Conza before the bump 2-14, then a denier, PaulConventionWV made a post 3-8. Futile attempts to deny Ron Paul's true philosophy are only confirming it to people who aren't afraid of the truth.

----------


## Travlyr

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=q3SOlXxUBLk

While monetary policy is the key to individual secession, listen to Ron Paul starting at 7:45. Obeying the Constitution is the key to a voluntary society.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> FYI, you guys still trying to deny the obvious are just convincing more people of the truth (Ron Paul is a Voluntaryist) by keeping this thread bumped.
> 
> Last post by Conza before the bump 2-14, then a denier, PaulConventionWV made a post 3-8. Futile attempts to deny Ron Paul's true philosophy are only confirming it to people who aren't afraid of the truth.


I think "closet Voluntaryist" is a better term for now.  He has, after all, explicitly said-"government is the enemy of liberty"-but uses the more palletable constitutionalist rhetoric before republican audiences.

----------


## Conza88

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=q3SOlXxUBLk
> 
> While monetary policy is the key to individual secession, listen to Ron Paul starting at 7:45. Obeying the Constitution is the key to a voluntary society.


*Nowhere* at all in the segment does his say anything close to this:_ "Obeying the Constitution is the key to a voluntary society."_

Yeah, operating within the statist context attempting to limit the state is better than not at all. Moving in the direction of smaller government (time to zero) is fine and legit.

Good _try_ bro, but it's an epic fail. I actually use Ron Paul's words, unlike others.




Ron Paul is on the freedom train to the end of the line... just like I am, as is Rothbard... and other supporters of self-government, individual secession, voluntarism, libertarianism.

You get off before the end, for whatever delusional and ignorant reason. Until you get off, you're a fellow traveler. But you guys act as if I'm the enemy, pathetic.

----------


## onlyrp

> Getting rid of the Fed doesn't mean one is traveling back in time to 1912.


It might mean many things will be unfunded and mass deflation of credit by today's standards.

----------


## Travlyr

> It might mean many things will be unfunded and mass deflation of credit by today's standards.


Right. Wars will be unfunded and the debt will be repudiated.

----------


## onlyrp

> Right. Wars will be unfunded and the debt will be repudiated.


Don't stop there, schools, scientific research, close to half of colleges' worthless majors and departments, the loan industry, the housing market, much of the entertainment industry, credit cards will shrink, advertising will decrease meaning media will be underfunded, news media will degrade along with entertainment. I'm not sure debt will be repudiated right away, but it'll stop piling up. Be careful what you wish for, unless you are somebody who owns your own business, you will likely be affected directly or indirectly (I'm happy to see it, but I'm not sure how many Americans would take it nicely).

If you like Detroit, you're going to love this country when the federal reserve is gone. Detroit is what a city looks like when it depends on an industry which depends on credit or inflated currency to survive, so when money dies, demand dies, competition kills, the city dies. You might not get 1912, or Detroit, but you'll start to see cellphones and internets as luxury items.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

I don't want to de-rail this thread, but... What exactly are you trying to say?  Are you opposed to ending the Federal Reserve?  Do you think those of us who do want to end it don't understand the consequences?

----------


## Travlyr

> *Nowhere* at all in the segment does his say anything close to this:_ "Obeying the Constitution is the key to a voluntary society."_
> 
> Yeah, operating within the statist context attempting to limit the state is better than not at all. Moving in the direction of smaller government (time to zero) is fine and legit.
> 
> Good _try_ bro, but it's an epic fail. I actually use Ron Paul's words, unlike others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree, Ron Paul doesn't directly say that obeying the constitution is the key to a voluntary society. That is my claim. However, Ron Paul does state in his writings that sound money, fully redeemable is compatible with the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity, and everyone who believes in freedom should be working diligently for it. He goes on to say that the constitution defines gold and silver as legal tender and that by obeying the constitution, the law of the land, that we'll find solutions to many of the problems we experience today. I agree that obeying the constitution is not where the freedom train stops, but it is certainly where it starts. Your incessant rejection of using the constitution as a guide for the freedom train makes you sound like an enemy.

----------


## Conza88

> I agree, Ron Paul doesn't directly say that obeying the constitution is the key to a voluntary society. That is my claim.


Thank you for conceding your claim is fallacious and based on nothing at all substantive. 




> However, Ron Paul does state in his writings that sound money, fully redeemable is compatible with the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity, and everyone who believes in freedom should be working diligently for it. He goes on to say that the constitution defines gold and silver as legal tender and that by obeying the constitution, the law of the land, that we'll find solutions to many of the problems we experience today.


Putting it back in some _ACTUAL_ context, he's making the argument 'even on their own terms they fail'. 

Ron Paul: _"If you have a privately minted silver ounce, and you try [to do a] business transaction with that, you can go to jail, you're breaking the law, and yet the constitution says 'gold and silver' are legal tender."_




> Eventually, too, we must abolish the central government's monopoly of the minting business. Surely the idea that the sovereignty of the king must be expressed through stamping his face on a coin can now be discarded as a relic of a bygone age. There is no reason why private firms cannot mint coins as well, or better, than the national mint. Free competition should come, at long last, to the minting business. The cost would be far cheaper and the quality of the coins much improved.





> *A Constitutional Amendment*
> Although we believe that there is actually nothing in the Constitution that legitimizes our present banking and monetary arrangements, the present system has been with us for so long that a constitutional amendment is probably needed to reaffirm what the Constitution says. We propose that the following language become Article 27 to the Constitution:
> 
> Neither Congress nor any state shall make anything a tender in payment of private debts, nor shall they charter any bank or note-issuing institution, and states shall make only gold and silver coins as tender in payment of public taxes, duties, and dues.


Hahah.. *Case For Gold, Ron Paul*, page 185. Minority Report for US Congress, Rothbard consulted on this . Wow, so good it needs to be amended. Again, nothing at all wrong - given we're talking about now looking back.




> *I am with Ron Paul.* - Pity... you've never actually read Ron Paul's book... 
> 
> *Free Market Money?* _(Gold, Peace and Prosperity by Ron Paul) pg. 44_
> "Perhaps in the future we need to consider *free market money*, allowing consumers to decide about their money the way they decide about everything else. Hans Sennholz and Friedrich von Hayek argue for this system. And it existed at one time in our country.
> 
> In California, during the 1840s and 1850s, many privately minted gold coins circulated. The practice was outlawed in 1864, "but as late as 1914," points out Antony Sutton, "the U.S. Treasury was still trying to halt circulation of private gold pieces in San Francisco." Why were such coins still circulating? Because the private mints maintained higher standards than the government mint. Often, points out Dr. Sutton, they were one percent heavier than Federal issues, "to protect the user from metal loss by abrasion while the coin was in circulation." 
> 
> Private mints held to a higher standard because they were protected only by their reputation. They could not force consumers to take sub-standard money by the force of law, as government can. 
> 
> ...


OOPS, that* END GOAL* rears it's head again ... 




> I agree that obeying the constitution is not where the freedom train stops, but it is certainly where it starts. Your incessant rejection of using the constitution as a guide for the freedom train makes you sound like an enemy.


See, no. It doesn't _start_ there. The Constitution is quite literally a piece of paper. Are you saying a piece of paper some how grants magical properties?  Crackpot. It attempts to embody a set of ideas. You do you know about classical liberalism, right? 




Natural rights etc. They correctly begin at self-ownership and original appropriation. That's where the freedom train begins. Coming from a prior perspective to its set up, i.e Articles of Confederation:

THE US Constitution WAS AN INCREASE IN THE SIZE OF THE STATE. Yes? Do you AGREE?

In that case it would result in *less* freedom.  




> I’ll tell you what: I don’t criticize Lysander (Spooner). His point is very well taken, and someday maybe we will mature to that point. His claim was that if he himself didn’t agree to the Constitution, why should somebody in a remote body agree to the Constitution and he be pushed under it? It is a good idea, but under today’s circumstances, I have to work with the best that we have. Because who knows, I might have been an anti-Federalist at the time the Constitution was being written. But fortunately we ended up with a good Constitution, and our problem is more that we don’t obey the good parts about it. I think it’s a very interesting philosophic issue, and I hope that someday we mature enough to have that argument.

----------


## Conza88

> FYI, you guys still trying to deny the obvious are just convincing more people of the truth (Ron Paul is a Voluntaryist) by keeping this thread bumped.
> 
> Last post by Conza before the bump 2-14, then a denier, PaulConventionWV made a post 3-8. Futile attempts to deny Ron Paul's true philosophy are only confirming it to people who aren't afraid of the truth.


Dude... they just _don't learn_. This happens to them _CONSTANTLY_ lol... 

The more they argue against it... the greater our case becomes, it's fcken hilarious! For instance, if they had just learnt to stfu.. then myself, you and others wouldn't have felt compelled to seek out the obvious justifications but which have been needles in the haystack. 


Have you seen this yet? (prior to above).




> “You’re frequently an advocate for the Constitution.  What are your thoughts of the Lysander Spooner statement: “But whether the Constitution really be one thing or another, this much is certain: that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it.  In either case, it is unfit to exist.”





> I’ll tell you what: *I don’t criticize Lysander* (Spooner). His point is very well taken, and someday maybe we will mature to that point. His claim was that if he himself didn’t agree to the Constitution, why should somebody in a remote body agree to the Constitution and he be pushed under it? *It is a good idea*, but under today’s circumstances, I have to work with the best that we have. Because who knows, I might have been an anti-Federalist at the time the Constitution was being written. But fortunately we ended up with a good Constitution, and our problem is more that we don’t obey the good parts about it. I think it’s a very interesting philosophic issue, and *I hope that someday we mature enough to have that argument*.



There is video footage . 

@all - If newbitech, onlyrp or trav [throwing in LE for good measure] stop trolling, I'll _leave it_ at a quote. Otherwise I'm going to gladly edit it, put it up, and post it to 5k people on Ron Paul 2010's twitter feed. 

I put forth this ultimatum for the sheer amusement I know you guys will break it. Give me a reason to spread the message of liberty even further; a message Ron glady puts forth, he's smiling in the video, it's as if he loves being asked the question .

I await your inevitable personal attacks. Here he clearly (again) vindicates the points made previously by myself and others!

Given that we have mass statism, there isn't anything wrong with trying to use the constitution and what it represents as a rhetorical tool in an age of manufactured consent to help _REDUCE_ the size of government...

Because who now (private law, anarcho-capitalists, libertarians etc.) would say no to returning to the size of government outlined in the US Constitution (obviously understanding that it'd merely grow again)? *No-one would.*

The point of discussion is what happens when we get there. We're fellow travelers till then when Trav etc., the minarchists and strict constitutionalists get off the FREEDOM TRAIN... and then RON PAUL, SPOONER, ROTHBARD, TOM WOODS, WALTER BLOCK, DOUG CASEY, ADAM KOKESH, ESSENTIALLY ENTIRE LVMI stay on the train along with all the voluntarists, private law, self-government supporters. Toot Toot 

The point of Ron Paul is that he sets people down the right path, he starts them on the journey. It's a disservice to him when you get stuck at the starting line.

----------


## Travlyr

Ron Paul - "I am an advocate a very strong advocate of following very strictly the rule of law the Constitution of the United States."

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> I agree, Ron Paul doesn't directly say that obeying the constitution is the key to a voluntary society. That is my claim. However, Ron Paul does state in his writings that sound money, fully redeemable is compatible with the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity, and everyone who believes in freedom should be working diligently for it. He goes on to say that the constitution defines gold and silver as legal tender and that by obeying the constitution, the law of the land, that we'll find solutions to many of the problems we experience today. I agree that obeying the constitution is not where the freedom train stops, but it is certainly where it starts. *Your incessant rejection of using the constitution as a guide for the freedom train makes you sound like an enemy.*


Trav... you do realize that this is all your own perception, right? We don't reject "the constitution as a guide for the freedom train", there's already _plenty_ of people arguing for that. Even politicians give the constitution lip service.

_You_'re the one making us out to be "the enemy". Do you think Ron Paul thinks "we sound like the enemy"? I'm willing to bet that he does not considering the arguments he's _ultimately_ making, himself. Where do you think most of us found out about this? But to you, we're "invading" Ron's movement and misdirecting people.

You're vehemently fighting with friendlies, and ironically end up supporting their arguments as you frantically try to discredit them.

Not only does Ron not directly say that obeying the constitution is the key to a voluntary society, he distinctly agrees with the voluntaryists on this board. Period. No If's, ands or buts about it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92ybf2L4Guw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...v=RF1PMPbc0WA#!

...and I don't think I have to post that succession of quotes I typically do.

Constitutionalism is not the non-initiation of force, nor is it the key to a voluntary society. No one here is claiming that sound money is not a platform on the way to peace and prosperity and highly significant to achieving such a goal. But it's just that, a stop on the freedom train.




> "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root."


The problem is you're getting so tripped up over your own personal issues about how you view "us" because we're not working according to your own "plan" to achieve liberty that you've made it your goal to actively disrupt the ideas we're trying to talk about. The same ideas Ron Paul points people torwards. I wasn't always a voluntaryist. Ron turned me into a strict constitutionalist, but it wasn't long before I became a voluntaryist after decided that I wanted to understand how Ron Paul made so much sense and where his ideas came from. The direction he pointed me, and so many others towards if they'd just make it a point to reject burying their head in the sand over taboos and decide to follow truth over social pressure to be confined within a restricted paradigm. Not so different from the "MSM watching sheep" who consider getting back to the constitution a "radical" idea.

But we just give you a horrid taste in your mouth, because it's outside of what you "agree with", it's not how you envision the liberty movement, and you don't want to see that kind of influence all due to your own perceptions about what the liberty movement is and how outsiders will perceive it and your own rationalizations for the state. Ron does not rationalize the existence of the state like you do. You always claim that we're misrepresenting Ron (with his own words) and how we're making him into this image of what we want him to be, when you don't even realize that you're doing exactly what you're talking about and using it as an excuse to crusade against the people Ron would likely consider the brightest torchbearers for liberty. 

This isn't about how to appropriately bring liberty about, or "saving" Ron's character from slanderers, it's entirely about your values and distaste for people who are more radical than you, despite the fact that Ron supports them. This is your personal mission to mold the RPRevolution/Liberty Movement into what you envision it to be, and to not let it go in a direction you, personally, consider "off the rails". It's unfortunate, because you turn your friends, and some of the most passionate and intelligent supporters and defenders of liberty, into enemies over your own petty issues.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Ron Paul - "I am an advocate a very strong advocate of following very strictly the rule of law the Constitution of the United States."


This is just sad Trav.

I guess were back to this again:




> "*I wanted to see the brilliant writings of theoreticians such as Rothbard translated into practical political action.* To my surprise there was a strong constituency for these views, and I was elected to four terms. Even a person familiar with only a small part of the vast work Rothbard has produced during his career knows his attitude towards politics. *Like Mises, he labels the State as the "social apparatus of violent oppression."*. - Ron Paul





> "Governments by their very nature, notoriously compete with liberty, *even when the stated purpose for establishing a particular government is to protect liberty.*" - Ron Paul, Introduction to Liberty Defined





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





> Ron: Well, I tell you what... I don't critisize Lysander....
> but... and his point is very well taken.
> *Maybe someday we'll mature to that point.*





> MHD: "What do you say to people who advocate for self-government rather than a return to the Constitution? Just like ..."
> 
> Ron Paul: "Great. Fine. *And I think that's really what my goal is.*"





> *"Taxation is theft"* - Ron Paul



You want to know what the saddest part of this is, Trav?

All we're doing is expressing the fact that we're "_mature enough to have that conversation_". Unfortunately, you're not. You're hacking at the the people who are striking the root, which Ron pointed us torwards, because they aren't hacking at the branches with you. 

You aren't the defender of liberty you imagine yourself to be Trav.

----------


## Travlyr

> All we're doing is expressing the fact that we're "_mature enough to have that conversation_".


How do land laws not create governments?

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> How do land laws not create governments?


How are you still pushing your rationalized, redefined bull$#@!. Haven't we had enough pages of that already?

Wow, this is just sad. You're not fighting against distractions Trav. You are a distraction. You're distracting yourself and everyone around you over your personal issues with voluntaryists and "omg anurkay" and how you NEED to be a vangaurd against these "heretical" ideas.

You aren't defending liberty, Trav, you're stifling it because it's unsettling to you and not according to your own vision.

You are the "enemy" you so righteously proclaim us to be. And, again, your fervent fight against us just continues to prove it and discredit yourself while making our case for us.

----------


## Travlyr

> How are you still pushing your rationalized bull$#@!?
> 
> Wow, this is just sad. You're not fighting against distractions Trav. You are a distraction. You're distracting yourself and everyone around you over your personal issues with voluntaryists and how you NEED to be a vangaurd against them.
> 
> You aren't defending liberty, Trav, you're stifling it because it's unsettling to you and not according to your own vision.


I really thought that was a mature question to ask. Perhaps you are not mature enough for the discussion, yet.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> I really thought that was a mature question to ask. Perhaps you are not mature enough for the discussion, yet.


Who do you think you're fooling with this? Continue to rationalize your bull$#@! away and create distractions, Trav. Travlyr Ron Paul needs you to defend him and the constitutionalist uprising liberty movement from your it's "enemies".

----------


## Travlyr

> Who do you think you're fooling with this? Continue to rationalize your bull$#@! away Trav.


Let me give my mature opinion on the answer to that question.




> How do land laws not create governments?


Land laws do create governments. Representative governance is better than having no say in your governance. 

Become a Delegate for Ron Paul.

----------


## onlyrp

> Let me give my mature opinion on the answer to that question.
> 
> 
> Land laws do create governments. Representative governance is better than having no say in your governance. 
> 
> Become a Delegate for Ron Paul.


sorry if I'm not fully following, is this a debate between you and him, on whether having no laws/government is better than having some, local laws and governments?

----------


## noneedtoaggress

It's Travlyr defining the state in a different way than the voluntaryists and Ron Paul, in order to create a distraction on the forums and allow him to rationalize his statism, which again Ron does not.

Land Laws™ is Travlyr's "pragmatarianism".

----------


## Travlyr

> It's Travlyr defining the state in a different way than the voluntaryists and Ron Paul, in order to create a distraction on the forums and allow him to rationalize his statism, which again Ron does not.
> 
> Land Laws™ is Travlyr's "pragmatarianism".


While in reality it is a sincere question which demonstrates that land ownership require governments of some form. Unless somebody can refute it.

How do land laws not create governments?

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> While in reality it is a sincere question


Uh, huh. Which reality is that, Trav?

----------


## Travlyr

> Uh, huh. Which reality is that, Trav?


I am not sure the source of your aggression. Is that question too hard for you?

----------


## noneedtoaggress

lol, who do you think you're fooling Trav?

Your Land Laws™ are based on your own "might makes right" theory of land appropriation and law. As I've shown above it has absolutely nothing to do with what Ron Paul describes, _at all_. Myself and others have had pages and pages of discussions with you over your rationalized distractions and when you're criticized you simply ignore it, just like you ignore all the Ron Paul quotes that don't satisfy your "vision" of The Ron Paul Constitutionalist Revolutionary Coup d'etat.

----------


## Travlyr

> lol, who do you think you're fooling Trav?
> 
> Your Land Laws are based on your own "might makes right" theory of land appropriation and law. Myself and others have had pages and pages of discussions with you over your rationalized distractions and when you're criticized you simply ignore it, just like you ignore all the Ron Paul quotes that don't satisfy your "vision" of The Ron Paul Constitutionalist Revolutionary Coup d'etat.


Ron Paul calls for obeying the constitution. You somehow think that forcing the rulers to obey the rule of law is calling for a violent revolution. Best I can tell is that letting them assassinate citizens is much more violent than hunting them down, putting them on trial, and, if found guilty, then make them stop. Your misunderstanding, and claiming that I am calling for a violent revolution, is quite immature. All because I asked you a question that is too hard for you to answer.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Ron Paul calls for obeying the constitution.


It doesn't matter how many times you say it, that's not all he says, and that's not where he stops.




> You somehow think that forcing the rulers to obey the rule of law is calling for a violent revolution. Best I can tell is that letting them assassinate citizens is much more violent than hunting them down, putting them on trial, and, if found guilty, then make them stop. Your misunderstanding, and claiming that I am calling for a violent revolution, is quite immature. All because I asked you a question that is too hard for you to answer.


In that thread, you were calling for violent revolution against what you consider a failed political process.

Can you please show us where Ron advocates this?

Because I'm pretty sure he calls for non-violence civil disobedience and peaceful secession, not a coup d'etat.

----------


## Travlyr

> It doesn't matter how many times you say it, that's not all he says, and that's not where he stops.
> 
> You're calling for violent revolution against what you consider a failed political process.


So forcing our leaders to obey the constitution is a call for a violent revolution? Is that what you are saying? Do you think they will obey the constitution if we spammed their email inboxes?

----------


## onlyrp

> lol, who do you think you're fooling Trav?
> 
> Your Land Laws are based on your own "might makes right" theory of land appropriation and law. As I've shown above it has absolutely nothing to do with what Ron Paul describes, _at all_. Myself and others have had pages and pages of discussions with you over your rationalized distractions and when you're criticized you simply ignore it, just like you ignore all the Ron Paul quotes that don't satisfy your "vision" of The Ron Paul Constitutionalist Revolutionary Coup d'etat.


This is a serious question, what is your alternative and what DOES make laws and government, if not land laws?

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> So forcing our leaders to obey the constitution is a call for a violent revolution?





> Does anybody suppose that the rulers in charge today are going to peacefully acquiesce to demands of liberty, peace, and prosperity? Personally, I do not. I believe the people will have to use force to hunt them down, stop their shenanigans, and force them to obey the supreme laws of the land.


It doesn't matter how much you claim it's a "restoration". Yes, what you've described here is a revolutionary coup d'etat.




> Is that what you are saying? Do you think they will obey the constitution if we spammed their email inboxes?


No, I don't think the state will ever obey any constitution. You should know this by now.

----------


## Travlyr

> It doesn't matter how much you claim it's a "restoration". Yes, what you've described here is a revolutionary coup d'etat.


Childish nonsense.




> No, I don't think the state will ever obey any constitution. You should know this by now.


Become a Delegate for Ron Paul




> "Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you."
> - Pericles, 430 B.C.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> This is a serious question, what is your alternative and what DOES make laws and government, if not land laws?


Simplistic version:




Better version:




Part2, Part 3, Part4, Part5

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Childish nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> Become a Delegate for Ron Paul


“Ideas are the only things that count, and politicians are, for the most part, pretty much irrelevant,” - Ron Paul 



But my ideas are childish nonsense. 

What we _really_ need is to fulfill Ron Paul's vision of a violent uprising to take control of the US government and restore the constitution. 

No straying from Ron with distractions here, folks.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

The Federal Reserve Act was passed by the Congress and signed by the President, both of which were imposed upon all human beings living and eventually born into the territory commonly identified as "the United States of America" by the Constitution.

I guess I have to wonder why I'm to be convinced that what I really need is a "return to the Constitution".  

This Travlyr fellow tells me that "we" just need to "obey" the "Constitution"; yet we've already seen over the past 200+ years that the Constitution was seldom if ever "obeyed".  Why shouldn't I advocate for what is objectively, observably apparent - the sovereignty of each individual?  It seems that "we" should have as much success convincing other people to respect the sovereignty of other individuals as "we" will having them respect a piece of paper.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> This Travlyr fellow tells me that "we" just need to "obey" the "Constitution"; yet we've already seen over the past 200+ years that the Constitution was seldom if ever "obeyed".  Why shouldn't I advocate for what is objectively, observably apparent - the sovereignty of each individual?  It seems that "we" should have as much success convincing other people to respect the sovereignty of other individuals as "we" will having them respect a piece of paper.


More than just that the constitution creates a loophole which gives a class of people the perceived ability to violate the rights of other individuals. There would be no such loophole to create a class of "legitimate violators". It would be clear that a private party calling theft "taxation" would simply be playing word games to justify their criminal acts.

----------


## newbitech

> Ron then goes on to perfectly describe Voluntaryism, then explicitly advocate it.
> 
> Explains the philosophy:
> 
> 1. _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._ 
> 
> Advocates the philosophy just explained:
> 
> 2. _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._


1.) That is distinctly NOT the philosophy of Voluntarism.  That IS the definition of voluntary.  Sadly, Adam Kokesh, and many others, cannot seem to separate themselves and their ideas from word association GAMES.  It really speaks strongly to a persons character when they so strongly desire to be associated with a particular term.  I have a lot of respect for Adam Kokesh, but he does not do a very good job of representing what Ron Paul believes.  For instance, Ron Paul would NEVER consider leading an "Army" of active duty protesters to turn their backs on the commander and chief of the United States Armed Forces.  What Adam Kokesh did was lead a group of people in an act of civil disobedience.  Ron Paul thinks that if people want to advocate for self-government in this way, it is good.  BUT HE HIMSELF doesn't and wouldn't do that.  So to be clear, Adam Kokesh is free to make the claim that he represents the philosophy of Voluntarism, but he tried unsuccessfully to tag Ron Paul with this label simply because Ron Paul believes in voluntary (dictionary definition) interactions.  Every believes in voluntary interaction. There is nothing special about that belief.  What is special is that Ron Paul gets people to understand how this interaction extends to self-government beyond our personal and familial spheres.  

2.) He is not advocating any philosophy with the words you quoted, unless you really want to say that he is advocating for peaceful interactions.  Nothing really special there.  Everyone will tell you their motive is peaceful interaction.  No one really wants to fight.  What is special is how Ron Paul gets people to understand that peacefulness can and should extend beyond individual and familial RELATIONSHIPS.

----------


## newbitech

It is interesting to me how one side of this "debate" cannot seem to come up with their OWN INDIVIDUAL ANSWERS explained from their personal experience and reasoning, and how the other side seems to have just plain common sense answers without the need to consult copious amounts of literature and  appeals to authority. 

How for instance did these authorities revel in their enlightenment?  If something is common sense, should have to go to the library to figure it out? Yes, there is a certain level of deprogramming required from the misinformation.  However, I believe it is unnatural to stay coupled to the deprogramming environment if that deprogramming was successful.  There may be exceptions to that.  We'll see. 

I think one side of this debate need to really question their understanding, while the other side needs to just hold firm on their common sense and steadfast beliefs.  Eventually, the other side will figure out how to explain their experience and translate their vast knowledge into actual wisdom and mature conversation.

I await your arrival, and will continue to enjoy the hard work of those who tirelessly work on their deprogramming skills.  There is a role for everyone, and if some people feel the need to constantly tweak the message, so be it.  I for one will just drop in from time to time to clarify a few simple points.

I second the request to explain Trav's conundrum.  That is a difficult program to break.  Hopefully, our in house deprogrammers find the answer in a book somewhere that does not simply dismiss the question as immature.  Some real life examples would be handy here, I believe.  Waiting for the news..

----------


## Wesker1982

> 1.) That is distinctly NOT the philosophy of Voluntarism.


Says you. Most Voluntaryists agree that




> _ 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_


Perfectly describes the philosophy of Voluntaryism. If you can't understand that he is perfectly explaining Voluntaryism there, then you are definitely over your head in this whole conversation.




> Everyone will tell you their motive is peaceful interaction


Yeah the difference is that Voluntaryists take it to the logical conclusion. If everyone who said this were consistent, they would be Voluntaryists.

You are grasping at straws.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> I second the request to explain Trav's conundrum.  That is a difficult program to break.  Hopefully, our in house deprogrammers find the answer in a book somewhere that does not simply dismiss the question as immature.  Some real life examples would be handy here, I believe.  Waiting for the news..


It's not the question that's immature. The problem is that Trav will not accept anything that fundamentally challenges certain perceptions he holds. He simply ignores it and reasserts his position later. His "conundrum" has been addressed several times over, and extremely patiently by other people. One of those threads I pointed to was a 78 page thread which went over this, in which he clearly stated that he was engaging "one side" disingenuously due to his own personal motives and agenda, as he viewed "one side" as distracting pests out to destroy the Ron Paul movement. I refuse to entertain his bull$#@!, when it's clearly bull$#@!. Why would I want to have another 78 page thread about that? He's clearly either disingenuous or completely caught up in denial. I'm not going to argue with that, it's useless... some other people here still do, but I don't know why they bother. Trav has consistently shown what sort of a person he is, and it's pretty much exactly the opposite of the image he holds of himself.

I also get the feeling that you're trying to "walk the line" of neutrality with your vague post, but your own disapproval towards "one side" and disdain over the fact that they are pointing to arguments made by some of the same people Ron turned to get his arguments from... arguments that they've accepted, rather than "making their own case", as if it's somehow "unfair". Unless I got you wrong, which is entirely plausible because that statement was pretty vague.




> My friendships with two important students of Mises, Hans Sennholz 
> and Murray Rothbard, were especially helpful in getting firsthand
> explanations of how the market functions. They helped me to
> refine my answers to the continual barrage of statist legislation that
> dominates the U.S. Congress.

----------


## newbitech

> Says you. Most Voluntaryists agree that
> 
> 
> 
> Perfectly describes the philosophy of Voluntaryism. If you can't understand that he is perfectly explaining Voluntaryism there, then you are definitely over your head in this whole conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah the difference is that Voluntaryists take it to the logical conclusion. If everyone who said this were consistent, they would be Voluntaryists.
> ...


Nope, i'm not grasping at anything.  I am going by the information provided.  What you are doing is attaching your personal beliefs to a word, in this case voluntaryism.  You think that your personal belief is a philosophy therefore the word is an accurate label for the philosophy.  What I have done is to look for the philosophy that uses a word that accurately labels the philosophy.  I found one.  Of course you do not see that philosophy as viable, because that would preclude you from participating in political activities or raising someone like Ron Paul up as an adherent and standard bearer of that philosophy.  So you conveniently toss out the central tenant and the core principal of that philosophy and instead chose to focus on the root word which is more palatable to the acceptance of the label you are trying to chose for your belief system.

This is why we hear people equating (incorrectly) the philosophy of voluntarism to other philosophies that do not hold conformance to non political action as central to the study of the fundamental problem of "the state" encroaching on personal liberties.  "Most" voluntarist is an example of hearsay evidence and is a very weak argument for the "philosophy" of voluntarism.  From what I have read, modern authorities and the founders of voluntarism have told me that participating in political action is supporting "the state" which they believe is violently coercive and forceful.  So without that caveat, your #1 simply shares the root word with the label and therefor reverts to the base definition of the root word.  Definitions are NOT philosophies.  Which is why Ron Paul clarified before answering the question.  Kokesh said that Ron Paul described himself as a voluntarist.  Ron Paul did not describe himself as a political voluntarist (which is what Kokesh insinuated apparently), Ron Paul described his preference with the definition of voluntary.  "Voluntary means".   He did not say, "voluntaryism, the study of" or "voluntarism the systematic and rational argument approach"

Ron Paul didn't need to do all that to achieve his purpose of clarifying to Kokesh in his response.  Why?  Simply put, Ron Paul believes the dictionary definition (which he gave) of voluntary.  Something complete different than the philosophical label voluntarism.  Can you separate the two, like Ron Paul and I do?  (sorry, I am appealing here because it should be obvious from the quote what idea Ron Paul is putting in to words.)

So you underlined "you can use force only when someone uses force against you" as describing voluntarism perfectly.  That perfectly describes pretty much ANY decent moral philosophy of human interaction.  There is nothing special about you wanting to say something like, "Well clearly he is ONLY talking about voluntarism."  The problem you have is, you want to attach other riders to this very simple and basic life principle of interacting with other human beings.  This isn't a philosophy.  It's a moral approach, similar to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".   Or "Judge not, lest you be judged yourself".  Or "pull the 2x4 out of your own eye before you try to pull the spec of dust out of mine."

There is nothing special about those words that convey any particular special meaning beyond the common sense idea that we should all be nice to each other.  What makes those words coming from Ron Paul special is how he has take those very simple ideas, LIVED THEM, and extended them from his own core individual sphere outwardly to his family, friends, city, state, country, and the world.  And HOW?  Why, none other than the exact opposite of what we would expect a TRUE voluntarist to do.  

He might talk your talk, but he certainly walks a different walk.   Where you may be in over your head is when you say stuff like this...

Ron Paul = Voluntarist
Voluntarist = Take it to the logical conclusion
Take it to the logical conclusion = become a long time member of the ruling class and vote against everything that goes against some piece of paper that wouldn't matter to you if you didn't become a long time member of the ruling class in the first place.

So I am sorry that you are a voluntarist who thinks that Ron Paul is one of you.  He's not because if he were, then either he is a total hypocrite, or the entire philosophy is pretty much worthless unless as you say, it's followed to the logical conclusion, leading me to believe that the path Ron Paul has chosen is the best the philosophy has to offer as far as conclusion go.  

Sorry, not buying it.

----------


## newbitech

> It's not the question that's immature. The problem is that Trav will not accept anything that fundamentally challenges certain perceptions he holds. He simply ignores it and reasserts his position later. His "conundrum" has been addressed several times over, and extremely patiently by other people. One of those threads I pointed to was a 78 page thread which went over this, in which he clearly stated that he was engaging "one side" disingenuously due to his own personal motives and agenda, as he viewed "one side" as distracting pests out to destroy the Ron Paul movement. I refuse to entertain his bull$#@!, when it's clearly bull$#@!. Why would I want to have another 78 page thread about that? He's clearly either disingenuous or completely caught up in denial. I'm not going to argue with that, it's useless... some other people here still do, but I don't know why they bother. Trav has consistently shown what sort of a person he is, and it's pretty much exactly the opposite of the image he holds of himself.
> 
> I also get the feeling that you're trying to "walk the line" of neutrality with your vague post, but your own disapproval towards "one side" and disdain over the fact that they are pointing to arguments made by some of the same people Ron turned to get his arguments from... arguments that they've accepted, rather than "making their own case", as if it's somehow "unfair". Unless I got you wrong, which is entirely plausible because that statement was pretty vague.


There is a lot of hair splitting that goes on in these types of threads.  I am speaking directly to people who have and will continue to try and convince everyone that Ron Paul is some kind of closet something or other.  

There are two sides.  The side that can have a conversation and discuss the topic without having to cherry pick quotes from various and sundry sources, and the other side who just has to constantly bring up the same quotes day in day out with a slightly different twist.  

I participate because over time it has become quite clear of the influence I have by simply updating these threads with simple observation.  I have watched the rhetoric from the "other side" change in response to my points, even though my points get blown off as things like immature, ignorant, etc..  

I don't mind most of the time.  It is good to know that while I don't get the appreciation, my ideas help shape other folks opinions.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

Honestly, I don't really want to get much further into it, because it seems more influenced by conversations you've been having with other people or perhaps some perception you have that you don't want to get into much more detail about (or maybe you have elsewhere) and I really don't want to get too involved with anything right now, anyway. But I just want to say that if that was an attempt to clarify your other post, it really didn't help too much. It still just looks like a lot of really vague finger-pointing to me.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Honestly, newbitech, labels are just labels.  They are for facilitating communication, not hindering it.  "Libertarian" didn't originally mean "libertarian" either; it used to be a label for left-wing anarchists (the commie/socialist type of anarchist).  Labels can change.  There are a bunch of libertarians that have decided voluntaryist would be a good label for them, and so the people using it (a very small group anyway) get linguistically pushed out.

I've addressed you with these thoughts before.  Please give me some indication you understand what I'm saying.

As to the issue of whether Ron Paul is really a radical, consistent libertarian (whatever you want to call that), I would say that in my own, common-sense, observation-based, down-to-earth opinion: he is.  There are a variety of reasons leading me to believe this.  They are very good reasons.  For one thing, I have listened to many many hours of his speeches, and read some of his written corpus as well.  I think that makes me qualified to have an opinion on the subject.  I am not just "cherry-picking" or "twisting" isolated quotes.  I had arrived at my opinion before I even knew the quotes in question existed.  But I have common sense.  I can understand speeches when I hear them.  I can understand books when I read them.  I think I understand Ron Paul.  Ron Paul is an Enemy of the State.

Right now, I'd say he might be Enemy #1.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> 1.) That is distinctly NOT the philosophy of Voluntarism.  That IS the definition of voluntary.  Sadly, Adam Kokesh, and many others, cannot seem to separate themselves and their ideas from word association GAMES.  It really speaks strongly to a persons character when they so strongly desire to be associated with a particular term.  I have a lot of respect for Adam Kokesh, but he does not do a very good job of representing what Ron Paul believes.  For instance, Ron Paul would NEVER consider leading an "Army" of active duty protesters to turn their backs on the commander and chief of the United States Armed Forces.  What Adam Kokesh did was lead a group of people in an act of civil disobedience.  Ron Paul thinks that if people want to advocate for self-government in this way, it is good.  BUT HE HIMSELF doesn't and wouldn't do that.  So to be clear, Adam Kokesh is free to make the claim that he represents the philosophy of Voluntarism, but he tried unsuccessfully to tag Ron Paul with this label simply because Ron Paul believes in voluntary (dictionary definition) interactions.  Every believes in voluntary interaction. There is nothing special about that belief.  What is special is that Ron Paul gets people to understand how this interaction extends to self-government beyond our personal and familial spheres.  
> 
> 2.) He is not advocating any philosophy with the words you quoted, unless you really want to say that he is advocating for peaceful interactions.  Nothing really special there.  Everyone will tell you their motive is peaceful interaction.  No one really wants to fight.  What is special is how Ron Paul gets people to understand that peacefulness can and should extend beyond individual and familial RELATIONSHIPS.


I find it very hard to believe that a guy who ends his Civil Disobedience chapter with book recommendations from Henry David Thoreau and Lew Rockwell, ends his Democracy chapter with Hans Herman-Hoppe and Lysander Spooner, and his Bipartisan chapter (in which he rails against government as a whole, and waxes poetic about agitators and revolutionaries) with Murray Rothbard's _For A New Liberty_ doesn't understand or isn't familiar with voluntaryism or anarcho-capitalism.




> Honestly, newbitech, labels are just labels.  They are for facilitating communication, not hindering it.  "Libertarian" didn't originally mean "libertarian" either; it used to be a label for left-wing anarchists (the commie/socialist type of anarchist).  Labels can change.  There are a bunch of libertarians that have decided voluntaryist would be a good label for them, and so the people using it (a very small group anyway) get linguistically pushed out.
> 
> I've addressed you with these thoughts before.  Please give me some indication you understand what I'm saying.
> 
> As to the issue of whether Ron Paul is really a radical, consistent libertarian (whatever you want to call that), I would say that in my own, common-sense, observation-based, down-to-earth opinion: he is.  There are a variety of reasons leading me to believe this.  They are very good reasons.  For one thing, I have listened to many many hours of his speeches, and read some of his written corpus as well.  I think that makes me qualified to have an opinion on the subject.  I am not just "cherry-picking" or "twisting" isolated quotes.  I had arrived at my opinion before I even knew the quotes in question existed.  But I have common sense.  I can understand speeches when I hear them.  I can understand books when I read them.  I think I understand Ron Paul.  Ron Paul is an Enemy of the State.
> 
> Right now, I'd say he might be Enemy #1.


How sweet would this shirt be with Ron on the back?

----------


## newbitech

> Honestly, I don't really want to get much further into it, because it seems more influenced by conversations you've been having with other people or perhaps some perception you have that you don't want to get into much more detail about (or maybe you have elsewhere) and I really don't want to get too involved with anything right now, anyway. But I just want to say that if that was an attempt to clarify your other post, it really didn't help too much. It still just looks like a lot of really vague finger-pointing to me.


I'm not sure what you want me to clarify.  I don't believe self-government needs to be labeled.  I believe self government is the idea that the person who owns themselves must government themselves.  I believe that no person exists as an island, therefor relationships form.  I believe the fundamental idea in any relationship is an exchange of some part of one's self with another.  Whether it be compliments or vast swaths of land or gold or Federal Reserve notes.  These exchanges are voluntary.  Without voluntary exchange, there is no relationship.  Taking part of another self without a relationship is theft.  The only response to theft is to stop the theft.  There are all sorts of ways to stop the theft mostly depending on what was stolen.  

All that being said, the idea that these relationships can exist in an environment where individual self-government does not also extend beyond the self is extremely shortsighted.  Part of the relationship exchange is the fundamental agreement to make the exchange.  The other part are the self governing factors of that relationship.  In this sense, entering into a relation extends the sphere of self governance beyond the individual.  Just thinking of this as two bubbles merging together to create one bubble.  The bubble represents self governance.  Sure you don't give up your individual right, but to make the exchange, both parties have to agree to expand their sphere of self governance to encompass the relationship.  There can be no total reservation of self governance.  This bubble that forms is the beginning of "the state".  

What I believe happens is that self governance has it's limits.  At some point, and I don't claim to know that point, there must be clearly defined boundaries.  Of course we all agree and believe that one of those boundaries is voluntary interaction.  There is a breakdown unfortunately, because it is easy to see how entering in to certain types of relationships can cause coercion and threats of force and violence in other relationships.  For instance, I enter in to employment for a company that services automobiles.  While working at the company, I come to realize that a particular process the company uses put drivers at risk of breaking down sooner than expected.  I point this out to my supervisor, but the supervisor say, well that is the policy we have to follow it.  So now what?  Clearly if I follow the policy I am damaging my relationship by causing damage to someone else's property.  At the same time, if I disregard the policy, I am damaging my relationship with my employer by not following the agreed upon terms of my employment.  

I could simply quit, out of principle.  Since there is no way for me to keep doing my job without becoming the aggressor and either damaging someones property, or willfully breaking the covenant of my employment.  Either way, I have already been put in jeopardy with the confrontation of this issue.  It is possible that the person responsible for the policy is unaware of the damage it causes.  It could also be possible that same person is being greedy and immoral.  

My approach to resolving this conflict and diffusing the threat of violence for myself, for the car owners, and for the business needs to be one of compromise.  I have to find the middle ground.  I have to find a solution that satisfies all parties.  This is a very basic simple example.   There are so many ways this can play out, but the main point is, the relationships.  Just living, we naturally cause risks to other people and relationships.  There has to be some way to find a compromise solutions without throwing our hands up and resulting to violence.

The problem becomes more and more compounded, and the solutions become more and more complex to the point of unsolvable the larger and larger that bubble grows.  Sooner or later, there will be a cascading failure of the largest bubbles.  The Constitution is one of the best solutions to grow those relationship bubbles as big as we can get them.  The larger our networks, and the larger the network of networks the easier all of our lives will be.  Sadly, there is a point where too big eventually wrecks all but our most fundamental relationships.  

When the collapse occurs, we need to know two things.  How to avoid being crushed, and how to rebuild a stronger network.  This is the natural cycle of life.   There is no way out of this cycle save death.  Even then, our legacy carries on.

----------


## newbitech

> Honestly, newbitech, labels are just labels.  They are for facilitating communication, not hindering it.  "Libertarian" didn't originally mean "libertarian" either; it used to be a label for left-wing anarchists (the commie/socialist type of anarchist).  Labels can change.  There are a bunch of libertarians that have decided voluntaryist would be a good label for them, and so the people using it (a very small group anyway) get linguistically pushed out.
> 
> I've addressed you with these thoughts before.  Please give me some indication you understand what I'm saying.
> 
> As to the issue of whether Ron Paul is really a radical, consistent libertarian (whatever you want to call that), I would say that in my own, common-sense, observation-based, down-to-earth opinion: he is.  There are a variety of reasons leading me to believe this.  They are very good reasons.  For one thing, I have listened to many many hours of his speeches, and read some of his written corpus as well.  I think that makes me qualified to have an opinion on the subject.  I am not just "cherry-picking" or "twisting" isolated quotes.  I had arrived at my opinion before I even knew the quotes in question existed.  But I have common sense.  I can understand speeches when I hear them.  I can understand books when I read them.  I think I understand Ron Paul.  Ron Paul is an Enemy of the State.
> 
> Right now, I'd say he might be Enemy #1.


yes I understand what you mean about labels.  I don't really see Ron Paul as being a radical though.  The motive behind adopting the label is because other labels had negative feeling towards them, and rightly so.  I think people can adopt whatever labels they want if that helps them identify other like minded individuals.  What bothers me is that we have people here at Ron Paul Forums who want to put a label on Ron Paul and create volumes on why he fits that label.  I look at these labels like bumper stickers.  So on Ron Paul's bandwagon, he is covered with these stickers.  That's fine, its a movement that welcomes bandwagoners and encourages stickers and banners that support the cause of the bandwagon.  The best way to start a fight is to go around with your sticker and slap it over everyone else's stickers.

That is what is going on here with this voluntarist label.  It is being slapper over the top of Ron Paul's own sticker of Constitutionalism, Republicanism, and Conservatism.  Why voluntarist cannot be satisfied to share the bumper on the back of the bandwagon with other worthy causes that are helping to keep that bandwagon rolling is beyond me.  

So I engage the people who are doing this and try to help them realize that their sticker really isn't all that important.  I am constantly trying to get them to stop putting their stickers on top of everyone else's because I like their cause too.  But they hurt themselves by disrespecting others opinions.  They hurt other people who may also share that idea or cause by making everyone holding one of those stickers look responsible for going out of their way to dominate.  

There is nothing dominant about the ideas of voluntarism.  It's just another word for anarchist.  Some people are even trying to say it's another word for self government.  To me, this just goes beyond the pale.  This is an idea hijack trying to equate anarchy to self government.  At some point, those folks who do this need to settle down with what they believe and start living it and STOP constantly trying to redefine words for the purpose of labeling.  If that doesn't happen, then the message is not really being heard by them.  That concerns me, because the effort put forth to make this happen DOES influence other people.  If that is the example that is to be set, then something is wrong.  I want to see results, not ever shifting definitions and hand wringing over what really is a common sense easy to understand idea.  

The contrivances coming out of the philosophy forum are really doing the ideas of Ron Paul and his influences any justice IMO.  It's just fostering an even deeper resentment of and for authority.  That's a problem, IMO.  Ron Paul is not a rebel, yet that is how he is being painted.  Ron Paul is a passionate and caring man who understands a greater cause in which self sacrifice is necessary to achieve personal goals.  His passion for justice is what drives him to participate in politics.   That passion IMO is far stronger than his ideas about liberty.

----------


## newbitech

> I find it very hard to believe that a guy who ends his Civil Disobedience chapter with book recommendations from Henry David Thoreau and Lew Rockwell, ends his Democracy chapter with Hans Herman-Hoppe and Lysander Spooner, and his Bipartisan chapter (in which he rails against government as a whole, and waxes poetic about agitators and revolutionaries) with Murray Rothbard's _For A New Liberty_ doesn't understand or isn't familiar with voluntaryism or anarcho-capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> How sweet would this shirt be with Ron on the back?


why did you attach voluntarism to anarcho capitalism?  I'd think if Ron Paul had the same understanding of voluntarism as he did anarcho capitalism, he know the roots of the actual philosophy and see the distinction between the two.  None of the people you mentioned were/are voluntarist in the traditional sense.  From my studies, philosophical voluntarism has been around longer than anarchy capitalism and I wouldn't be surprised if Rothbard adopted pieces of voluntarism that he liked to amend his economic views with political views, and tossed out the ones he didn't like in order to coin his own term and develop his own philosophy.

Which incidentally brings ups a very good point.  Do people who have adopted the more palatable label "voluntarism" to replace anarchy capitalism practice individual philosophy?  Isn't there some merit to that?  Particularly in quoting a staunch individualist anarchist like Spooner, would it not be wise to point out that these particular philosophies put a strong focus on the individual making his own choices which implies coming up with their own ideas on how to think and figure out the meaning of their lives?  And doesn't labeling sort of fly in the face of the spirit of individualism?

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> I'm not sure what you want me to clarify.


Err... you were going on about the methods certain "sides" were using when approaching each other on this forum and being extremely vague about what you were describing. I still don't know exactly what that was all about, but like I said, I'm not really concerned about it at this point. I only mentioned it as I was responding to the part about addressing Travlyr. I'm not entirely sure why you responded by explaining your philosophy concerning self-governance, and as I stated earlier I'm not about to get involved in any sort of in-depth discussion right now so... I'll just leave it at that.

----------


## newbitech

> Err... you were going on about the methods certain "sides" were using when approaching each other and being extremely vague about what you were describing. I still don't know exactly what that was all about, but like I said, I'm not really concerned about it at this point. I only mentioned it as I was responding to the part about addressing Travlyr. I'm not entirely sure why you responded by explaining your philosophy concerning self-governance, and as I stated earlier I'm not about to get involved in any sort of in-depth discussion right now so... I'll just leave it at that.


its a philosophy forum.  I am following the entire thread.  My responses are directed towards the discussion.  If my comments were vague, then they were probably not directed at you.  I believe that in the context of my posting, if you have been following along, you will understand that I am on Travs "side".  His question has been out there for a while.  I may have missed your response.  I can understand why you would not want to repeat yourself and post links to where you discussed that with someone else.  At least I hope that is what your links went to.  I didn't follow them because I disagree with people who think Trav (and me for that matter) are simply trolling or just rejecting others opinions out of hand.  I believe if Trav has further questions, I would be interested, but if you are ready to blow him off, then I doubt you took his question serious in the first place.   Never the less, I am still interested in reading your responses.  At some point, I will follow and read all the links for the commentary in this thread.  Hoping for news.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> its a philosophy forum.  I am following the entire thread.  My responses are directed towards the discussion.  If my comments were vague, then they were probably not directed at you.  I believe that in the context of my posting, if you have been following along, you will understand that I am on Travs "side".  His question has been out there for a while.  I may have missed your response.  I can understand why you would not want to repeat yourself and post links to where you discussed that with someone else.  At least I hope that is what your links went to.  I didn't follow them because I disagree with people who think Trav (and me for that matter) are simply trolling or just rejecting others opinions out of hand.  I believe if Trav has further questions, I would be interested, but if you are ready to blow him off, then I doubt you took his question serious in the first place.   Never the less, I am still interested in reading your responses.  At some point, I will follow and read all the links for the commentary in this thread.  Hoping for news.


lol so you basically just said "I wasn't talking to you" when you posted your philosophy on self-governing _as a direct response to me_ (in which I mentioned that your previous vague comments may not have been geared towards me anyway). apparently I somehow got involved with this because you had previously "taken sides" with Trav and were coming to his defense while making vague accusations at <abstract group of other people>, in which I had responded by defending my reasons for not engaging him over his "conundrum" in the previous 3-page conversation I had with him (which wasn't an arbitrary decision).

well alright then.

----------


## Conza88

Should the bs continue, I'll be giving shoutouts and thanks to Trav and newbitech on the RonPaul2010 twitter feed... and thanking them for "highlighting the need to spread this video".

----------


## Wesker1982

> That perfectly describes pretty much ANY decent moral philosophy of human interaction.


Lol. I clearly understand this. But how many moral philosophies explicitly declare all taxation as theft? Of course Christians are against "theft", but most are pro-taxation. So yeah, you can't call all Christians Voluntaryists because they are not taking their principles to their logical conclusion.

Of course most moral philosophies are not going to praise the initiation of violence. DUH. But Voluntaryism takes these basic moral principles that are almost universally agreed upon and takes them to their logical conclusion.




> There is nothing special about you wanting to say something like, "Well clearly he is ONLY talking about voluntarism."


He has taken his principles to their logical conclusion. That is why he views all taxation as theft. He believes force should only be used in response to force.

Sure a lot of philosophies _claim_ this, but only Voluntaryism *means* it. Other philosophies only pay lip service to the principles that are universally shared (by moral philosophies). 

No other philosophies advocate the non-aggression principle in *libertarian* context. Ron Paul clearly advocates the NAP in a libertarian way, i.e. he means it and takes it to the logical conclusion. 

We already went over this in the other thread. You decided:




> I'll go ahead and bow out, unconvinced.


After being unable to answer this post:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4210142

Specifically:




> Historically, sure, maybe every Voluntaryist refused to participate in all politics. But today many people self identify as Voluntaryists while participating in the political process (by voting for and supporting Ron Paul). See: The Anarcho-Capitalist Reddit, Mises.org Forums, Philosophy Forums at RPF .... These are the largest hangouts for Voluntaryists that I can think of off the top of my head. Mises.org obviously being probably the biggest. Go over there and ask them what they think...
> 
> This change in Voluntaryist consensus on voting is because almost everyone who used to identify as anarcho-capitalists are now calling themselves Voluntaryists. MANY of those anarcho-capitalists support Ron Paul. The Voluntaryist movement today largely consists of former self-identified anarcho-capitalists. *I would say they make up the majority of the group*. 
> 
> If Rothbard were alive today, almost everyone in the movement would call him a Voluntaryist... and he advocated political action. 
> 
> So with that said, there is undeniable evidence that Ron Paul:
> 
> *1. Reaches his libertarian viewpoint through a totally Rothbardian belief system (natural rights)
> ...


This thread will go the exact same way, so I don't know if you are just bored or what.

The four points bolded are shared exclusively by Voluntaryists. Some philosophies might share anywhere from 1 to 3 of the points, but if they agree with all 4, then the philosophy *is* Voluntaryism. For example, Minarchists may believe #1 and pay lip service to #2, but fail 3 and 4.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Lol. I clearly understand this. But how many moral philosophies explicitly declare all taxation as theft? Of course Christians are against "theft", but most are pro-taxation. So yeah, you can't call all Christians Voluntaryists because they are not taking their principles to their logical conclusion.
> 
> Of course most moral philosophies are not going to praise the initiation of violence. DUH. But Voluntaryism takes these basic moral principles that are almost universally agreed upon and takes them to their logical conclusion.


:thumbs:  Voluntaryism doesn't create a special exemption for government.  Philosophies apply to human behavior; establishing principles for human behavior, and then making exceptions when some humans are "standing on base" is no philosophy at all... at least not one which is morally and logically consistent.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> For example, Minarchists may believe #1 and pay lip service to #2, but fail 3 and 4.


 Randian minarchists would agree with 3, but not with 4, and thus not 100% with 2 either.  The monopoly law/police/defense provider would fund itself via bake sales, lotteries, etc.  That's one good thing about Rand, one good philosophical point she wasn't afraid to take all the way: taxation is theft.  You can't have taxation.

----------


## WilliamC

> The Federal Reserve Act was passed by the Congress and signed by the President, both of which were imposed upon all human beings living and eventually born into the territory commonly identified as "the United States of America" by the Constitution.
> 
> I guess I have to wonder why I'm to be convinced that what I really need is a "return to the Constitution".  
> 
> This Travlyr fellow tells me that "we" just need to "obey" the "Constitution"; yet we've already seen over the past 200+ years that the Constitution was seldom if ever "obeyed".  Why shouldn't I advocate for what is objectively, observably apparent - the sovereignty of each individual?  It seems that "we" should have as much success convincing other people to respect the sovereignty of other individuals as "we" will having them respect a piece of paper.


How to we get back to individual sovereignty if not first at least going back to a more Constitutionally limited Federal government?

I have heard Ron Paul many times say that we won't solve our problems until we only elect people to Congress that are willing to abide by the Constitution. If we can't meet this first step then convincing the electorate of individual sovereignty would seem impossible.

Constitutional government is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for individual sovereignty, while a universal agreement on individual sovereignty is a sufficient but not necessary requirement for a Constitutionally limited government.

----------


## newbitech

> lol so you basically just said "I wasn't talking to you" when you posted your philosophy on self-governing _as a direct response to me_ (in which I mentioned that your previous vague comments may not have been geared towards me anyway). apparently I somehow got involved with this because you had previously "taken sides" with Trav and were coming to his defense while making vague accusations at <abstract group of other people>, in which I had responded by defending my reasons for not engaging him over his "conundrum" in the previous 3-page conversation I had with him (which wasn't an arbitrary decision).
> 
> well alright then.


No I didn't.  You approached me first about something.  So of course I responded.  You asked me to clarify something, but we weren't involved in a discussion, so I started from scratch.  I already explained "vague" post. You questioned why I gave you my beliefs.  I answered.  Apparently you are confused as to why you are having a discussion with me?

----------


## newbitech

> Should the bs continue, I'll be giving shoutouts and thanks to Trav and newbitech on the RonPaul2010 twitter feed... and thanking them for "highlighting the need to spread this video".


You are so full of $#@!.

I don't think you know what delusional means either.  

Out of morbid curiosity and for the sake of bringing this thread back in to focus, do you have any original ideas?

----------


## newbitech

> Lol. I clearly understand this. But how many moral philosophies explicitly declare all taxation as theft? Of course Christians are against "theft", but most are pro-taxation. So yeah, *you can't call all Christians Voluntaryists because they are not taking their principles to their logical conclusion.*
> 
> Of course most moral philosophies are not going to praise the initiation of violence. DUH. But Voluntaryism takes these basic moral principles that are almost universally agreed upon and takes them to their logical conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> He has taken his principles to their logical conclusion. That is why he views all taxation as theft. He believes force should only be used in response to force.
> 
> Sure a lot of philosophies _claim_ this, but only Voluntaryism *means* it. Other philosophies only pay lip service to the principles that are universally shared (by moral philosophies). 
> ...


After reading this post, I see you have provided us with a new crystal clear definition of voluntaryism.

So basically anyone who takes "X" belief to it's logical conclusion will have arrived at the point where they deserve this label.  So really, Voluntarism can be summed up as the philosophy of following sound logical principles.  Is this an accurate understanding based on the comment that you gave?  I understand why you made that comment.  You need to give the label some sort of specialness that makes it different or stand out, because my description was pretty much dead on.  Am I right?  So it's not enough to simply "be nice to people".  You also have to follow this to the logical conclusion?  I mean what really separates being nice to people from being nice to people all the way to it's logical conclusion?  If everyone were to just be nice to everyone else in their actions, does it really matter how they arrived at that action?

I don't think so.  So I really don't see the point in trying to separate out what you described as a philosophy which really is just a very convoluted way of saying be nice to each other, and saying well that's not enough, you need to have some sort of logical way of arriving at this conclusions, and oh you have to do it a certain way.  

I mean I know you aren't saying that.  I am just trying to reverse engineer it and really understand what is so special about trumpeting a philosophy that when followed all the way to the logical conclusion results in people just being nice to each other.  Is it really so complex and detailed?  Or is there a little junk along the path of following this philosophy to it's logical conclusion?  I'd rather cut to the chase and start off with being nice to people and then apply philosophy to understanding why that very simple concept can and does get blown up in the first place.  

So I think really the logical conclusion that you and other "voluntarist" are on the march towards, whether in your mind or in your actions, is not really a conclusion for me, but a starting point.  I cannot recognize voluntarism outside myself.  It is not a persistent state of being.  It is something that comes in to being as long as relationships between "good" people exist.  I LOL too because I don't think anyone needs any kind of reference material to understand this.  The problem comes in exactly how I have described it.  Relationships grow more and more complex and networked to the point where "voluntarism" starts to fail.  If fails because of it's simplicity IMO.  All relationships between two people are voluntary.  Adding a third person to a relationship because compromise.  In unique cases, as in family and what I would call tribes, the relationship tend more towards voluntary with sprinkling of compromise.  

The reason I distinguish between voluntary and compromise is because at some point relationships become compulsory.  This is the "leading edge" of the sphere of relationships as opposed to the "core" of relationships.  For instance, men and women take on specific types of roles out of compulsion.  This is not voluntary.  There is a middle ground.  I think it is important to identify these boundaries in terms of interaction.  Of course 100% voluntary in ALL relationships is ideal.  However that is not the reality, even in relationships all of us would consider sacred, such as that between Husband and Wife.  Mother and Son, Father and Daughter etc.  

So naturally, these dynamics extend beyond the core of our relationships in to the periphery.  Such as Employee and Employer, Customer and Employee, Driver in the left lane and Driver in the right lane.  

Anyways, I digress.  If you think the topic will devolve in to me bowing out, like the other thread.  You are wrong.  The other thread was dealing specifically with voluntarist and Ron Paul.  This one is much broader in scope as it is talking about Ron Paul's ideas.  I take this to mean also ideas in general.  I reject the notion that Ron Paul ideas originate exclusively from his belief in voluntaryism.  This is such a narrow scope and really doesn't do any justice to what I would call "thinking people" or Forum Philosophers.

----------


## onlyrp

> You are so full of $#@!.
> 
> I don't think you know what delusional means either.  
> 
> Out of morbid curiosity and for the sake of bringing this thread back in to focus, do you have any original ideas?


He does know, he just doesn't think he is.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> This one is much broader in scope as it is talking about Ron Paul's ideas.  I take this to mean also ideas in general.  I reject the notion that Ron Paul ideas originate exclusively from his belief in voluntaryism.


  I have yet to read anyone embrace this notion.  I have yet to read anyone advance this notion.  Thus your rejection of it seems superfluous.




> This is such a narrow scope and really doesn't do any justice to what I would call "thinking people" or Forum Philosophers.


 Obviously everyone knows that Ron Paul, like all of us, has been influenced by a whole variety of people in his thinking, and has come up with original thoughts of his own as well.  We can all join hands with you in harmony and brotherhood on that one.  He has clearly been influenced by the Bible, for instance.  Surely his good conduct and high character emulate that of his mother and father to a large degree.  Hippocrates and other great medical and surgical minds no doubt have shaped many of his thoughts.

As for his political thoughts specifically, there have clearly been a large number of influences there.  How can we judge what persons have been the most influential?  What schools of thought Ron might subscribe to and/or consider himself a part of?  I submit that one good way to judge would be to look at the bibliographies at the end of his books.  Look through the lists of books he recommends people read.  Read them.  Follow this course and you cannot but learn something.  Essentially, what you will learn is that I am right.  Ron Paul wants people to read radical libertarian books.  Why would he want that?  Hmm.  

Couple that with the actual content of his own books.  What message is he trying to convey?  Yes, again we must conclude: his message is that of a thorough opposition to the state.  He never puts in a disclaimer at the end of his books, like for instance James Bovard, explaining that: "Yes, I just got through documenting a litany of outrages the State has perpetrated, but please, guys, don't reject the idea of the State!  We just need to rein it in somewhat.  To reduce it a bit.  That's the solution I'm proposing.  Please don't go any further than that."  Interesting that he would avoid that almost unbearable temptation to distance himself from those he sees as taking things too far.  If he has, I do not recall it; please correct me.

Couple those two points with everything he's ever said.  His speeches are a treasure trove of libertarianism.  I have yet to hear him explain how some taxes are actually beneficial, or how some level of taxation is beneficial and necessary and we shouldn't cut things below that level.  Never.

One can also look at the people with whom he associates and has associated himself, and how he self-labels.  He calls himself a Constitutionalist, a Libertarian, a Non-Interventionist.  Are all those labels compatible with radical libertarianism?  Yes.  He says that he subscribes to the Austrian School of Economics.  Are almost all Austrians radical libertarians (an-caps, voluntarists, market anarchists whatever you want to call them)?  Yes.  He says that his cause has been the cause of Liberty.  What does it mean when someone's highest political ideal is that of liberty?  What do we call such a person?  And we don't exactly have to puzzle over the mystery of what exactly his personal definition of liberty is: he's shown that quite clearly via his voting record stretching back to the 70s, as well as telling us in many speeches and interviews and articles and books.  His definition is the same as mine: lack of aggressive force.  So again, what do we call such a person?  His heroes he gives prominent place to are Gandhi, Rosa Parks, Ludwig von Mises, and Murray Rothbard.  What can we learn from such a selection of heroes?  He is a long-time supporter of the Mises Institute.  What is their agenda (an agenda which Ron Paul clearly strongly supports)?

I conclude that Ron Paul is a radical libertarian.  Has he also been influenced by Taft, Goldwater, and Hayek?  Sure.  _I've_ been influenced by Hayek, but that doesn't mean I'm not a radical libertarian.  We've all probably been influenced, consciously or unconsciously, by Plato, even though he's the ultimate anti-libertarian and top-down control advocate.  Would it be interesting to explore the fabric of Ron Paul's thought, the unique connections he has made between all these thinkers?  Probably.  That would probably be a worthwhile discussion to have.

To participate in _that_ discussion, you would have to first put aside your tedious attachment to haranguing those who you feel are too radical, an affectation that Dr. Paul does not share, by the way.  Because that discussion would not be not worthwhile.  It would probably not even be a discussion, just an endless repetition, making enemies where you should have friends.  And what a waste that would be.

----------


## Travlyr

Mises and Austrian Economics: A Personal View




> "For as long as I can remember, I wanted to be free from government coercion in any form. All my natural instincts toward freedom were inevitably challenged by the established school system, the media, and the government. These systems tried to cast doubt on my conviction that only an unhampered market is consonant with individual liberty. Although reassured that intellectual giants like Mises agreed with a laissez-faire system, I was frustrated by knowing what was right, while watching a disaster developing for our economy. The better I came to understand how the market worked, the more I saw the need to implement these ideas through political action." - Ron Paul

----------


## Conza88

^^^ Umm..... yes, so you're now making points that validate our case? Right?

Highly amusing. I know where this conversation will go btw, and I'm positive you don't... but let's have it anyway. 

*This is a future notice of 'thanks for being a soundboard'.

----------


## newbitech

> I have yet to read anyone embrace this notion.  I have yet to read anyone advance this notion.  Thus your rejection of it seems superfluous.
> 
>  Obviously everyone knows that Ron Paul, like all of us, has been influenced by a whole variety of people in his thinking, and has come up with original thoughts of his own as well.  We can all join hands with you in harmony and brotherhood on that one.  He has clearly been influenced by the Bible, for instance.  Surely his good conduct and high character emulate that of his mother and father to a large degree.  Hippocrates and other great medical and surgical minds no doubt have shaped many of his thoughts.
> 
> As for his political thoughts specifically, there have clearly been a large number of influences there.  How can we judge what persons have been the most influential?  What schools of thought Ron might subscribe to and/or consider himself a part of?  I submit that one good way to judge would be to look at the bibliographies at the end of his books.  Look through the lists of books he recommends people read.  Read them.  Follow this course and you cannot but learn something.  Essentially, what you will learn is that I am right.  Ron Paul wants people to read radical libertarian books.  Why would he want that?  Hmm.  
> 
> Couple that with the actual content of his own books.  What message is he trying to convey?  Yes, again we must conclude: his message is that of a thorough opposition to the state.  He never puts in a disclaimer at the end of his books, like for instance James Bovard, explaining that: "Yes, I just got through documenting a litany of outrages the State has perpetrated, but please, guys, don't reject the idea of the State!  We just need to rein it in somewhat.  To reduce it a bit.  That's the solution I'm proposing.  Please don't go any further than that."  Interesting that he would avoid that almost unbearable temptation to distance himself from those he sees as taking things too far.  If he has, I do not recall it; please correct me.
> 
> Couple those two points with everything he's ever said.  His speeches are a treasure trove of libertarianism.  I have yet to hear him explain how some taxes are actually beneficial, or how some level of taxation is beneficial and necessary and we shouldn't cut things below that level.  Never.
> ...


now you are patronizing me.

----------


## Conza88

> You are so full of $#@!.
> 
> I don't think you know what delusional means either.  
> 
> Out of morbid curiosity and for the sake of bringing this thread back in to focus, do you have any original ideas?


EADC.

Out of morbid curiosity... what would it take for you to admit you are wrong, and that Ron Paul is everything he says he is? (supports the idea of individual secession - aka self-government, anarcho-capitalism, private law, voluntarism)?




> ...for the sake of bringing this thread back in to focus, do you have any original ideas?


Amusing that.. in fact, isn't what you are doing. I may have. What's the relevancy? Do I need to?




**** Everybody please thank Newbitech! Thanks to his persistence 4.5k people have now been tweeted by Ron Paul addressing the question about Lysander Spooner and the US Constitution. He'd be _so_ proud! Special shout outs to Trav, couldn't have done it without you bro!  * ***

----------


## newbitech

> EADC.
> 
> Out of morbid curiosity... what would it take for you to admit you are wrong, and that Ron Paul is everything he says he is? (supports the idea of individual secession - aka self-government, anarcho-capitalism, private law, voluntarism)?
> 
> 
> 
> Amusing that.. in fact, isn't what you are doing. I may have. What's the relevancy? Do I need to?
> 
> 
> ...


What's my motivation here?

----------


## Conza88

Intellectual honesty thanks. I answered your question, answer mine. 

****Out of morbid curiosity... what would it take for you to admit you are wrong, and that Ron Paul is everything he says he is? (supports the idea of individual secession - aka self-government, anarcho-capitalism, private law, voluntarism)?****




> What's my motivation here?


I dunno... to troll _real_ supporters of Ron Paul, those that travel with him to the _end_ of the line... and support individual secession aka self-government, voluntarism, private law etc.?

----------


## Travlyr

> What's my motivation here?


Yeah. I wonder?

----------


## newbitech

> Intellectual honesty thanks. I answered your question, answer mine.


Eat a dick $#@!, was your response to me.  You think you deserve an answer?  Grow up, kid.

----------


## Conza88

> Eat a dick $#@!, was your response to me.  You think you deserve an answer?  Grow up, kid.


What?   

http://www.all-acronyms.com/EADC

The middle one bro . But seriously.. you just said I was full of $#@!.

What did you expect? Flowers? Talk about *DELUSIONAL*! 

And that's not at all harsh compared to you supporting a gang of thieves writ large _holding a f$cken gun to my head_, and threatening to pull the trigger.. blasting my brains out all over the floor - if I don't join your social contract.

And now we get an easy cop out... *you cannot state* what it would take for you to accept than Ron Paul is a voluntarist / supports individual secession as an end goal. Why? Because he's already done it, you just won't accept it.

You're dogmatic. You're intellectually dishonest. And you've done what for the cause? 

OH wait... I should correct that last one.. you've done a massive amount to HELP SPREAD THESE IDEAS OF VOLUNTARISM / PRIVATE LAW / ANARCHO-CAPITALISM ON HERE! You really need to be a new meme.

**** Thanks for being a soundboard, champ ****

*Welcome to my ignore list.* _** Many future thanks for the bumps you will no doubt continue to give **_

----------


## newbitech

> What?   
> 
> http://www.all-acronyms.com/EADC
> 
> The middle one bro . But seriously.. you just said I was full of $#@!.
> 
> What did you expect? Flowers? Talk about *DELUSIONAL*!
> 
> And now we get an easy cop out... you cannot state what it would take for you to accept than Ron Paul is a voluntarist / supports individual secession as an end goal.
> ...



Right, I'll believe that when you stop directing your comments towards me and bumping 2 year old posts for my special benefit.  You are a provoker Conza88.  You are more interested in trying to talk down to others so you feel good about yourself.  You think way too highly of yourself and of your philosophy and of you logic. 

Intellectual honesty requires two things, which from my observations of how you conduct yourself, you seem to have used up your allotment of both.  

I am sorry if you feel insulted by me describing exactly how you conduct yourself.  That is not my fault.  Full of $#@! means something you said is not credible.  Just like you posting in Ron Paul's name discredits Ron Paul.  I am not going to say Ron Paul is full of $#@! for whatever crap you put in the twitter account with his name on it.  I am going to say you are full of $#@! for spreading YOUR PERSONAL BELIEFS in the name of Ron Paul.  

It doesn't end there.  You are also full of $#@! for calling me delusional on many many occasions.  Do you know what a delusion is?  The root word is to delude, which means mislead the mind or judgement.  You have been attempting to delude Ron Paul's message for YEARS now.  It would be one thing if you simply posted up some topical and relevant information.  It's something totally different when you post up that information in an effort to diminish the spirit of one of the man's donors, activist, supporters, and voters.  That has been your MO since day one.  

In that process, you have also deluded philosophical discussions about anarcho capitalism, constitutionalism, voluntarism, and self government.  You have even deluded other important subjects such as pathological diseases that cause a state which you are accusing me of being.  Delusional.  Do you know that delusions aren't just some cute word to use when you have nothing better to respond to someone's opinion?  

You know who else accuses me of being delusional?  My girlfriend.  This is her way of telling me that I am right and bowing out of whatever argument we are having.  It is usually followed by, what would you like me to cook you for dinner honey or would you like oral sex tonight.  She and I both know that accusing me of having a pathological illness when none is present is sarcasm and signals her concession and the end of the "debate".  

Another pathological state you are guilty of recently deluding is that of throat cancer.  You think that is an easy out for your insult.  This is how your forked tongue works and is precisely why you are guilty of deluding pretty every subject in regards to Ron Paul if it doesn't tie neatly in with your own self image.   So you end up speaking out of both sides of your mouth.  Trying to evade the extreme personal insult of telling me to "eat a dick $#@!"  by rationalizing and justifying it away by trying to delude people in to believing that you were really referring to throat cancer, which would STILL be a personal insult.  

I think you may want to make sure you understand what a delusion really is and check with your doctor if you are that obsessed with the word.  I understand that you may not have known what the word meant and at one point I didn't either.  Once I realized what it meant, the only way to really use it in a none medical term would be to insult someone without actually bringing up the facts of why that person would be delusional.

Now I am sure you are still ignoring me, so I don't expect a direct response from you.  

So I will answer your question.  I want to know if you have any original ideas because if you do and explained them to me, then I'd be able to admit that I was wrong about you.  As it stands, I don't think you or anyone else obsessed with labels know what an original idea is.  Much less how to develop one and bring it from your head to it's logical conclusion which would be some sort of action.

----------


## Travlyr

> **** Everybody please thank Newbitech! Thanks to his persistence 4.5k people have now been tweeted by Ron Paul addressing the question about Lysander Spooner and the US Constitution. He'd be _so_ proud! Special shout outs to Trav, couldn't have done it without you bro!  * ***


Interesting for sure. Don't you think the tweet would have more credibility if Ron Paul sent it himself?

----------


## onlyrp

> **** Everybody please thank Newbitech! Thanks to his persistence 4.5k people have now been tweeted by Ron Paul addressing the question about Lysander Spooner and the US Constitution. He'd be _so_ proud! Special shout outs to Trav, couldn't have done it without you bro!  * ***


got a link to the tweet?

----------


## onlyrp

> Right, I'll believe that when you stop directing your comments towards me and bumping 2 year old posts for my special benefit.  You are a provoker Conza88.  You are more interested in trying to talk down to others so you feel good about yourself.  You think way too highly of yourself and of your philosophy and of you logic.


yep!

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> now you are patronizing me.


Such was not my intention.  Such was not what I thought I was doing.  I thought I was putting forth ideas and observations of an original and based-on-personal-reasoning-and-experience nature, that is, of the kind at which you expressed disappointment about being the only one able to present.  Did my presentation fail in some way to meet your standards?  If so, how?  I would love to improve my communication skills.

----------


## green73

I $#@!ing love this video. I'm spreading it all over tarnation.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> No I didn't.  You approached me first about something.  So of course I responded.  You asked me to clarify something, but we weren't involved in a discussion, so I started from scratch.  I already explained "vague" post. You questioned why I gave you my beliefs.  I answered.  Apparently you are confused as to why you are having a discussion with me?


I'm not confused as to why, it began with my reply explaining my response to Trav's question. I just have no idea why you replied with what you did, as _none_ of your responses have been very clear to me. But I really don't care at this point anyway.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> I $#@!ing love this video. I'm spreading it all over tarnation.


Yeah, I posted it in a convo with an ex-coworker who made a post about RP the other day and he ended up sharing it on FB

----------


## Conza88

Ohhh haiiii guys...  ... just a FYI:

*The Real (Ron Paul) Revolution*! - Lew Rockwell.com

All your bumping this topic... maybe Travis found it thanks to you! I'm sure he did 

Thanks for helping spread the real message of liberty.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> *The Real (Ron Paul) Revolution*! - Lew Rockwell.com


Looooove it!

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Yeah. I wonder?


We all know _your_ motivation, don't we?

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Ohhh haiiii guys...  ... just a FYI:
> 
> *The Real (Ron Paul) Revolution*! - Lew Rockwell.com
> 
> All your bumping this topic... maybe Travis found it thanks to you! I'm sure he did 
> 
> Thanks for helping spread the real message of liberty.


The Murray Rothbard mention from the YouTube comment is from End the Fed, page 59. 

Also, here's the part the commenter edited out:




> He would have been very excited. His natural tendency to be optimistic would have been enhanced. He would have loved every minute of it. *He would have pushed the "revolution," especially since he contributed so much to preparing for it.*

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> How to we get back to individual sovereignty if not first at least going back to a more Constitutionally limited Federal government?
> 
> I have heard Ron Paul many times say that we won't solve our problems until we only elect people to Congress that are willing to abide by the Constitution. If we can't meet this first step then convincing the electorate of individual sovereignty would seem impossible.
> 
> Constitutional government is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for individual sovereignty, while a universal agreement on individual sovereignty is a sufficient but not necessary requirement for a Constitutionally limited government.


I agree - and that's why I'm here, and why I support and work on behalf of Ron in the meager ways I'm able.

But fellows like Travlyr try to pass off the intellectually stunted notion that "constitutional government" is real human liberty.  It is most certainly preferrable to whatever the hell it is we have now, but humans under government are by definition not free.

----------


## Conza88

> The Murray Rothbard mention from the YouTube comment is from End the Fed, page 59. 
> 
> Also, here's the part the commenter edited out: _He would have been very excited. His natural tendency to be optimistic would have been enhanced. He would have loved every minute of it. He would have pushed the "revolution," especially since he contributed so much to preparing for it._


Cheers Feedingtheabyss .




> Shortly before Murray died on January 7, 1995,* I called him to tell him of my plans to run for Congress once again in the 1996 election. He was extremely excited and very encouraging.* Unlike Leonard Read, Murray loved politics, Republican or Libertarian, or whatever he found of interest at any particular time. He got into the minutia of internecine activities that were beyond my interest. He always knew all the players and their perceived intentions and philosophical motivations. He played politics in the 1992 Republican primary in support of Pat Buchanan in a coalition of sorts, when Pat opposed the first war on Iraq and George H. W. Bush’s tax increases. 
> 
> *One thing I am certain of—if Murray could have been with us during the presidential primary in 2008, he would have had a lot to say about it and fun saying it. He would have been very excited. His natural tendency to be optimistic would have been enhanced. He would have loved every minute of it. He would have pushed the “revolution,” especially since he contributed so much to preparing for it.* 
> 
> *I can just imagine how enthralled he would have been to see college kids burning Federal Reserve notes. He would have led the chant we heard at so many rallies: “End the Fed! End the Fed!”* 
> 
> Even after the presidential campaign, the momentum has generated an interest in a serious movement to expose the Fed for the purposes of ending it, and Murray would be pleased. His intellectual effort would have been vindicated. Ideas were being translated into a serious effort to bring about a major political and economic change. His books, and especially his smaller booklets designed for broader distribution, on why the Fed must be ended and a 100 percent gold standard be required, have served us well. And they will continue to do so. His books What Has Government Done to Our Money? The Case for a 100 Percent Gold Dollar, and The Case Against the Fed 7  have been invaluable assets in educating the general public.



Righhhhhhhhhhhhhht, so Ron Paul and Rothbard supporters... a revolution _"he contributed so much to prepare for"_ must be relegated to a sub-forum and chided... and the target of witch hunts & trolling the 'anarchists'. 

You guys _sureeee_ love freedom!

----------


## WilliamC

> I agree - and that's why I'm here, and why I support and work on behalf of Ron in the meager ways I'm able.
> 
> But fellows like Travlyr try to pass off the intellectually stunted notion that "constitutional government" is real human liberty.  It is most certainly preferrable to whatever the hell it is we have now, but humans under government are by definition not free.


Given our starting point and how far we have to go I cannot help but feel Travlyr and those who argue from a strictly Constitutional point of view are my allies.

If, heaven forbid, time ever comes when we are actually challenged to live with the results of our efforts and have slashed 90% or so of the size and scope of the Federal budget, then perhaps time will come that I find any disagreements I might have with strict Constitutionalists to be worth expounding upon.

Personally I think government power should be reduced more at the Federal and International level and by necessity that would entail more powerful State governments, but I don't think that is a perfect solution by any means, rather it is a pragmatic one. 

Perhaps then we could find a way to get a State government or two to relinquish most of it's power to the County level, but I fail to see any practical method to completely eliminate the State unless and until we have a profound change in human nature.

But for now anyone who honestly wants substantially less government is on my side

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Given our starting point and how far we have to go I cannot help but feel Travlyr and those who argue from a strictly Constitutional point of view are my allies.


I agree with you.  Travlyr doesn't.

----------


## WilliamC

> I agree with you.  Travlyr doesn't.


Well I've just never seen it for myself, so I can't agree in turn.

Sometimes I think many of the problems are simply communication via this constricted medium, and if those who apparently disagree could talk face to face it would be much easier to at least find out exactly where they disagree and usually be able to agree to disagree and move on.

But forums lend themselves to debate, and debate hinges on disagreement, so there we have it.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Well I've just never seen it for myself, so I can't agree in turn.
> 
> Sometimes I think many of the problems are simply communication via this constricted medium, and if those who apparently disagree could talk face to face it would be much easier to at least find out exactly where they disagree and usually be able to agree to disagree and move on.
> 
> But forums lend themselves to debate, and debate hinges on disagreement, so there we have it.


Oh I agree that discussion in person is preferrable.

With Travlyr, as nnta has cited in this thread, he has made it his "mission" to marginalize and antagonize folks here who are advocates of statelessness.  He is a dishonest interlocutor.

Edit to add: In other words, he isn't interested in building coalitions.  He's interested in sticking his flag in the movement and calling it his.

----------


## Travlyr

> Oh I agree that discussion in person is preferrable.
> 
> With Travlyr, as nnta has cited in this thread, he has made it his "mission" to marginalize and antagonize folks here who are advocates of statelessness.  He is a dishonest interlocutor.
> 
> Edit to add: In other words, he isn't interested in building coalitions.  He's interested in sticking his flag in the movement and calling it his.


You misread me. I followed the rules. When anarchists posted their philosophy in searchable forum, I reported them for going against the wishes of the forum. Once the discussion was moved to the philosophy subforum as requested by the forum owners, I stood my ground on my beliefs. The fact that you are unable to convince me that you have a monopoly on liberty is your problem, not mine.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> I stood my ground on my beliefs. The fact that you are unable to convince me that you have a monopoly on liberty is your problem, not mine.




HERETICS, THE LOT OF YA!!!

----------


## Travlyr

> I agree - and that's why I'm here, and why I support and work on behalf of Ron in the meager ways I'm able.
> 
> But fellows like Travlyr try to pass off the intellectually stunted notion that "constitutional government" is real human liberty.  It is most certainly preferrable to whatever the hell it is we have now, but humans under government are by definition not free.


And how do I do that? Well, of course, by reading and quoting Ron Paul and then asking questions.




> *FREE MARKETS, HONEST MONEY, PRIVATE PROPERTY*
> Ron Paul
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				The Economics of a Free Society
> 
> These selections lay out my views of the proper role of government, namely that it should serve only to protect the life and property of its citizens. I respect the Constitution not because of a nostalgic attachment to an anachronistic document, but because the Founders knew the danger in allowing government to overstep its legitimate functions. It is unfortunate that many Americans today dont understand the Founders wisdom in framing our government on the principles of federalism and republicanismas opposed to democracy. A free society can only work when its members agree that there are certain things left to the discretion of individualsno matter what a temporary ma ority might think. In practice this means the government must respect private property and the rule of law, or what is also called free market capitalism.





> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=q3SOlXxUBLk
> 
> While monetary policy is the key to individual secession, listen to Ron Paul starting at 7:45. Obeying the Constitution is the key to a voluntary society.


Edit for clarity: This is my claim not Ron Paul's and I never intended otherwise: "Obeying the Constitution is the key to a voluntary society."




> Ron Paul - "I am an advocate a very strong advocate of following very strictly the rule of law the Constitution of the United States."





> Mises and Austrian Economics: A Personal View[
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				"For as long as I can remember, I wanted to be free from government coercion in any form. All my natural instincts toward freedom were inevitably challenged by the established school system, the media, and the government. These systems tried to cast doubt on my conviction that only an unhampered market is consonant with individual liberty. Although reassured that intellectual giants like Mises agreed with a laissez-faire system, I was frustrated by knowing what was right, while watching a disaster developing for our economy. The better I came to understand how the market worked, the more I saw the need to implement these ideas through political action." - Ron Paul


A long time ago, I posted the fact that land owners, who want to keep their homes, will fight statelessness because they get the authority to own land from Article IV of the U.S. Constitution. Unless your movement recognizes that fact, then homeowners should oppose the anarchist philosophy. It is a nomadic philosophy. 

I ask again. 


> How do land laws not create governments?


Anyone? As a landowner, I will not agree to statelessness philosophy unless this question is addressed satisfactorily. I will not give up my rights for anyone.

Ron Paul calls himself the "Champion of the Constitution." Why should I reject him for it? Why should I not believe him?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=YKiyOpKhUI4

----------


## Travlyr

> 


Is that you?

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> You misread me. I followed the rules. When anarchists posted their philosophy in searchable forum, _I reported them for going against the wishes of the forum._





> Baloney. It took us months to get the anarchists to start all their threads in the philosophy subforum. _I took a lot of heat for it and so did Rev9._


lolz.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Is that you?


It was how I envision your Neo-Constitutionalist Coup D'Etat.

----------


## Xerographica

> Edit to add: In other words, he isn't interested in building coalitions.  He's interested in sticking his flag in the movement and calling it his.


If you're interested in building coalitions then I'm sure you'll find this thread of interest...Tax Choice - A Strategy for the Occupy Movement.

----------


## Travlyr

> It was how I envision your Neo-Constitutionalist Coup D'Etat.


Neo-Constitutionalist Coup D'Etat?

Have you ever read Mises?



> 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.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Neo-Constitutionalist Coup D'Etat?
> 
> Have you ever read Mises?


Yeah, we've gone over that already a few times I believe, that was partially what this post was about, don't you remember?

Just more disingenious bull$#@! out of Trav.




> It's not the question that's immature. The problem is that Trav will not accept anything that fundamentally challenges certain perceptions he holds. *He simply ignores it and reasserts his position later.* His "conundrum" has been addressed several times over, and extremely patiently by other people.

----------


## WilliamC

> I agree - and that's why I'm here, and why I support and work on behalf of Ron in the meager ways I'm able.
> 
> But fellows like Travlyr try to pass off the intellectually stunted notion that "constitutional government" is real human liberty.  It is most certainly preferrable to whatever the hell it is we have now, but humans under government are by definition not free.


But it is true that anarchists are _so perceived_ as violent, destructive, and liberal _by the American public_ that to associate them in any meaningful way with the Ron Paul campaign is counterproductive and would be used to damage Ron Paul's political success by the media.

And I've never heard Ron Paul refer to himself as an anarchist, nor advocate anarchy, so I can't help but think Ron Paul isn't looking to be associated with anarchism either.

As for 'voluntaryanism' again I don't see the word itself being used by Ron Paul but his philosophical proclivities are definitely well along this path as I understand it, but to push this to the forefront of the campaign is again counterproductive to obtaining enough votes for him to win.

People can understand the idea of returning to a more limited, Constitutional government, but try to tell them they need no government and you've already lost their vote.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> As for 'voluntaryanism' again I don't see the word itself being used by Ron Paul but his philosophical proclivities are definitely well along this path as I understand it, but to push this to the forefront of the campaign is again counterproductive to obtaining enough votes for him to win.

----------


## Travlyr

> 


2+2=4

Ron Paul likes a voluntary society. Ron Paul calls himself the "Champion of the Constitution." Perhaps what Ron Paul is saying is, "The better I came to understand how the market worked, the more I saw the need to implement these ideas through political action." - Ron Paul

----------


## WilliamC

> 


Thank you. So he has used the word in at least one interview.

But is he advocating voluntaryism (sp?) at the expense of limited government and living within the Constitution, as he also stated in this video?

Again, there are matters of degree. I fail to see how we can even approach a society based upon voluntarism until at least we return to a society which is ruled by a more limited, Constitutional government. 

I don't see a call from Ron Paul to abolish the Federal Government first and establish voluntarism in the vacuum left behind, but rather to try and get back to a more limited Federal Government in hopes of restoring voluntarism. In reality of course more and more people have to change their hearts and minds, which is why Ron Paul is more about creating a movement rather than winning an office, but to accomplishing the latter would be the best chance of achieving the first.

At this juncture in history, the path of least resistance still seems to be working within the Republican Party, and so long as Ron Paul is doing that he seems to keep the focus on Constitutionalism, not voluntarism. The vast majority of the electorate is probably never going to be educated enough to accept a priori the premise that all government should be based on voluntary contributions and user fees, so instead of pushing that meme concentrate on reducing International and Federal government and empowering State government. In the United States at least we do have a tradition that facilitates this course. Hopefully at some point in the future we can get to a point where in some States then we can deregulate further to the County level, but from there to communities practicing even more limited forms of government is uncharted territory.

edit: well, not really uncharted territory...what we need is a combination of this...




and this...

----------


## noneedtoaggress

from another thread:

Good reading to get behind RP's mindset on his role in politics and "natural resistance to the state".




> *Introduction*
> 
> _[U]nder the predominance of interventionist ideas, a political
> career is open only to men who identify themselves with the
> interests of a pressure group. . . . Service to the short-run interests
> of a pressure group is not conducive to the development of those
> qualities which make a great statesman. Statesmanship is invariably
> long-run policy; pressure groups do not bother about the
> long-run.1_
> ...





> *Summary*
> Austrian economics has provided me with the intellectual ammunition
> to support my natural tendency to say “no” to all forms of
> government intervention. Mises provides an inspiration to stick to
> principle and to argue quietly and confidently in favor of the superiority
> of a decentralized, consumer-oriented market, in contrast to a bureaucratic
> centrally planned economy.
> Mises is clear about the responsibility we all have in establishing a
> free society. He concludes Socialism with this advice:
> ...


http://mises.org/books/paulmises.pdf

----------


## Xerographica

> At this juncture in history, the path of least resistance still seems to be working within the Republican Party, and so long as Ron Paul is doing that he seems to keep the focus on Constitutionalism, not voluntarism.


Constitutionalism = a committee of government planners determining the proper scope of government = Socialism

It's worth it to make the effort to understand the economic arguments for libertarianism.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> But is he advocating voluntaryism (sp?) at the expense of limited government and living within the Constitution, as he also stated in this video?

----------


## WilliamC

> Constitutionalism = a committee of government planners determining the proper scope of government = Socialism
> 
> It's worth it to make the effort to understand the economic arguments for libertarianism.


So how do you plan to go from here to no government all at once?

There's only one of two answers as I pointed out in an above post.

I sometimes think some folks really have no plan, they just want to shout their own solution at the expense of everything else.

----------


## WilliamC

> 


Great. But again, to push for the abolishment of government ahead of limiting government is a losing strategy unless you rely either some type of evolution where people wake up and do it (which I'm all for but I'm not holding my breath) or revolution that overthrows the government to replace it with your preferred system (and this almost always ends with more government, not less).

I don't see this video in any way undermining Ron Pauls attempt to shrink the Federal government back to a more Constitutionally limited size and cost however, and why one would see it as advantageous to push for anarchy over limited government is unclear to me.

Ron Paul, when directly asked about his political philosophy, answers honestly, but he doesn't stump for voluntarism or anarchy or a Stateless society.

He campaigns instead for limited, Constitutional government within the Republican party, and those who claim to support him yet refuse to act like him by failing to meet people part way as he does, sometimes seem overzealous at the very least.

And I also believe that there could exists those who deliberately exaggerate the more radical positions of Ron Paul over his more conservative positions merely to damage him as a candidate, so we have to be careful about that as well.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> So how do you plan to go from here to no government all at once?


We don't because there is no "all at once", but politics is just one prong of the liberty movement, and it's the one that is the most manipulated by the establishment. Politics diverts activism into politically correct and more easily managed channels. We all know how rare a Ron Paul is. There's also strategies like agorism, civil disobedience, jury nullification, etc, etc.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Great. But again, to push for the abolishment of government ahead of limiting government is a losing strategy unless you rely either some type of evolution where people wake up and do it (which I'm all for but I'm not holding my breath) or revolution that overthrows the government to replace it with your preferred system (and this almost always ends with more government, not less).


The "evolution" you're talking about is the same type of social progress that lead to the abolition of institutionalized slavery.

A free society based on voluntary interaction necessarily cannot come about through a violent revolution that "overthrows" the government. We can only convince people to see it for what it is and to withdraw consent. We aim to disregard government, and build free-market institutions that _compete_ with it.

You might find this recent thread somewhat interesting.




> I don't see this video in any way undermining Ron Pauls attempt to shrink the Federal government back to a more Constitutionally limited size and cost however, and why one would see it as advantageous to push for anarchy over limited government is unclear to me.
> 
> Ron Paul, when directly asked about his political philosophy, answers honestly, but he doesn't stump for voluntarism or anarchy or a Stateless society.
> 
> He campaigns instead for limited, Constitutional government within the Republican party, and those who claim to support him yet refuse to act like him by failing to meet people part way as he does, sometimes seem overzealous at the very least.
> 
> And I also believe that there could exists those who deliberately exaggerate the more radical positions of Ron Paul over his more conservative positions merely to damage him as a candidate, so we have to be careful about that as well.


"Let a million flowers bloom."

----------


## Travlyr

> *Murray Rothbard* says, "The power to counterfeit is the power to abuse. It is not enough to urge the government to use it more moderately. The power must be taken away. Counterfeiting is fraud, and no one should have the right to counterfeit, least of all government, whose record of counterfeiting throughout history is black indeed. Money and banking must be separated from the State, just as Church and State are separated in the American tradition, just as the economy and the State should be separated."
> 
> *Ludwig Von Mises* says, "This is the function that the liberal doctrine assigns to the state: the protection of property, liberty, and peace."
> 
> *Ron Paul* says, 'Everyone who believes in freedom must work diligently for sound money, fully redeemable. Nothing else is compatible with the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity."


Now I just happen to believe that these guys knew what they were talking about. What these three brilliant philosophers tell us is that three elements are required. Rule of Law, respect of Property and Natural Rights, and Sound Money completely separate from government. That's my goal. That is where I get off the train. Allodial title to land, government that obeys the rule of law, and private mintage of coins.

----------


## WilliamC

> We don't because there is no "all at once", but politics is just one prong of the liberty movement, and it's the one that is the most manipulated by the establishment. Politics diverts activism into politically correct and more easily managed channels. We all know how rare a Ron Paul is. There's also things like agorism, civil disobedience, jury nullification, etc, etc.


Fair enough. But civil disobedience hasn't worked since the 60's and I've not seen any success out of jury nullification, and agorism is a distant dream from today's society.

So long as his supporters are as respectful and humble as he is then they should espouse these views. 

But there are other movements which have little if anything to do with liberty and to many on the outside it can be hard to distinguish them from the small number of non-violent anarchists who are on Ron Paul's side.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Now I just happen to believe that these guys knew what they were talking about. What these three brilliant philosophers tell us is that three elements are required. Rule of Law, respect of Property and Natural Rights, and Sound Money completely separate from government. That's my goal. That is where I get off the train. Allodial title to land, government that obeys the rule of law, and private mintage of coins.


And that's perfectly fine Trav, it would be nice, though, if you were convincing people who desired more state involvement than you about how it would be better to have less state involvement, instead of attacking the people who want less statism than you do.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Fair enough. But civil disobedience hasn't worked since the 60's and I've not seen any success out of jury nullification, and agorism is a distant dream from today's society.
> 
> So long as his supporters are as respectful and humble as he is then they should espouse these views.


Sure, but today's society is not tomorrow's society, and people _will_ get more disillusioned with the political process as things continue to break down.

If Ron doesn't win, there is probably going to be a lot of people on this very board who will be pretty fed up with the political process.




> But there are other movements which have little if anything to do with liberty and to many on the outside it can be hard to distinguish them from the small number of non-violent anarchists who are on Ron Paul's side.


Which is why we must continue to spread our message of Peace, Private Property and Prosperity for all.

----------


## Travlyr

> And that's perfectly fine Trav, it would be nice, though, if you were convincing people who desired more state involvement than you about how it would be better to have less state involvement, instead of attacking the people who want less statism than you do.


Answer this question, or point to me where it has already been answered. You are really good at finding quotes that have already been posted. I can not find the answer to this question anywhere. If it has been answered, then please quote it. If not, then please answer it.

How do land laws not create governments?

----------


## noneedtoaggress

Alright you're going on my ignore list. I'm done with you.

----------


## Travlyr

> Alright you're going on my ignore list. I'm done with you.


You keep claiming that we don't need government. As a homeowner I want to know what your proposal is to handle land law before I agree to it. It is a simple and fair question.

----------


## Xerographica

> So how do you plan to go from here to no government all at once?
> 
> There's only one of two answers as I pointed out in an above post.
> 
> I sometimes think some folks really have no plan, they just want to shout their own solution at the expense of everything else.


Heh, my bad.  I'm not an anarcho-capitalist....I'm a pragmatarian.  My goal isn't to get rid of government...my goal is for the scope of government to be determined by taxpayer's demands for public goods.  See...Tax Choice - A Strategy for the Occupy Movement.  That thread offers specific suggestions that would allow us to all work together....anarcho-capitalists, minarchists, libertarians, pragmatarians and supporters of the occupy movement.

----------


## Wesker1982

> Thank you. So he has used the word in at least one interview.


We *endorse* the idea of *voluntarism*, self-responsibility, family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. - Ron Paul

Now aside from the rest of the mountains of evidence, the odds would have to be close to 0% that a radical libertarian would use a word like Voluntarism accidentally without realizing the relationship the word has specifically with his radical philosophy. You would have to argue that when Ron Paul uses the word, he is totally ignorant of Voluntarism in specifically libertarian context. I know some people like to try, but that would be an argument impossible to make. 

Or try to argue that he advocates the private production of all defense services, advocates the NAP from a Rothbardian viewpoint, endorses the ideas of Lysander Spooner.... but somehow is using Voluntarism to mean something _other than_ what would be consistent with everything else. Yeah right. 

Quote from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekjnCtR_O0Q

----------


## Travlyr

> Simplistic version:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Better version:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In the first video, Adam & Ben get into a disagreement over who owns the apple. Eventually, they let Charlie make a law. Charlie makes law by man not law of the land. What Adam should have said is, "_Sorry Charlie, this dispute is between Ben and me, stay out of it._" 

According to Hoppe, second video, first come first served. Whoever is first to use the property determines ownership. That makes sense. That is natural law. 

It was Adam's apple to begin with. Here is what really happened. 

Adam harvested the apples and then Ben gets up from his video game, goes outside, and steals the apple from Adam claiming that it is his tree. They let Charlie make law. Charlie correctly identified Adam as the owner, made a law, and then expected Ben to pay restitution determined by Charlie. Charlie is corruptible. What Adam didn't know was that Ben paid Charlie under the table to rule that two apples would be the judgement instead of the correct restitution of five apples. Adam got cheated. Screw that crap. 

It would have been much smarter if Adam & Ben would have made an agreement beforehand by drawing a line in the sand and saying, "_This land is your land and this land is my land_." Then Adam can say, "I grow apples on my land. I tilled the soil, I planted the seed, I pruned the branches, watered, and fertilized the tree. I kept the predators away and harvested the fruit. The apples are mine would you like to buy one because they're not free? It is my tree on my land and here is my deed as agreed. 

A simple social contract, laws of the land, rule of law, would have made the conflict much clearer. Then the arbitrator is not making stuff up as he goes along.  The judge is simply determining who adhered to the established law, who did not, and basing his judgement accordingly.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> But it is true that anarchists are _so perceived_ as violent, destructive, and liberal _by the American public_ that to associate them in any meaningful way with the Ron Paul campaign is counterproductive and would be used to damage Ron Paul's political success by the media.


I respect that the owner of this site does not want anarchism discussed on the open forums.  I have no interest in doing harm to the campaign, and generally when I speak about Ron, I don't associate him with my advocacy of statelessness.

Travlyr goes beyond wanting it to be disassociated with this site or the campaign.  He goes to the point of being disingenuous.  




> And I've never heard Ron Paul refer to himself as an anarchist, nor advocate anarchy, so I can't help but think Ron Paul isn't looking to be associated with anarchism either.


I'm not here making the case that Ron is an "anarchist" or a voluntaryist, or anything.  That's up to Ron.  All I can say is that thanks to Ron in many, many significant ways, I now accept the philosophy of voluntaryism.




> As for 'voluntaryanism' again I don't see the word itself being used by Ron Paul but his philosophical proclivities are definitely well along this path as I understand it, but to push this to the forefront of the campaign is again counterproductive to obtaining enough votes for him to win.
> 
> People can understand the idea of returning to a more limited, Constitutional government, but try to tell them they need no government and you've already lost their vote.


Yeah, I agree that is typically too deep a pool to go swimming in at first, for most.

But that doesn't change the objective truth of the philosophy.  It's unassailable.

----------


## WilliamC

> Heh, my bad.  I'm not an anarcho-capitalist....I'm a pragmatarian.  My goal isn't to get rid of government...my goal is for the scope of government to be determined by taxpayer's demands for public goods.  See...Tax Choice - A Strategy for the Occupy Movement.  That thread offers specific suggestions that would allow us to all work together....anarcho-capitalists, minarchists, libertarians, pragmatarians and supporters of the occupy movement.


Hey I'm for all the government you can get...without taxes that is.

Voluntary contributions and user fees are the ultimate goal, not whatever the taxpayer wants. 

The taxpayer, bless our corrupt and evil souls, are what got us into this mess, along with the taxtakers.

But if we can agree that the Federal government should cut 1 trillion dollars from the next budget, end 5 departments, and slash the rest back to 2008 spending levels this year then that's a decent start yes?

----------


## Xerographica

> Hey I'm for all the government you can get...without taxes that is.
> 
> Voluntary contributions and user fees are the ultimate goal, not whatever the taxpayer wants. 
> 
> The taxpayer, bless our corrupt and evil souls, are what got us into this mess, along with the taxtakers.
> 
> But if we can agree that the Federal government should cut 1 trillion dollars from the next budget, end 5 departments, and slash the rest back to 2008 spending levels this year then that's a decent start yes?


A decent place to start is understanding the difference between conceit versus humility.  Conceit is where one person...a president...or a committee...decides which 5 departments to end.  However you spin it that would be socialism.  On the other hand is humility.  Humility is where 150 million taxpayers use their taxes to decide which 5 departments to end.  Does this make sense?   

If a government organization is truly unnecessary...then why would any taxpayers spend any of their own, individual, hard-earned taxes on that government organization?  Do consumers behave this way?  If you truly do not need/want an Ipod then would you use your hard-earned money to purchase an Ipod?

----------


## WilliamC

> A decent place to start is understanding the difference between conceit versus humility.


Yes, anyone who thinks a government can spend money better than it's citizens is pretty conceited. 

It takes a humble man to want to endure the rigors of public office not for personal gain but to try and reduced the power of the government he works for.




> Conceit is where one person...a president...or a committee...decides which 5 departments to end.  However you spin it that would be socialism.


That's an outright lie. Shrinking government /= socialism. Try again.




> On the other hand is humility.  Humility is where 150 million taxpayers use their taxes to decide which 5 departments to end.


That's another lie. 150 million taxpayers would be better served keeping their own money to begin with, not being forced to turn it over to a conceited government authority.

Does this make sense?   

Probably not to communists those who wish to live off of other peoples work.

----------


## Xerographica

*Xero:* Conceit is where one person...a president...or a committee...decides which 5 departments to end. However you spin it that would be socialism.
*WilliamC:* That's an outright lie. Shrinking government /= socialism. Try again.

Saying that a committee can truly know which 5 departments to end is the exact same thing as saying that a committee can truly know which 5 departments to begin.  Committees cannot pick losers anymore than they can pick winners.  

*Xero:* On the other hand is humility. Humility is where 150 million taxpayers use their taxes to decide which 5 departments to end.
*WilliamC:* That's another lie. 150 million taxpayers would be better served keeping their own money to begin with, not being forced to turn it over to a conceited government authority.

You're saying that you know what's in the best interests of 150 million taxpayers?  Why not just let them decide for themselves which government organizations they give their money to?  It would probably help if you learned about the economic arguments for libertarianism...partial knowledge and opportunity costs.

----------


## Conza88

Xerograph's bs has been refuted countless times in the 30 odd threads he has created. 

Why 30 threads? His bs gets refuted... so instead of admitting defeat, he starts a new thread.

Word of advice.. see my sig.

But by all means.. please do keep discussing whatever you want in this thread; thanks for the bumps. Cheers.

----------


## Xerographica

> Xerograph's bs has been refuted countless times in the 30 odd threads he has created. 
> 
> Why 30 threads? His bs gets refuted... so instead of admitting defeat, he starts a new thread.
> 
> Word of advice.. see my sig.
> 
> But by all means.. please do keep discussing whatever you want in this thread; thanks for the bumps. Cheers.


Classic Conza

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Xerograph's bs has been refuted countless times in the 30 odd threads he has created. 
> 
> Why 30 threads? His bs gets refuted... so instead of admitting defeat, he starts a new thread.
> 
> Word of advice.. see my sig.
> 
> But by all means.. please do keep discussing whatever you want in this thread; thanks for the bumps. Cheers.


Seconded.

----------


## WilliamC

> Seconded.


Ah yep.

----------


## WilliamC

> You're saying that you know what's in the best interests of 150 million taxpayers?


Nope, which is why I don't want their money in the first place.

You do.

It's as simple as that.

----------


## Xerographica

> Nope, which is why I don't want their money in the first place.
> 
> You do.
> 
> It's as simple as that.


You don't trust taxpayers to make the right decisions with their taxes.

I do.

It's a simple as that.

----------


## RiseAgainst

@WilliamC

It's not so much about anti-state versus minimal state, it's about RADICAL vs. status quo or non-radical.  Murray sums it up beautifully as usual:




> Originally published in The Libertarian Forum, Vol. 10, No. 7, July 1977.
> 
> I have been ruminating recently on what are the crucial questions that divide libertarians. Some that have received a lot of attention in the last few years are: anarcho-capitalism vs. limited government, abolitionism vs. gradualism, natural rights vs. utilitarianism, and war vs. peace. But I have concluded that as important as these questions are, they dont really cut to the nub of the issue, of the crucial dividing line between us.
> 
> 
> Let us take, for example, two of the leading anarcho-capitalist works of the last few years: my own For a New Liberty and David Friedmans Machinery of Freedom. Superficially, the major differences between them are my own stand for natural rights and for a rational libertarian law code, in contrast to Friedmans amoralist utilitarianism and call for logrolling and trade-offs between non-libertarian private police agencies. But the difference really cuts far deeper. There runs through For a New Liberty (and most of the rest of my work as well) a deep and pervasive hatred of the State and all of its works, based on the conviction that the State is the enemy of mankind. In contrast, it is evident that David does not hate the State at all; that he has merely arrived at the conviction that anarchism and competing private police forces are a better social and economic system than any other alternative. Or, more fully, that anarchism would be better than laissez-faire which in turn is better than the current system. Amidst the entire spectrum of political alternatives, David Friedman has decided that anarcho-capitalism is superior. But superior to an existing political structure which is pretty good too. In short, there is no sign that David Friedman in any sense hates the existing American State or the State per se, hates it deep in his belly as a predatory gang of robbers, enslavers, and murderers. No, there is simply the cool conviction that anarchism would be the best of all possible worlds, but that our current set-up is pretty far up with it in desirability. For there is no sense in Friedman that the State  any State  is a predatory gang of criminals.
> 
> 
> The same impression shines through the writing, say, of political philosopher Eric Mack. Mack is an anarcho-capitalist who believes in individual rights; but there is no sense in his writings of any passionate hatred of the State, or, a fortiori, of any sense that the State is a plundering and bestial enemy.
> ...

----------


## WilliamC

> @WilliamC
> 
> It's not so much about anti-state versus minimal state, it's about RADICAL vs. status quo or non-radical.  Murray sums it up beautifully as usual:


Yes, and I'm about as radical as you are likely to meet in most ways.

But there's also a dose of pragmatism in me as well, and I'm willing to work with those who want less government up until such time as what remains is enough to suit me. Any less then I'd have to get more involved to with like minded folks to create one, since I do believe that anarchy will always lead to violence which will lead to the strong ruling the weak, and some form of limited government seems less onerous to me than that.

But I also don't believe I'll ever be seeing this situation in my lifetime either, so I wonder about those who seem so stuck on it at the expense of making some progress in the direction of less Federal government, which in the USA is the most urgent problem.

edit: as far as State worship versus State hatred I tend towards the latter, but remain unconvinced that the complete absence of a State would lead to a better society. Indeed, I think the entire question sort of misses the point, that is that there is no where left on Earth to go to get away from the State, like there was in early US history. There is no frontier. Used to be if you didn't like the State you could pack up and move out West, but that era is past. 

The best I can see is to fragment the power of the State into more local governments instead of a single Federal government, or worse a global government. If we can ever get to a true Republic system of competing State governments within a lose Union then maybe some of them will innovatively learn how to minimize themselves at the enrichment of their citizens, but the way the trend is now is the opposite.

----------


## RiseAgainst

> Yes, and I'm about as radical as you are likely to meet in most ways.
> 
> But there's also a dose of pragmatism in me as well, and I'm willing to work with those who want less government up until such time as what remains is enough to suit me. Any less then I'd have to get more involved to with like minded folks to create one, since I do believe that anarchy will always lead to violence which will lead to the strong ruling the weak, and some form of limited government seems less onerous to me than that.
> 
> But I also don't believe I'll ever be seeing this situation in my lifetime either, so I wonder about those who seem so stuck on it at the expense of making some progress in the direction of less Federal government, which in the USA is the most urgent problem.


Then as Murray, and I, have said, you are absolutely my comrade.  I will take a radical minimal stater over a non-radical anti-stater any day.  My own summation of the idea is generally this:

If government is a scale from 0-10, where:

Today's government is 9; and my goal is 0; and your goal is 2

So long as your pursuit from 9-2 is as radical as my pursuit is 9-0, I will be hand in hand with you until 2.

IOW, if politicians offer you a compromise of 8 or 7 or 6 or 5 or...I hope you will spit in their face with me (figuratively of course)

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> from another thread:
> 
> Good reading to get behind RP's mindset on his role in politics and "natural resistance to the state".
> 
> http://mises.org/books/paulmises.pdf


 It's interesting the synthesis Ron made out of von Mises, Rothbard, and Read, as shown in the quote.  He has such great respect for von Mises, yet ultimately he chooses the natural rights stance of Rothbard over the utilitarian stance of Mises.  Also, he clearly shares Mises' practical skepticism of political action, which is kind of a middle road perhaps between Read's rejection of participating in politics and Rothbard's embracing of it.  He said "well, I don't agree that it's unprincipled nor even necessarily counterproductive to participate, but I do understand that it will probably be hopeless."  I've heard either Mrs. Paul or himself say that before he first ran for Congress, he anticipated sure defeat, reasoning something like "you can't compete with Santa Claus," a pithy restatement of Mises' assessment.

Yet, despite this he ran anyway.  He ran even though he thought for sure he would lose.  And not halfheartedly either, but with enough focus and energy that he proved both himself and Mises wrong!  What does that mean?  What kind of person does that?

By the way, newbitech (and others), this is the kind of actual discussion about actual ideas of Dr. Paul and their actual origins which I was saying might be worthwhile.  Feel free to jump in!

----------


## WilliamC

> Then as Murray, and I, have said, you are absolutely my comrade.  I will take a radical minimal stater over a non-radical anti-stater any day.  My own summation of the idea is generally this:
> 
> If government is a scale from 0-10, where:
> 
> Today's government is 9; and my goal is 0; and your goal is 2
> 
> So long as your pursuit from 9-2 is as radical as my pursuit is 9-0, I will be hand in hand with you until 2.
> 
> IOW, if politicians offer you a compromise of 8 or 7 or 6 or 5 or...I hope you will spit in their face with me (figuratively of course)


See you at 2, then we can concentrate on where our differences are instead of what is in our common interests.

----------


## RiseAgainst

And I'm gonna have to give you an IOU on rep, wanted to rep the post with "Imagine" in it, such a beautiful song!  But alas, I must spread rep around before I can give you anymore!

----------


## Conza88

> It's interesting the synthesis Ron made out of von Mises, Rothbard, and Read, as shown in the quote.  He has such great respect for von Mises, yet ultimately he chooses the natural rights stance of Rothbard over the utilitarian stance of Mises.  Also, he clearly shares Mises' practical skepticism of political action, which is kind of a middle road perhaps between Read's rejection of participating in politics and Rothbard's embracing of it.  He said "well, I don't agree that it's unprincipled nor even necessarily counterproductive to participate, but I do understand that it will probably be hopeless."  I've heard either Mrs. Paul or himself say that before he first ran for Congress, he anticipated sure defeat, reasoning something like "you can't compete with Santa Claus," a pithy restatement of Mises' assessment.


Just a fyi, Mises was a *"philosophical anarchist".*[Not the left wing variety].




> 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.





> By the way, newbitech (and others), this is the kind of actual discussion about actual ideas of Dr. Paul and their actual origins which I was saying might be worthwhile.  Feel free to jump in!


I'd be surprised if they actually had anything worthwhile to offer.

----------


## newbitech

> It's interesting the synthesis Ron made out of von Mises, Rothbard, and Read, as shown in the quote.  He has such great respect for von Mises, yet ultimately he chooses the natural rights stance of Rothbard over the utilitarian stance of Mises.  Also, he clearly shares Mises' practical skepticism of political action, which is kind of a middle road perhaps between Read's rejection of participating in politics and Rothbard's embracing of it.  He said "well, I don't agree that it's unprincipled nor even necessarily counterproductive to participate, but I do understand that it will probably be hopeless."  I've heard either Mrs. Paul or himself say that before he first ran for Congress, he anticipated sure defeat, reasoning something like "you can't compete with Santa Claus," a pithy restatement of Mises' assessment.
> 
> Yet, despite this he ran anyway.  He ran even though he thought for sure he would lose.  And not halfheartedly either, but with enough focus and energy that he proved both himself and Mises wrong!  What does that mean?  What kind of person does that?
> 
> *By the way, newbitech (and others), this is the kind of actual discussion about actual ideas of Dr. Paul and their actual origins which I was saying might be worthwhile.  Feel free to jump in!*


What kind of man does things that eventually prove himself wrong, you ask?  A man who understands self sacrifice.

----------


## Travlyr

*On the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives
September 23, 2004*



> *Remarks on the Constitution by U.S. Congressman Ron Paul*
> 
> "The U.S. Constitution is the most unique and best contract ever drawn up between a people and their government in history. Though flawed from the beginning, because all men are flawed, it nevertheless has served us well and set an example for the entire world. Yet no matter how hard the authors tried, the corrupting influence of power was not thwarted by the Constitution.
> 
> The notion of separate state and local government, championed by the followers of Jefferson, was challenged by the Hamiltonians almost immediately following the ratification of the Constitution. Early on, the supporters of strong, centralized government promoted central banking, easy credit, protectionism/mercantilism, and subsidies for corporate interests.
> 
> Although the 19th Century generally was kind to the intent of the Constitution, namely limiting government power, a major setback occurred with the Civil War and the severe undermining of the principle of sovereign states. The Civil War profoundly changed the balance of power in our federalist system, paving the way for centralized big government.
> 
> Although the basic principle underlying the constitutional republic we were given was compromised in the post-Civil War period, it was not until the 20th Century that steady and significant erosion of the constitutional restraints placed on the central government occurred. This erosion adversely affected not only economic and civil liberties, but foreign affairs as well.
> ...

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> What kind of man does things that eventually prove himself wrong, you ask?  A man who understands self sacrifice.


 Hmm, I know what you're saying, but let's pursue it further.  What do you mean by self-sacrifice?  What is this "self-sacrifice" you speak of?

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Hmm, I know what you're saying, but let's pursue it further.  What do you mean by self-sacrifice?  What is this "self-sacrifice" you speak of?


Pertinent:




> Without Austrian economics, I would not have had my political
> career. *The strongest motivating force in my political activities is to
> live free since I was born free. Liberty is my first goal. The free market
> is the only result that can be expected from a free society. I do not
> accept individual freedom because the market is efficient. Even if the
> free market were less “efficient” than central planning, I would still
> prefer my personal freedom to coercion.* Fortunately, I don’t need to
> make a choice. Austrian economics upholds the market’s efficiency,
> and that reinforces my overwhelming desire and right to be free.
> ...

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> to
>  live free since I was born free. Liberty is my first goal. The free market
>  is the only result that can be expected from a free society. I do not
>  accept individual freedom because the market is efficient. Even if the
>  free market were less “efficient” than central planning, I would still
>  prefer my personal freedom to coercion.


THAT - right there - is the heart of it all.  WE ARE BORN *FREE*, and no amount of efficiency nor utility can overrule that fundamental, basic, essential truth.  

Voluntaryism is as observable, recognizable, and natural as water finding it's own elevation.  It is as God (according to my belief) created man to live.  

Thank you, Ron.  You are the reason I have _seen the light_.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> THAT - right there - is the heart of it all.  WE ARE BORN *FREE*, and no amount of efficiency nor utility can overrule that fundamental, basic, essential truth.  
> 
> Voluntaryism is as observable, recognizable, and natural as water finding it's own elevation.  It is as God (according to my belief) created man to live.  
> 
> Thank you, Ron.  You are the reason I have _seen the light_.


Precisely. I always wonder if Ron finds it uncomfortable when people look to him as some sort of a _savior_, when what he's really trying to tell people is a message of _self-empowerment_. There most certainly is a cult of personality surrounding him precisely because he does give people glimpses of liberty and they latch on to him as they begin to "see the light". But he obviously doesn't want to and doesn't profess to be "Dear Leader", he doesn't want to run your life, he wants to show you that you can run your own and that is precisely what liberty is all about. He emphasizes that it's about _the ideas, not the man_.

But, yeah, I'll be forever grateful for what he's shown me, and the manner in which he conducts himself. He is someone the world could learn so much from, especially when it comes to attitudes, tolerance, and behavior.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Precisely. I always wonder if Ron finds it uncomfortable when people look to him as some sort of a _savior_, when what he's really trying to tell people is a message of _self-empowerment_. There most certainly is a cult of personality surrounding him precisely because he does give people glimpses of liberty and they latch on to him as they begin to "see the light". But he obviously doesn't want to and doesn't profess to be "Dear Leader", he doesn't want to run your life, he wants to show you that you can run your own and that is precisely what liberty is all about. He emphasizes that it's about _the ideas, not the man_.
> 
> But, yeah, I'll be forever grateful for what he's shown me, and the manner in which he conducts himself. He is someone the world could learn so much from, especially when it comes to attitudes, tolerance, and behavior.


Cheers.

Couldn't agree more - Ron has shown exposed me to the idea that I not only don't _need_ him - I don't need anybody.

I've heard the concern about the cult-of-personality with Ron.  My simple response has always been that if Ron would ever so much as step out of line with the ideals, I'd drop him like a dirty dish towel.  No need to worry about that, of course.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Cheers.
> 
> Couldn't agree more - Ron has shown exposed me to the idea that I not only don't _need_ him - I don't need anybody.
> 
> I've heard the concern about the cult-of-personality with Ron.  My simple response has always been that if Ron would ever so much as step out of line with the ideals, I'd drop him like a dirty dish towel.  No need to worry about that, of course.


As far as a cult of personality goes, I'd say it also comes from the fact that he's a vehicle for changing the political system via the politically correct channels. He promotes change outside those channels (civil disobedience for instance), but most people see him as the only hope of changing the system via the system because that's what's considered socially acceptable and legitimate. And he's a diamond in a sea of garbage as far as that goes so that puts even more pressure on him as a "savior" figure.

My guess is that if he doesn't win, a lot of people are going to get even more disenfranchised by the political system (and of course there will always be a movement to work within it as well). Look how the blatantly the MSM has shown their true colors throughout his campaigns. More and more people turn to alternatives.

----------


## Wesker1982

> We *endorse* the idea of *voluntarism*, self-responsibility, family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. - Ron Paul
> 
> Now aside from the rest of the mountains of evidence, the odds would have to be close to 0% that a radical libertarian would use a word like Voluntarism accidentally without realizing the relationship the word has specifically with his radical philosophy. You would have to argue that when Ron Paul uses the word, he is totally ignorant of Voluntarism in specifically libertarian context. I know some people like to try, but that would be an argument impossible to make. 
> 
> Or try to argue that he advocates the private production of all defense services, advocates the NAP from a Rothbardian viewpoint, endorses the ideas of Lysander Spooner.... but somehow is using Voluntarism to mean something _other than_ what would be consistent with everything else. Yeah right. 
> 
> Quote from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekjnCtR_O0Q


To expand on this point a bit...

I was reading _Man, Economy, and State_ in the bathroom (what else would you do there?), and came across:

_For if someone contends that the majority in Country X should govern that country, then it could be argued with equal validity that the majority of a certain district within Country X should be allowed to govern itself and secede from the larger country, and this subdividing process can logically proceed down to the village block, the apartment house, and, finally, each individual, thus marking the end of all democratic government through reduction to individual self-government._

Why is this important? Because some people here pretend that in a Rothbardian or radical libertarian context, self-government might actually mean_ something besides_ individual secession (thus Voluntaryism). 

What we have here is a clear explanation of what exactly self-governance is to someone speaking from a Rothbardian influence. It is secession down to the individual level, i.e. there is no monopoly imposed by force. 

So given that Ron Paul repeatedly points people to the work of Rothbard, and given that Ron is highly influenced by Rothbard, and given that this is probably the first person who exposed Ron Paul to the concept of self-governance...

The odds would have to be close to 0% that a radical libertarian would use a word like self-governance accidentally without realizing the relationship the word has specifically with his radical and Rothbardian influenced philosophy. You would have to argue that when Ron Paul uses the word, he is totally ignorant of self-governance in specifically Rotbardian context. 

You would have to argue that Ron Paul leads you to Rothbard, just to intentionally confuse you with a phrase such as self-governance. 

Of course, as this thread and the other one prove, this is only a fraction of the evidence to support the claim that Ron Paul is, in any meaningful modern day definition of the term, a Voluntaryist.

----------


## newbitech

> Hmm, I know what you're saying, but let's pursue it further.  What do you mean by self-sacrifice?  What is this "self-sacrifice" you speak of?


Giving up something you want so others can get what they want.  Here is an interesting question.  Does Ron Paul want to be a politician?  I'd say, not really.  However, I think he is a politician out of self sacrifice.  Other people believe in him and want his personality and character to draw attention and possibly move things in their own interest.  Out of self sacrifice because he cares for those people and because he believes in those people, regardless if he completely agrees with their cause, he does so.  Of course his own interests are also served, indirectly, but he can also use his position and clout that he gains by his self sacrifice to serve his own interest and causes.  So there doesn't have to be 100% agreement and lock step movement among his family and friends.  There does have to be the understanding that Ron Paul is willing to give up his own interest for the people he cares about.  It is the art of building relationships and the fundamental principle is self sacrifice.  

When we practice self sacrifice and surround ourselves with others who believe in and act on this principle, the relationships  cannot be penetrated from outside forces, violent or not.  This web of relationships forms the family and the tribe and cannot exist with out each person acting out of self sacrifice.  It is not even necessary to understand that you are giving up something you want so that others can benefit.  It only requires the action to form the relationships.  

Ron Paul opens up his life to relationship building on massive scale.  I believe this is because at his core he finds his liberty in his ability to serve the needs and wants of others, again requiring self sacrifice.  Yes he was born free.  He was also born with a purpose in life.  I believe Ron Paul finds his purpose in the happiness of those around him.  I believe he is motivated by seeing everyone happy and free to live their lives how they please.  I believe it is not even necessary for Ron Paul to put his freedom first.  I believe he puts the freedom and happiness of his relationships first.  I believe his happiness and his confirmation of freedom comes from seeing those around him free and happy. 

Self sacrifice is at the core of any man who will take on a challenge or handle adversity for the sake of helping his family and friends achieve their goals before he realizes his own.  In fact, any man who practices self sacrifice on a daily basis understands that most of the challenges and adversity he takes on will probably be unsuccessful, but actually being a part of doing something about another human beings plights regardless of the outcome is far more rewarding for the man who practices self sacrifice than being successful in everything he does.  This is because compassion is a close neighbor of self sacrifice.  The fact that a person who stands with someone who is suffering against all odds and put themselves in a position to suffer even when they don't have to brings happiness and freedom in the mind and spirit.  It is what unifies us as human beings.  It's message is fundamental.  It is why I believe human beings are able to accomplish great feats against all odds.  

Simply put, self sacrifice is the good side of human nature.  When embraced, it brings out the best in all of us.

----------


## newbitech

just a quick follow up.  I am reading this now.  Here is the chapter that talks about self sacrifice.  Maybe Ron Paul wasn't "influenced" by this person (never heard Ron Paul mention his name),  but ideas are what matter according Ron Paul.  Not really the "people" who bring them (aka politicians).  So maybe you have never heard of George Herbert Palmer,  but that doesn't mean the idea and importance of self sacrifice are foreign to Ron Paul.  




> It is self-sacrifice that calls forth from all mankind, as nothing else does, the distinctively moral response of reverence. Intelligence, skill, beauty, learning–we admire them all; but when we see an act of self-sacrifice, however small, an awe falls on us; we bow our heads, fearful that we might not have been capable of anything so glorious. We thus acknowledge self-sacrifice to be the very culmination of the moral life. *He who understand it has comprehended all righteousness, human and divine.*


http://www.authorama.com/nature-of-goodness-7.html

----------


## Xerographica

newbitech, but is there any possible objective way of differentiating between sacrifice and self-sacrifice?  If you make a donation to the Ron Paul campaign...is that sacrifice or self-sacrifice?  What's the difference between sacrificing and maximizing utility?  You give up one thing you value in exchange for another thing that you value even more.  Isn't this just Econ 101?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> To expand on this point a bit...
> 
> I was reading _Man, Economy, and State_ in the bathroom (what else would you do there?), and came across:
> 
> _For if someone contends that the majority in Country X should govern that country, then it could be argued with equal validity that the majority of a certain district within Country X should be allowed to govern itself and secede from the larger country, and this subdividing process can logically proceed down to the village block, the apartment house, and, finally, each individual, thus marking the end of all democratic government through reduction to individual self-government._
> 
> Why is this important? Because some people here pretend that in a Rothbardian or radical libertarian context, self-government might actually mean_ something besides_ individual secession (thus Voluntaryism). 
> 
> What we have here is a clear explanation of what exactly self-governance is to someone speaking from a Rothbardian influence. It is secession down to the individual level, i.e. there is no monopoly imposed by force. 
> ...


Mises came to the same conclusion here (micro-secession), but wasn't quite so radical as Murray.  Just FWIW.

----------


## newbitech

> newbitech, but is there any possible objective way of differentiating between sacrifice and self-sacrifice?  If you make a donation to the Ron Paul campaign...is that sacrifice or self-sacrifice?  What's the difference between sacrificing and maximizing utility?  You give up one thing you value in exchange for another thing that you value even more.  Isn't this just Econ 101?


sacrificing the self according to the author I posted about is psychologically impossible.   To answer your first question.  In my own mind, it is far easier to practice sacrifice of something you have no interest in than it is to sacrifice something you are intimately connected to.  Be is YOUR money, YOUR time, YOUR beliefs, YOUR wishes.  It is far easier to sacrifice the "sacred cow".  Which is what I believe the media does to Ron Paul constantly.  

Your second question, if you don't care about your money, it's not a self sacrifice.  If you believe your money is devalued and worthless, it's not a self sacrifice.  If you sweat your ass off for 10k a year, maxing out IS a self sacrifice.  What does your money mean to you?  That is the question we should answer.  

Your third question, sacrificing is not self sacrificing.  Maximizing utility is not a sacrifice either if we understand the difference between self sacrifice and sacrifice to be giving up something.  When you maximize utility, you aren't giving up something that you don't care about so others can gain.  Not self sacrifice.  Sacrifice, is not efficient because it's value is not quantifiable.  Neither sacrifice or self sacrifice are marketable. 

No, this is not economics.  Economics is constrained by quantifiable values.  Sacrifice and self sacrifice are priceless.

----------


## Xerographica

newbitech, what about the opportunity cost concept?  That says nothing about quantifiable values.  For example, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."  Clearly you can't put a price on sacrificing your own child to save the world...but clearly there is the opportunity cost concept.  




> Opportunity cost is a key concept in economics, and has been described as expressing "the basic relationship between scarcity and choice". The notion of opportunity cost plays a crucial part in ensuring that scarce resources are used efficiently.  Thus, opportunity costs are not restricted to monetary or financial costs: the real cost of output forgone, lost time, pleasure or any other benefit that provides utility should also be considered opportunity costs. - Wikpedia

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> No, this is not economics.  Economics is constrained by quantifiable values.  Sacrifice and self sacrifice are priceless.


 Not all values in correct economics are, nor should be, quantities -- some are *ordinal* values. 

Austrians will know what I mean.

----------


## newbitech

> Not all values in correct economics are, nor should be, quantities -- some are *ordinal* values. 
> 
> Austrians will know what I mean.


the question was economics 101.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

As official trasnlator/liason betwixt Xerographica and the rest of the world, I will say that what he's trying to prod you into is the idea that self-sacrifice is actually impossible.  And if you define things a certain way, that's true: it is.  There's a Mises.org lecture for everything, so here's how Robert LeFevre put it:

http://mises.org/media/1138/Sacrifice-and-Molestation

Essentially, under LeFevre's and Xerographica's definition, sacrifice is to give up something valuable for either nothing or for something less valuable.  And I have to admit, logically I think this is probably the best definition.  So under that definition it's impossible for a person to voluntarily make a sacrifice -- if they are acting voluntarily, making choices freely, they will always make those choices which they judge at the time will best realize their own highest values (again, at the time).  One can sacrifice the values of _others_ to achieve his own ends (having decided his own values are more correct and good than the other guy's), but absolutely _cannot sacrifice his own values_, because no matter what he does, even if he commits suicide, he is by definition acting out his own values.

You are using a different definition, basically that of having values beyond the end of your own nose -- of placing a high value on things outside your own self and on the well-being of other humans in particular.  Your way of looking at it is useful too, I thought, and I found your post thought-provoking.

*Xerographica's difference with you is really just a semantic one.*  What you're calling self-sacrifice isn't technically self-sacrifice.  OK, so we can come up with something else to call it and move on.  Perhaps "others-valuing."

A previous post I wrote on the subject of sacrifice:




> Look, the type of "sacrifice" Jesus would look upon favorably and promote would be to give up something good for something even better.  I'm not sure that can properly be called a sacrifice, but whatever you want to call it, there it is.
> 
> The kind of sacrifice you have somehow determined I should make is the kind where I give up something good for something ugly and lousy.  Like I should sacrifice a beautiful painting that I spent a year of my life making to donate it to The People's Park in Berkeley for the express purpose of them using it to spit on and wipe their dirty hands.  Now that is a real sacrifice.  It's also a horrifyingly evil notion.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> the question was economics 101.


 

Yes, the ordinal thing is relevant though, because that's where Xerographica is going with this.  Values/preferences are ordinal.  So there's no Utils, we can't say Mr. X values thing A at a level of 43.58 Utils, but we can say Mr. X prefers thing A to thing B.

In Ron Paul's case, his value scale might look like:

1. Fight for Freedom!
2. Enjoy time with family
3. Stay in good physical shape
4. Read economic text books
5. Eat Carol's chocolate chip cookies

etc.

If 1. and 2. were switched, he may indeed have stayed out of politics and refused to run for President.  These are of course not all mutually exclusive most of the time.  He can bring Carol with him on the campaign trail, ride his bike in the early mornings, etc.  The point is that if "Fight for freedom!" was not something that Ron valued, he would not do it.  And he spends so _much_ time doing it, we can tell from his demonstrated preferences that it is a very high value to him.  So in one sense, Ron is just being selfish, following his own selfish desires, when promoting liberty, not being self-less at all.  To be self-less would be to _not_ promote liberty, even though he would value doing so very much.

Ayn Rand talked a lot about this, how great selfishness is, in The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, and (I imagine, though I've never read it) The Virtue of Selfishness.  Perhaps a better term than selfishness would be "enlightened self-interest".

----------


## Xerographica

helmuth_hubener, LOL.  It's just too tricky.  You declared yourself to be my official translator/liaison.  But...I didn't agree to that.  You imposed your will over my own.  In your mind you predicted that I wouldn't mind...even though your prediction was accurate...there's just no way you could have known that.  That's the thing...it's just impossible to avoid paternalism.  

Clearly the large majority of people do not appreciate Ron Paul's efforts on their behalf.  Clearly, as my rep indicates, the large majority of members here do not appreciate my efforts on their behalf.  Should that minor detail stop us?  

Here's a comment on my post...the Economics of Threesomes over at the Stefan Molyneux forum...




> My bros have usually been critical but accepting. For instance, in a drunken stupur, I began to sprint tward a lady boy who walked by on the sidewalk some 30 feet away (we were inside a pool hall) because (s)he was wearing one of those cute pink anime wigs that was popular in the 90's club scene and I found to be urotsukidoji hot. I was saved as my bro grabbed my arm and said "no dude, penis alert" or something to that effect. - Chisleu


It's hard for me to articulate exactly what my concern is with getting rid of taxes.  It's kind of like saying that people shouldn't be obliged to watch each other's backs.  How long can a civilization possibly last if people aren't required to look out for each other?

Thanks for the link to Robert LeFevre...I had never considered his work before.  His essay on Sacrifice and Molestation would have been totally relevant to the discussion that I had with Matt Zwolinski....Fallibilism vs Fairness.  LeFevre's essay...In Gods We Trust?: Social Security Among the Ancient Incas...would have been totally relevant to my post on the Divine Disparity.

This makes total sense to me...




> Apparently, then, the legislators and the organizers have received from Heaven an intelligence and virtue that place them beyond and above mankind; if so, let them show their titles to this superiority. - Frédéric Bastiat, The Law


To summarize...it's just too much of a leap of faith for me to argue against taxes...but it requires a huge leap of faith to allow 538 congresspeople to allocate 150 million people's taxes.  Which of course leaves me with tax choice.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> helmuth_hubener, LOL.  It's just too tricky.  You declared yourself to be my official translator/liaison.  But...I didn't agree to that.  You imposed your will over my own.


  Yes, you are right, of course!  I apologize for my molestation.  I pray you can someday forgive me.




> In your mind you predicted that I wouldn't mind...even though your prediction was accurate...there's just no way you could have known that.  That's the thing...it's just impossible to avoid paternalism.


 Or perhaps we could say we choose between paternalism and subservience.  Either we think we're smarter than the other guy and act in accordance, or we think he's smarter and so defer to him.




> Clearly the large majority of people do not appreciate Ron Paul's efforts on their behalf.  Clearly, as my rep indicates, the large majority of members here do not appreciate my efforts on their behalf.  Should that minor detail stop us?


 No, never!







> It's hard for me to articulate exactly what my concern is with getting rid of taxes.  It's kind of like saying that people shouldn't be obliged to watch each other's backs.  How long can a civilization possibly last if people aren't required to look out for each other?


 And that's cool.  You just have to read voluminously enough until you agree with me.  Then everything will be fine.   Here, read all this:

http://cot.gbcnv.edu/~tenney/AnarchoCapitalismTopic.htm

Seriously, though, if you're going to devote your life to crusading for a cause, you should make real sure that you are as knowledgeable as possible on all aspects of it, so that you really are on the side of the good and slashing at the wicked.




> Thanks for the link to Robert LeFevre...I had never considered his work before.


 Yes, good for long car trips, going to sleep, or other situations where you can listen to audio.  I quite enjoy him, I think he's a bit of a neglected figure.  Very methodical and logical, and not afraid to be original.

PS: Because he's methodical, it's best to listen to them in order, I think.  Mises.org now has them in reverse order; the series starts with Communication About Freedom, then Yes, You Do Have a Philosophy, etc.  Especially on certain topics such as property (Ownership, Property and Ownership, How We Become Owners, Collective Ownership, and Who Owns What), each one builds on the last.

----------


## Xerographica

helmuth_hubener, I can't read all that.  The opportunity costs are too high.  But I always make the effort to read about specific people that you anarcho-capitalists promote.  From Conza I learned about Hoppe...from Wesker I learned about Molyneux...from you I learned about LeFevre. 

Why not just use all the anarcho-capitalist literature you've read to offer a critique of pragmatarianism?  You can use it as an excuse to start a blog.

----------


## newbitech

> newbitech, what about the opportunity cost concept?  That says nothing about quantifiable values.  For example, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."  Clearly you can't put a price on sacrificing your own child to save the world...but clearly there is the opportunity cost concept.


Just doing a little more reading to understand how the idea you bring might relate to self-sacrifice.  Here is another blurb from the source collection you mentioned.




> Opportunity costs are not always *measured* in monetary units or being able to produce one good over another. The *opportunity cost can also be unknown*, or spawn *a series of infinite sub opportunity costs*. For instance, an individual could choose not to ask a girl out on a date, in an attempt to make her more interested by playing hard to get, but the opportunity cost could be that they get completely ignored, which could lead to other opportunity costs.


I am not sure how useful the concept is in understanding WHY people do what they do when we are unable to KNOW the opportunity cost or when calculating the opportunity cost is like asking a computer to solve pI with no constraints.  

So in trying to understand things like WHY would Ron Paul give up a life of say being a highly successful FULL TIME doctor, which certainly put more gold in his pocket, as opposed to the highly UNLIKELY "cause" he is attempting, well how do you figure out the opportunity cost?  Did he one day sit down and think, hmmm what is going to be better for my bottom line? 

I understand the desire to put every person's action in the context of economic law.  I also believe that economic law doesn't really handle what I would consider non economic decisions.  We do not always sit around considering the economic consequences of our actions.  These economic laws may describe what is going on, but they do not really give a WHY.  I appreciate the description and the context.  Economic certainly gives me a baseline to compare.  Humans are not robots or calculators though.  I understand that the Austrian Economic Model is different than Keynesian or Chicago etc etc.  But they are still economic models.  

I am not saying economics aren't useful, but when trying to describe actions of other humans that are confounding and uncover apparent paradox in what we understand, I think it's useful to bring in other sources of knowledge and wisdom.  Thinking outside the box so to speak.  

I don't view these as competing ideas, but rather complimentary.  

Here is another excerpt from the source I cited.  I think it helps explain some of the paradox that economics uncovers.  Particularly, the paradox that comes up when we cannot know the opportunity cost, or the calculation of opportunity cost must be "rounded up" because of the infinite spawns. 




> What I have set myself to make plain in this series of graded examples is simply this: self-sacrifice is not something exceptional, something occurring at crises of our lives, something for which we need perpetually to be preparing ourselves, so that when the great occasion comes we may be ready to lay ourselves upon its altar. Such romanticism distorts and obscures. Self-sacrifice is an everyday affair. By it we live. *It is the very air of our moral lungs*. Without it society could not go on for an hour. And that is precisely why we reverence it sonot for its rarity, but for its importance. Nothing else, I suppose, so instantly calls on the beholder for a bowing of the head. Even a slight exhibit of it sends through the sensitive observer a thrill of reverent abasement. Other acts we may admire; others we may envy; this we adore.


So basically, there is no opportunity cost in self sacrifice and their is infinite opportunity cost in self sacrifice.  This principle stands on it's own and must be explained and understood on it's own.  The idea of self sacrifice picks up where other ideas leave off or get stuck in loops.  The reason I believe this happens is because as individuals we are unable to penetrate the individual "shell" or "sphere".  It is the base unit, and in relationships self sacrifice is the bonding agent.  

Another analogy I just thought of.  Think about building some complex product.  A house or a car.  These items are made up of hundreds if not thousands of parts.  Think of the nail or the screw.  Without these parts, we could never put the house or the car together.  Yet, each nail and each screw are "worth" what?  We could say that those nails and screws are priceless, because without them, you'd not build the house or the car.  Of course when looking at this from the perspective of opportunity cost, they are extremely cheap because these essential items are plentiful and abundant.  

So you have the economic "value" of these nails, but you also understand that removing the "glue" that holds all the parts together make the entire idea of a house or a car fall completely apart. 

This is what self sacrifice is for relationships.  Yet, we don't look at a nail or a screw and say.. wow that is such an awesome thing.  What a site to behold.  But when we see someone like Ron Paul, or Jesus Christ, the furthest thing from our minds is the opportunity cost as we understand just how amazing their actions are for the "good" of the human species.

----------


## Xerographica

newbitech, well.........honestly...your examples would leave me to believe that you're not 100% clear on the opportunity cost concept.  People's opportunity cost decisions reflect their priorities and values.  

If I went to a doctors office...and the doctor happened to be Ron Paul...and he told me that he really values libertarian ideas and principles...my thought would be...well...perhaps not as much as you value being a doctor.  That Ron Paul choose to fight for his libertarian beliefs...indicates that he values this cause more than he values being a doctor. 

In the bible...when Jesus told the rich young ruler that it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it was for a rich man to get into heaven...then the rich young ruler was faced with an opportunity cost decision.

When somebody is considering whether to build a house or a car...the first thing that pops into people's minds is...hmmm...are there better things that I could be doing with my time?  They are presented with an opportunity cost decision.  

In this sense...when somebody sacrifices "A" for "B" it reveals to us their values.  When somebody says, "put your money where your mouth is" or "actions speak louder than words" or "you can't have your cake and eat it too"....then they are referring to the opportunity cost concept.  

When I was little, I loved to collect rocks when I went hiking.  The problem was...I always found more rocks than my pockets could hold.  This would force me prioritize which rocks I kept and which rocks I discarded.  Opportunity costs decisions reveal preferences/values/priorities...and as such...they help us understand how scarce resources are efficiently allocated.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> So in trying to understand things like WHY would Ron Paul give up a life of say being a highly successful FULL TIME doctor, which certainly put more gold in his pocket, as opposed to the highly UNLIKELY "cause" he is attempting, well how do you figure out the opportunity cost?  Did he one day sit down and think, hmmm what is going to be better for my bottom line?


We don't need to though, because Ron has written _specifically_ about his reasons himself:

He specifically states that he got into politics because he felt that there should be a representative of Austrian ideas and to spread them.

He also specifically states that his driving motivator was _his own desire to live free_.





> But when we see someone like Ron Paul, or Jesus Christ, the furthest thing from our minds is the opportunity cost as we understand just how amazing their actions are for the "good" of the human species.


A lot of your post seems to be trying to paint Ron into some sort of altruistic spiritual figure. It seems like you're saying "this is an area where economics doesn't apply".

But Ron would likely agree that it does.

*Ron values liberty*, it's really not much more complicated than that. He describes his motivations pretty clearly.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Did he one day sit down and think, hmmm what is going to be better for my bottom line?


We think of economics as applying only to money and businesses and trying to make dollar profits, things like that.  But actually, it is much broader.  Austrian Economics certainly is.  Ludwig von Mises titled his magnum opus _Human Action_ (in English).  Economics can explain human actions which have nothing to do with monetary "bottom lines."  For instance, my Ron Paul value scale example.  That was an economic argument I was making.  People value lots of things besides money.  People value leisure time.  People value thinking of themselves as a good person.  Etc.

Clearly Ron Paul values his being a representative of Austrian Economics.  It brings him happiness in some sense, or eliminates some felt uneasiness.

"Strictly speaking the end, goal, or aim of any action is always the relief from a felt uneasiness."  -- Mises, Human Action

So yes, when he went into politics, Dr. Paul was judging what was going to be better for his total, all-encompassing "bottom line."  His spiritual bottom line, if you will, or his happiness or fulfillment bottom line.  We all do this, every time we make a choice.  You can look at his choice as a sacrifice.  But actually, it was giving up a lower value for a higher one.  Just so, many will label the actions of the Christian martyrs, or philanthropists, or dedicated parents, or whoever, as self-sacrifices.  Actually, they are merely putting their highest values into practice.  Of course, "merely" is not the correct word.  We admire them because they have chosen such admirable and high-quality values, and done such an outstanding job in realizing them.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> helmuth_hubener, I can't read all that.  The opportunity costs are too high.


 Ha, ha, ha!  I just meant eventually.  Confession: I haven't read all those links either.  But browse through, click on what you think might be interesting.

If you read enough (if you are young enough), eventually the truth will become evident and you will realize that having one group have a monopoly on ultimate decision-making over an arbitrary geographical area is total craziness! You'll have an aha! moment, and step back and look at that idea and say "how could anyone think that's a good idea?  Why would a monopoly over all ultimate decision-making be likely to lead to good results, when a monopoly over anything else, say, paper-making, inevitably leads to bad results?" You'll likely realize things like:

1. Monopoly over ultimate decision-making doesn't work.  How could it?  It's crazy.
2. Monopoly over ultimate decision-making destroys prosperity.
3. Monopoly over ultimate decision-making is immoral.  It is opposed to natural rights / human nature.

You are a proponent of decentralization already, you already understand many Austrian and Libertarian concepts already, and so as long as you are under 30 you will eventually come around.

----------


## newbitech

> newbitech, well.........honestly...your examples would leave me to believe that you're not 100% clear on the opportunity cost concept.  People's opportunity cost decisions reflect their priorities and values.  
> 
> If I went to a doctors office...and the doctor happened to be Ron Paul...and he told me that he really values libertarian ideas and principles...my thought would be...well...perhaps not as much as you value being a doctor.  That Ron Paul choose to fight for his libertarian beliefs...indicates that he values this cause more than he values being a doctor. 
> 
> In the bible...when Jesus told the rich young ruler that it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it was for a rich man to get into heaven...then the rich young ruler was faced with an opportunity cost decision.
> 
> When somebody is considering whether to build a house or a car...the first thing that pops into people's minds is...hmmm...are there better things that I could be doing with my time?  They are presented with an opportunity cost decision.  
> 
> In this sense...when somebody sacrifices "A" for "B" it reveals to us their values.  When somebody says, "put your money where your mouth is" or "actions speak louder than words" or "you can't have your cake and eat it too"....then they are referring to the opportunity cost concept.  
> ...


People make decisions based on neither priorities nor value.  This is the paradox you are faced with.  I understand that sometimes I set aside my priorities for trivial things.  Why?  Sometimes I set aside what I value to do things that have little or no value.  Why?  You may think that because Ron Paul is a politician he values political activism more than he values being a doctor, you cannot know this unless you ask.  What do you think Ron Paul would say if you asked him, which do you value more, being a politician or being a doctor?   What do you think his answer would be?  

What if he said, being a doctor?  Would you then ask him, well, why are you a politician?  What do you think his answer would be to that?  What if he told you he values being a politician more than he values being a doctor?  Wouldn't you want to know why?  Why do you think Ron Paul values being a politician more than he values being a doctor?  Do you think that when he decided to get in to politics that he knew how much of an influence he would eventually have?  Do you think that he sacrifice his career as a full time doctor because he weighed the cost and decided that against all odds, he'd be more "successful" as a politician than he would be as a doctor?  I don't.

I think he made the decision not based on any opportunity cost "formula".  I don't think he considered being a politician a priority or anything he valued.  Similar to the way many of his supporters never made politics a priority or something they valued.  Personally, I got involved in spite of myself.  I have no idea if I will be personally successful in my involvement, and in fact, I haven't even calculated the cost of being involved.  All I know is that it is the right thing to do.  Regardless if I am personally successful, regardless of what I will lose or how I may be perceived as being irresponsible, the act of being involved is the reward.  I do not value or prioritize what I am doing.  Rather, I know that as long as I am involved "something good" will come of it.  

Will it be more valuable that what I could get doing something else?  Who knows, who cares?  Will it be a priority above all else?  No, it will be integrated in to every one of my priorities.  

Maybe I don't understand opportunity cost.  I do not think it is necessary to perform that analysis, maybe it is maybe it isn't.  Maybe you don't understand self sacrifice, but I KNOW you don't have to.  I will be happy to go more in to detail about self sacrifice.  I will also be happy to see how you compare this with opportunity cost.  Consider another quote from the book I am reading. 




> But I still underestimate the prevalence of the principle. Our instances must be homelier yet. Each day come petty citations to self- sacrifice which are accepted as a matter of course. As I walk to my lecture-room somebody stops me and says, What is the way to Berkeley Street? Do I reprovingly answer, You must have made a mistake. I have no interest in Berkeley Street. I think it is you who are going there, and why are you putting me to inconvenience merely that you may the more easily find your way? Should I answer so, he would think and possibly say, There are strange people in Cambridge, remoter from human kind than any known elsewhere. Every one would feel astonishment at the man who declined to bear his little portion of a neighbors burden. Our commonest acceptance of society involves self- sacrifice, and in all our trivial intercourse we expect to put ourselves to unrewarded inconvenience for the sake of others.


Please read this quote and point out to me the opportunity cost analysis going on in this scenario.  I see none.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> People make decisions based on neither priorities nor value.  This is the paradox you are faced with.  I understand that sometimes I set aside my priorities for trivial things.  Why?


 It means that at that time, you are valuing thing A more than thing B.  Later on, upon reflection or whatever, you may decide you were wrong and that thing A was actually trivial, whereas thing B is in line with one of your majorly important priorities.  That doesn't change anything.

The choices people make demonstrate their preferences.  That is just apodictically true.  That is just the nature of human action.  That cannot be refuted.  This does not mean that people are perfect and never error, nor that they all have calculators for brains and adding machines for hearts.




> Sometimes I set aside what I value to do things that have little or no value.  Why?


 Because at the time, you _do_ value the things of little or no value.  You prefer to do them over the things which you allegedly value.  Before and after your mistake, your values may have been different.  People's frame of mind changes all the time.  People make mistakes all the time.




> You may think that because Ron Paul is a politician he values political activism more than he values being a doctor, you cannot know this unless you ask.


 No, even then you only know what he tells you.  He could lie.  He himself may not be in touch with his inner feelings and motivations.

Economics isn't psychology.  Who knows what he's valuing and feeling and pondering deep in his inner soul?  Economics cannot tell us.  But economics can tell us what his _demonstrated_ preferences are, via his actual outward actions.




> [The man will, or won't, give directions to a stranger] Please read this quote and point out to me the opportunity cost analysis going on in this scenario.  I see none.


 All human choices involve opportunity cost analysis.  It's ingrained as part of our nature.  

In this case, the man may weigh the advantages of giving the directions as being either more, or less, than those of not doing so.  Now that's just weighing cost and benefit.  This is actually a perfect thought-experiment for _opportunity_ cost, though, because the actual cost is so low.  Giving directions is very easy and effortless, and so though the pay-off is relatively low (good social standing, not being berated for rudeness) the price is low as well, so usually the man will choose to do it.  But what if the same man is once in an extreme hurry, rushing to get his wife to the hospital for instance?  If he is asked for directions then, will he stop what he is doing and give them?  If not, why not?  The cost is the same: just 30 seconds or so of easy explanation.  The reward is the same: a smile, and 'thank you sir, you've been very helpful'.  What is the only thing which has changed?  The opportunity cost!  The thing which he would be doing instead!  He now has a very important engagement, so he will ignore the supplicant or shove him aside, and proceed with his more important business.  His opportunity cost for giving directions has suddenly gotten very, very high, even though the real cost has stayed the same.

Are you on board with me here?  None of the above means the man has an adding-machine heart, calculating out the opportunity cost and carrying the one and all that.  "Opportunity cost" is just a fancy term for something very natural and intuitive that we humans do all the time, every day.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> Please read this quote and point out to me the opportunity cost analysis going on in this scenario.  I see none.


it's right here:




> Every one would feel astonishment at the man who declined to bear his little portion of a neighbor’s burden.

----------


## Xerographica

newbitech, helmuth_hubener put it better than I could...especially with his example of the man rushing to get his wife to the hospital.  From the anarcho-capitalist perspective...forcing people to pay taxes is like forcing that man to stop and give that other guy directions.  That wouldn't be an efficient allocation of his limited resources.

Pragmatarianism, on the other hand, says that people should be forced to pay taxes...but they should be allowed to choose which government organizations receive their taxes.  Forcing people to pay taxes recognizes the value of the collective...while allowing people to choose which government organizations receive their taxes recognizes the value of the individual.  

Let's consider the following...




> If you read enough (if you are young enough), eventually the truth will become evident and you will realize that having one group have a monopoly on ultimate decision-making over an arbitrary geographical area is total craziness! You'll have an aha! moment, and step back and look at that idea and say "how could anyone think that's a good idea?  Why would a monopoly over all ultimate decision-making be likely to lead to good results, when a monopoly over anything else, say, paper-making, inevitably leads to bad results?" You'll likely realize things like:
> 
> 1. Monopoly over ultimate decision-making doesn't work.  How could it?  It's crazy.
> 2. Monopoly over ultimate decision-making destroys prosperity.
> 3. Monopoly over ultimate decision-making is immoral.  It is opposed to natural rights / human nature.


The challenge here is to try and figure out how allowing taxpayers to directly allocate their taxes could lead to bad results.  How could injecting individualism into the public sector be a bad thing?  

Pragmatarianism is pragmatic consequentialism.  My hero...Deng Xiaoping...was a pragmatic consequentialist.  He went around saying that it shouldn't matter whether a cat was black or white...what matters is whether it catches mice.  What I'm going around saying is that it shouldn't matter whether an organization is public or private...what matters is whether it produces good results.

Why would any taxpayers spend their money on an organization that produces bad results?  Would you?  Nobody would.  Yet helmuth_hubener and others don't seem to trust the opportunity cost decisions of millions and millions of taxpayers.  This is the part I really struggle to understand.  The problem has never ever ever ever been with the taking...it's always been with the spending.  

A committee should never impose priorities.  They are welcome to respond to priorities...they are welcome to try and tell you what your priorities should be...they are welcome to try and influence your priorities by sharing partial knowledge with you.  Congress though, unlike the board of a fortune 500 company, tries to impose its priorities on an entire nation.  This is a recipe for substantial failures.  

Unlike with socialism though...congress does't control all the resources.  So rather than producing epic failures...our system produces recessions/depressions.  Mises and many others were certain that a mixed system was unsustainable...and it would inevitably slide towards socialism.  I kind of doubt this though because our system does self-correct to some extent...but the core problem is never addressed.  Well...aside from those that advocate throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I have no problem with the existence of government...or congress...or taxes....as long as taxpayers are allowed to use their individual taxes to indicate what their priorities are.  I can't argue against the priorities of 150 million taxpayers.  The priorities of taxpayers should shape the government...the government should not shape the priorities of taxpayers.  

In other words...taxpayers should be the sculptor...and the government should be the medium.  It's a fatal conceit to believe that it should be the other way around.

Honestly though...for as long as I've been a member of this forum...this is the first time we've ever had an honest to goodness consequentialist discussion.  Every other time it's been the deontological argument..."taxes are theft".

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> My hero...Deng Xiaoping...was a pragmatic consequentialist. He went around saying that it shouldn't matter whether a cat was black or white...what matters is whether it catches mice.


 Right, excellent example, and interesting that he is a hero of yours.  Certainly his actions caused a great increase in the well-being of hundreds of millions of people, something which is more than most of us can say about our lives.

In context, he was saying that to justify his adoption of more-or-less free market ideas and tossing communism in the garbage heap.  One European economic paradigm, that of Karl Marx and Frederich Engels, got tossed out because it didn't work, and another, the European or Western-style free market, got brought in.  He was saying: guess what, guys?  The free market works.  It catches mice.

Now where did capitalism or the Western-style free market come from?  It arose from the state of relative political anarchy that existed in Western Europe in the middle ages.  That works.  It really works.  It really works really really well.  It's proven.  It's done.  Everyone half-way intellectually honest can see that.  Europe won.  Europe's per-capita income increased year after year, decade after decade, for centuries on end!  That had never happened!  Nowhere else had ever had an economic miracle like that.  Everywhere that has had an economic miracle since has had to emulate the liberal policies that Europe pioneered (though they rarely if ever have emulated the extreme political decentralization that led to these policies in the first place).

More pragmatic than your tax-earmarking plan -- which I'm not against mind you -- is to advocate for smaller polities.  Political breakup.  Secession.  Nullification.  10th Amendment.  Any movement toward the radically decentralized tiny polities that existed in the Western European situation that was so stunningly, unprecedentedly, shockingly, thunderingly successful.  Your tax-earmarking plan I put in kind of the same category as the "Read the Bills" plan -- a nice idea, sure let's have Congress pass that, I'm all for it.  Is Congress going to pass it?  No.  So in the meantime, let's do other things which are proven to work.  Political decentralization has a track record like nothing else ever -- its track record is that it completely transformed an entire world and made us all rich.

Yeah, that's a pretty good track record.  That's pretty pragmatic, I say.

Lectures 1 and 2 especially in this series are relevant and really very enjoyable, high-quality, and enlightening:
http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=65

----------


## Xerographica

Here's my reply...The Magna Carta Movement.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Went through your post _Perspectives Matter - Economics in One Lesson. _ 


> The question then remains...does your perspective matter?


 It's a pretty good article, and yes, my perspective matters.   As does yours, though more to you than to me. 




> Err?  You don't think that tax choice...aka pragmatarianism...aka the Magna Carta Movement would work.


 I didn't say it wouldn't work.  Speaking of "Err?"!  I said I'm all for it.  Didn't I?  Allow me to quote myself:




> I'm all for it.


Yep, I did.

So there we have it.

To reply to another little point:



> I think it's almost certain that Deng Xiaoping wouldn't have been able to accomplish what he did manage to accomplish if he had suggested tossing communism in the garbage can.   In a nation full of indoctrinated communists...that probably wouldn't have gone over too well.


 Yeah, he said it diplomatically, in a classic textbook "Chinese" way.  But "throw Communism in the garbage; it is starving our people" is obviously what he was saying.  What matters is whether the cat catches mice, means what matters is whether the economic system works.  People were accusing him of not being true to Communist principles.  An American response would have been just to say "I'm being practical; look at the results," or "Are you better off now than four years ago?" ala Reagan.  Instead he put it on a fortune cookie.




> So let's start a Magna Carta Movement!


 As I say, I would be very happy to see "tax choice" come about, and I think it would lead to real improvement in society.  I'm not sure I can see any strategic path forward for it to come to fruition, however.  Perhaps it could first be implemented locally, in some town or county.

But, then again, if we've gotten enough influence over said town/county to impose tax choice, I'd just as soon skip over that step straight to tax _repeal_ and then begin the road to secession.

----------


## Xerographica

> Went through your post _Perspectives Matter - Economics in One Lesson. _  It's a pretty good article, and yes, my perspective matters.   As does yours, though more to you than to me.    I didn't say it wouldn't work.  Speaking of "Err?"!  I said I'm all for it.  Didn't I?  Allow me to quote myself: 
> Yep, I did.  So there we have it.





> As I say, I would be very happy to see "tax choice" come about, and I think it would lead to real improvement in society.  I'm not sure I can see any strategic path forward for it to come to fruition, however.  Perhaps it could first be implemented locally, in some town or county.  But, then again, if we've gotten enough influence over said town/county to impose tax choice, I'd just as soon skip over that step straight to tax _repeal_ and then begin the road to secession.


You want to skip over tax choice (people's perspectives mattering) so you can implement secession (people's perspectives mattering).  Except, to skip over tax choice...or to even hint at some specific "end goal"...would mean disregarding the perspectives of the large majority of people that believe that the state is necessary.  Would that help or hinder our efforts to persuade people that their perspectives should matter?

I think we really need to focus on ceteris paribus...all things being equal.  The value of ceteris paribus is that we're only changing one thing.  When you only change one thing then people have no choice but to only consider that one thing that you changed.  There are no distractions that would easily hamstring our efforts.  All things being equal...what's the value of transferring the power of the purse from 538 congresspeople to 150 million taxpayers?  In other words...what's the value of the combined perspectives of 538 congresspeople compared to the value of the combined perspectives of 150 million taxpayers?  Where would we be without the perspectives of the 150 most productive citizens that our country has to offer?

In other words...we're trying to Keep it Simple Stupid (KISS).  The less distractions the better.  The more impartial we appear the better.  What would the "end result" be of pragmatarianism?  A larger public sector?  A smaller public sector?  No public sector?  Who knows?  Who cares?  What we do know for a fact is that the combined perspectives of 150 million taxpayers are infinitely more valuable than the combined perspectives of 538 congresspeople.  And when it comes to economics...perspectives matter.

We started off this discussion on the topic of sacrifice.  People had to sacrifice for their money.  Taxpayers know exactly what they had to give up in order to earn their money.  Once taxpayers are given the freedom to directly allocate their taxes...then they'll have the opportunity to see what they can get from the government that would be worth all the sacrifices that they had to make in order to earn their money.  What's the value of 150 million taxpayers asking themselves "is it worth it?" when paying their taxes?  What exactly does the government do, if anything, that taxpayers would consider to be worthy of their countless sacrifices?  Why wouldn't we want to find out?  Why would we be scared to discover that the government does do some things that some taxpayers somewhat value?




> To reply to another little point:
>  Yeah, he said it diplomatically, in a classic textbook "Chinese" way.  But "throw Communism in the garbage; it is starving our people" is obviously what he was saying.  What matters is whether the cat catches mice, means what matters is whether the economic system works.  People were accusing him of not being true to Communist principles.  An American response would have been just to say "I'm being practical; look at the results," or "Are you better off now than four years ago?" ala Reagan.  Instead he put it on a fortune cookie.


Either an organization produces results or it doesn't.  Our challenge is to phrase it in a way that helps taxpayers understand that they are the best judges of whether a government organization produces results.  If a government organization does not produce results...or provide some subjective benefit...then there's no reason that utility maximizing, psychic profit-seeking, purposefully acting taxpayers would give their taxes to that government organization.  

If you get a chance...look over these 66 responses to pragmatarianism...Unglamorous but Important Things.  Every single one of those responses is a critique of pragmatarianism that is equally applicable to anarcho-capitalism...given that they all concern the invisible hand.  With each of the responses I included a link to the context so you can read how I addressed each person's critique.  

How would you have addressed those critiques?  How would you have phrased it?  Would you have followed Xiaoping's approach or Rothbard's approach?  Is the state our obstacle?  Or is the obstacle all the people who don't understand that their perspectives should matter in the public sector?  How can we help them understand that their perspectives should matter in the public sector?  

What's your hesitation in starting a blog?  What would you have to sacrifice to start a blog?  Would it be worth it?  Can congress answer that question for you?  No.  Can I answer that question for you?  Yes.  I mean no.  Well...certainly better than congress can given that congress doesn't even know that you exist.

Not sure if you read this thread...Which Congressperson Would You Trust With Your Taxes?...but in it I referenced Turgot who I learned about thanks to your suggestion that I listen to the second lecture by Raico.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> As I say, I would be very happy to see "tax choice" come about, and I think it would lead to real improvement in society.  I'm not sure I can see any strategic path forward for it to come to fruition, however.  Perhaps it could first be implemented locally, in some town or county.
> 
> But, then again, if we've gotten enough influence over said town/county to impose tax choice, I'd just as soon skip over that step straight to tax _repeal_ and then begin the road to secession.

----------


## Xerographica

noneedtoaggress, I don't know what you think freedom is if not people's ability to make choices with how they spend their limited time/money.  By advocating that taxpayers be allowed to choose which government organizations they give their taxes to...I'm out there advocating for greater freedom.  

You choose to put freedom in moral terms and I choose to put freedom in economic terms.  The only people that reject pragmatarianism on moral grounds are people like yourself.  In other words...people who are not my target audience.  Everybody else rejects pragmatarianism on the basis of their flawed understanding of economics.  And it's not like I don't have substantial evidence to prove this...Unglamorous but Important Things.

Is it worth it for me to sacrifice other things that I value in order to try and help people understand basic economic concepts?  Yeah, it is.  Am I making any progress?  It would be nice to think that I was...but clearly I'm not really cut out as a salesperson or an economics professor.  As a computer programmer my strength is in analysis...not people skills.  

Yet, obviously my motivation is not based on my ability to recruit people to my cause.  Instead, my motivation is based entirely on respected economist's failure to refute pragmatarianism.  Well...that and I thrive on challenges.  From where I stand...promoting tax choice is a challenge that's worthy of my personal sacrifice.  

So...if you want to take the wind from my sails...it's really simple.  Just ask David Friedman or Peter Boettke to disprove pragmatarianism.  Don't bother asking Walter Block.  His critique was "taxes are theft".

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Except, to skip over tax choice...or to even hint at some specific "end goal"...would mean disregarding the perspectives of the large majority of people that believe that the state is necessary.


 But right now, they're disregarding _my_ perspective!  Turn-about is fair play.  Anyway, I think you're off base.  I'm _supposed_ to disregard their perspective.  We're all supposed to disregard each other's perspective.  Everybody pursues things according to his own perspective, not everyone else's; that's the whole point.




> A larger public sector?  A smaller public sector?  No public sector?  Who knows?  Who cares?


 The thing is, that's really *all* I care about (political-wise).  So we aren't really coming at things from the same perspective nor with the same goals.  And I assume now you are _not_ under 30 since you didn't say you were, you're probably retired to have so much time to write on the internet, so you're over 50 and so it's hopeless to try to change your mind.  Too late.  Your neural pathways have calcified.  Not worth my time.




> Why would we be scared to discover that the government does do some things that some taxpayers somewhat value?


 I would not be scared of this, nor would it be a discovery.  Everyone already knows that many people have a crush on most of the junk the goons do.  *This torrid affair is not automatically valid just because it exists.*

That last is where I differ with you, I guess, to the extent that anyone knows whether they differ with you (including yourself, perhaps) since you never say what your actual goals are nor what your political philosophy is, you just hit this one note and won't talk about anything else.  But anyway, yes Mises and Hayek talked about how everyone's values are subjective and different and everyone's knowledge is decentralized and different.  But they were not saying that because of that everyone's values and ideas are _correct_ .  No, the political and economic ideas of everyone are most often stupid and poorly-thought-out.

Anyway, Ron Paul's ideas definitely did not come from Xerographica and pragmatarianism.  So you have hijacked this thread and I have gone along with said hijacking.  I apologize, everyone, and please, Xerographica, if you want to discuss pragmatarianism just keep it in a pragmatarianism thread (preferably just one!) and don't inject it into threads that have nothing to do with it.

----------


## Pragmatarian

No, Xerographica has one follower, noneedtoaggress: Me.

----------


## noneedtoaggress



----------


## Xerographica

> But right now, they're disregarding _my_ perspective!  Turn-about is fair play.  Anyway, I think you're off base.  I'm _supposed_ to disregard their perspective.  We're all supposed to disregard each other's perspective.  Everybody pursues things according to his own perspective, not everyone else's; that's the whole point.
> 
> Anyway, Ron Paul's ideas definitely did not come from Xerographica and pragmatarianism.  So you have hijacked this thread and I have gone along with said hijacking.  I apologize, everyone, and please, Xerographica, if you want to discuss pragmatarianism just keep it in a pragmatarianism thread (preferably just one!) and don't inject it into threads that have nothing to do with it.


First you tell me that we're supposed to disregard other people's perspectives...and then you ask me to consider your perspective on where I can and can't discuss pragmatarianism.  Well...here's my response.

----------


## Conza88

> *Ron Paul on Self-Government or Tip-Toeing Into Panarchism* - Lew Rockwell.com
> Posted by Michael S. Rozeff on April 4, 2012 05:41 AM
> 
> My thanks to fellow-panarchist Christian Butterbach for a short video of Ron Paul in which he endorses as an ultimate goal libertarian self-government. He specifically mentions enclaves and the Amish as well as communities that, in America's past, chose voluntarily to live socialistically. He contrasts this freedom to choose one's own government (as he projects would be a real choice in what he calls a "libertarian society") with a single monolithic monopoly (and necessarily territorial) government that forces everyone involuntarily to subscribe to what he calls its "socialism."
> 
> I think we can say that Ron Paul here not only understands panarchism but endorses it as what he "really" wants, and, by the same token, I think he would endorse voluntaryism, which comes to the same end. The constitutionalism of Ron Paul (returning to its original interpretation) appears for him quite possibly to be a means to a greater goal, which is a libertarian society, which in this context implies wide social agreement on the concept of voluntary self-governments and tolerance of them. The quickest way to get there is by making as much of government as possible optional or voluntary. This means making secession at the personal level more and more of a reality. And even if it is difficult to see how this can happen, it is very important to keep it in view as a goal. This goal contrasts starkly with any spreading of government involuntaryism (or coercion) into more and more areas of life, here and across the world.


lol....

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I will say that Conza gets too worked up - too strident in his tone - not a good method for getting a point across.
> 
> That said, Dale Carnegie?  WTF?  I've despised that man's ideas forever.
> 
> For one thing, I do not endeavor to "win" friends.  I build friendships.  They are not prizes.  As for influencing people, I don't do that either.  I put out the truth as I see it and let it speak for itself.  Forget Carnegie's bankrupt world view.


Yeah, Carnegie sucked.  But there are things to be learned from most people-even the terrible ones (even if the lesson is what NOT to do).  It's just the book I thought of in the spur of the moment.  Now that you've reminded me, there are better books on the subject of relationships, acquaintances, influencing people, etc.  Napoleon Hill's books are best-sellers and still practical IMO.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> lol....


Thanks!

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> "I have no idea how to sell ideas..." as I host this video on how to sell ideas... 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Btw update: All 3 individuals have been informed of this thread.
> 
> If you doubt the twitter is real - *www.twitter.com/ronpaul2010* join


If you sell ideas well in person, I applaud you for it.  The point in the video there^^ are well-known in libertarian circles (you didn't originate them).  I've heard Larken Rose and numerous other discuss almost the same point.  My point was that the tone you tend to take on RPFs is too confrontational.  You come off as rude-which is why the debates you participate in lose their civility almost instantly.  Take the classy route more often and I think you'll have more success.  Even if you don't convince your opponents, others watching will be more likely to consider what you say.  Just FWIW.

----------


## Conza88

> If you sell ideas well in person, I applaud you for it.  The point in the video there^^ are well-known in libertarian circles (you didn't originate them).  I've heard Larken Rose and numerous other discuss almost the same point.  My point was that the tone you tend to take on RPFs is too confrontational.  You come off as rude-which is why the debates you participate in lose their civility almost instantly.  Take the classy route more often and I think you'll have more success.  Even if you don't convince your opponents, others watching will be more likely to consider what you say.  Just FWIW.


I'm blunt, and harsh *with people who are intellectually dishonest* on here. I _STARTED OUT_ as perfectly reasonable with them, respectful and assumed they were open to reason. This is a different medium to face to face conversations. Here you can lurk, there is NO pressure to post, you can THINK and take as MUCH time as you want to ponder something. You can RESEARCH if you want. And then you can choose to post your thoughts. I have a different standard for face to face discussions, which usually involve others listening in and the inclination is to defend your ideas, you need an immediate response etc.

As history and the interaction goes on here - whether that is true or not becomes crystal clear. When they are not intellectual honest, when they DICTATE answers instead of ask, when they are NOT curious but overtly aggressive against things they know little to nothing about... it reflects on them.

Since they are not intellectually honest, or open to reason (asking things like: what books have you read on the subject or source? help determine it. If they are completely unable to answer that, and *AVOID it COUNTLESS TIMES* - they are more troll than someone actually interested in the ideas.

And so they lose respect. Engaging with them becomes about using them as a soundboard, to convince others. I've made many people out to be fools here - they generally don't know it, they delusionally think they're on some crusade to 'defend the constitution' or the movement. Hilariously sad... and yet I thank them!

----------


## Conza88



----------


## Travlyr

That's great Conza.

But if the Mises Institute promotes Mises as an anarchist when Mises himself rejected anarchy, then what is the purpose? I hold much respect for Ludwig von Mises.

Ludwig von Mises made it very clear that Classical Liberalism has *nothing to do with anarchism*,



> 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.


Mises makes it very clear to a reader,



> Liberalism is therefore far from disputing the necessity of a machinery of state, a system of law, and a government. It is a grave misunderstanding to associate it in any way with the idea of anarchism. For the liberal, the state is an absolute necessity, since the most important tasks are incumbent upon it: the protection not only of private property, but also of peace, for in the absence of the latter the full benefits of private property cannot be reaped.


Conza, why are you promoting anarchism when Mises didn't?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

Travlyr, I'm going to trust that if you are going engage with other anarchists here and you end up getting frustrated, annoyed, etc., you aren't going to bring that frustration into our debate.

----------


## Travlyr

> Travlyr, I'm going to trust that if you are going engage with other anarchists here and you end up getting frustrated, annoyed, etc., you aren't going to bring that frustration into our debate.


I will point to the truth, as I see it, every day of my life for the rest of my life. If you can't handle the truth, then read and don't write.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I will point to the truth, as I see it, every day of my life for the rest of my life. If you can't handle the truth, then read and don't write.


If I can't handle the truth?  Travlyr, I'm simply saying that I hope the integrity of our debate will be preserved.  I don't feel like these comments of yours are very conducive to that...

----------


## Travlyr

> If I can't handle the truth?  Travlyr, I'm simply saying that I hope the integrity of our debate will be preserved.  I don't feel like these comments of yours are very conducive to that...


Do you not like the truth?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

Sigh...

----------


## Travlyr

> Sigh...


What does that mean? You do or you don't like the truth? I take it to mean that you don't. You do not want to debate because you know that your position is a loose loose situation. Amirite?

----------


## Travlyr

It is the same thing with noneedtoagress, who is very aggressive, I must add... No desire to debate because he holds values that are not valuable. noneeedtoagress is an empty suit.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

It means that I'm disappointed that you're reacting this way.  All I did was point out that I was hoping if you engaged a personality like Conza, any frustration from that discussion wouldn't spill into our debate.  That is ALL.  

I am debating you.  I'm not afraid to debate you.

----------


## Travlyr

> It means that I'm disappointed that you're reacting this way.  All I did was point out that I was hoping if you engaged a personality like Conza, any frustration from that discussion wouldn't spill into our debate.  That is ALL.  
> 
> I am debating you.  I'm not afraid to debate you.


Until you post a new thread for our debate, then I will assume that you don't want to debate.

----------


## Travlyr

> Until you post a new thread for our debate, then I will assume that you don't want to debate.


Which I don't blame you. You are debating from a losing proposition.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Until you post a new thread for our debate, then I will assume that you don't want to debate.


I thought you said you were going to create the new thread:




> I wish to start a new thread with this post if it is okay with you. I would like to copy/paste every post including this one into the new thread. I wish to call it: Statelessness vs. State 
> 
> What do you think?

----------


## Travlyr

> I thought you said you were going to create the new thread:


I would be most honored to start a new thread. I proposed that honor to you. Yet I will take it because you rejected it.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Until you post a new thread for our debate, then I will assume that you don't want to debate.





> Which I don't blame you. You are debating from a losing proposition.


Sigh.  This is what you call a 'truce'.  This is your idea of civility in the interest of debate...

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I would be most honored to start a new thread. I proposed that honor to you. Yet I will take it because you rejected it.


You said *"I would like to start a new thread"*.  You did not say "please start a new thread".

----------


## Travlyr

> You said *"I would like to start a new thread"*.  You did not say "please start a new thread".


Yeah, I gave you the opportunity. You did not take it, so I did.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> It is the same thing with noneedtoagress, who is very aggressive, I must add... No desire to debate because he holds values that are not valuable. noneeedtoagress is an empty suit.


I'm simply going to point out that Travlyr is seeking to initiate a conflict with me here, antagonizing me, and calling me names, yet again.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

Now is LE going to neg rep Trav for that?

I wonder.

----------


## Travlyr

> I'm simply going to point out that Travlyr is seeking to initiate a conflict with me here, antagonizing me, and calling me names, yet again.


My truce was with 'A Son of Liberty' because he seemed sincere in wanting to debate honest issues. You do not seem sincere. You are like a clown who has no substance. You are a painted face and that is all you bring to the table.

----------


## Conza88

> That's great Conza.
> 
> But if the Mises Institute promotes Mises as an anarchist when Mises himself rejected anarchy, then what is the purpose? I hold much respect for Ludwig von Mises.
> 
> Ludwig von Mises made it very clear that Classical Liberalism has *nothing to do with anarchism*,
> 
> Mises makes it very clear to a reader,
> 
> Conza, why are you promoting anarchism when Mises didn't?


This is a one off response - you're _still_ on ignore.

*Mises on Anarchism:* http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/14869.aspx


See every post of mine in the thread. Now go educate yourself troll.

----------


## Travlyr

> This is a one off response - you're _still_ on ignore.
> 
> *Mises on Anarchism:* http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/14869.aspx
> 
> 
> See every post of mine in the thread. Now go educate yourself troll.


That is not Mises on anarchism. That is some dude who can't read. 

Mises said,



> *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


And, 



> Liberalism is therefore far from disputing the necessity of a machinery of state, a system of law, and a government. *It is a grave misunderstanding to associate it in any way with the idea of anarchism.* For the liberal, *the state is an absolute necessity*, since the most important tasks are incumbent upon it: the protection not only of private property, but also of peace, for in the absence of the latter the full benefits of private property cannot be reaped." - Ludwig von Mises


And then the lame claim will be made again, Mises didn't understand anarchy. Lame Claim. Mises knew what he was talking about. Don't take my word for it, read Mises for yourself.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> My truce was with 'A Son of Liberty' because he seemed sincere in wanting to debate honest issues. You do not seem sincere. You are like a clown who has no substance. You are a painted face and that is all you bring to the table.


I find it telling that you have to "call a truce" in order to stop calling people names and try to have an adult conversation with someone. Don't you find it kind of silly? It's really telling about how you view yourself and what you're doing here.

----------


## CCTelander

> I'm simply going to point out that Travlyr is seeking to initiate a conflict with me here, antagonizing me, and calling me names, yet again.



Surely by now you've realized that antagonizing, name calling and just generally trolling "anarchists" is Trav's whole _raisone d'etre_? Just a thought.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

Can't say I'd be all that surprised if that turned out to be truce.

----------

