god or no god?

[Becker]

I don't support "anarchism". I support voluntarism / private law / self-government / anti-monopolism.

What's my point? It's true liberty. It's the only system that is justifiable. It's supported by Ron Paul as an end goal. I, like him, support limited government as a means to that end. If you're not going to argue against that, then I have no problem.

If you don't support anarchism, you support government.
Anything other than anarchism means there will be government, how big how small is the other question.
Limited doesn't necessarily mean small, but I assume you knew that.
"Justifiable" does not mean sustainable, realistic, practical, I prefer all those 3 to "justifiable".
I'm also for limited government as a means to my own agenda, glad we can agree on that.

 

[Conza88]

LMAO, you don't deal with oughts? Then why are you here? Just to tell us the world isn't perfect? Thanks, we know that.

"Second, there is the logical gap between “is-” and “ought-statements” which natural rights proponents have failed to bridge successfully-except for advancing some general critical remarks regarding the ultimate validity of the fact-value dichotomy. 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.” The structure of the argument is this: (a) justification is propositional justification-a priori true is-statement; (b) argumentation presupposes property in one’s body and the homesteading principle-a priori true is statement; and (c) then, no deviation from this ethic can be argumentatively justified-a priori true is-statement. The proof also offers a key to an understanding of the nature of the fact-value dichotomy: Ought-statements cannot be derived from is- statements. They belong to different logical realms. It is also clear, however, that one cannot even state that there are facts and values if no propositional exchanges exist, and that this practice of propositional exchanges in turn presupposes the acceptance of the private property ethic as valid. In other words, cognition and truth-seeking as such have a normative foundation, and the normative foundation on which cognition and truth rest is the recognition of private property rights."

~ Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Ron Paul recommends you read his book, Democracy: The God that Failed... I suggest you do. This argument is contained in there as well.

That is what was meant. You're obviously still struggling to get it, which is fine. You're new . Why am I here? To support and defend the concept of liberty.

 

[Conza88]

If you don't support anarchism, you support government.
Anything other than anarchism means there will be government, how big how small is the other question.
Limited doesn't necessarily mean small, but I assume you knew that.
"Justifiable" does not mean sustainable, realistic, practical, I prefer all those 3 to "justifiable".
I'm also for limited government as a means to my own agenda, glad we can agree on that.

Yep, I support self-government / voluntarism / private law / anti-monopolism / anarcho-capitalism / pure & logical libertarianism.

Justifiable in the sense of what actions you are JUSTIFIED in doing, i.e regarding the concept of JUSTICE. Is the market not sustainable, realistic, practical? Because a market is defense, security is what is being supported.

I'm not the one with the contradiction, or notion of 'public goods' you are.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I don't support "anarchism". I support voluntarism / private law / self-government / anti-monopolism.

What's my point? It's true liberty. It's the only system that is justifiable. It's supported by Ron Paul as an end goal. I, like him, support limited government as a means to that end. If you're not going to argue against that, then I have no problem.

Don't lie. It is not becoming. You equate all of these to anarchy.

Ron Paul and Anarcho-Capitalism… Hint: He’s not a statist (4min+ of video).

For a better justification see this Mises thread here and my responses:
Ron Paul’s real goal is self government / anarcho-capitalism, instead of a return to the Constitution. The strategy merely differs. His role is educational, i.e directing folks to Libertarianism and Austrian Economics. He acknowledges that voting (in Congress) won’t change anything.

You've been running around here and the Mises forum proclaiming that Ron Paul is an anarchist for years on end.

 

[Becker]

Yep, I support self-government / voluntarism / private law / anti-monopolism / anarcho-capitalism / pure & logical libertarianism.

Justifiable in the sense of what actions you are JUSTIFIED in doing, i.e regarding the concept of JUSTICE. Is the market not sustainable, realistic, practical? Because a market is defense, security is what is being supported.

I'm not the one with the contradiction, or notion of 'public goods' you are.

self government is government? so there's such a thing as "government without force" or "government without aggression"?
No, the market alone cannot sustain a society. Societies are not purely monetary or for profit. Nor is life in general. (if you don't agree, try putting a price tag on your life, or your leg for a start)
"market is defense, security is what is being supported." no idea what you are talking about

"I'm not the one with the contradiction" like I said, your arguments accomplished nothing and your dreams do not conform with reality. Nobody cares how logically consistent your ideals are, if they are not practiced and implimented in reality.

 

[Becker]

Ron Paul recommends you read his book, Democracy: The God that Failed... I suggest you do. This argument is contained in there as well.

That is what was meant. You're obviously still struggling to get it, which is fine. You're new . Why am I here? To support and defend the concept of liberty.

you are here to support an idea without an ought, got it.

I don't need to read about book about democracy, I don't support democracy.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Conza is here to recruit for anarchy and to malign Dr. Paul. Period.

 

[Becker]

Conza is here to recruit for anarchy and to malign Dr. Paul. Period.

It's pretty obvious, I'd love to hear him justify that or rebut it.

 

[Conza88]

self government is government? so there's such a thing as "government without force" or "government without aggression"?

Government of a different kind . You "govern" only yourself. Merely a different way of presenting things, a way to avoid cognitive dissonance.

No, the market alone cannot sustain a society. Societies are not purely monetary or for profit. Nor is life in general. (if you don't agree, try putting a price tag on your life, or your leg for a start)

Do you even know what the market is?

The Free market is a summary term for an array of exchanges that take place in society. Each exchange is undertaken as a voluntary agreement between two people or between groups of people represented by agents. These two individuals (or agents) exchange two economic goods, either tangible commodities or nontangible services. Thus, when I buy a newspaper from a news dealer for fifty cents, the news dealer and I exchange two commodities: I give up fifty cents, and the news dealer gives up the newspaper. Or if I work for a corporation, I exchange my labor services, in a mutually agreed way, for a monetary salary; here the corporation is represented by a manager (an agent) with the authority to hire.

Both parties undertake the exchange because each expects to gain from it. Also, each will repeat the exchange next time (or refuse to) because his expectation has proved correct (or incorrect) in the recent past. Trade, or exchange, is engaged in precisely because both parties benefit; if they did not expect to gain, they would not agree to the exchange.​

Do you even understand that the concept of profit, within Austrian Economics is not just monetary?

"Another case is a profit-making business firm where the owner or owners decide to accept a lesser monetary profit on behalf of some other goals of the owners: for example, because a certain line of product is considered immoral by the owners or because the owner wishes to hire incompetent relatives in order to keep peace in the family. Here once again, these are two sets of consumers-the buyers of the product, and the producers or owners themselves. Because of his own values as a "consumer," the owner decides to forego monetary profit because of his own moral principles or because he holds keeping peace in the family high on his value scale. In either case, the owner is foregoing some monetary profit in order to achieve psychic profit. Which motive will dominate depends on the facts of each particular case. Since the market is generally characterized by a division of labor between producers and consumers, however, the general tendency will be for monetary profit, or service to nonowning consumers, to dominate the decisions of business firms.10"

- Myth of Neutral Taxation - MNR​

"market is defense, security is what is being supported." no idea what you are talking about

​

"I'm not the one with the contradiction" like I said, your arguments accomplished nothing and your dreams do not conform with reality. Nobody cares how logically consistent your ideals are, if they are not practiced and implimented in reality.

The exact same criticism can be applied to you. So LOLz for that amazing insight . I engage in voluntary actions ALL the friggin time, when I go to Disney world.. they're there as well. Private security etc, I'm merely suggesting those principles we expanded.

 

[Conza88]

you are here to support an idea without an ought, got it.

I don't need to read about book about democracy, I don't support democracy.

You want to continuing believing 1 + 1 = 3. Hilarious. Be my guest.

"...He has fewer difficulties recognizing the nature of my argument but then asks me in turn “So what? Why should an a priori proof of the libertarian property theory make any difference? Why not engage in aggression anyway?” Why indeed?! But then, why should the proof that 1+1=2 make any difference? One certainly can still act on the belief that 1+1=3. The obvious answer is “because a propositional justification exists for doing one thing, but not for doing another.” But why should we be reasonable, is the next come-back. Again, the answer is obvious. For one, because it would be impossible to argue against it; and further, because the proponent raising this question would already affirm the use of reason in his act of questioning it. This still might not suffice and everyone knows that it would not, for even if the libertarian ethic and argumentative reasoning must be regarded as ultimately justified, this still does not preclude that people will act on the basis of unjustified beliefs either because they don’t know, they don’t care, or they prefer not to know. I fail to see why this should be surprising or make the proof somehow defective. More than this cannot be done by propositional argument."
~ Hoppe​

Yeah, you support a Republic.. with a democratic tradition. Take a look at the contents of the book; you'd learn ALOT. Or you can instead remain ignorant, and judge a book by it's title...

 

[Conza88]

Don't lie. It is not becoming. You equate all of these to anarchy.

I'm not. I reject the label as it is commonly understood Are Libertarians "anarchists"? - Murray Rothbard.

You've been running around here and the Mises forum proclaiming that Ron Paul is an anarchist for years on end.

No I haven't. I've been running around here and Mises forum proclaiming that Ron Paul is a voluntarist and supporter of self-government. Which he is. That which you've never offered a coherent counter argument for. Instead you choose to ignore it and run away, not engage. That's fine, you have that prerogative. Just don't whinge about it please.

Conza is here to recruit for anarchy and to malign Dr. Paul. Period.

LibertyEagle is here to troll and slander. Period. See, I too can make baseless assertions

What's the deal LE, don't want to help offer suggestions for a new RP ad I'm going to make? *An update on the old one that has garnered 250k views, and were individuals have in the comments explicitly proclaimed their enlightenment to RP because of what I produced.

What have you done for RP lately LE?

It's pretty obvious, I'd love to hear him justify that or rebut it.

​

If you want the sources, first thread in my sig.

 

[LibertyEagle]

No I haven't. I've been running around here and Mises forum proclaiming that Ron Paul is a voluntarist and supporter of self-government. Which he is. That which you've never offered a coherent counter argument for. Instead you choose to ignore it and run away, not engage. That's fine, you have that prerogative. Just don't whinge about it please.

That is a lie.

You have been running around calling him an anarchist and I provided an example of that up above. Here it is again:

Ron Paul and Anarcho-Capitalism… Hint: He’s not a statist (4min+ of video).

For a better justification see this Mises thread here and my responses:
Ron Paul’s real goal is self government / anarcho-capitalism, instead of a return to the Constitution. The strategy merely differs. His role is educational, i.e directing folks to Libertarianism and Austrian Economics. He acknowledges that voting (in Congress) won’t change anything.

Here is an example of you doing it over on Mises:

http://tinypic.com/r/vpaz3n/7

LibertyEagle is here to troll and slander. Period. See, I too can make baseless assertions

They are not baseless assertions at all. I already showed that.


This gives you insight into Conza's tactics. Below he was talking about Rothbard.

Yeah, he later went with the term anarcho-capitalism. Voluntarism is good show though when talking to the uneducated.

 

[Becker]

Government of a different kind . You "govern" only yourself. Merely a different way of presenting things, a way to avoid cognitive dissonance.

All the more reason to not have a government.
Government is aggression. Government IS force.
Market actions (voluntary) or government (force).
There is no such thing as community, or society. It doesn't exist in physical objective reality.
when has there ever been a government that has ever remained limited? Ever, in the history of the world? Never. It is completely utopian, and idealistic.
I'm not the one with the contradiction

 

[Becker]

The exact same criticism can be applied to you. So LOLz for that amazing insight . I engage in voluntary actions ALL the friggin time, when I go to Disney world.. they're there as well. Private security etc, I'm merely suggesting those principles we expanded.

No, the same CAN'T be applied to me, because I DON'T claim to be perfectly consistent at the expense of being realistic. I care more about realism, acting on what I believe, surviving and benefitting. I do not speak of things I do not believe, prescribe, and act on. All the friggin time = not always, just like I thought.

 

[Becker]

You want to continuing believing 1 + 1 = 3. Hilarious. Be my guest.

"...He has fewer difficulties recognizing the nature of my argument but then asks me in turn “So what? Why should an a priori proof of the libertarian property theory make any difference? Why not engage in aggression anyway?” Why indeed?! But then, why should the proof that 1+1=2 make any difference? One certainly can still act on the belief that 1+1=3. The obvious answer is “because a propositional justification exists for doing one thing, but not for doing another.” But why should we be reasonable, is the next come-back. Again, the answer is obvious. For one, because it would be impossible to argue against it; and further, because the proponent raising this question would already affirm the use of reason in his act of questioning it. This still might not suffice and everyone knows that it would not, for even if the libertarian ethic and argumentative reasoning must be regarded as ultimately justified, this still does not preclude that people will act on the basis of unjustified beliefs either because they don’t know, they don’t care, or they prefer not to know. I fail to see why this should be surprising or make the proof somehow defective. More than this cannot be done by propositional argument."
~ Hoppe​

Yeah, you support a Republic.. with a democratic tradition. Take a look at the contents of the book; you'd learn ALOT. Or you can instead remain ignorant, and judge a book by it's title...

No, I don't support a republic. Now who's dishonest and false dichotomizing?

this still does not preclude that people will act on the basis of unjustified beliefs either because they don’t know, they don’t care, or they prefer not to know.

good point, have fun caring about things other people don't. I'll be busy getting things done, making money, and enjoying life as it is.

are you familiar with game theory?

 

[Conza88]

That is a lie.

You have been running around calling him an anarchist and I provided an example of that up above. Here it is again:

LMAO!

And where is the word "anarchism" used there? WHERE?!

Nowhere... epic fail.

Here is an example of you doing it over on Mises:

http://tinypic.com/r/vpaz3n/7

The word "anarchism" is not present. Epic fail.

They are not baseless assertions at all. I already showed that.

No you didn't. You failed miserably.

This gives you insight into Conza's tactics. Below he was talking about Rothbard.

Keep trying LE, still yet to back up your baseless assertion.

Edit: Suggested you read this before responding... so you don't make a fool of yourself.

 

[Conza88]

I'm amused you so how think I've contradicted myself.

Learn to read please; specifically the Hoppe interview quotes about Mises... that should clear up your ignorance.

Maybe a lesson in grammar would help, understand the function of quotation marks possibly.

Quotation marks or inverted commas (informally referred to as quotes or speech marks)[1] are punctuation marks at the beginning and end of a quotation, direct speech, literal title, or name. Quotation marks can also be used to indicate a different meaning of a word or phrase than the one typically associated with it, and are often used to express irony.

 

[Conza88]

No, the same CAN'T be applied to me, because I DON'T claim to be perfectly consistent at the expense of being realistic. I care more about realism, acting on what I believe, surviving and benefitting. I do not speak of things I do not believe, prescribe, and act on. All the friggin time = not always, just like I thought.

Unfortunate that you've erected a fallacy between theory and reality. Error 101. If it's bad in theory, it's also bad in practice. The truth/reality of a theory is indicative of it's practically in reality, i.e that it works.

No, I don't support a republic. Now who's dishonest and false dichotomizing?

this still does not preclude that people will act on the basis of unjustified beliefs either because they don’t know, they don’t care, or they prefer not to know.

good point, have fun caring about things other people don't. I'll be busy getting things done, making money, and enjoying life as it is.

are you familiar with game theory?

Oh ok, so you don't support a democracy or a republic. What do you support then? lol.

" I'll be busy getting things done, making money, and enjoying life as it is. "

Lmao that you don't think that is what I'm also concerned about. You do realise that with the burden of the state removed; the world would be a far wealthier place? Why don't you go join the state then if that's all you care about?

I am familiar with game theory. Are you familiar with Austrian Economics? To what extent? What books have you read on the topic?

 

[LibertyEagle]

LMAO!

And where is the word "anarchism" used there? WHERE?!

I believe this is what would be called intellectual dishonesty on your part.

Ron Paul and Anarcho-Capitalism… Hint: He’s not a statist (4min+ of video).

For a better justification see this Mises thread here and my responses:
Ron Paul’s real goal is self government / anarcho-capitalism, instead of a return to the Constitution. The strategy merely differs. His role is educational, i.e directing folks to Libertarianism and Austrian Economics. He acknowledges that voting (in Congress) won’t change anything.

Keep trying LE, still yet to back up your baseless assertion.

Do you realize how bad you are making yourself look?

 

[Conza88]

I believe this is what would be called intellectual dishonesty on your part.

No, LE... it is not intellectual dishonesty. You being ignorant of the differences doesn't make me intellectually dishonest.

So, since you have failed to back up your baseless assertion.. can I get an apology? Thanks.

The word "anarchism" was never used, time to move on LE and drop the strawman / epithet.

Do you realize how bad you are making yourself look?

You do realize how worthless I consider your opinion of me? Not a second thought. Why?

You can't even answer a simple question relating to the last books you've read on Austrian Economics / Libertarianism.... for all your ranting and ravings that try present you as caring enough that Ron Paul not be associated with Voluntarism / Self-government... you had the ability to stop me from posting videos that supported as such from being sent to 4k people. LOL, demonstrated preference.. you cared more about your ego and not answering a simple question. Shows how little you really do care. Stop the whinging please.

LE, I am being intellectually dishonest? LOL... then why am I hosting this video on my youtube channel?
EXPLAIN THAT TO ME. Your ignorance is the problem here, not me. Don't worry though, this is to be expected. It's nothing new coming from you.

​