Joe Legal vs. Jose Illegal

[powerofreason]

Your diversionary tactics fail. Answer the question. You can't. Debate over.

Haha. I post a blog post. You focus on one tiny part of it, pretend like you provided a reasonable counter-argument to the entire thing, then demand my rebuttal without addressing the rest of the post. It can't be proven that TJ raped slaves, fine. I never said that, Stephan Kinsella did. Thats not the reason I posted his blog post. If you don't want to respond to the important part of the blog post, then you're right, the debate is over because apparently LibertyEagle has accepted defeat.

So one more time.

It was a society that condoned slavery, one of the worst evils ever, while establishing a constructivist new order based on a “rational, scientific” paper document and rejecting traditional, superior, unwritten, monarchist limits on state power, thus setting the world on the path of democracy and democratic tyranny, and all the evils of the 20th Century–WWI, WWII, the Holocaust, the Cold War, Communism, Naziism, Fascism, Great Depressions I and II–not to mention the illegal, immoral, murderous, centralizing War to Prevent Southern Independence

What do you think of that analysis?

 

[Deborah K]

Still refuse to answer the question. Your anarchist views have been pwnd. Later.

 

[powerofreason]

Still refuse to answer the question. Your anarchist views have been pwnd. Later.

Lol. I never claimed that TJ raped slaves. I think your ego could do with a little shrinking. Its okay to be wrong! Thats why were here debating, so we can learn from each other! I have answered the question, and here is my answer again: I can't prove that TJ raped slaves and no one else can. But even my high school civics teacher said that. And they protect the reputation of the State at all costs!

 

[powerofreason]

Oh, did you mean this question:

Explain why the countries you list aren't practicing anarchy now. If a country successfully living under anarchy can be invaded and taken over, then what good is anarchy to the people?

Give me a moment, and I will answer.

Anarchy is not utopia. All it is a superior way for a society to function than with government. So, what I am saying is that anarchy can suck. But it will always be better than having government for some very good reasons that have been gone over time and time again.

Here's why an anarchistic country is harder to conquer than one with government protection. For a highly intellectual discussion of the myth of national defense, please refer to Hans Hoppe's The Myth of National Defense.

1. There is no power structure for an opposing power to take over. A new government will start with zero legitimacy. In other words, the people will ignore it. And that is the one thing governments need to survive, legitimacy.
2. In order to conquer an anarchistic nation every square inch of the nation must be taken over. There is no capitol. You don't control any piece of land you don't have troops on.
3. There is no army to defeat to allow the foreign power to declare victory and then have the people submit to the new power.
4. The defenders will be fighting a 100% guerilla war. A war to conquer anarchistic America would be so costly in terms of lives and money that no nation on earth could possibly have the will do so. It has been said that had General Lee's army chosen to take up a guerilla war against the North instead of surrendering the war could have easily gone on for another 20 years.
5. What reason would there be to conquer anarchistic America? The government isn't in existence therefore it isn't causing military or economic harm to anyone. We have tons to offer in terms of trade. Why kill your customers!? All we want to do is be peaceful and trade.
6. It makes much more sense to trade for what you want instead of spending so much money conquering a fiercely resistant people that there is no longer any financial benefit.


So the main point I am making here is that if an anarchistic nation is conquered it would have CERTAINLY been conquered had it had national defense by government. The worst thing that can happen if we get rid of government is that government is reformed and somehow hangs on long enough (almost inevitably with foreign support as history shows) it will start with a small amount of legitimacy and will HAVE to be small and not tyrannical in how much power it can exercise because it will need to first earn the support of the people.

 

[powerofreason]

Hows that?

 

[powerofreason]

Type faster statists I have people coming over soon.

Type! Type! Type!

 

[powerofreason]

I will be back later to see if there are any intelligent responses. Enjoy your painful cognitive dissonance in the meantime. Check into a hospital if you feel the urge to harm yourself. Apparently its really painful to admit you're wrong if you believe in utopian small government.

 

[__27__]

You can't win POR. The brown people will still come here and take their jobs and money. They cannot fathom an existence without a flag to worship or a border to tell them who is good and who is bad.

 

[powerofreason]

Wow. None.

Where are all the conversions to anarchy? You people are intellectually dishonest and/or have huge egos.

Come on people. Grow some balls and admit that anarchy is the future of the liberty movement. I'm gonna make a new thread with my most powerful arguments that you people can't respond to. Enjoy.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I will be back later to see if there are any intelligent responses. Enjoy your painful cognitive dissonance in the meantime. Check into a hospital if you feel the urge to harm yourself. Apparently its really painful to admit you're wrong if you believe in utopian small government.

Interesting take you have on the issue, since you are posting in a forum bearing Ron Paul's name.

 

[powerofreason]

Interesting take you have on the issue, since you are posting in a forum bearing Ron Paul's name.

Oh, I can't disagree with RP on anything? I have to be his cult follower?

I'm for individual liberty.

RP is for individual liberty.

Sounds like we have quite similar views.

 

[__27__]

Oh, I can't disagree with RP on anything? I have to be his cult follower?

I'm for individual liberty.

RP is for individual liberty.

Sounds like we have quite similar views.

The trend here is scary. More people reach to validate their views by stating "here is what Ron Paul said: 'Ron Paul quote'", than by actually articulating and reinforcing their point with thorough supporting data.

Many in the Ron Paul movement are beginning to eerily imitate Obama's supporters.

 

[Lord Xar]

Oh, I can't disagree with RP on anything? I have to be his cult follower?

I'm for individual liberty.

RP is for individual liberty.

Sounds like we have quite similar views.

95% of the last 2 pages posts are from you. You have this insatiable desire to argue and prove a point that has long been forgotten. You attack with questions while never answering any. You argue straight out of the leftist handbooks. Always keeping your opposition on the defensive. You are not here for an honest debate. You are trying to force your beliefs on everybody else. If not that, you are hoping the passerby's will see your posts and get turned off and leave.

I am fairly certain you are neither a lover of liberty or a Ron Paul supporter.

 

[__27__]

I am fairly certain you are neither a lover of liberty or a Ron Paul supporter.

If being a lover of liberty means I have to accept an oppressive government with a monopoly on force (no matter how limited you believe it to be), then yes, I am no lover of liberty.

If being a supporter of Ron Paul means I have to blindly obey and cede to his every utterance, never using my mind for it's own powers, then yes, I am no supporter of Ron Paul.


The cult of personality worshipers here who believe they have the patent on individual liberty need a serious internal examination.

 

[powerofreason]

95% of the last 2 pages posts are from you. You have this insatiable desire to argue and prove a point that has long been forgotten. You attack with questions while never answering any. You argue straight out of the leftist handbooks. Always keeping your opposition on the defensive. You are not here for an honest debate. You are trying to force your beliefs on everybody else. If not that, you are hoping the passerby's will see your posts and get turned off and leave.

I am fairly certain you are neither a lover of liberty or a Ron Paul supporter.

I love liberty far more than you. i am a left libertarian, so yes I am as far left as you can go. More specifically I am a Left Rothbardian That being said, Ron Paul is my favorite congressman despite his rightist tendencies.

From Wombatron's Left Libertarian FAQ:

What is left-libertarianism?

Left-libertarianism is an umbrella label for mutualists, agorists, voluntaryists, geolibertarians, left-Rothbardians, green libertarians, dialectical anarchists, radical minarchists, and others on the libertarian left, united by an opposition to statism and militarism, to cultural intolerance (including sexism, racism, and homophobia), and to the prevailing corporatist capitalism falsely called a free market. There is also an emphasis on education, direct action, and building alternative institutions, rather than on electoral politics, as the chief strategy for achieving liberation.

Left-libertarianism first emerged in the 1960’s, with Murray Rothbard’s alliance with the Students for a Democratic Society and the New Left, although it has historical roots reaching back to the radical classical liberals, classical social anarchism, and American individualist anarchism. Although this leftist tendency was eventually rejected by Rothbard, thinkers such as Samuel E. Konkin III and Karl Hess continued to develop left-libertarianism as a tradition.

(more coming)
Why is left-libertarianism “left”?

Many libertarians on one side and social liberals on the other ask this question. Generally, both conflate leftism with an increase in state control and regulation, with libertarians obviously opposing this and social liberals supporting it, leading both to deny that libertarians can be “leftist”.

We think that this is a confusion between leftist ends and what means are used to achieve that goal. The ends of leftism or liberalism, peace, prosperity, progress, and freedom, don’t have any necessary relation to the means that are usually called “leftist” today; legislation, regulation, and the buearacratic state. In fact, In “Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty”, Murray Rothbard writes that those means are inherently conservative, and that state-socialists (and their milder social democrat and social liberal cousins) are a confused, middle-of-the-road group, trying to use conservative means to acheive leftist ends. So it is then the libertarian who has the greater claim to the term “left”!

I know whats going on here. There's an effort to paint me as an enemy of liberty so i can be kicked off the forum. Well I am 100% in favor of liberty and have been for a long time. Its just embarrassing to you because you like to think of yourself as this great proponent of liberty when you have some shockingly anti-liberty beliefs, like for example anti-immigration and anti-abortion. Thats conservative bullshit.

 

[powerofreason]

Left Rothbardianism

The term Left Rothbardianism is usually used by agorists and other libertarians that identify themselves with market anarchism as opposed to more conservative libertarian elements of minarchism, conservativism, and objectivism to give themselves a separate category in accordance with the broader libertarian movement.

In the official form, there exists no real Right Rothbardian perspective as Rothbard himself placed libertarianism on the far left spectrum. The use of the term Left Rothbardian merely means to differentiate those that would call themselves market anarchists in the steps of Rothbard and those that would call themselves minarchists and conservative libertarians with influence from Rothbard.

Left Rothbardianism also differentiates from pure anarcho-capitalism with a differentiation in approach. Whereas left Rothbardians will accept a broader array of left-libertarians as comrades, anarcho-capitalists tend to shun them with a distaste for anyone that does not accept state-capitalism with free-market rhetoric.

As a general rule of thumb, left-Rothbardians tend to rely more on Rothbard's work from his period of alliance with the New Left in the late 1960's. Strictly speaking though, that period of his work was not particularly different in actual ideology so much as it was simply more left-oriented in rhetorical expression.

Properly understood, all agorists are left-Rothbardians, but not all left-Rothbardians are necessarily agorists. One can be a left-Rothbardian while not accepting Konkin's theory of revolution in the New Libertarian Manifesto. However, generally speaking the use of the term left-Rothbardian is usually excluded to Agorists wishing to differentiate themselves from conservative libertarians.

This is what I am philosophically.

 

[powerofreason]

95% of the last 2 pages posts are from you. You have this insatiable desire to argue and prove a point that has long been forgotten. You attack with questions while never answering any. You argue straight out of the leftist handbooks. Always keeping your opposition on the defensive. You are not here for an honest debate. You are trying to force your beliefs on everybody else. If not that, you are hoping the passerby's will see your posts and get turned off and leave.

I am fairly certain you are neither a lover of liberty or a Ron Paul supporter.

I press people on points they don't want to respond to, just like Deborah K did to me (I missed her question I didn't dodge it on purpose though). Of course, I owned all her questions so she left.

Keeping people on the defensive is just good debate strategy.

And I am here for an honest debate and I hope that lurkers learn something from these threads. I'd like to think i helped some people along to the position of anarchy.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I know whats going on here. There's an effort to paint me as an enemy of liberty so i can be kicked off the forum. Well I am 100% in favor of liberty and have been for a long time. Its just embarrassing to you because you like to think of yourself as this great proponent of liberty when you have some shockingly anti-liberty beliefs, like for example anti-immigration and anti-abortion. Thats conservative bullshit.

Huge FAIL.

Being against the ILLEGAL ALIEN invasion of our country is a completely different thing than being anti-immigration. But, of course you know that and are just trying to throw out a red herring..

If you are unwilling to stand up for life, then you are the one who is anti-liberty. Not Lord Xar.

I wouldn't have pointed these things out to you, but if you're going to make false accusations towards Lord Xar, then I'm going to set the record straight.

 

[LibertyEagle]

And I am here for an honest debate and I hope that lurkers learn something from these threads. I'd like to think i helped some people along to the position of anarchy.

Yes, because that's your goal here.

 

[powerofreason]

Yes, because that's your goal here.

Partially. I also entertain myself, hone my debate skills, exchange ideas with like minded people, and nudge people further along the path to liberty. You could use a hard push because you're stuck pretty good.