A free people do not need an army to protect them.

[Kojac]

I'm going to start basic and see if I can bring this point out clearly.

Too much government is stifling. It is tyrannical and controlling. It eventually forces a populace to comply with its will because of fear: fear of arrest, fear of death, fear of financial ruin, fear of what might happen to those you love.

Too little government is chaos. It allows the strongest to crush and rule their immediate surroundings. It means no protection for those that may be weak, but who have other qualities: the ability to innovate, to create art, to research, to sing, to entertain. If the strong do not fancy these talents, they cannot be used.

The right amount of government provides nothing more than a protective framework for society to operate within. It protects the rights of individuals (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) through a judicial and legislative system. It provides for the defense of the nation through a military, (I know most of you won't like this) an intelligence network, and a diplomatic corps of some sort. It may also provide an infrastructure: roads, emergency services, police, naturalization services, etc. These things allow citizens to choose whatever path they want to take in life without another sovereign nation or another person killing them or taking their liberty. It allows them to control their own lives while keeping them from deciding the direction others' lives around them will take.

There must of course be limits on the government to keep it from growing beyond this scope, and I believe that the Constitution outlines these limits, but that they've been ignored.

People will now ask why I think we need a military that can reach globally. It's very simple. We arose, as a nation, in a world that was becoming increasingly global in every way. American concerns are global. An American in China is still an American, and his liberty is still sacred. A country that publicly articulates the wish for American destruction while developing nuclear weapons is a danger. American companies that have investments in other countries still deserve to have their assets protected.

 

[muzzled dogg]

good thread

 

[Promontorium]

Nevermind technological or fiscal availability, professionals are superior to amatuers.


I don't appreciate this "nounism" where you think you can have a last stand with someone you fundamentally agree with, but don't use the same vocabulary.

I'm not a socialist if I want to pay for a professional soldier. That's not logical, and that kind of divisive ignorance will get nowhere.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Nevermind technological or fiscal availability, professionals are superior to amatuers.


I don't appreciate this "nounism" where you think you can have a last stand with someone you fundamentally agree with, but don't use the same vocabulary.

I'm not a socialist if I want to pay for a professional soldier. That's not logical, and that kind of divisive ignorance will get nowhere.

But if you make me pay for it when I don't need, or want it, whats that? When you nationalize this industry, what is that? In most States there are laws on the books that ban many militia activity, and further, almost every state and the Federal Government have onerous weapon regulations. How is that not a nationalization of the industry?

Anyone who supports a Standing Army supports a socialist institution. Thats just the fact. That said, professionals are not inherently superior to amatuers, and militia men are not amatuers. You fail to distinguish expertise, from being payed. I know a lot of experts in many things and they aren't paid for it --- thus not professional, but could demolish most professionals. You are also overlooking the many many inherent advantages a Militia offers over a Standing Army.

 

[pcosmar]

professionals are superior to amatuers.


.

I reject this premise in entirety.

And as further evidence of professional incompetence,
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=248043

This nation, and free people DO NOT need a Standing Army.
The Founders warned of it and their warnings have been proven true.

 

[tremendoustie]

I'm going to start basic and see if I can bring this point out clearly.

Too much government ....

By "government" do you mean a central, monopoly state? I think this is a key question. I would say I support government, but not a state.

Too much government is stifling. It is tyrannical and controlling. It eventually forces a populace to comply with its will because of fear: fear of arrest, fear of death, fear of financial ruin, fear of what might happen to those you love.

Certainly true.

Too little government is chaos. It allows the strongest to crush and rule their immediate surroundings. It means no protection for those that may be weak, but who have other qualities: the ability to innovate, to create art, to research, to sing, to entertain. If the strong do not fancy these talents, they cannot be used.

Again, I think this is where we need to be careful. We need to protect the weak from the strong. If you want to call that government, fine, I agree. But, the only way to implement such protection is not a central, monopoly state, with the ability to use agressive force/violence.

The only way the weak can be protected from the strong, for starters, is if the masses of people, by and large, support justice and order. If they don't, government, if it exists, will just abuse the weak anyway.

So the question becomes, how can this large majority, which desires protection, impliment it? And, how can it hold these organizations accountable? What if one goes rogue?

Let's say one protection agency among many goes rogue. There are a number of means average individuals have to stop them.

1. People choose not to do business with such organizations or individuals. (Vote with your wallet)
2. People employ various professional organizations in their defense against such organizations or individuals. (Courts of arbitration, other defense agencies)
3. People themselves maintain amateur organizations, such as militias, to defend against such rogue groups.
4. People will ultimately resist, as individuals, either peacefully or forcefully, any such organization or individual.

With a central government, the people only get an extremely weakened version of option number 1, where they get to "vote", but not with their wallets. They don't get to maintain alternative defense/justice organizations, so #2 is out. Militias are extremely restricted, so #3 is almost out, and we're left with #4.

Just as in any industry, competition implies accountability, because people can select alternatives -- while a forced monopoly implies little or no accountability.

To this point, the discussion has been purely practical, but it's also worth noting that to impose a central state requires the use of agressive force -- for example, euphamism aside, money must be extorted from people against their will -- while protection agencies can be formed without the use of such agressive force -- without violating basic moral rules.

The right amount of government provides nothing more than a protective framework for society to operate within.

I agree ... but again, I think you're unnecesarily limiting yourself to suppose that government must be accomplished by a central state. It's something like a Russian supposing that the only way to get food is a state bread line: understandable, because that's his experience, but also dead wrong.

It protects the rights of individuals (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) through a judicial and legislative system.

How will these things be funded? If by extortion, you've already destroyed liberty.

Will they enforce a monopoly? That is, suppose I hold an independent court of arbitration, respected in my community, in which I determine appropriate restitution for victims, or even a secure work environment, for especially dangerous agressors. Suppose your organization has no serious disagreement with any of my rulings. Will they go after me, simply because I am not them? If so, you've already destroyed liberty.

Will the legislature be permitted to create rules to prohibit victimless behaviors, or force compliance to arbitrary regulations? If so, you've already destroyed liberty.

etc.

It provides for the defense of the nation through a military, (I know most of you won't like this) an intelligence network, and a diplomatic corps of some sort.

How will these things be funded? If by extortion, you've already destroyed liberty.

Will the intelligence network violate people's privacy, here or abroad? If so, you've already destroyed liberty.

It may also provide an infrastructure: roads, emergency services, police,

How will these things be funded? If by extortion, you've already destroyed liberty.

How will land be aquired for roads? If by extortion (aka emminent domain), you've already destroyed liberty.

Will people be allowed to select alternative police agencies, assuming they only defend innocents, and aquire just restitution? If not, you've already destroyed liberty.

naturalization services

Are you suggesting that you will dictate to property owners who they may and may not allow on their land, or to businesses who they may hire? If so, you've already destroyed liberty.

These things allow citizens to choose whatever path they want to take in life without another sovereign nation or another person killing them or taking their liberty.

Wrong -- you've already taken it -- and created the monopoly institution that will inevitably be used by power hungry individuals to take far more.

It allows them to control their own lives while keeping them from deciding the direction others' lives around them will take.

You've already mandated that your neighbors pay for a host of "services", without allowing them to choose alternatives, diktated to them who may enter their property, and who they may hire, subjected them to the arbitrary whim of politicians, forced them to pay for a massive fighting force which may be used to subjugate them, ensured that your organization has a monopoly on protection services, transportation, emergency services, courts, and defense, and spied on them.

It sounds like you've already done plenty of "deciding" about other people's lives.

There must of course be limits on the government to keep it from growing beyond this scope, and I believe that the Constitution outlines these limits, but that they've been ignored.

Of course they've been ignored. It's the government itself that interprets and enforces these "limits".

You've effectively created a massive, all powerful mafia, with no competition, then written a note that says "This mafia must only do good things", and expected it to stop them. You'd have as much luck using your sheet of paper to stop a buzzsaw.

People will now ask why I think we need a military that can reach globally. It's very simple. We arose, as a nation, in a world that was becoming increasingly global in every way. American concerns are global.

My concerns are local ... and where they're global, they are only charitable.

If your concerns are different, I suggest you finance those goals, rather than extorting money from me to do so -- especially since I often find these "global concerns" highly immoral.

An American in China is still an American, and his liberty is still sacred.

Yep, and since mine's sacred too, I suggest you stop sticking a gun to my head and forcing me to finance the defense of his. Actually, not even that. Your opinion of what is needed for the defense of his.

A country that publicly articulates the wish for American destruction

Countries don't articulate, individuals do.

while developing nuclear weapons

My understanding is that they're developing nuclear power. And how many nukes does the US government have? Which government, historically, has used nukes? Which, in recent memory, has been inclined towars agressive foreign invasions?

is a danger.

Ok, that's your opinion, and you're welcome to it. I suggest you open your own wallet, and finance whatever action you suggest, or go volunteer yourself.

I suggest you stop threatening others in order to force them to do so -- especially while paying empty lip service to "liberty".

American companies that have investments in other countries still deserve to have their assets protected.

Yep, but they don't have a right to stick a gun to my head and force me to pay for the protection of said assets, and neither do you.

They should pay for their own protection.

 

[mczerone]

Except Militias and Standing Armies cannot co-exist. It is impossible. The very nature of a Standing Army erodes and eats away at the Militia until there is either no Militia left, or Militias are so demonized as to be done away with in the conscious of the average person. The Anti-Federalists went over this, much better than I.

Besides, the nature of the Militia is the protection of liberty. The nature of Standing Armies is the erosion of liberty. Cannot co-exist.

This is generalizable to ALL services co-opted by the state. There is no way peaceful industry can compete once the profit motive disappears and the bottom line is political image instead of meeting the needs of customers.

The Army disparages the militias, the courts disparage ADR capabilities, the schools work to ostracize home-schoolers, and on and on.

 

[Kojac]

Tremendoustie, let me remind you that the government of the United States is supposed to be one by the people, for the the people, and of the people. (or if you prefer...) "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

"This massive, all powerful mafia, with no competition" has its purse strings held by 435 representatives that represent regions of people who directly choose them every two years.

There are also Senators and a President that everyone votes for. (although we could debate the 17th Amendment here)

Now, if you're part of a community that has developed a framework to keep that community safe and free, and it's clear that you have a voice that has a measurable effect in frequently selecting the people that operate this framework...how exactly is that comparable to a mafia?

The system has been abused. The people have been duped. You know whose fault it is that our country is in bad shape? OURS. We the people have not remained educated and attentive. WE are the ones that repeatedly elected a Congress with a sub 15% approval rating. WE are the ones that allowed a two party system to take over. WE are the ones that have to fix this mess by sending a different breed of representative to change the way things are done.

Stop abdicating your responsibility by claiming repression by the state. Get off your butt and help the rest of us fix this mess before WE THE PEOPLE hand off enough power that the government abolishes the Constitution or attaches us to a continental or world government or something more awful than that.


P.S. I did volunteer. I'm a United States Marine.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Tremendoustie, let me remind you that the government of the United States is supposed to be one by the people, for the the people, and of the people. (or if you prefer...) "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

"This massive, all powerful mafia, with no competition" has its purse strings held by 435 representatives that represent regions of people who directly choose them every two years.

There are also Senators and a President that everyone votes for. (although we could debate the 17th Amendment here)

Now, if you're part of a community that has developed a framework to keep that community safe and free, and it's clear that you have a voice that has a measurable effect in frequently selecting the people that operate this framework...how exactly is that comparable to a mafia?

The system has been abused. The people have been duped. You know whose fault it is that our country is in bad shape? OURS. We the people have not remained educated and attentive. WE are the ones that repeatedly elected a Congress with a sub 15% approval rating. WE are the ones that allowed a two party system to take over. WE are the ones that have to fix this mess by sending a different breed of representative to change the way things are done.

Stop abdicating your responsibility by claiming repression by the state. Get off your butt and help the rest of us fix this mess before WE THE PEOPLE hand off enough power that the government abolishes the Constitution or attaches us to a continental or world government or something more awful than that.


P.S. I did volunteer. I'm a United States Marine.

Bullshit. I was not alive in 1861. I was not alive in 1913. I was not alive in 1932. I was not alive in 1965. I was not alive in 1980.

You are blindingly clueless, as to the current situation. They have all ready abolished the Constitution. It was abolished well before you were born. The Government has never followed the Constitution. Oh sure, maybe a part or two to keep the masses quelled, but they've never really followed it.

As for your first sentence, I don't care much for cheap platitudes. I don't care about supposeds. I care about reality! The truth of the matter is that in order to preserve liberty, Government must be abolished. Government is necessarily the abridgement of liberty.

I most certainly do not choose my 'representative'. In a plurality setting at least half, or nearly half the people are not represented. So on top of the platitude, its also a bold faced lie. How lovely.

I also find it funny with people who bring up the last sentence in your paragraph. It always reminds me of a quip of Murrays. What is the optimum level of Governance? What makes a one world Government so bad, when we have a one American Government? What is the optimum square mileage for your Government? If one agrees that a world Government is bad, because its too big, where do you stop and how do you calculate where to stop?

If anarchy is rejected, there is no non-arbitrary stopping point short of One World Government.

 

[Kojac]

So in your magical world of anarchy, I see that you've got stuff I want.

I pick a rifle of my choosing, I shoot you, I take your stuff. There is no government, I can do this as long as I'm strong enough to defend myself.

YAY ANARCHY.

On the other hand, there are times when people overwhelmingly agree to elect a representative, and they receive two-thirds or more of the vote (in real life). These people go to D.C. and speak for their constituents, or work in a state legislature in similar ways. If you find the arrangement of a constitutional republic so distasteful, why do you continue to live with it? You ought to move to some wilderness and do whatever you want.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

So in your magical world of anarchy, I see that you've got stuff I want.

I pick a rifle of my choosing, I shoot you, I take your stuff. There is no government, I can do this as long as I'm strong enough to defend myself.

YAY ANARCHY.

Why do people assume anarchy has no laws? You mean to tell me you don't believe a voluntary system of law exists?

 

[pcosmar]

So in your magical world of anarchy, I see that you've got stuff I want.

I pick a rifle of my choosing, I shoot you, I take your stuff. There is no government, I can do this as long as I'm strong enough to defend myself.

YAY ANARCHY.

Well I am not an anarchist. I do believe in a very limited government. I also believe that the standing Army is a threat to liberty, as did the Founding Fathers.

Perhaps it is public education or perhaps your head was over threaded. i would recommend loosening your cap and reading the writings of the Founders.

and yes, I too was a volunteer (Army) in my youth. But I have learned some since then.
Support your local Militia.

 

[Kojac]

Voluntary system of law? Well, I'm sorry, I didn't volunteer in that scenario. I guess you're still hypothetically screwed.

To pcosmar:

I believe in limited government as well. It's like 6 posts up if you've been following. I also have a private school education and have read many of the founders' writings. My home is 20 minutes away from Monticello and 40 minutes away from Montpelier. I have been steeped in the history of the founders since I was quite young. I am also quite aware of the kind of threats that are out in the world these days, and a militia will simply not cut it.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Voluntary system of law? Well, I'm sorry, I didn't volunteer in that scenario. I guess you're still hypothetically screwed.

To pcosmar:

I believe in limited government as well. It's like 6 posts up if you've been following. I also have a private school education and have read many of the founders' writings. My home is 20 minutes away from Monticello and 40 minutes away from Montpelier. I have been steeped in the history of the founders since I was quite young. I am also quite aware of the kind of threats that are out in the world these days, and a militia will simply not cut it.

Obviously you've never read any of the Anti-Federalist writings. I'd also recommend Voltaire & La Boetie, for pre-Revolution thinkers.

There is no doubt in my mind if people read Boetie, Thoreau, Bastiat, H. Spencer and the Anti-Federalist papers we would have a lot more people on the side of liberty.

 

[tremendoustie]

So in your magical world of anarchy, I see that you've got stuff I want.

I pick a rifle of my choosing, I shoot you, I take your stuff. There is no government, I can do this as long as I'm strong enough to defend myself.

YAY ANARCHY.

You can do it now if you're strong enough to defend yourself.

You won't be, because average people, when they combine resources, are far more powerful than any individual. That's why the government's more powerful than you, and that's why the systems of justice in a free society would be more powerful than you.

On the other hand, there are times when people overwhelmingly agree to elect a representative, and they receive two-thirds or more of the vote (in real life). These people go to D.C. and speak for their constituents, or work in a state legislature in similar ways.

So, at best, you've got 2/3 of the people enslaving the other 1/3. In practice, most of the time, the "representative" dupes the populace, does nothing that he promised to do, or is simply unable to change things.

People dissatisfied with these services cannot choose an alternative, so there's little to no accountability for ever growing government bureaucracy.

If you find the arrangement of a constitutional republic so distasteful, why do you continue to live with it? You ought to move to some wilderness and do whatever you want.

I enjoy society, just not the gang calling themselves "government".

 

[tremendoustie]

Tremendoustie, let me remind you that the government of the United States is supposed to be one by the people, for the the people, and of the people. (or if you prefer...) "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Sorry, that's B.S.

Less than 1% of people were allowed to vote, let alone voted for a representative to the "constitutional convention", or the "ratification" therof.

Are you seriously going to argue that 1% of people get to threaten agressive violence against the other 99%, in order to control their lives and finances -- AND that of their posterity, none of whom signed anything?

Furthermore, even if 90% of the people voted to steal the property of 10%, they'd still have no right to do so. Murder, extortion, kidnapping, slavery, etc, don't magically become moral if your gang's big enough.

Threatening violence against innocent people in order to extort cash from them, or force them to do your bidding, is immoral, period.

"This massive, all powerful mafia, with no competition" has its purse strings held by 435 representatives that represent regions of people who directly choose them every two years.

There are also Senators and a President that everyone votes for. (although we could debate the 17th Amendment here)

Voting is an extremely weak form of accountability, which I noted, if you read what I wrote. "Representation" is a scam in the first place. One person cannot represent two people who disagree, let alone thousands. Furthermore, voters are often stuck with a choice between bad or worse -- and the massive layers of bureaucracy in the federal government sit unchanged, and unaccountable, election after election.

If you want real accountability, you'll let people withdraw funding, and choose alternatives. Competition is what provides REAL accountability -- unlike voting for Tweedledee or Tweedledum every four years.

Now, if you're part of a community that has developed a framework to keep that community safe and free, and it's clear that you have a voice that has a measurable effect in frequently selecting the people that operate this framework
.how exactly is that comparable to a mafia?

Actually, I have no voice. There is nobody in government anywhere who I agree with. Ron's far better than most, but I still don't consider him an accurate representation of myself. I've never even had the opportunity to vote for anyone who I would have considered a good representation of myself.

The mafia extorts money from businesses and property owners by threatening to harm them if they don't pay up: Check.

The mafia enforces monopolies in certain industries, like alcohol distribution and gambling: Check

The mafia demands a cut of economic activity: Check

The mafia seizes property it wants, even against the owners wishes: Check

The mafia demands people ask permission from it before they open a business: Check

etc.

The main difference is, the state extorts far more money from people than the mafia ever did, and they control far more aspects of everyday life, and far more industries.

The system has been abused.

The system is built for abuse.

That's like giving a megalomaniac the only gun in existence, saying, "be nice", and then being surprised at the "abuse" when he isn't.

What do you expect, when you eliminate all competition, and give one organization the exclusive right to use aggressive violence? On what planet are monopolies a recipe for accountability -- let alone violent ones? By eliminating all alternatives, and allowing them to compel funding, you've systematically destroyed all real accountaiblity there could possibly be. A central monopoly state has no real accountability by DESIGN.

What, my all powerful tool with the ability to control everyone and everything is being abused? I'm shocked! Just shocked!! I thought it'd be run by magical angels from heaven!!

The people have been duped. You know whose fault it is that our country is in bad shape? OURS. We the people have not remained educated and attentive. WE are the ones that repeatedly elected a Congress with a sub 15% approval rating. WE are the ones that allowed a two party system to take over. WE are the ones that have to fix this mess by sending a different breed of representative to change the way things are done.

The level of vigilance required to keep a central, monopoly state in check is astronomical. It is far greater than the level of vigilance required to keep one of many defense agencies in check. Far more recourse is available to the people in a situation where they are allowed free choice.

This should be clear with any serious, honest thought.

Stop abdicating your responsibility by claiming repression by the state. Get off your butt and help the rest of us fix this mess before WE THE PEOPLE hand off enough power that the government abolishes the Constitution or attaches us to a continental or world government or something more awful than that.

Dude, I'm not on my butt. I support state and national pro-liberty candidates, as well as civil disobedience, jury nullification, state nullification, agorism, media, education, etc.

I'm quitting my job and moving to NH in a few months, for liberty.

P.S. I did volunteer. I'm a United States Marine.

I suggest you quit. Stop being a hired gun for the government, or doing immoral things on their behalf (if you are), come home (if you're not), and defend liberty here. If you want to defend my liberty, stand between me and the federal government (I don't mean forcefully, just figuratively). They are the greatest threat to it, by far.

I recognize that this requires a enormous amount of courage -- more than I've had occasion to show yet, so don't think I say this flippantly.

Heck, join me in NH . There are lots of constitutionalists and minarchists there too, not just voluntaryists like me.


In closing, I'd like your answer to the following thought experiment, which I hope will help us further examine the moral questions underpinning of our current conception of government. Again, please answer this, if you don't answer anything else:

Suppose at the creation of the world I find myself living near two other people. Now, suppose myself, and my first neighbor, wish to steal from the other. My second neighbor simply wishes to live in peace. We could, since we have more guns, and there are two of us, simply overwhelm him and take his stuff. I assume you would call that theft.

Instead, my first neighbor and I hold a “constitutional convention”, and determine by two thirds majority, that we will have a democracy. We then vote to steal from our neighbor, and the motion passes by two thirds majority, which of course is binding, since we have already determined that we shall live in a democracy. It’s now the law that we shall take the property of our neighbor, and since there are two of us and one of him, overwhelm him by force and do so immediately. Or, of course, we could give him a chance to leave, at which point we get his farm anyway.

Do you consider this scenario any different, or more moral, than the first — common theft?

 

[tremendoustie]

Voluntary system of law? Well, I'm sorry, I didn't volunteer in that scenario. I guess you're still hypothetically screwed.

There's nothing wrong forcibly stopping someone who attacks someone else, or their property. That's defense.

All I'm asking, is that the same standards for basic moral behavior, that we all use in our everyday lives, be applied to government. I am asking that we stop excepting our "political" interactions from these basic standards, and that we stop imagining that immorality magically becomes moral when it is popular.

Would it be moral for you, as an individual, to do X? If not, it's not moral for those in government either. Theft is theft, kidnapping is kidnapping, and assault is assault ... no matter the size of your gang, and no matter if you've got a funny blue outfit and a shiny piece of metal.

I am also quite aware of the kind of threats that are out in the world these days, and a militia will simply not cut it.

The greatest threat to my liberty, by far, is the federal government. If you compare the amount of personal damage and coercion inflicted upon me by government, by private criminals, and by foreign threats, it's not even close -- and that's true for almost all people in the US. What is the military going to do about that?

The government could not have become nearly as abusive as it has, if we had no standing army, and no military industrial complex. I'm sorry, but I really think that's a fact. I disagree with the founders on some things, but on this, they were spot on. The ever growing military has directly corresponded to the destruction of our liberties (not that it's the only cause, or the root cause, of course).

 

[Jace]

Actually, I have no voice. There is nobody in government anywhere who I agree with. Ron's far better than most, but I still don't consider him an accurate representation of myself.

Then why do you argue for anarchism on a Ron Paul site? Ron Paul is no anarchist.

Perhaps you would find a more accurate representation of your views on an Emma Goldman forum.

Writing condescendingly about U.S. military personnel is counterproductive to the Liberty Movement. I believe right now more than any other group, it's the military that's keeping us out of war with Iran, despite the efforts of warmongers in the media and government who are trying to stampede us into another disastrous conflict in which it will be our military personnel getting maimed and killed.

Ron Paul served in the U.S. Air Force. There are plenty of Liberty-minded people in the U.S. military, which was one of Ron's biggest sources of support.

We should continue to make our case for a non-interventionist foreign policy, for closing our foreign bases, and for bringing our troops home, not alienating them from us. We have the high ground and a popular message, and anarchists muddle that message with talk of a utopian world without governments, police or military power -- a world that will never exist as long as there is a human species.

Maybe your heart is in the right place. I don't know. But anarchists have traditionally been used by globalists to subvert populist movements and increase the power of banksters and central governments. Anarchism, like Communism, is a philosophy for fools and tyrants -- and 16-year-old skaters.

Also, open borders are a goal of the globalists, not Ron Paul. Our mass immigration policy was put in place by them, and it is only serving to increase the power of the state over our lives while making us less prosperous and less free.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Then why do you argue for anarchism on a Ron Paul site? Ron Paul is no anarchist.

Perhaps you would find a more accurate representation of your views on an Emma Goldman forum.

Writing condescendingly about U.S. military personnel is counterproductive to the Liberty Movement. I believe right now more than any other group, it's the military that's keeping us out of war with Iran, despite the efforts of warmongers in the media and government who are trying to stampede us into another disastrous conflict in which it will be our military personnel getting maimed and killed.

Ron Paul served in the U.S. Air Force. There are plenty of Liberty-minded people in the U.S. military, which was one of Ron's biggest sources of support.

We should continue to make our case for a non-interventionist foreign policy, for closing our foreign bases, and for bringing our troops home, not alienating them from us. We have the high ground and a popular message, and anarchists muddle that message with talk of a utopian world without governments, police or military power -- a world that will never exist as long as there is a human species.

Maybe your heart is in the right place. I don't know. But anarchists have traditionally been used by globalists to subvert populist movements and increase the power of banksters and central governments. Anarchism, like Communism, is a philosophy for fools and tyrants -- and 16-year-old skaters.

Also, open borders are a goal of the globalists, not Ron Paul. Our mass immigration policy was put in place by them, and it is only serving to increase the power of the state over our lives while making us less prosperous and less free.

You know nothing of Voluntaryism, and it is abundantly clear in everything you write. Before you start down your tangential views, at least educate yourself on what you are trying to argue against.

I wish the Anti-Federalists never would have acquiesced to the Federalists. You would do well to read up on the rich and proud history of the American liberty thinkers.

You are aware, people like Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason, and the rest of the Anti-Federalists were against Standing Armies, right? That they realized that a standing army was antithetical to a neutral, non-interventionist foreign policy. You will never have a Non-interventionist foreign policy as long as America has a standing army. The influence of that power for the use of a politicians goals, is too great. You don't give anyone that power.

As for Emma Goldman, no. She was a devout communist. If anything, my fellow Voluntaryists would find peace in an Isabel Paterson, or Rose Wilder Lane forum. What you fools (if I may be blunt), don't realize is this is the time to be radicals.

If you honestly believe that our goals will give more power to the State you are insane. YOUR goals will. Increasing the size of the Police State because you are afraid of the boogeyman across the 'border'. The greatest threats to you, aren't from Mexicans, or Canadians, or Belgiums looking for work, but from those in DC looking to steal your labor, your liberty, and your happiness. We argue for private property borders. That each owner gets his own say on his own property. That no other man has the right to tell him who he shall hire, who he shall let on his property, or who he can't let on his property. That the owner, is his own master. For he chooses who he wants to associate with. Not you. Not DC. Not anyone else.

You argue anti-liberty positions, because you are afraid of the boogeyman. I harbor no such fear. I do not fear the boogeyman. I proceed ever more boldly against it, and with no compromise. For all those in our movement who say they love liberty, I ask you, if you love it so much why do you compromise.

Ludwig Von Mises never compromised. He fought for what he believed in. So did Patrick Henry & George Mason. So did Spartacus, and William Wallace. Taxation in any form is not liberty. It is not freedom. The theft of my labor or property is not in any way shape or form conducive of a free society.

If you truly are that naive to believe that our Military doesn't want to engage in a War with Iran, I don't know what to say. It's not like our Military ever planned terrorist attacks against its own population. (Which they did) It's not like our Military never killed their own population. (Waco) It's not like our Military never confiscated an Americans weapon. (Katrina) It's not like our Military isn't the engine of a Global Hegemonic Empire. (Which they are) It's not like our Military gives excuse and power to the Executive. (Which it does)

I also do not argue against military strength. The greatest military strength is in the strength of the people. The individual. Only the Militia can provide such strength. I ask you. What is more powerful. An Army of 2 million, or an Army of 150 million. What is more powerful. A self-reliant nation. Or a nation that feeds off its fellow citizens.

Ron Paul was drafted. He was taken against his will and fought in an illegal, immoral war which killed thousands of Americans. I am sure there are some liberty-minded people in the Military. I don't care where their sympathies lie. I care about reality, and action. I care about progress. If there are so many liberty-loving military personnel, why then, do we continue to fight in 'unconstitutional' wars. You sir, are not privy to reality. You harbor doctrinal platitudes which do not convey the reality. The reality is that our military acquisces to the desires and whims of their masters. The law is what the Executive says it is. The State is, and always will be a tool used against the masses. You cannot control that which is uncontrollable.

This, is the essence of the argument for which the Anti-Federalists fought for. As did Etienne La Boetie in the 16th Century, and Voltaire in the 17th. As Lao Tzu layed out the libertarian, classical-liberal position in 600BC.

We do not argue for a utopian world. We clearly do not believe there can ever be such a thing. We argue for a better world. A more just world. A world in which institutionalized theft and murder is abolished. Just as the abolitionists fought to rid the US of institutionalized slavery. The same argument was used against them. You also make the mistake of guilt by association.

It would behoove you to please read some Thoreau, La Boetie, Herbert Spencer, de Molinari, and the Anti-Federalist papers.

PS: There is a strong case Ron Paul is a closet Voluntaryist. In any case, he harbors deep sympathy for the cause.

 

[Jace]

I agree with much of what you write. I'm also against permanent standing armies.

I support Ron Paul, and his goals are my goals.

Ron Paul is no anarchist or open borders supporter. He said we what we have now is not immigration, but an invasion.

My state is being turned into a province of Mexico. Mass immigration has not reduced the size of the state here. It has only increased the demand for social services, caused more taxation and increased the size of police departments as neighborhoods break down. It's only a matter of time until the cops are patrolling strip malls carrying M-16s, like they do down there.

Property rights around here are violated every day by Sureno taggers. Homes are shot up if some punk thinks a school kid disrespected him by entering his turf wearing the wrong color t-shirt.

Mass immigration has not increased my freedom or lowered my tax bill, although some like to exploit cheap labor just like the slave holders did.

In my opinion, the open borders folks are playing into the hands of the CFR and their NAU goals -- which Ron Paul opposes.

Bring the troops home. Protect the borders. End the income tax. Kill the Fed.