Amash denounces armed protests in Michigan

[PAF]

We are rapidly approaching the point where a totalitarian government will have the technological control grid in place to make their tyranny eternal...a boot stamping on a human face, forever. That must NOT be allowed to happen, and I will not entertain any bull$#@! philosophizing that holds the door open for it, least of all from supposed libertarians who are so busy with their own pseudo-intellectual self-fellating that they've forgotten their roots entirely.

Your last paragraph is pure gold and I wish I could +rep you for it (as well as several other posts recently) but alas I'm out of ammo again. Great post.

Covered.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Covered.

doubled

 

[osan]

Nothing is being redefined. Literally no major libertarian thinker agrees with you. Not one. I am just using the libertarian view of aggression given that this site has a prominent libertarian as the namesake.

Tons of people used to agree that the earth was flat, once upon a time. In sé, consensus means nothing. As for redefinition, both you and Rothbard have attempted to redefine "aggression" to broaden the classes of acts that qualify. This is linguistic buggery of the first order. It is dangerous and a sign of either ignorance, malevolence, or at the very least misuse, intentional or otherwise.

Rothbard gives the standard/correct view on pollution being aggression. He has the ridiculous view that it should be completely disallowed without economic consideration. The one view he doesn't have is that pollution is just swell so deal with it.

Rothbard is dead. That said, he was entitled to his opinion, which happens to be wrong. To wit, the definition of "aggression", courtesy of the Oxford etymological dictionary:

aggression (n.)1610s, "unprovoked attack," from French aggression (16c., Modern French agression), from Latin aggressionem (nominative aggressio) "a going to, an attack," noun of action from past-participle stem of aggredi "to approach; to attempt; to attack," from ad "to" (see ad-) + gradi(past participle gressus) "to step," from gradus "a step," figuratively "a step toward something, an approach" (from PIE root *ghredh- "to walk, go"). Psychological sense of "hostile or destructive behavior" first recorded 1912 in A.A. Brill's translation of Freud.
​

If Johnny is polluting and is unaware of what he is doing in that regard, Jimmy's resulting health crisis cannot be reasonably deemed the result of an attack. If Johnny is doing it aware but without the intention of causing harm, it is still not an attack. If, finally, Johnny commits the act aware and with the intent of committing the harm, THEN is it aggression. Aggression is an ATTACK. In order to be an attack, an act must be intentional. If I am on the street and suddenly am overcome with the need to go into a number from Sound of Music and in my whirling with my arms spread, knock the socks off some poor woman passing by, I may be guilty of a tort, but I am by NO means guilty of an attack.

Words are important; abusing them in this way is not cool, no matter who does it. While I respect Rothbard, he isn't infallible and in this instance, assuming your quote is right, he is simply wrong as stated. Now, if he qualified his position further in an unquoted portion of the passage, I might hold a different opinion, but as you presented it, it is incorrect because it is too broadly stated, failing to account for the alternate cases I have listed.

Yes I know I am a real pussy what with wanting to reduce pollution that will cut short my life. What kind of ****** wants to live longer by reducing the aggression of others.

Drama-queen martyr-foo? Really? You don't quite look right up there on that cross.

That aside, your attempts to attribute opinions to me that I do not hold fail with dance, bells, and fireworks. Christ's sake man, you seem to be taking all of this personally.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

There are still too many unknowns, and you'll still make mistakes in your math.

When the government restricts Mary from infecting Joe based on statistical premises, the government is also inadvertantly (at best) restricting Sally from exercising her liberty. You can make a GUESS about which action will minimize aggression, but without hard limits on the means you're willing to use in the arrogance of your correct judgment, there is no limit to how wrong you can be, and how high the cost of aggression will grow. No Menshevik or social democrat ever thought they'd pave the road for Stalin either.


Hence hard, brutally enforced limits on government power. My goal isn't to make a utopia. It's to do everything in my power to prevent the worst case scenario, which we are approaching.





If I had my way? Hah, as if. Off the cuff:
First, the Constitution would impose stricter limits on the kind of powers government may exercise, and the kind of powers they must absolutely under no circumstances ever even attempt to exercise, Bill of Rights style. Unlike our current Constitution, there would be an explicit, 72-point-font provision stating unequivocally that any politician, bureaucrat, executive, or judge who proposes, votes for, executes, or upholds any law which would in any way abridge those rights, ever, under any circumstances, is guilty of treason, which is punishable by death. There would of course be a trial with the presumption of innocence, but upon proof of guilt, the crime is unequivocally treason, and the punishment is unequivocally death. (This would be the ONLY case of death penalty permitted by the Constitution. Public servants beware.) Furthermore, anyone who attempts to institute, execute, uphold, etc. a law or policy outside the scope of enumerated powers is guilty of sedition, which is punishable by N years of imprisonment and a lifelong ban from any form of public office or public employment. No such provisions may be amended, except to make the mandatory penalties harsher. There are a lot of unspoken details here about checks and balances and the power of the people to easily repeal laws with a sizable minority, etc. Actually writing a bullet-proof Constitution is outside the scope of this post, and actually getting there from here is another matter. If achieved though, it would be a good baseline for a government that stays limited indefinitely, instead of starting to grow without limit from day 1. As a side note, such rules would apply to every level of government, but any powers that could possibly be exercised by more local forms of government would not belong to e.g. the federal government, should such a government even exist (maybe a confederacy is superior, etc.; that's not the point).

There are indeed cases where subjective judgment calls must be made, but the goal should be to minimize these to the greatest extent possible. For instance, within the scope of powers the government may exercise for the ostensible purpose of protecting life, liberty, and property, yes, I would institute upper bounds on the cost/benefit analysis permitted by politicians. Perhaps the Constitution would provide for them to be overridden in extreme cases by an extreme supermajority vote (e.g. 95%) for a duration of no more than one year. The exact numbers, ratios, etc. are arbitrary of course, but that's no excuse to make literally everything arbitrary.

Regardless of the specifics of how I'd defang government if I could: Anyone who uses the argument that subjectivity is unavoidable in SOME cases, as the thin end of the wedge to justify unlimited subjectivity, is no friend of liberty.

We are rapidly approaching the point where a totalitarian government will have the technological control grid in place to make their tyranny eternal...a boot stamping on a human face, forever. That must NOT be allowed to happen, and I will not entertain any bullshit philosophizing that holds the door open for it, least of all from supposed libertarians who are so busy with their own pseudo-intellectual self-fellating that they've forgotten their roots entirely.

Politicians who violate the law are to be tried...

By whom?

And who's to try them if they judge wrongly? And so forth.

You have a very naive view of politics: as if no one ever thought of "make them follow the law", lol.

Application of the law (no matter the font in which it's printed) always requires human judgment.

Also, you didn't answer my question; how should the state decide how many soldiers to hire (or judges, police, etc)?

Will there be an arbitrary number written in 72 point Times New Roman, or will there be cost-benefit analysis?

 

[Mini-Me]

Politicians who violate the law are to be tried...

By whom?

And who's to try them if they judge wrongly? And so forth.

You have a very naive view of politics: as if no one ever thought of "make them follow the law", lol.

Application of the law (no matter the font in which it's printed) always requires human judgment.

Also, you didn't answer my question; how should the state decide how many soldiers to hire (or judges, police, etc)?

Will there be an arbitrary number written in 72 point Times New Roman, or will there be cost-benefit analysis?

I already answered your question about cost/benefit analysis: It may occur only within the constraints of a much harder upper bound. Where the upper bound comes from is irrelevant, as long as it's well before the point of the government becoming too powerful to stop. Regardless of how hard it many be to enforce even an objectively written upper bound, it's a hell of a lot easier than keeping entirely unconstrained cost/benefit analysis from going off the rails, or from switching its utility metric from "minimize aggression" to "equity for all." Suggesting otherwise is madness.

You say I'm naive? You're the so-called libertarian advocating unlimited government power if used in the pursuit of minimizing aggression, which this very thread has shown is supremely subjective. L-O-L. With friends like you, who needs enemies?

I'm well aware of the "who watches the watchers?" problem. Unlike you, my "solution" isn't to resort to magical thinking about good kings with no hard institutional limits. Between the above post and the posts in this thread, I believe I've been clear enough about where I stand:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...from-The-Bill-of-Rights&p=6948537#post6948537

 

[Krugminator2]

You say I'm naive? You're the so-called libertarian advocating unlimited government power if used in the pursuit of minimizing aggression, which this very thread has shown is supremely subjective. L-O-L. With friends like you, who needs enemies?

]

Here's the problem. Many issues are complicated. I think anarchy is the worst tyranny imaginabinable. Many here would say it is the only freedom. Milton Friedman posed the very question: what if two people disagree on freedom? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtDM7VF3_Rc

Your solution is to put them to death for treason. I, on the other hand, would say putting people to death for disagreeing on freedom is totalitarian and insane.

Your conception of freedom would require infinite rules and contingencies for every imaginable situation. I would prefer a few big picture rules (not totally unlike the current Constitution) and let courts decide on difficult issues.

 

[Mini-Me]

Here's the problem. Many issues are complicated. I think anarchy is the worst tyranny imaginabinable. Many here would say it is the only freedom. Milton Friedman posed the very question: what if two people disagree on freedom? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtDM7VF3_Rc

Your solution is to put them to death for treason. I, on the other hand, would say putting people to death for disagreeing on freedom is totalitarian and insane.

Your conception of freedom would require infinite rules and contingencies for every imaginable situation. I would prefer a few big picture rules (not totally unlike the current Constitution) and let courts decide on difficult issues.

What you are suggesting is not like our current Constitution, but like our current government's dismissal of our Constitution. Our current Constitution was intended to have enumerated powers, and a Bill of Rights (powers explicitly off-limits). This is precisely what I'm advocating, with the simple exception that these limits should be enforceable, and indeed enforced.

Many issues ARE complicated, and in the interests of pragmatism, I'm willing to accept that sometimes the government may do a little more than person A wants, or a little less than person B. I may not like it, but I can deal with some slop. I'll live. However, once your solution extends to, "Let's abridge the Bill of Rights to solve some problem," you've exceeded the acceptable bounds of systemic risk, especially if the issue is complicated. Few to no issues actually require such powers, and the pursuit of a solution to "complicated" problems is inherently so error-prone that it is exceedingly arrogant to attempt to violate such basic rights in your self-certainty over your position. You can advocate it all you like as a private citizen, but if you were to attempt it from a public position, then yes, you should face trial for treason.

I would much rather tie our hands by putting extreme powers completely off limits -- even if the "best case" solution to some situation requires them -- in order to close the door on the worst case scenario. We cannot afford that level of risk anymore. In the extremely unlikely occurrence that we face a literal existential threat that requires abrogating the Bill of Rights to avert, I'll take my chances that officials will forcibly do what needs to be done and let themselves be held accountable by a jury afterwards. Jury nullification is a thing, for extreme unforeseen circumstances.

However, letting the government go completely unrestrained "Just in case" absolute power might ever be necessary, taunts every evil of human history to repeat itself tenfold...perhaps never to be corrected, because we are so technologically advanced that an omnipotent government with solid planning can now makes its tyranny eternal. Your "cost/benefit analysis driving unlimited powers" proposal has literally no systemic mechanism to ensure that the utility function even keeps any resemblance to the NAP.

Is any safeguard bulletproof? Probably not, but that's no excuse to throw them all away, for the same reason we don't throw away every protective layer of armor, or clothing, or shelter, in other contexts.

 

[Swordsmyth]

What you are suggesting is not like our current Constitution, but like our current government's dismissal of our Constitution. Our current Constitution was intended to have enumerated powers, and a Bill of Rights (powers explicitly off-limits). This is precisely what I'm advocating, with the simple exception that these limits should be enforceable, and indeed enforced.

Many issues ARE complicated, and in the interests of pragmatism, I'm willing to accept that sometimes the government may do a little more than person A wants, or a little less than person B. I may not like it, but I can deal with some slop. I'll live. However, once your solution extends to, "Let's abridge the Bill of Rights to solve some problem," you've exceeded the acceptable bounds of systemic risk, especially if the issue is complicated. Few to no issues actually require such powers, and the pursuit of a solution to "complicated" problems is inherently so error-prone that it is exceedingly arrogant to attempt to violate such basic rights in your self-certainty over your position. You can advocate it all you like as a private citizen, but if you were to attempt it from a public position, then yes, you should face trial for treason.

I would much rather tie our hands by putting extreme powers completely off limits -- even if the "best case" solution to some situation requires them -- in order to close the door on the worst case scenario. We cannot afford that level of risk anymore. In the extremely unlikely occurrence that we face a literal existential threat that requires abrogating the Bill of Rights to avert, I'll take my chances that officials will forcibly do what needs to be done and let themselves be held accountable by a jury afterwards. Jury nullification is a thing, for extreme unforeseen circumstances.

However, letting the government go completely unrestrained "Just in case" absolute power might ever be necessary, taunts every evil of human history to repeat itself tenfold...perhaps never to be corrected, because we are so technologically advanced that an omnipotent government with solid planning can now makes its tyranny eternal. Your "cost/benefit analysis driving unlimited powers" proposal has literally no systemic mechanism to ensure that the utility function even keeps any resemblance to the NAP.

Is any safeguard bulletproof? Probably not, but that's no excuse to throw them all away, for the same reason we don't throw away every protective layer of armor, or clothing, or shelter, in other contexts.

You must spread some reputation around...............

 

[Krugminator2]

What you are suggesting is not like our current Constitution, but like our current government's dismissal of our Constitution. Our current Constitution was intended to have enumerated powers, and a Bill of Rights (powers explicitly off-limits). This is precisely what I'm advocating, with the simple exception that these limits should be enforceable, and indeed enforced.

Many issues ARE complicated, and in the interests of pragmatism, I'm willing to accept that sometimes the government may do a little more than person A wants, or a little less than person B. I may not like it, but I can deal with some slop. I'll live. However, once your solution extends to, "Let's abridge the Bill of Rights to solve some problem," you've exceeded the acceptable bounds of systemic risk, especially if the issue is complicated. Few to no issues actually require such powers, and the pursuit of a solution to "complicated" problems is inherently so error-prone that it is exceedingly arrogant to attempt to violate such basic rights in your self-certainty over your position. You can advocate it all you like as a private citizen, but if you were to attempt it from a public position, then yes, you should face trial for treason.

I would much rather tie our hands by putting extreme powers completely off limits -- even if the "best case" solution to some situation requires them -- in order to close the door on the worst case scenario. We cannot afford that level of risk anymore. In the extremely unlikely occurrence that we face a literal existential threat that requires abrogating the Bill of Rights to avert, I'll take my chances that officials will forcibly do what needs to be done and let themselves be held accountable by a jury afterwards. Jury nullification is a thing, for extreme unforeseen circumstances.

However, letting the government go completely unrestrained "Just in case" absolute power might ever be necessary, taunts every evil of human history to repeat itself tenfold...perhaps never to be corrected, because we are so technologically advanced that an omnipotent government with solid planning can now makes its tyranny eternal. Your "cost/benefit analysis driving unlimited powers" proposal has literally no systemic mechanism to ensure that the utility function even keeps any resemblance to the NAP.

Is any safeguard bulletproof? Probably not, but that's no excuse to throw them all away, for the same reason we don't throw away every protective layer of armor, or clothing, or shelter, in other contexts.

I am for an even stronger Constitution than most of the people on the forums and certainly Ron Paul. I don't think any local or state government should be able to outlaw drugs, prostitution, sodomy, contraception or any other activity without a victim.

Like Mises, Hayek and Friedman I don't subscribe to the NAP except as a guideline. The issues arise when you have externalities which don't have a tidy solution. A pandemic is one issue.
Pollution is another. Rothbard would shut down factories that pollute because pollution is aggression. Osan would say pollution is no big deal and one of life's risks. John Stossel would say regulate polluters. I would say you should let people pollute but tax them for incurring a cost on people to discourage pollution. Which one of us gets the death penalty in your vision if government? All four of us are using aggression in some form?

What about owning nuclear weapons? The crazies on this forum think that is just great idea and limiting their ownership violates the right of self defense from government? Sane people would say letting Anwar Al Awaki (or anyone else) is probably not too smart because of the huge tail risk that involves
How do you make a decision like that without cost benefit analysis?

What about banking? There are large systemic risks under most systems. Rothbard would say fractional reserve banking should be banned as a result. Milton Friedman would say fractional reserve banking should be allowed but banks should be compelled to buy deposit insurance? Do both of them get the death penalty for a proposal that violates NAP? Does the current Constitution say anything about regulating banks?

 

[Swordsmyth]

Which one of us gets the death penalty in your vision if government?

The one who uses governmental power to violate the Constitution.
You can advocate for amending the Constitution if you like but you may not break it.

 

[Krugminator2]

The one who uses governmental power to violate the Constitution.
You can advocate for amending the Constitution if you like but you may not break it.

Like 90% of your posts related to policy violate the Constitution. You would be the first person on the chopping block in that guy's world.

 

[jkob]

Some crazy arguments I never thought I'd hear here, anybody saying that not vaccinating is akin to murder and consistent with libertarianism and the NAP I'd have to ask if not providing free food, housing, and healthcare is also akin to murder?

 

[Swordsmyth]

Like 90% of your posts related to policy violate the Constitution. You would be the first person on the chopping block in that guy's world.

LOL

The few times I advocate something not in line with the Constitution I am usually advocating for it to be changed, the rest I am talking about how to deal with a world in which the Constitution was shredded many generations ago in order to return to a world where it is enforced, once we regain the power to enforce it we will no longer need to play by the same rules as our enemies and I would not do anything in violation of the Constitution.

But do keep advocating for a government with unlimited power, we want everyone here to see you for what you are.

 

[Krugminator2]

LOL

The few times I advocate something not in line with the Constitution I am usually advocating for it to be changed, the rest I am talking about how to deal with a world in which the Constitution was shredded many generations ago in order to return to a world where it is enforced, once we regain the power to enforce it we will no longer need to play by the same rules as our enemies and I would not do anything in violation of the Constitution.

But do keep advocating for a government with unlimited power, we want everyone here to see you for what you are.

I support "unlimited" government in the context of protecting individual rights within a constitutional framework. What that means can't always be defined as in the examples I gave like the environment, pandemic, instances like banking or nuclear weapons where risks are unbounded so the courts will decide the nuances

You support unlimited government in order to further your national socialist views. Whether that is limiting the speech of corporations like Twitter, Google and Facebook because they have different political views. Restricting immigration to push wages up. Tariffs to favor industries. Using government to persecute gays with sodomy laws.

 

[devil21]

Some crazy arguments I never thought I'd hear here, anybody saying that not vaccinating is akin to murder and consistent with libertarianism and the NAP I'd have to ask if not providing free food, housing, and healthcare is also akin to murder?

It's very shilly up in here these days. Trillions of Fed funny bucks buys a lot of shill operations. Use discernment.

 

[Swordsmyth]

I support "unlimited" government in the context of protecting individual rights within a constitutional framework. What that means can't always be defined as in the examples I gave like the environment, pandemic, instances like banking or nuclear weapons where risks are unbounded so the courts will decide the nuances

You support unlimited government in order to further your national socialist views. Whether that is limiting the speech of corporations like Twitter, Google and Facebook because they have different political views. Restricting immigration to push wages up. Tariffs to favor industries. Using government to persecute gays with sodomy laws.

I congratulate you on your ability to twist the truth.
But I will not tolerate outright lies, I have never supported government prosecution of perverts and you are a liar.

You support unlimited government as long as that government promises it is doing whatever it wants in the name of the general welfare, which is what every tyrant in history has claimed.

I support holding corporations accountable for fraud and false advertising so that they can't be used by the government that subsidizes them and in some cases created them to destroy free speech.
I support keeping an unlimited number of communists from invading so that we can retain our liberty and I support canceling out foreign government intervention so that our economy is not destroyed by those who would conquer us and/or turn our populace to support communism out of desperation.

 

[Krugminator2]

I congratulate you on your ability to twist the ]truth.
But I will not tolerate outright lies, I have never supported government prosecution of perverts and you are a liar.

You said laws against sodomy were constitutional. They aren't. They are tyrannical. And yes you are a bigot.

You support unlimited government as long as that government promises it is doing whatever it wants in the name of the general welfare, which is what every tyrant in history has claimed.

Nope. I don't. Never have. And you will find zero instances of me making such claims. The phrase general welfare is not something I believe in. I support protecting individual rights.

I support holding corporations accountable for fraud and false advertising so that they can't be used by the government that subsidizes them and in some cases created them to destroy free speech.
I support keeping an unlimited number of communists from invading so that we can retain our liberty and I support canceling out foreign government intervention so that our economy is not destroyed by those who would conquer us and/or turn our populace to support communism out of desperation.

This is completely tyrannical nonsense. No half measure I have ever supported as a lesser evil is 1/1 millionth as anti-liberty as this paragraph.

 

[Swordsmyth]

You said laws against sodomy were constitutional. They aren't. They are tyrannical. And yes you are a bigot.

That is a lie, liar.

Nope. I don't. Never have. And you will find zero instances of me making such claims. The phrase general welfare is not something I believe in. I support protecting individual rights.

Your definition of individual rights is indistinguishable from general welfare and would be used just as tyrannically.

This is completely tyrannical nonsense. No half measure I have ever supported as a lesser evil is 1/1 millionth as anti-liberty as this paragraph.

 

[Krugminator2]

That is a lie, liar.

You did. 100% certain

Your definition of individual rights is indistinguishable from general welfare and would be used just as tyrannically.

Completely different. Not at all the same actually. My definition of individual rights is the standard libertarian definition. You should be able to do whatever you want as long as you don't harm other people.

What is amazing is you do support violating individual rights on a mass scale in order to promote your view of general welfare. Restricting a business from purchasing goods from China is a massive rights violation. You have a willing buyer and a willing seller you are all too happy to get between.

 

[Swordsmyth]

You did. 100% certain



Completely different. Not at all the same actually. My definition of individual rights is the standard libertarian definition. You should be able to do whatever you want as long as you don't harm other people.

What is amazing is you do support violating individual rights on a mass scale in order to promote your view of general welfare. Restricting a business from purchasing goods from China is a massive rights violation. You have a willing buyer and a willing seller you are all too happy to get between.

Your lies are boring.
Countering government intervention in the marketplace is not a rights violation, the foreign government intervention is a rights violation.
And I never supported sodomy laws.

Your interpretation of individual rights is not standard at all and is a mockery of individual rights.