god or no god?

[LibertyEagle]

ROFLMAO. How incredibly intellectually dishonest you are, Conza.

 

[Conza88]

ROFLMAO. How incredibly intellectually dishonest you are, Conza.

LOL ... just another baseless assertion without any substance. Standard LE. *yawn*

I think you should check your post... you forgot to try make an argument / point.

 

[westkyle]

With all respect to all participants in this thread, has anyone here actually had any direct experiences with God or what ever you would like to share? Forgive my laziness of not wanting to go through 29 pages, especially after reading these last two.

 

[Deborah K]

mods please split the thread to the point where it was taken off topic?

 

[LibertyEagle]

"DC culture has the effect of turning people into secret anarchists or secret totalitarians."

I think it's clear which way Ron would lean. Don't you!? - Conza88

http://www.dailypaul.com/98919/ron-...hism-vs-murray-rothbards-anarchist-capitalism

 

[Becker]

LMAO!

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

Nowhere... epic fail.



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



No you didn't. You failed miserably.



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.

so you don't support anarchism and Ron Paul is NOT an anarchist, correct?

Ron Paul supports government, and he supports using government to punish criminals and scumbags, not "PDA, DRO", correct?

 

[Becker]

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.

You're amused by your own denial, of course.
I don't need quotation marks when it's obvious who said it, not me, and I've used quote tags to indicate they were not my words.
If I quoted you out of context, please correct me.

 

[Becker]

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.

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?

I've read "what has the government done with our money", "creature from jekyll island", if those count. I don't claim to be an expert in Austrian economics, nor do I claim to know more about it then you. I DO claim, and will continue to claim, that they are only right in theory and have no advantages in real life.

I am certain you are not concerned about the things I am, which is why you waste your time arguing on the internets about who can better cite your favorite website, while others are trying to make a living.

I don't support republic or democracy as a form of government in and of themselves, I support whatever is practical and maximizes the benefit for myself. This doesn't limit my choices to where my rights come from, whether government has to be big or small and does not make the bogus distinction between public or private.

"bad in theory, it's also bad in practice." wrong, something can be bad in theory, good in practice. you obviously do not understand human nature. game theory is a great example of how something can only be predicted to the limited extent of when people think in numbers and profits (and completely breaks down if you add in any additional variables)

 

[Revolution9]

ROFLMAO. How incredibly intellectually dishonest you are, Conza.

I agree with this assessment. He is worse than a feminazi trying to dodge bullets at the Q&A of the National Testosterone Convention's "Men and the Role of Women in Their Lives" symposium.

Rev9

 

[Revolution9]

With all respect to all participants in this thread, has anyone here actually had any direct experiences with God or what ever you would like to share? Forgive my laziness of not wanting to go through 29 pages, especially after reading these last two.

There are many fine examples of writing on the subject in the first half before our resident anarchist and fake RP supporter hijacked the thread. I, personally have direct experience of what is called "God". There is not a process occurring around me where I do not see the grand design and impeccably dynamic intelligence required to hold in sustenance such a magnificent creation. The intellectually accessible expressions of God can be found within The Quadrivium, which used to be considered a great part of a classical education. In The Book of Urantia is an excellent series of writings on the nature of God as well as an overview of the evolvement of each of the religions.

Best Regards
Rev9

 

[LibertyRevolution]

There is no god...There is no fine tuning...
We are nothing more than random chance in a multiverse of infinite outcomes.
There is no afterlife, this is all you get, so enjoy it, because when you die, you return to the nothing.
I don't fear nonexistence, I spent the last 13.5billion years in that state already.

God is nothing but a creation of society. It is just a means of control..

 

[Revolution9]

There is no god...There is no fine tuning...
We are nothing more than random chance in a multiverse of infinite outcomes.
There is no afterlife, this is all you get, so enjoy it, because when you die, you return to the nothing.
I don't fear nonexistence, I spent the last 13.5billion years in that state already.

God is nothing but a creation of society. It is just a means of control..

Prove it.

Rev9

 

[Conza88]

http://www.dailypaul.com/98919/ron-...hism-vs-murray-rothbards-anarchist-capitalism

And in what sense is Jeffrey Tucker using it?

Did I use the word myself? Nope.

What did I say in the same thread; that is 4 years old by the way... on another site... (wow, talk about scraping the end of the barrel).

"I understand Ron Paul as a secret ancap... you think his opinions stop where he states them publicly... I don't."

That is obviously redundant now... considering there are now numerous places on video he has explicitly states support for self-government OVER a return to the constitution; and a support of voluntarism... So my hunch was right back then, just as it continues to be now .

 

[Conza88]

I've read "what has the government done with our money", "creature from jekyll island", if those count. I don't claim to be an expert in Austrian economics, nor do I claim to know more about it then you. I DO claim, and will continue to claim, that they are only right in theory and have no advantages in real life.

I am certain you are not concerned about the things I am, which is why you waste your time arguing on the internets about who can better cite your favorite website, while others are trying to make a living.

I don't support republic or democracy as a form of government in and of themselves, I support whatever is practical and maximizes the benefit for myself. This doesn't limit my choices to where my rights come from, whether government has to be big or small and does not make the bogus distinction between public or private.

"bad in theory, it's also bad in practice." wrong, something can be bad in theory, good in practice. you obviously do not understand human nature. game theory is a great example of how something can only be predicted to the limited extent of when people think in numbers and profits (and completely breaks down if you add in any additional variables)

Well respect goes to you for actually being able to name some books, far better than LE - who can't even get that far. WHGDWOM:Rothbard is a good intro to money. Jekyll Island isn't Austrian, but deals in the same concepts. Neither is an intro to economics, or deals with methodology at all.

Again with the fallacy of separating theory and practice. If it is BAD in practice/reality, it is BAD in theory. There is no "good in theory" bs. If it's good in theory, it's good in reality/life/objectively true.

Mises's great insight was that economic reasoning has its foundation in just this understanding of action; and that the status of economics as a sort of applied logic derives from the status of the action-axiom as an a priori-true synthetic proposition. The laws of exchange, the law of diminishing marginal utility, the Ricardian law of association, the law of price controls, and the quantity theory of money all the examples of economic propositions which I have mentioned can be logically derived from this axiom. And this is why it strikes one as ridiculous to think of such propositions as being of the same epistemological type as those of the natural sciences. To think that they are, and accordingly to require testing for their validation, is like supposing that we had to engage in some fact-finding process without knowing the possible outcome in order to establish the fact that one is indeed an actor. In a word: It is absurd. ~ Hoppe, Austrian Economics and Method​

They are axiomatic. You cannot deny them, without affirming them. You're essentially trying to argue, that you cannot argue. Totally absurd.

All of these categories which we know to be the very heart of economics - values, ends, means, choice, preference, cost, profit and loss-are implied in the axiom of action. Like the axiom itself, they are not derived from observation. Rather, that one is able to interpret observations in terms of such categories requires that one already knows what it means to act. No one who is not an actor could ever understand them, as they are not "given," ready to be observed, but observational experience is cast in these terms as it is construed by an actor. And while they and their interrelations were not obviously implied in the action axiom, once it has been made explicit that they are implied, and how, one no longer has any difficulty recognizing them as being a priori true in the same sense as the axiom itself is. For any attempt to disprove the validity of what Mises has reconstructed as implied in the very concept of action would have to be aimed at a goal, requiring means, excluding other courses of action, incurring costs, subjecting the actor to the possibility of achieving or not achieving the desired goal and so leading to a profit or a loss. Thus, it is manifestly impossible to ever dispute or falsify the validity of Mises's insights. In fact, a situation in which the categories of action would cease to have a real existence could itself never be observed or spoken of, since to make an observation and to speak are themselves actions.~ Hoppe, Austrian Method​

The laws of economics are immutable. States, governments, groups, whoever... cannot defy them. You can try deny them, but it is like gravity. You can defy gravity for a period of time (think the Vomit Comet) but only for so long, (so governments print money... try avoid the depression/recession), eventually.. if they don't stop they'll crash (the economy) into the ground.

You don't think understanding what is going to happen (just not specifically when) is not a benefit for real life?! You think Peter Schiff, Jim Rogers, Hugh Hendry, yada yada are all a joke?

You're amused by your own denial, of course.
I don't need quotation marks when it's obvious who said it, not me, and I've used quote tags to indicate they were not my words.
If I quoted you out of context, please correct me.

LMAO, well you obviously STILL don't get it. The quotation marks were around "government" in the sense, you can call PDA's, DRO's "government" if you want.. it's just not the same as the general public use the term. See the bold part? Indicating irony? ..

so you don't support anarchism and Ron Paul is NOT an anarchist, correct?

Ron Paul supports government, and he supports using government to punish criminals and scumbags, not "PDA, DRO", correct?

I don't support "anarchism" as defined as chaos. I don't support what has traditionally been called "anarchism". I don't support an association with the label. Ron Paul is not an anarchist in the above sense.

He supports self-government / voluntarism / anarcho-capitalism / pure and logical libertarianism as an end goal. He is fine with using the constitution as a rhetorical tool in an age of manufactured consent, and as a means to that end... so am I.

 

[Conza88]

Prove it.

Rev9

The onus of proof isn't on him.

Whoever is making the positive claim, it's up to them. So... prove this thing you call "god" exists.

First, define your terms.

 

[Revolution9]

The onus of proof isn't on him.

Of course it is. He made those ludicrous statements equating all life to a column of plasma charged clay and water with no reason other than sheer randomness to be standing. Sounds like a really tall tale with extremely exorbitant odds that it has occurred. You starting with that commie shit about god being a falsehood or dead or some crap?

Rev9

 

[LibertyEagle]

Well respect goes to you for actually being able to name some books, far better than LE - who can't even get that far. WHGDWOM:Rothbard is a good intro to money. Jekyll Island isn't Austrian, but deals in the same concepts. Neither is an intro to economics, or deals with methodology at all.

ROFLMAO. Thanks for the laugh, Conza. I do try to keep in mind that you are new to this whole movement, since just a few short years ago you were bowing before Chomsky. By the same token, you should remember that a lot of us have been reading liberty-oriented books before you were an itch in your Daddy's pants.

Seriously, man, you come off like someone who has just quit smoking, or who has just gotten religion. You run around cramming it down everyone's throats. When instead you should be studying to catch up with your better-informed elders, so that you can actually argue a point instead of merely quoting an authority to argue it for you.

 

[Conza88]

ROFLMAO. Thanks for the laugh, Conza. I do try to keep in mind that you are new to this whole movement, since just a few short years ago you were bowing before Chomsky. By the same token, you should remember that a lot of us have been reading liberty-oriented books before you were an itch in your Daddy's pants.

Seriously, man, you come off like someone who has just quit smoking, or who has just gotten religion. You run around cramming it down everyone's throats. When instead you should be studying to catch up with your better-informed elders, so that you can actually argue a point instead of merely quoting an authority to argue it for you.

See, this was the point I made earlier... I said I doubted you'd read a book in the last 30 years on Libertarianism or Austrian Economics... that's why I asked you what they were, and you couldn't / didn't answer. I put me showcasing Ron Paul and his voluntarism to 4,000 people on the table and you still couldn't respond. You got to the John Birch Society, and you've been stuck there for 30 years.

Yes, before I found Ron Paul I had become interested in Noam Chomsky's work. Why? Because I was looking for the truth, so I looked for the most well known intellectual. I thought he was absolutely right on US foreign policy, he was saying the US was an empire... he was saying everything Ron Paul had been saying as I was to later find out. What he was saying was obvious. I then found RP through one of his videos, someone had spammed "Ron Paul America's last hope".

I've come further intellectually in a few years, than you have in decades LE. That's what's so disheartening.

So... what were those books LE, you didn't answer.

 

[Wesker1982]

he supports using government to punish criminals and scumbags, not "PDA, DRO", correct?

Incorrect. He explicitly advocates the private production of all defense services.

See: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.php?400-Ron-Paul-and-Private-Courts

 

[jmdrake]

that explains why every country in the world recognizes them at every point in history, right?

It explains why in every country in the world people aspire to those rights even though they are oppressed by their leaders. It's like you can put enough weight on a life vest to sink it to the bottom of the ocean. But as soon as you cut the weight it will rise to the top.

It's just so obvious that we can do it without any Bible or Constitution, isn't it? Ingrained in our human soul. That explains why humans have a higher rate of murdering their peers than any other animals, right?

Possibly. Freedom != peace. Ants have a completely peaceful society and a completely enslaved one. Ants only fight other ant colonies. But you'll never see ants rebel against their own queen. They by instinct have no rights. Thank you for making my argument for me.