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

[Travlyr]

It's obviously a rhetorical question because you won't accept any answer that includes abolishing your beloved mafia extortion, kidnapping, and murder machine. You want to keep it at all costs...because you falsely, inspite of all logic, feel it's not only necessary, but beneficial and benign.

The plan has been stated. Parent children so they are raised to understand the state is immoral. Educate them, and adults, to understand the same. That's 95% of the process. The other 5% is to outlaw the state (the geographic monoplies on roads, money, fire service, police, defense, etc.). Once these monopolies are ended, the state dies. The state is an ideology, not a philosophy. It's simply an idea that needs to end, and then IT functionally ends. You wake up, it's that much closer to abolition.

It's like asking "who will pick the cotton if we abolish slavery?", or "who will wash my clothes and fix my meals if my wife is allowed to work and own property like a man?".

There is nothing impossible about the only non-utopian philosophy. Utopia implies uniformity, something anarchists are dead set against. You want a righteous and moral mafia...that's utopian and impossible.

My proposal is a proposal known for over a hundred years...but you don't seek answers, or you'd look them up online instead of asking us rhetorical questions and posting videos about overly simplistic answers to making your mafia monopoly a thing of the past. My proposal is parenting, education, and allowing competition. My strategy is anarchism without adjectives, and my form of organization and economics is panarchist synthesis. Government should be able to be opted-into and out-of without you physically relocating (panarchism; Voluntaryism). No one should be required to be in any of these social contracts at all, unless they want to, provided they do not harm or defraud anyone or their properties in the act of self governance. It's unethical, illogical, and aggressive to do anything else.

Your Constitution is a codification of a territorial monopoly on mafia, extortion, kidnapping, murder, and any number of services that could be provided by the free market. You love it; but what you love is violence against soveriegns who have not harmed anyone. You fail to care, and continue to claim ignorance of the ramifications of your ideals. Your only retort to any of the philosophy we try to make you face is appeal to authority (or some other informal logical fallacy). We do not want your Constitution...it's a good means to an anarchist/Voluntaryist end...but it cannot be an end unto itself. If it is your end, it is immorality you wish to achieve...the aggression against innocents and the perpetuation of a monopoly on mafia.

You act as if the state doesn't destroy your property rights through tax, by making the state your landlord, the owner of your labor, your consumer choices, your life itself. You do not own what you rent, and the state rents you your property as long as it taxes it. Worse, it can seize it for any reason whatsoever in your Constitution. That's protecting property rights? Peace is initiating force through extortion? Defending you from domestic and foreign initiations of force is achieved by initiating force against you? Orwell had memes for this:

War is Peace. Slavery is Freedom. Ignorance is Strength. Interventions are Humanitarian. Pepper Spray is a Vegetable.

I added the last one, and I'll add two more:

Destruction of Property Rights protects Property Rights. Initiated Force protects you from Initiated Force.

I mean, while we're trading memes, why not, right?

Now I ask you, what is your philosophy? What are your ethics? (More importantly, are you willing to get either? Because you currently have neither.)

Lastly, please stopping quoting an anarchist (Rothbard) out of context to make your sophistic arguments for statism. Your making yourself look like a totally ignorant, or intellectually dishonest, person.

You have no clue. I support Ron Paul because he makes a hell of a lot more sense than you. Rothbard, like Paul, understood that minimal government was the best possible outcome. You can't eliminate the State. It's impossible in our lifetimes. Get a clue. The Constitution, when followed, limits government. Somehow you believe that you are going to be able to eliminate the State without limiting it? That makes NO sense. If you would take the time to read what others write, then you would understand that the constitution is not a beloved document. It is not even "my" constitution. I simply recognize that it includes the Bill of Rights and forcing the rulers to obey them is a hell of a lot better than what we get if we don't try and stop them. What we get if they are not forced to obey the constitution is what we have today. Rulers who rule with an iron fist.

On the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives
September 23, 2004​

Remarks on the Constitution by U.S. Congressman Ron Paul

"The U.S. Constitution is the most unique and best contract ever drawn up between a people and their government in history. Though flawed from the beginning, because all men are flawed, it nevertheless has served us well and set an example for the entire world. Yet no matter how hard the authors tried, the corrupting influence of power was not thwarted by the Constitution.

The notion of separate state and local government, championed by the followers of Jefferson, was challenged by the Hamiltonians almost immediately following the ratification of the Constitution. Early on, the supporters of strong, centralized government promoted central banking, easy credit, protectionism/mercantilism, and subsidies for corporate interests.

Although the 19th Century generally was kind to the intent of the Constitution, namely limiting government power, a major setback occurred with the Civil War and the severe undermining of the principle of sovereign states. The Civil War profoundly changed the balance of power in our federalist system, paving the way for centralized big government.

Although the basic principle underlying the constitutional republic we were given was compromised in the post-Civil War period, it was not until the 20th Century that steady and significant erosion of the constitutional restraints placed on the central government occurred. This erosion adversely affected not only economic and civil liberties, but foreign affairs as well.

We now have persistent abuse of the Constitution by the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Our leaders in Washington demonstrate little concern for the rule of law, liberty, and our republican form of government.

Today the pragmatism of the politicians, as they spend more than $2 trillion annually, creates legislative chaos. The vultures consume the carcass of liberty without remorse. On the contrary, we hear politicians brag incessantly about their ability to deliver benefits to their districts, thus qualifying themselves for automatic re-election.

The real purpose of the Constitution was the preservation of liberty. It's not the Constitution that gives us our freedom, the Constitution is needed to keep the power seekers from usurping that freedom and to hold government in check.

But our government ignores this while spending endlessly, taxing, and regulating. The complacent electorate, who are led to believe their interests and needs are best cared for by a huge bureaucratic welfare state, convince themselves that enormous federal deficits and destructive inflation can be dealt with another day.

The answer to the dilemma of unconstitutional government and runaway spending is simple: restore a burning conviction in the hearts and minds of the people that freedom works and government largesse is a fraud. When the people once again regain confidence in the benefits of liberty -- and demand it from their elected leaders -- Congress will act appropriately.

The response of honorable men and women who represent us should be simply to take their oaths of office seriously, vote accordingly, and return our nation to its proper republican origins. The results would be economic prosperity, greater personal liberty, honest money, abolition of the Internal Revenue Service, and a work made more peaceful when we abandon the futile policy of building and policing an American empire.

No longer would we yield our sovereignty to international organizations that act outside the restraints placed on government by the Constitution.

The Constitution and those who have sworn to uphold it are not perfect, and it's understandable that abuse occurs. But it shouldn't be acceptable. Without meticulous adherence to the principle of the rule of law, minor infractions become commonplace and the Constitution loses all meaning.

Unfortunately that is where we are today. This nonsense that the Constitution is a living, flexible document, taught as gospel in our government schools, must be challenged. The Founders were astute enough to recognize the Constitution was not perfect and wisely permitted amendments to the document -- but they correctly made the process tedious, and thus difficult.

Without a renewed love for liberty and confidence in its results, it will be difficult if not impossible to restore once again the rule of law under the Constitution.

I have heard throughout my life how each upcoming election is the most important election ever, and how the very future of our country is at stake. Those fears have always been grossly overstated. The real question is not who will achieve a partisan victory. The real question is will we once again accept the clear restraints placed on the power of the national government by the Constitution.

Obviously the jury is still out on this issue. However, what we choose to do about this constitutional crisis is the most important "election" of our times, and the results will determine the kind of society our children will inherit. I believe it's worthwhile for all of us to tirelessly pursue the preservation of the elegant Constitution with which we have been so blessed."

I'll quote whoever I want whenever I want. If you were an honest anarchist, then you would not be telling me what to do. Rothbard, Spooner, and pretty much every smart person in history understood that rulers are going to rule whether the ruled like it or not. The Anti-Federalists knew that. They wrote about it. They made sure that the Bill of Rights were included to do whatever they could do to limit the power of the Khazars. What you don't seem to bother with is understanding who is in charge. It is the Khazars. Just a little bit of study of history helps for understanding. Try it sometime. Obeying the constitution puts them in jail for their shenanigans. That's what Ron Paul and a lot of us are saying. Stop them peacefully if we can otherwise they will take us all out. That's what history tells us.

 

[otherone]

If you would take the time to read what others write, then you would understand that the constitution is not a beloved document. It is not even "my" constitution. I simply recognize that it includes the Bill of Rights and forcing the rulers to obey them is a hell of a lot better than what we get if we don't try and stop them. What we get if they are not forced to obey the constitution is what we have today. Rulers who rule with an iron fist.

I'm interested in hearing what text of the initial Constitution is anathema to Anarchists. Not simply, "all states are immoral", or "it had the potential to get effed up...see what we have today?" What part of the initial Constitution addressed the US's sovereignty over the individual?
The document has no power over anyone. It's a job description. If the boss falls asleep, and the employee goofs-off...is it the job descriptions fault?

“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.”
― Thomas Jefferson

"The price of Freedom is ETERNAL vigilance."
-Thomas Jefferson

Moral or not, nothing happens unless the People want it to happen. People want their Romney, their Santorum, their Obama. People WANT their 'beloved' State. Once the PEOPLES attitude changes, the State will change.

 

[Travlyr]

I'm interested in hearing what text of the initial Constitution is anathema to Anarchists. Not simply, "all states are immoral", or "it had the potential to get effed up...see what we have today?" What part of the initial Constitution addressed the US's sovereignty over the individual?

Your point is well taken. Anarchists do not seem to understand what the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights are. The claim that it is a mafia extortion, kidnapping, and murder machine is nonsense. That description reminds me of a young child pounding his hands and feet on the floor screaming, "It's not fair!" No matter how many times the claim is made that the Constitution is a flawed document that needs amended it gets thrown in our faces that we love a coercive violent State when in fact we are offering a viable solution. They do not seem to understand the power rulers achieve by debasement of currency.

I agree taxation is a problem. I'm against coerced taxation as well, but I'm not willing to throw the Bill of Rights out the window for a few pennies. The 14th amendment was never ratified and neither was the 16th. So by the government's own contract those amendments are null and void of law. The Feds do not have the authority to print money, war on the world, or maintain standing armies. They don't have that authority. They do it, but they do not have the legal authority to do it. The Khazar warriors are simply criminals that need to be stopped.

The way I see it is there are two options. Peaceful revolution by getting involved and forcing our elected officials to honor their oath of office and put an end to the shenanigans, or violent revolution which would be tragic. Anarchists do not seem to want to join us in the peaceful revolution and that is disheartening.

 

[robert68]

..

 

[ProIndividual]

AGAIN, MINARCHY IS NOT FASCISM. Hyperbole, arrogance, and derision are NOT arguments. Where has anyone written anything about 'beloved'?

It's mafia, not fascism. Quit trying to straw man me and admit minarchism is a form of statism. The state is just the most powerful mafia in a geographic gang turf (borders) who declares itself legal and all other competing mafias illegal. It then demands extortionist protection money (tax) on the threat of kidnapping (prison), and if you resist the kidnapping they murder you.

It's clearly a mafia once you drop the nostalgia.

I'm not confusing it with fascism. I know quite clearly what fascism is...we live in a fascist country right now (corporatism). My great grandparents fled fascist Itlay (Sicily actually). I also know what mafia is, therefore.

Stop straw manning me. I never made the argument minarchists are fascists. I made the FACTUAL argument you're statists. Accept it, or live in denial. Accept the state is a mafia for all intents and purposes, or live in denial.

As far as beloved...do you love this nation? Do you love Constituional government? If not, I apologize. If so, it's your beloved mafia. Nationalism leads directly to statism. Both are support for monopolistic mafia.

 

[otherone]

The state is just the most powerful mafia in a geographic gang turf (borders) who declares itself legal and all other competing mafias illegal. It then demands extortionist protection money (tax) on the threat of kidnapping (prison), and if you resist the kidnapping they murder you.

Comparing the state to the mafia is an Appeal to Emotion. I understand the comparison. Now can you contrast them?

 

[ProIndividual]

You have no clue. I support Ron Paul because he makes a hell of a lot more sense than you. Rothbard, like Paul, understood that minimal government was the best possible outcome.

You're in such a level of denial, it's sad.

Quit appealling to authority with Ron Paul. I don't care what he thinks on this issue. Support your debate with logic, not Ron Paul. Got it?

Also, you've not read Rothbard very thoroughly if you think he was a minarchist. He was clearly an anarcho capitalist. Please, stop. It's just sad.

You posting Ron Paul speeches makes no difference whatsoever to this argument. I'm going to say it one last time: appeal to authority is an informal logical fallacy. Please look up informal logical fallacies so you can dbeate logically.

I'm not telling you what to do, statist. You're trying to tell lies, like "Rothbard wasn't an anarchist". It's a joke. You're also trying to assert a number of other erroneous claims...but I'm done with you until you can show some logical retort to what I've asserted beyond "Ron Paul, her derp" or "Rothbard was a minarchist, herp derp" or "Constitutionalism isn't a form of statism, herp derp".

Good luck. You need it.

PS. I don't care about your Jew conspiracy theory. States killed 170 million people in the last 100 years, not Khazars. Semite or non-semite, they aren't in control of every state in the world for God's sake...and even if they were, that'd be an argument to ABOLISH THE STATE, not keep the state but keep one kind of Jew away from the state.

Oh who cares? I'm debating nationalist statist in total denial of reality. I tried, what else can I say? Maybe one day you'll wake up, or maybe not. I've done the best I can with your nonsense.

 

[ProIndividual]

Comparing the state to the mafia is an Appeal to Emotion. I understand the comparison. Now can you contrast them?

I repeat:

The state is just the most powerful mafia in a geographic gang turf (borders) who declares itself legal and all other competing mafias illegal. It then demands extortionist protection money (tax) on the threat of kidnapping (prison), and if you resist the kidnapping they murder you.


Now, you have to show how I what I said was not logically true before you can assert I only appealed to emotion.

Good luck with that.

And no, I won't contrast equivalents.

 

[ProIndividual]

Your point is well taken. Anarchists do not seem to understand what the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights are.

No, we clearly do.

I'm against coerced taxation as well

All taxation is coerced. That is a redundant statement. If it's not coerced it's donation or payment for service.

"The price of Freedom is ETERNAL vigilance."

What he meant by this was bloody revolution every so often...I'm trying to avoid that whole cycle of craziness. Some of you seem to think returning to minarchy doesn't just doom your posterity to the same bloody cycle. In that way "eternal vigilance" to you means sacrificng your great great grandkids on the alter of the state. Is the false idol that important? Really?

“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.”

We should have neither if we want truly free society...otherwise it's just tyranny of the majority watered down through mechanisms of republicanism.

My favorite Jefferson quote (attributed to him and Franklin variously by different sources) was the first proposed Seal (voted down) of your minarchy:

"Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God."

And since Benjamin Tucker said (expanded version of mine):

"If you have the mental and physical ability to govern yourself, then you have the right to govern yourself. If no other person or their property is harmed in that self governance, then logically all external compuslory government is tyranny."

Then it follows (Benjamin Tucker quote):

"Some say the state is a necessary evil...it must be made unnecesary."

And...end scene.

 

[otherone]

Now, you have to show how I what I said was not logically true before you can assert I only appealed to emotion.

The state is CLEARLY not "the mafia". It's a metaphor you are using to appeal to emotion. The "Mafia" is the "Mafia". You can call dog a wolf on many levels, but a dog is NOT a wolf. For me to respect your objectivity, I need to see how the state contrasts with the mafia.

 

[otherone]

What he meant by this was bloody revolution every so often..

That is not what I infer by his statement. He is saying the chickens shouldn't fall asleep when the fox is guarding the hen house...ie, the People need to hold their government accountable.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

First let me say I must wear many hats in regard to the Constitution. I am, in one sense, all for it. Getting back to it (with emphasis on strict enforcement of the Bill of Rights) would bring us far towards the goal of a free libertarian society. It obviously represents freedom and limited government in the minds of many, and so I will take the side of the Constitution, of course, in most of my discussions wherein it comes up. I myself will frequently bring it up in order to point out that such-and-such thing which I oppose is also opposed and in fact strictly forbidden by the Constitution. The Constitution is delicious in how many gov't crimes and boondoggles it emphatically bans -- virtually all of them, if one interprets it in an anti-federalist (Jeffersonian) way.

However, there is an actual historical background and a not-so-rosy reality of how the Constitution actually came about and how it was actually ratified and the actual agenda of the crooks we call "Federalists", who would be more suitably called centralists, monarchists, or even anti-federalists, since they were very opposed to the ideas of decentralism which so define actual federalism. This gritty history is out there, clearly documented, for anyone interested in learning the facts. The Constitution was essentially a counter-coup, wherein a group of power-lusting power-centralizers staged a series of illegal maneuvers and through them seized control over the American people and states. There's just usually not enough time and no clear benefit to going into all this, so yes, I'll be "rah, rah, Constitution," but that doesn't change the facts.

I happen to think Dr. Paul likely is in the same boat as me. He's doubtless aware of the historical reality. But he, like me, is using the Constitution as a lever to get the freedom message out and to expose people to it in the most favorable possible light. The Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence all still command a great deal of respect from most of the American people. They reverence these documents as brilliant, as guarding and enshrining their rights, as defining the ideals of America, and even as holy, inspired, or divine! So, to use these documents as an "in" is good strategy. It opens the door. It allows people to take you seriously and not reject you out of hand. It's building on common beliefs. We approach the person saying: "Look, here's this document, the Constitution, which you love and revere. It actually says XYZ (e.g. that only gold and silver can be money, or that standing armies are forbidden), which is what I'm saying as well. I agree with the Constitution, while my opponents disrespect it. Our Founding Fathers were great and brilliant and wonderful men, right? They saw the problem with anti-XYZ." This warms them up so that they can't be mentally rejecting the idea as totally stupid unless they want to completely alter their paradigm by rejecting the Founding Fathers as stupid. Humans do not alter their paradigms very often; we are not naturally open to doing it.

Basically, talking about things in terms of the Constitution is an educational tool. It gets people on our side, and then they go down the intellectual path of liberty, eventually ending up reading Rand or Rothbard or someone and coming to the conclusion that the whole state is illegitimate and horrible. It's kind of tricky on our part, but like McGyver we should use every tool and advantage available to us, and American history happily happens to have provided us with some highly serviceable ones.

I'm interested in hearing what text of the initial Constitution is anathema to Anarchists. Not simply, "all states are immoral", or "it had the potential to get effed up...see what we have today?" What part of the initial Constitution addressed the US's sovereignty over the individual?

The Constitution has many problems. You could read Patrick Henry's famous fiery speech in opposition to the Constitution, a speech which almost caused Virginia to refuse to ratify it -- just one or two votes short, as I recall. You could also read a book called Hologram of Liberty.

http://www.amazon.com/Hologram-Liberty-Constitutions-Shocking-Government/dp/1888766034

Benjamin Franklin, coming back to Philadelphia from France, walked into the Constitutional Convention, already in progress. The meeting stopped and everyone gave him a standing ovation, and Washington offered him the Chairman's seat, and Franklin accepted. He asked for a copy of the Constitution, read it, and then announced to the delegates that he would recommend three changes. He said there were three places in the Constitution where unbridled power had been granted, and they were: one, in the executive branch, two, in the legislative branch, and three, in the judicial branch. His suggestions were swept aside and ignored and the document was passed. Franklin then said:

"Well, gentlemen, you have a Constitution. It is not as good as we could have hoped, but it is as good as we are going to get and it will serve us alright for a while. But it will end in tyranny because there is nothing within it to prevent it."

Alexis De Tocqueville visited America and made a very favorable and enthusiastic report of the people there and the liberties which were enjoyed by them and the way things seemed to be going. However, he was at one point given a copy of the Constitution, and after reading through it and considering it, he made the following prophecy:

"I will give the people under this instrument two hundred years from the date of its ratification until they descend under a complete despotism."

Hmm...

 

[Cabal]

I need to see how the state contrasts with the mafia.

No problem.

 

[otherone]

No problem.

It's funny so's it must be true.

 

[Wesker1982]

The state is CLEARLY not "the mafia". It's a metaphor you are using to appeal to emotion. The "Mafia" is the "Mafia". You can call dog a wolf on many levels, but a dog is NOT a wolf. For me to respect your objectivity, I need to see how the state contrasts with the mafia.

It could be used as an appeal to emotion I guess, but when most people compare the State to the Mafia they are just saying that the State is organized crime. The Mafia is the most common example of organized crime, so that is why it is used.

 

[Lets_Race]

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

Is it Ron Paul supporters' fault that anarchy isn't winning?

Is it Ron Paul Bots' fault that a false illusion of freedom, a false hope is presented within the very system that is responsible for so much evil? Pretending as if freedom can be found within evil, temping people to stay within the system that shackles them, thereby guaranteeing their everlasting enslavement?

 

[Lets_Race]

I actually said basically that line to an anarchist once.

Let's worry about getting to that point and then worry about it.
Then we can have the debate on a state building roads and such.

What if we are headed in opposite directions?

What if your insistence on staying within the system is what is guaranteeing the failure of freedom?

What if the only logically consistent conclusion of the non-aggression axiom is total opposition to the state?

 

[newbitech]

What if we are headed in opposite directions?

What if your insistence on staying within the system is what is guaranteeing the failure of freedom?

What if the only logically consistent conclusion of the non-aggression axiom is total opposition to the state?

what if logic wasn't the only way to attack a problem?

 

[Lets_Race]

..

 

[RiseAgainst]

what if logic wasn't the only way to attack a problem?

You are quite correct. It is in the disbelief of belief, in the suspension of logic, in the juxtaposition of reason and in the acceptance of false truths that the seeds of the State find fertile ground.