I'm done making excuses for the State

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I guess we can see that Travlyr cares little for those imprisoned in the name of the drug war, or the war on poverty, or the assassination of Americans, or the daily SWAT raids that kill innocent Americans, their dogs, and destroy their property, or the constant violations by the CIA, FBI, and NSA with the encroachment of the complete surveillance and Police State. He would be content in this situation if only at once, the Fed ceased to exist. Sure, it would be helpful, but it would just be one step among many. The fact is that it is not I who is the selfish one, but someone who acts in enlightened self-interest. I do not defend others liberty out of some altruism, but to make damned sure that my own liberty is not infringed upon. You however, act only in a state of myopic selfishness, unknowing that without defending the liberty of others, you yourself succumb to the tyranny that tramples you underfoot. You care little for the usurpations of others liberty, therefore you cannot be called someone who defends liberty. Period.

Honestly if you are so content in this current situation, I do not know what to say, other than you are supporting the wrong man, the wrong ideals, and the wrong movement. We are revolutionaries. We have a vision.

 

[Lisle16]

The Founding Fathers recognized the State as a necessary evil, with its overriding role to be the national defense. The federal government was meant to unite the States through the maxim of E plurubus unum-"Out of many, we are one" (And vice versa). But in the hundreds of years since then, the federal government, through the expansion of the executive bureaucracy, approved by Congress and justified by the Supreme Court, has become a tyrant towards the citizens, States, and other nations. That is why a strict Constitutional government is not only desired, it is needed.

 

[AGRP]

Perfect voluntaryism is impossible, imo. Do you agree with that?

I'd be an anarchist myself if i thought it wasnt impossible. There's *ZERO* chance it would work in todays world, too much hostility and very, very few ppl understand and respect private property. I think the most practical system that'd produce the least violence would be something similar to the articles of confederation except i'd go further and have a federal govt limited strictly to administrative duties, no power on force, security or military.

There's one way to do it: MOVE.

Think about the philosophy at it's CORE.

Look at those off shore cities and NH.

 

[Cutlerzzz]

The Founding Fathers recognized the State as a necessary evil, with its overriding role to be the national defense. The federal government was meant to unite the States through the maxim of E plurubus unum-"Out of many, we are one" (And vice versa). But in the hundreds of years since then, the federal government, through the expansion of the executive bureaucracy, approved by Congress and justified by the Supreme Court, has become a tyrant towards the citizens, States, and other nations. That is why a strict Constitutional government is not only desired, it is needed.

The Founding Fathers implemented quite a bit of tyranny. It was not just later generations.

 

[Travlyr]

I guess we can see that Travlyr cares little for those imprisoned in the name of the drug war, or the war on poverty, or the assassination of Americans, or the daily SWAT raids that kill innocent Americans, their dogs, and destroy their property, or the constant violations by the CIA, FBI, and NSA with the encroachment of the complete surveillance and Police State. He would be content in this situation if only at once, the Fed ceased to exist. Sure, it would be helpful, but it would just be one step among many. The fact is that it is not I who is the selfish one, but someone who acts in enlightened self-interest. I do not defend others liberty out of some altruism, but to make damned sure that my own liberty is not infringed upon. You however, act only in a state of myopic selfishness, unknowing that without defending the liberty of others, you yourself succumb to the tyranny that tramples you underfoot. You care little for the usurpations of others liberty, therefore you cannot be called someone who defends liberty. Period.

Honestly if you are so content in this current situation, I do not know what to say, other than you are supporting the wrong man, the wrong ideals, and the wrong movement. We are revolutionaries. We have a vision.

So you are an Austrian Economic Disciple eh? I thought Austrians were smarter than that. I thought you were smarter than that. You're just like funny money ... phony baloney.

Your ignorance is incredible. I am not going to help you or anyone else dismantle the State. You completely miss my point. You have no clue who I am but you talk shit anyway. Do you not read what others write at all? Do you not research before you wrongly accuse others of their position? I've advocated (Started Threads) for Legalizing Hemp, Separation of Money and State, Wealth Using Honest Sound Money, and the Fundamentals of Life. My positions are no secret. Never have I defended the modern day illegitimate government. I trust that the rule of law when enforced will liberate people who deal honestly with each other using sound money while respecting property and natural rights as prescribed by Dr. Ron Paul. Where the fuck do you get the idea that I would support a police state? Police are not a constitutional organization. Where the fuck do you get the idea I want anything to do with government agencies? I've written tons of times about the intrusions of government regulations which enslaves us and prevents us from engaging in business. You don't read that. You just bitch and moan like a spoiled child. Why? Because it takes too much of your valuable AED time to read? I've written many times about how the only function of government is:

Liberalism, State and Government by Ludwig von Mises
The Foundations of Liberal Policy

Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints.

Liberalism is not anarchism, nor has it anything whatsoever to do with anarchism. The liberal understands quite clearly that without resort to compulsion, the existence of society would be endangered and that behind the rules of conduct whose observance is necessary to assure peaceful human cooperation must stand the threat of force if the whole edifice of society is not to be continually at the mercy of any one of its members. One must be in a position to compel the person who will not respect the lives, health, personal freedom, or private property of others to acquiesce in the rules of life in society. This is the function that the liberal doctrine assigns to the state: the protection of property, liberty, and peace.

Just a few hours ago I wrote how assassinations abhor me so I could never vote for any one but Paul, but you don't read. You falsely accuse without having any idea what you are talking about. No wonder so few people want to deal with anarchists. You Have No Respect At All. Your accusations are total crap.

I have read most of what Dr. Ron Paul has written and since I agree with his honest approach, then that is mostly what I advocate. He wants Americans to enjoy liberty, peace, and prosperity. So do I.

Ron Paul 2012!

No One But Paul

 

[robert68]

... I no doubt live a much more free life than you. I take nothing from the government, I no longer have to toil daily, and I am surrounded by beautiful loving individuals and family. I understand liberty like you only dream of. I chose the name Travlyr because I've enjoyed leisurely crossing the country making friends, visiting friends and family on the coasts, and rafting in rivers across America. No doubt there is much more to see and do, yet I am satisfied with what I have already seen and done...

You read and believe what you read. I live and enjoy my life...

With “liberty” defined only as you being content, by any means. The contented privilege classes of every society have their self centered “liberty” in the same way. Some people care about more than that.

 

[Travlyr]

With “liberty” defined only as you being content, by any means. The contented privilege classes of every society have their self centered “liberty” in the same way. Some people care about more than that.

As do I.

 

[Wesker1982]

Agreed. But since it is the best we've got now, I'll stick with it until something better is offered.

Yeah, since no other options are available now, I am sticking with it too. That does not mean I do not advocate that it be done another way. I would rather it be done without violence, even though I might never see it happen.

If you were alive before slavery was abolished, and you believed it would not be abolished any time in your life, would you advocate the abolition of slavery? Would you object to it on the grounds that "this is what we have now", or would you at least support the idea of it?

I accept the fact that humans are social beings.

So do I, which is why I object to the institution that facilitates and legalizes and legitimizes man's worst and most anti-social behaviors (theft, murder, kidnapping, etc).

The State, then, is not simply a part of society. The brunt of this part of the present volume, in fact, is to demonstrate that the State is not, as most utilitarian free-market economists like to think, a legitimate social institution that tends to be bumbling and inefficient in most of its activities. On the contrary, the State is an inherently illegitimate institution of organized aggression, of organized and regularized crime against the persons and properties of its subjects.

Rather than necessary to society, it is a profoundly antisocial institution which lives parasitically off of the productive activities of private citizens.

A common defense of the State holds that man is a "social animal," that he must live in society, and that individualists and libertarians believe in the existence of "atomistic individuals" uninfluenced by and unrelated to their fellow men. But no libertarians have ever held individuals to be isolated atoms; on the contrary, all libertarians have recognized the necessity and the enormous advantages of living in society, and of participating in the social division of labor. The great non sequitur committed by defenders of the State, including classical Aristotelian and Thomist philosophers, is to leap from the necessity of society to the necessity of the State.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard160.html

In proving that man’s nature is best fitted for a society, he believes that he has gone far to provide a rationale for the State. But he has not done so in the slightest degree, once we fully realize that the State and society are by no means coextensive. The contention of libertarians that the State is an antisocial instrument must first be refuted before such a non sequitur can be allowed.

http://mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap18b.asp#15._State_Nature_Man

I am confused here:

Edit: I will not bother with the economic calculation problem because I do not advocate State control of markets.

??????

I personally have no problem with a small degree of socialism.

Which is it? If you advocate the State to use its coercive monopoly to control the title registry market, then you do advocate the State control of a market, you do advocate socialism, and you do run into the calculation problem.

Some violence is necessary in society in order to control those who are out of control.

Yeah, agreed. What I also hope you agree on is that it is not necessary (or justified) to initiate violence on peaceful and non-violent individuals.

 

[Travlyr]

I am confused here:

??????

Which is it? If you advocate the State to use its coercive monopoly to control the title registry market, then you do advocate the State control of a market, you do advocate socialism, and you do run into the calculation problem.

Read slowly and carefully...
I. do. not. advocate. State. control. of. markets. - emphasis on do not advocate.
However, personally. I. have. no problem. with. a. small. degree. of. socialism. - emphasis on personal opinion.

Yeah, agreed. What I also hope you agree on is that it is not necessary (or justified) to initiate violence on peaceful and non-violent individuals.

If. you. carefully. read. what. I. write., then. you. would. already. know. that.

 

[ClayTrainor]

It is really just a matter of getting over the label "anarchist".

See Sig.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

See Sig.

:thumbs:

Edit to add - I think instead of "anarchist" we should use "back slappin' contingent".

 

[RiseAgainst]

Oh boy...

I believe one of the problems that this thread demonstrates among otherwise would be champions of liberty, is that they do not understand the true nature or definition of property and by extension it's rights afforded. Titled land to be heired in perpetuity is an archaic construct of 'noble' classes used to preserve power over serfs. In order to free yourself from the slave master you must free yourself from not only his physical chains, but his mental and lingual chains as well. The only property that is just is that to which you are personally putting to active use. When one clears a section of forest and builds herself a home from the harvested lumber, one can hardly argue her right to call this her property. However, this does not give her property right over the adjoining 2,000 acres of forest and land as yet unmixed with human labor. Nor does it give her right to abandon said property only to re-appear at an indeterminate time in the future and attempt to forcibly eject any would be new property users. If we are ever to free ourselves from our current predicaments we must first be willing to release the trappings of a title based property system.

Freedom may not be easy, but it is right and moral.

 

[Travlyr]

Oh boy...

I believe one of the problems that this thread demonstrates among otherwise would be champions of liberty, is that they do not understand the true nature or definition of property and by extension it's rights afforded. Titled land to be heired in perpetuity is an archaic construct of 'noble' classes used to preserve power over serfs. In order to free yourself from the slave master you must free yourself from not only his physical chains, but his mental and lingual chains as well. The only property that is just is that to which you are personally putting to active use. When one clears a section of forest and builds herself a home from the harvested lumber, one can hardly argue her right to call this her property. However, this does not give her property right over the adjoining 2,000 acres of forest and land as yet unmixed with human labor. Nor does it give her right to abandon said property only to re-appear at an indeterminate time in the future and attempt to forcibly eject any would be new property users. If we are ever to free ourselves from our current predicaments we must first be willing to release the trappings of a title based property system.

Freedom may not be easy, but it is right and moral.

Then where would you call home if you went on extended vacation? Back to roaming, hunting, gathering and build yet another new home?

 

[Wesker1982]

Read slowly and carefully...
I. do. not. advocate. State. control. of. markets. - emphasis on do not advocate.

Great. Voluntary markets for title registry databases ftw.

 

[mczerone]

Yes, Son of Misunderstanding Liberty. You do misrepresent my position. I have compassion and empathy for others who may be able to use my help. Your perfect liberty is too selfish for me.

So you want to force me to pay a bunch of suits in D.C. to then give that money to people that they find worthy? Your selfishness is evident in the fact that you like the redistributive state, and you wish to force all your countrymen to be bound by this rule.

My "selfishness", on the other hand, is nothing but the desire to directly benefit the charity that I find worthy. And to let you donate to what it is that you find worthy - including the provision of property defense firms that can better define and defend your rights than any hypothetical or real "state".

Would there be truly "selfish" people in a freed society? Sure, but they would lose societal currency with their cohorts and would quickly suffer lest they conformed with a voluntarily defined level of "community involvement".

Try again, this argument fails to defend any state.

 

[Travlyr]

Great. Voluntary markets for title registry databases ftw.

What is your competing offer?

 

[Travlyr]

So you want to force me to pay a bunch of suits in D.C. to then give that money to people that they find worthy? Your selfishness is evident in the fact that you like the redistributive state, and you wish to force all your countrymen to be bound by this rule.

My "selfishness", on the other hand, is nothing but the desire to directly benefit the charity that I find worthy. And to let you donate to what it is that you find worthy - including the provision of property defense firms that can better define and defend your rights than any hypothetical or real "state".

Would there be truly "selfish" people in a freed society? Sure, but they would lose societal currency with their cohorts and would quickly suffer lest they conformed with a voluntarily defined level of "community involvement".

Try again, this argument fails to defend any state.

Start with the basics. Do you like to eat, drink, and breathe? This is not rhetorical. If so, then do you want to be dependent on others or yourself. Again these are very basic but honest questions. Please give me your honest answer.

 

[mczerone]

Then where would you call home if you went on extended vacation? Back to roaming, hunting, gathering and build yet another new home?

You'd pay your normal security/defense agency to look after the place while your gone.


I mean, this is one of the weakest "but how would..." scenario that I've ever seen. Even today, with the state protection of property, you can lose your home to adverse possession after some subjectively determined amount of time, usually many years. But if you go on vacation today, do you alert the cops or the neighbors to defend your home?

 

[Travlyr]

You'd pay your normal security/defense agency to look after the place while your gone.


I mean, this is one of the weakest "but how would..." scenario that I've ever seen. Even today, with the state protection of property, you can lose your home to adverse possession after some subjectively determined amount of time, usually many years. But if you go on vacation today, do you alert the cops or the neighbors to defend your home?

This was a response to someone else. Please do not distort the facts. My question to you was:

Do you like to eat, drink, and breathe? This is not rhetorical. If so, then do you want to be dependent on others or yourself. Again these are very basic but honest questions. Please give me your honest answer.

 

[Travlyr]

What is your competing offer?

Wesker1982,
Please present your competing offer.