Is it still anarchists fault Ron Paul isn't winning?

[newbitech]

Um, there was no State prior to the Constitution, thus there was no State to be limited. The Constitution established the State. There was the Articles of Confederation, but this hardly established a State by comparison to my understanding. It was so powerless to the establishment of a State, in fact, that the statists of the time considered it wholly inadequate for their goal of establishing a State which the Federalists pursued by way of the Constitution.

right, the war for independence was fought against phantoms and ghosts. The AoC was stumbled upon in the mist of the Appalachians by a fur trader. Are you from America Cabal? I seem to remember you are one of Conza's personal friends or cousin or something like that? Wouldn't that make you from Australia too?

Regardless, the idea that there was no "state" in the land call America prior to the Constitution is laughable.

 

[newbitech]

Putting words in to his mouth again. Twisting and turning. What else do you think Ron Paul "might" have been? LMAO, the next part of his sentence,, you try to put words in to his mouth in the quote as if he actually said that. LIAR CONZA LIAR!

Conza's revenge rep response.

hahahhahahahahahhaha

You laugh cause you are wrong and you know it. Reveals you motivation Conza88. You take delight in twisting words and injecting your own ideas to piggyback on others. It's sad that you won't admit that you are wrong clearly. But that's ok, I take this revenge rep comment as an admittance of guilt. So don't worry, your secret is safe with me and the rest of the forum now.

 

[Cabal]

right, the war for independence was fought against phantoms and ghosts. The AoC was stumbled upon in the mist of the Appalachians by a fur trader. Are you from America Cabal? I seem to remember you are one of Conza's personal friends or cousin or something like that? Wouldn't that make you from Australia too?

Regardless, the idea that there was no "state" in the land call America prior to the Constitution is laughable.

Straw man. Yes, the American Revolutionary war was fought against the British State. That's irrelevant to what I was saying which was there was no 'American State' prior to its establishment via the Constitution.

I don't know Conza hardly at all, and certainly not on any personal level outside of this forum. What does this have to do with anything?

I was born and raised, and am currently living, in Texas, if you must know.

Now you can argue that the Articles established a central State of sorts, it wasn't exactly anarchistic in its entirety, but again it was so impotent in practice (purposefully and rightfully so) that it hardly qualifies as a State by any comparative measure. So, for this reason, it is rather evident that there was no true American State prior to the Constitution which was proposed in place of the articles by nationalist statists who wanted more centralization of power, and thus a stronger, more real (in theory and practice) central State.

 

[otherone]

Um, there was no State prior to the Constitution, thus there was no State to be limited. The Constitution established the State.

There were 13 States prior to the Constitution. The Constitution did not establish the state. The Constitution established a federation. The state as we know it was not created until the 14th amendment created it illegally.
Just as minarchists inappropriately point at Somalia as the failure of anarchy, anarchists point at our current nation as the failure of minarchy. Both are inappropriate. In every case, it is the failure of people to advocate for their Rights that is the problem. What percent of the vote has Ron Paul gotten so far?

 

[Conza88]

I laugh newbie, because your delusionals are hilarious.

And I don't know a single person who takes your pathetic bs seriously.

I post video excerpts of Ron Paul of him, they speak for themselves... and you accuse me of twisting his words.

"Are you from America Cabal? I seem to remember you are one of Conza's personal friends or cousin or something like that? Wouldn't that make you from Australia too?"

Hahaha..

paranoid, paranoid, someones coming to gettt meee

** If anyone takes his bs seriously, lemme know and I'll consider bothering to respond **

Rightio, back on ignore.. I've had my fun .

I don't know Conza hardly at all, and certainly not on any personal level outside of this forum. What does this have to do with anything?

Dude has a pathological hatred for me... he wants to be able to easily categorize you and put you in the same camp. If you know me, that's far easier to do [so he can justify it to himself].

Hopefully we'll share a beer some day Cabal

 

[Cabal]

There were 13 States prior to the Constitution. The Constitution did not establish the state. The Constitution established a federation. The state as we know it was not created until the 14th amendment created it illegally.
Just as minarchists inappropriately point at Somalia as the failure of anarchy, anarchists point at our current nation as the failure of minarchy. Both are inappropriate. In every case, it is the failure of people to advocate for their Rights that is the problem. What percent of the vote has Ron Paul gotten so far?

I capitalize the term State in my posts for a reason. The Constitution did, in fact, establish the State. The first three articles outline and delegate federal powers--what is this if not an establishment of a central State? Naturally, and predictably, the State has grown since then; and the State we know now is likely quite different than what it first was. But that's just the evolution of things; at the core it's basically the same--monopolization of force and centralization of power.

I don't think it is accurate to suggest that anarchists inaccurately point to the current nation as the failure of minarchy--in fact, I think that statement is in gross disregard of a lot of context and reasoning. Many anarchists, for instance, simply site the nature of the State as the failure of minarchy--a nature that has been conveniently made abundantly clear to us throughout the passage of history. It goes something like:

Small government (relatively speaking) = freer markets = greater prosperity = more wealth = larger pool of taxable income = more taxes = larger government = more tyranny. This is usually followed by revolution/collapse. It's not that anarchists wouldn't prefer a smaller government to a larger government; it's that anarchists do not want to see this perpetual cycle of immorality and brutality continue while those who promote it parade it around as if it were liberty. The US is just yet another example of the inevitability of it all.

You can't really blame the people, IMO. To blame the people is to burden them with a responsibility that you have conceived of for them--I don't think they ever consented to propping up your definition of minarchistic government. Spooner has long since sealed the deal on the whole Constitution vs. consent issue. It's also a rather collectivist perspective to be espousing. But hey, this is just another plus on the side of anarchy--people don't have to agree with one specific interpretation, and vote in specific way in all these different elections; all they have to do is not be violent. What's the more reasonable expectation, do you think?

 

[otherone]

You can't really blame the people, IMO. To blame the people is to burden them with a responsibility that you have conceived of for them--I don't think they ever consented to propping up your definition of minarchistic government.

????
In both minarchy and anarchy, people are required to actively advocate for their own Rights. Failure to do so leads to tyranny. That people did not rise up and cry 'foul' at the passage of the Patriot Act places the blame for this mess on the people. This particular state only grows at the behest of the people. Again, I ask you...what percent of the population has voted for Ron Paul? Do you honestly believe that stupid armored car given to that NH town would be there if the majority of the people objected?

 

[Cabal]

Again, you're blaming 'the people' based on a contrived responsibility you have burdened people at large with, whether or not they consented to accepting that responsibility.

How about I tie you to a chair, bound at the hands and feet, stuff a dirty sock in your mouth so you can't speak, and blindfold you so you can't so much as make eye contact. Then I'm going to tell you, I'm about to pull out a gun, and if you don't stop me before I'm done loading a round into the chamber, I'm going to shoot you. Oh, and you have no one to blame but yourself if you do get shot, because you didn't stop me. See, it says right there on that piece of paper tacked to the wall.

Absurdity.

 

[otherone]

How about I tie you to a chair, bound at the hands and feet, stuff a dirty sock in your mouth so you can't speak, and blindfold you so you can't so much as make eye contact. Then I'm going to tell you, I'm about to pull out a gun, and if you don't stop me before I'm done loading a round into the chamber, I'm going to shoot you. Oh, and you have no one to blame but yourself if you do get shot, because you didn't stop me.

So I'm not to try to stop you, because you're doing what you shouldn't be doing? Really?

 

[otherone]

I capitalize the term State in my posts for a reason. The Constitution did, in fact, establish the State. The first three articles outline and delegate federal powers--what is this if not an establishment of a central State?

And what part of that nascent state directly addresses the state's power over individuals?

 

[green73]

Damn anarchists, going around spreading the truth...

 

[newbitech]

Straw man. Yes, the American Revolutionary war was fought against the British State. That's irrelevant to what I was saying which was there was no 'American State' prior to its establishment via the Constitution.

I don't know Conza hardly at all, and certainly not on any personal level outside of this forum. What does this have to do with anything?

I was born and raised, and am currently living, in Texas, if you must know.

Now you can argue that the Articles established a central State of sorts, it wasn't exactly anarchistic in its entirety, but again it was so impotent in practice (purposefully and rightfully so) that it hardly qualifies as a State by any comparative measure. So, for this reason, it is rather evident that there was no true American State prior to the Constitution which was proposed in place of the articles by nationalist statists who wanted more centralization of power, and thus a stronger, more real (in theory and practice) central State.

It would only be a strawman if I allowed you to arbitrarily call something a state. Don't you hear all the anarchist coming out here saying basically, you are either a statist or you are not? Well, there was either a state or there was not.

Now you are further classifying what you are talking about as "the American State". You do this because your previous comment about the Constitution creating a state was bunk. I rightly pointed out that the state in the context of Rothbard and anarchist existed before the Constitution. You wanted to argue that the constitution created the state so you wrongly say no state existed prior. Now you are back peddling and trying to say you meant to say the American State.

Which is it you are fighting against? the state? OR the American State? Come on now.

 

[robert68]

the AoC was a war time document. You have to remember, most of the people in the United States at the time of the AoC enjoyed the large British Empire "state" they were controlled by. They simply wanted to be treated as equals to the "homeland".

The founder tried and tried and tried to get fair and equal representation. The AoC represent a "loose" alliance, an organized effort to combat "the state" with a united and common front. Once that effort was over, the AoC really served no purpose. Now the decision was made to strengthen the alliance by joining the individual colonies together under common purpose and cause. This required a formal central government.
...

Your evidence of that is?

Here's just a few obvious items from the Articles themselves showing how the case is very much otherwise:

Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia...

The United States in Congress assembled shall never engage in a war, ... unless by the votes of the majority of the United States in Congress assembled...

Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union. Know Ye that we the undersigned delegates, by virtue of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, do by these presents, in the name and in behalf of our respective constituents, fully and entirely ratify and confirm each and every of the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union, and all and singular the matters and things therein contained: And we do further solemnly plight and engage the faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide by the determinations of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions, which by the said Confederation are submitted to them. And that the Articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent, and that the Union shall be perpetual.
...

 

[Kluge]

It's not the anarchists, it's the truthers, the right-wingers, the lefties, Adam Kokesch, American Idol, Jessie Benton, Ron Paul's suit, his eyebrow and the black tennis shoes faults.

Hope that helped.

 

[rp08orbust]

The thread title caught my attention, because having spent $50k on robocalls during this election that pushed Ron Paul from 3rd to 2nd in a couple states, got him more delegates in MO and brought him to a near tie in the Ames straw poll, I can say that the biggest donor to Ron Paul's cause from this message board that I know of besides Larry Lepard is an anarchist (they wish to remain anonymous).

PS The 2008 election helped cement my anarchist leanings as well.

 

[RiseAgainst]

It's not the anarchists, it's the truthers, the right-wingers, the lefties, Adam Kokesch, American Idol, Jessie Benton, Ron Paul's suit, his eyebrow and the black tennis shoes faults.

Hope that helped.

I call BS!!

I find this picture incredibly inspiring:

 

[ProIndividual]

There were 13 States prior to the Constitution. The Constitution did not establish the state. The Constitution established a federation. The state as we know it was not created until the 14th amendment created it illegally.
Just as minarchists inappropriately point at Somalia as the failure of anarchy, anarchists point at our current nation as the failure of minarchy. Both are inappropriate. In every case, it is the failure of people to advocate for their Rights that is the problem. What percent of the vote has Ron Paul gotten so far?

I'm as against those 13 states as I am against the federated state. All states are statism...but you are correct...the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation were statism at work, and all 13 states were statism at work as well. The nation state was formed under the Constitution...so again, we anarchists are using the word "state" to emcompass all types of states, not just nation states. This is why I suggest we use two different terms to end the confusion, same as we do when speaking of government and states respectively. As governments and states aren't the same thing, the generic term state is not the nation state. Both types of states are wrong, based on geographic monopolies, et cetera, but one is far large and more centralized (not to mention, the nation state encompasses an entire culture, not just area).

But as to newbie's claims....the state, whether 13 of them, or one large nation state is mafia. It should be outlawed in the interests of law and human freedom. Nationalism cannot be totally sepearted from statism...as every nation (I gave the examples of nations in the USA right now; Latin King Nation, Gangster Disciple Nation, etc. are all street gangs enaged in nationalism) wants to set up a state. You cannot be a nationalist and not want a state...it's the entire purpose of nationalism.

Nationalism is therefore the precursor to statism, hence why nation states are formed out of nationalist movements that preceed them.

If you support a return to the Constitution as an end (not as a step to another end, like Voluntaryism or anarchism), then you support the state, and statism. It's fairly simple.

 

[otherone]

If you support a return to the Constitution as an end (not as a step to another end, like Voluntaryism or anarchism), then you support the state, and statism. It's fairly simple.

Yeah...."minarchy" pretty much means having a "mini" "archy". But conflating minarchy with, I dunno, totalitarianism, is Reductio ad Hitlerum.

 

[TheTexan]

We already tried the Constitution once. Didn't work.

 

[Travlyr]

We already tried the Constitution once. Didn't work.

Ron Paul is the "Champion of the Constitution." What is your proposal?