I'm done making excuses for the State

[Travlyr]

I have already responded to said post. You have failed to address said response.

If you would like me to help organize your thoughts for hou to better align with the discussion at hand, perhaps you could answer a few questions:

1. What authority does your 'state' have to 'protect' your 'property'?

2. How is your 'state' funded?

3. What if I dont want to participate in your 'state'?

4. What if I want to compete with your 'state'?

How Rude.

1. Ratification.
2. Taxes
3. Don't. I couldn't care less about rude people.
4. Compete.

 

[RiseAgainst]

By keeping my properly recorded deed in a safe place and making laws which say something like, "You are a proud owner of land with boundaries W,X,Y,Z located in "My County, My Section, My Lot & Block" If anyone tries to take it away from you without due process, then you can go to your local County Clerk and get a copy of this duly recorded deed to prove ownership." That'll be a processing fee of $10 please (Tax).

That's how the State protects property.

Um, your solution is a piece of paper? What are you going to do, papercut them to death?

 

[Travlyr]

Um, your solution is a piece of paper? What are you going to do, papercut them to death?

No, I have a shotgun, pistol, and a rifle handy for that. The State does not, never did, and in fact, cannot, protect anyone or their property with guns. That's a myth. Protecting myself, my family, and my property is my job. The State backs me with laws to ferret out rights and wrongs.

 

[RiseAgainst]

How Rude.

1. Ratification.
2. Taxes
3. Don't. I couldn't care less about rude people.
4. Compete.

How un-thought provoking.

1. Force.
2. Force.
3. The complete undermining of subset (1).
4. The complete undermining of subset (1).

Your lack of knowledge regarding your own position, your inability to express anything more than one sentence, and your unwillingness to openly and honestly respond to any questions or challenges presented you grow tiresome. If youre ever willing to have an actual discussion, Im listening. But such is the problem with chest pounding statiats, just like might makes right, the loudest argument apparently is presumed qinner in their mind.

 

[RiseAgainst]

No, I have a shotgun, pistol, and a rifle handy for that. The State does not, never did, and in fact, cannot, protect anyone or their property with guns. That's a myth. Protecting myself, my family, and my property is my job. The State back me with laws.

Logical inconsistencies escape your grasp at breakneck speed.

 

[JackieDan]

The difference between libertarianism and anarchism is that Libertarians believe that there must be a body that protects freedom and a strong national defence.

 

[Travlyr]

The difference between libertarianism and anarchism is that Libertarians believe that there must be a body that protects freedom and a strong national defence.

Agree. That's why I don't take labels. I don't agree that the proper function of the State is to protect me. The proper function of the State is to set standards, distribute land and resources to individuals so that they can have a place to call home, allow individuals the right to mine, grow, or sew if the individual so desires, make necessary and proper laws, and provide justice for violations of rights.

 

[RiseAgainst]

The difference between libertarianism and anarchism is that Libertarians believe that there must be a body that protects freedom and a strong national defence.

Correction, anarchy is libertarianism carried to its logical conclusion. Statism is the justification of the initiation of violent force to prevent the initiation of violent force, a complete and total bastardization of the most core and fundamental principles of libertarianism.

 

[Travlyr]

Logical inconsistencies escape your grasp at breakneck speed.

And you are consistently rude.

 

[RiseAgainst]

And you are consistently rude.

I'd much prefer to be considered rude than to advocate the initiation of violent force to achieve my own ends.

 

[Travlyr]

I'd much prefer to be considered rude than to advocate the initiation of violent force to achieve my own ends.

Let's see if you can answer a simple question...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...or-the-State&p=3682437&viewfull=1#post3682437

Where is the violence and expense?

 

[RiseAgainst]

Let's see if you can answer a simple question...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...or-the-State&p=3682437&viewfull=1#post3682437

Where is the violence and expense?

You'll pardon the abruptness, but the elementary nature of your inquiry leads me to only two possible conclusions. One, you are so woefully unprepared and lacking basic foundational understanding of the subject matter that you will require mountainous prep work on my behalf in order that you may grasp any refutations; or two you know exactly how absurd your claims are but are being obtuse on purpose.

If you think for one second your $10 filing fee is the only thing funding your state you are sorely mistaken. If you think that your shiny piece of paper means anything more than a steamy pile of horse excrement without the threat of violent force to back it up, you are sorely mistaken. And if you think that any of this couldn't be provided for more efficiently, and most important voluntarily thriugh market, you are again sorely mistaken.

You would do well to do some light reading and self education prior to attempting to debate a subject matter you clearly do not grasp. I am done banging my head into your brick wall.

 

[Travlyr]

You'll pardon the abruptness, but the elementary nature of your inquiry leads me to only two possible conclusions. One, you are so woefully unprepared and lacking basic foundational understanding of the subject matter that you will require mountainous prep work on my behalf in order that you may grasp any refutations; or two you know exactly how absurd your claims are but are being obtuse on purpose.

If you think for one second your $10 filing fee is the only thing funding your state you are sorely mistaken. If you think that your shiny piece of paper means anything more than a steamy pile of horse excrement without the threat of violent force to back it up, you are sorely mistaken. And if you think that any of this couldn't be provided for more efficiently, and most important voluntarily thriugh market, you are again sorely mistaken.

You would do well to do some light reading and self education prior to attempting to debate a subject matter you clearly do not grasp. I am done banging my head into your brick wall.

Okay Mr. Rude Dude, your solution is? What?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Thank you for the straight answer. I do too. Now, my solution to accomplish this goal may be different than yours. Here is how I approach achieving being in control of my food, water, and air.

I find property that is not being used. In 2011, I must buy it from the bankers which sucks because I should be able to buy it from an individual, but I digress on that point. I buy myself a little plot of land. Then I stake the corners with boundary pins so that everyone else in the world knows that I lay claim to that plot.

Then I dig a water well, fence part of it and raise animals to eat, fence more of it to raise a garden, and I build a house and garage for my comfort. I claim ownership of the land, improvements, food, and water. Since air is abundant, then my main concern is that others do not pollute the air that I breathe.

In this way, I am in control of my food, water, and housing.

The State is created by my actions because I laid claim to my piece of the pie and when someone else wants to lay claim to my claim then a legal claim is better than the two of us getting into a Hatfield & McCoy battle.

That makes no sense. If merely owning a piece of land constitutes a "state", then there are millions of "states" on this continent alone. Further, one of the distinguishing factor of a State is that it interacts with other States (wage war, etc). I don't think the folks down the street are going to start a literal war with each other.

You're also at odds with the dictionary

 

[Travlyr]

That makes no sense. If merely owning a piece of land constitutes a "state", then there are millions of "states" on this continent alone. Further, one of the distinguishing factor of a State is that it interacts with other States (wage war, etc). I don't think the folks down the street are going to start a literal war with each other.

You're also at odds with the dictionary

HB, it is not the fact that land ownership constitutes a State. It is the fact that laws are made because people lay claims to land to settle disputes. It is so people can enjoy peace, prosperity, and freedom by owning a piece of the pie. Stop resisting. Enjoy what God gives.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Thank you for the straight answer. I do too. Now, my solution to accomplish this goal may be different than yours. Here is how I approach achieving being in control of my food, water, and air.

I find property that is not being used. In 2011, I must buy it from the bankers which sucks because I should be able to buy it from an individual, but I digress on that point. I buy myself a little plot of land. Then I stake the corners with boundary pins so that everyone else in the world knows that I lay claim to that plot.

Then I dig a water well, fence part of it and raise animals to eat, fence more of it to raise a garden, and I build a house and garage for my comfort. I claim ownership of the land, improvements, food, and water. Since air is abundant, then my main concern is that others do not pollute the air that I breathe.

In this way, I am in control of my food, water, and housing.

The State is created by my actions because I laid claim to my piece of the pie and when someone else wants to lay claim to my claim then a legal claim is better than the two of us getting into a Hatfield & McCoy battle.

I understand your justifications for the existence of a state.

If your state does not demand a tribute payment in the form of a "tax", or some other form of involuntary fee, to fund its operations, and does not deny and actively suppress agencies which seek to compete with its operations, and does not attempt to coercively and/or forcefully impose rules and regulations of any kind on the sovereign individuals within it's grasp, I would not oppose it.

Would your state do any of these things?

 

[Conza88]

Does the State Resolve or Create Conflict?



...Further, of the state, defined as “the ultimate authority to which in a given territory no recourse to a higher authority exists,” Radnitzky states, “that coercion is not a characteristic that is implied in its definition. If (per impossibile) the contract theory were a tenable theory, then the institution would not be coercive and yet qualify as a state.” Certainly, one is free in one’s definitions, but not all definitions are fruitful.

According to Radnitzky’s definition, for instance, the founder-proprietor of a settlement - a gated community - would have to be considered a state, because he decides about membership (inclusion and exclusion) and is the ultimate authority in all settler-conflicts. However, the founder of a community does not exact taxes, but he collects fees, contributions or rents from his follow-settlers. And he does not pass laws (legislates) regarding the property of other, but all settler-property is from the outset subject to his ultimate jurisdiction.

Similarly, it is conceivable that all private land owners in a given territory transfer their land to one and the same person, for instance, in order to so establish the ultimate authority which according to Hobbes is necessary for peace. Thereby, they sink from the rank of an owner to that of a renter. Radnitzky would also term such a proprietor, established in this way, a state. But why? It is contrary to common terminology and hence confusing.

And which purpose would be served, to label something entirely different with the same name: namely an institution, which derives its status as ultimate authority neither from an act of original appropriation nor from a real estate transfer on the part of original appropriators? It is this difference in the genesis of the institution, that lets us speak of (coercive) taxes and tribute and of laws and legislation instead of voluntarily paid rents and accepted community standards and house rules. Why not, in accordance with conventional speech, reserve the term state exclusively for the former (compulsory) institution?

However, regarding this (compulsory) state, then, this must be kept in mind: that its institution is even then ‘unjust’, if (per impossible) it rested on unanimous agreement. Consensus does not guarantee truth. A state-agreement is invalid, because it contradicts the nature of things. At any given point in time (and absent any pre-stabilized harmony), a scarce good can only have one owner. Otherwise, contrary to the very purpose of norms, conflict is generated instead of avoided.

Yet multiple ownership regarding one and the same stock of goods is precisely what state-agreement implies. The consenting parties did not transfer all of their land to the state but consider themselves as free land owners (not renters). Yet at the same time they appoint the state as ultimate decision-maker concerning all territorial conflicts and thus make him the owner of all land. The price that must be paid for this ‘unjust’ - contrary to the nature of things - agreement is permanent conflict.

Conflict is not unavoidable but possible. However, it is nonsensical to consider the institution of a state as a solution to the problem of possible conflict, because it is precisely the institution of a state which first makes conflict unavoidable and permanent.

 

[Travlyr]

I understand your justifications for the existence of a state.

If your state does not demand a tribute payment in the form of a "tax", or some other form of involuntary fee, to fund its operations, and does not deny and actively suppress agencies which seek to compete with its operations, and does not attempt to coercively and/or forcefully impose rules and regulations of any kind on the sovereign individuals within it's grasp, I would not oppose it.

Would your state do any of these things?

It is not my State. I merely described why States exist. It is evolutionary. States grow from that fundamental concept for various reasons. However, the claim that States are violent by their very existence has virtually no justification in reality. The concept of the State is beneficial to individuals for liberty, peace, and prosperity. For that very reason the State will never go away. Hate of the State is misplaced venom, and incessant effort to destroy the State is simply a divide and conquer tactic by the powers-that-be.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

It is not my State. I merely described why States exist. It is evolutionary. States grow from that fundamental concept for various reasons. However, the claim that States are violent by their very existence has virtually no justification in reality. The concept of the State is beneficial to individuals for liberty, peace, and prosperity. For that very reason the State will never go away. Hate of the State is misplaced venom, and incessant effort to destroy the State is simply a divide and conquer tactic by the powers-that-be.

Your opinion is that opposing the state is not a worthy enterprise. That's fine.

I understand that it is not "your" state, but you do advocate for the existence of a state.

And so, with respect, you didn't answer my question:

If your state does not demand a tribute payment in the form of a "tax", or some other form of involuntary fee, to fund its operations, and does not deny and actively suppress agencies which seek to compete with its operations, and does not attempt to coercively and/or forcefully impose rules and regulations of any kind on the sovereign individuals within it's grasp, I would not oppose it.

Would your state the state which you advocate do any of these things?

 

[Travlyr]

Your opinion is that opposing the state is not a worthy enterprise. That's fine.

I understand that it is not "your" state, but you do advocate for the existence of a state.

And so, with respect, you didn't answer my question:

It is not my State. We were all born into that societal construct. I don't have a problem with it because I like to be in control of my life. However, the violations you describe are unavoidable in life either with boundaries or not. If boundaries are not drawn, then Hatfield and McCoy battles ensue, if they are drawn, then taxes are necessary. Both scenarios are violent in that regard.