Please convince me of statism!

[Travlyr]

Okay, I am not interested in guessing games.

I live in the united States of America. I am subject to the laws of the land where I live. Neither the U.S. Constitution or my State Constitution is tyrannical.

When the counterfeiting elite oligarchy (Corporatacracists/Merchantilists) lose their power to print money out of nothing, their military industrial complex folds, their ability to pay the police disappears, their funding for Media dries up, and the indoctrination system ends in disarray, then we can embrace honest sound money in laissez-faire free-market environments. I wish we could achieve that before it folds, but it doesn't look like it will transition that way.

Then the people can amend their constitutions to separate money creation from the state and enjoy liberty, peace, and prosperity according to natural law under the organization of the competing constitutional republics.

 

[erowe1]

Neither the U.S. Constitution or my State Constitution is tyrannical.

According to what standard?

 

[Revolution9]

Let's go with that then. What is the definition your state uses?

An enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationship through interaction with one another. Just like any other state...chemical, electronic, societal, political...in a system.

Rev9

 

[Travlyr]

According to what standard?

I use dictionary definitions.
Definition of TYRANNY
Definition of LIBERTY

 

[newbitech]

Justification

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_justification

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justification_(jurisprudence)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justification_(theology)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_(psychology)

My favorite, the unsatisfiable set

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsatisfiable

Clearly Conza has been given justification for "the state". The problem is, he wasn't really looking for justification, he was looking for validity. The formula for statism has been satisfied, but many of us agree that it has become invalid within our lifetimes. The opposite of course, statelessness, struggles to find any satisfaction what so ever.

It is too bad that Conza and others who follow this type of "logic" can't see past the ends of their own noses to realize what hypocritical actions their conclusions and end game calls for. You simply cannot take the anarchist philosophy to the end of the line without the train jumping the tracks. This is why it has never been done, and why it will never be done. Not only is the anarchist formula proven to be invalid, just as it's philosophical opposite, "statism" (according to anarchist), there is no evidence of the formula even being satisfied, unless we take the scale all the way back to individuals, families, and small tribes. That changes the context however to make the point irrelevant for discussion on a forum dealing with the election of arguably the most power statist position in the history of man kind whose decisions literally impact BILLIONS>

 

[erowe1]

An enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationship through interaction with one another. Just like any other state...chemical, electronic, societal, political...in a system.

Rev9

In that case I don't see what you're arguing against. That's not what this thread is about.

Do you advocate governments that rule people by conquest, rather than by deriving their power from the consent of the governed?

If the answer is yes, you're on the statist side of this debate. If the answer is no, you're on the anti-statist side.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I use dictionary definitions.
Definition of TYRANNY
Definition of LIBERTY

lib·er·ty

noun \ˈli-bər-tē\


1
: the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases

If you do in fact accept this definition (and I agree with it), your pursuit of Constitutionalism is antithetical to your pursuit of liberty. Under a Constitutional regime, one is not free (by the above definition)-he is bound by arbitrary laws produced by people he doesn't know and who haven't the necessary knowledge to logically create such laws.

 

[erowe1]

I use dictionary definitions.
Definition of TYRANNY
Definition of LIBERTY

I see that, once again, you have directed me to dictionary entries that contain multiple definitions, without indicating which one is the one you mean. You are aware that, even though words can mean multiple things, they generally only mean one thing at any given occurrence. Right?

At any rate, let's take a look at these to illustrate the point I made. I don't imagine that you'll get it this time, but for the benefit of anyone else who reads this, I'll write it anyway.

Definition of TYRANNY

1
: oppressive power <every form of tyranny over the mind of man — Thomas Jefferson>; especially : oppressive power exerted by government <the tyranny of a police state>
2
a : a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler; especially : one characteristic of an ancient Greek city-state
b : the office, authority, and administration of a tyrant
3
: a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force <living under the tyranny of the clock — Dixon Wecter>
4
: an oppressive, harsh, or unjust act : a tyrannical act <workers who had suffered tyrannies>

Although you haven't said which definition you were using, definition #2 can be ruled out, since it does not comport with the context of what you said, where being more tyrannical entailed having a central bank, and you implied that this was true of our current government, which is not ruled by a monarch.

Definition #3 can also be ruled out, since it is not talking about human relationships.

Therefore, if it's true that you intended one of these definitions when you used the word "tyranny," it must be the case that you were using either definition #1 or #4. Notice that both of those definitions include the word "oppressive."

The word "oppressive" is not a value-neutral word. It is a word that implies a moral judgment about something.

A ruler is oppressive if his rule places greater burdens on his subjects than what is right. Of course, to say this is to presuppose that there is some amount of burden for him to place on his subjects that is the right amount. And this is to appeal to a standard. In the case of our conversation, when you said that the Constitution could be amended to become more tyrannical, you appealed to a standard, one that you recognize as higher than the Constitution, such that it can be used to evaluate whether or not the Constitution is tyrannical. In other words, you appealed to natural law.

 

[Travlyr]

On Earth there is no perfection. There is no perfect liberty for everyone. States can do a good job of organizing societies for free people as evidenced by history. Open your eyes and see.

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

 

[erowe1]

On Earth there is no perfection. There is no perfect liberty for everyone. States can do a good job of organizing societies for free people as evidenced by history. Open your eyes and see.

You've already said that, and I've already agreed. Whether or not perfection exists on earth is not disputed.

I had been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. But I seriously think you're deliberately playing with words now.

Edit: And there you go again, quoting the Declaration of Independence. You realize that document takes exactly the same position I've been presenting all this time, and that it's diametrically opposed to your own view. Don't you?

 

[Travlyr]

You've already said that, and I've already agreed. Whether or not perfection exists on earth is not disputed.

I had been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. But I seriously think you're deliberately playing with words now.

Edit: And there you go again, quoting the Declaration of Independence. You realize that document takes exactly the same position I've been presenting all this time, and that it's diametrically opposed to your own view. Don't you?

No, it is not diametrically opposed to my view. I do not believe that consent must be individual consent. Your parents bound you when you were born by living under the laws of where you were born. You give consent by living under the laws in the territory where you live. If you don't like the law where you live, you have choices. The privilege of living under a constitutional republic allows you to actually have good choices you can make. Under tyrants the choices may not be good.

• Work to amend the laws to suit your needs.
• Live under the laws as written.
• Move to a competing State that better suits your needs.
• Disobey the laws and pay the penalty.

Don't shoot the messenger.

 

[erowe1]

No, it is not diametrically opposed to my view. I do not believe that consent must be individual consent. Your parents bound you when you were born by living under the laws of where you were born. You give consent by living under the laws in the territory where you live. If you don't like the law where you live, you have choices. The privilege of living under a constitutional republic allows you to actually have good choices you can make. Under tyrants the choices may not be good.

• Work to amend the laws to suit your needs.
• Live under the laws as written.
• Move to a competing State that better suits your needs.
• Disobey the laws and pay the penalty.

Don't shoot the messenger.

If you really believe that, then you miss the entire point of the Declaration of Independence.

But this is to be expected, since, to understand the entire point of the Declaration of Independence, you would have to admit the existence of moral absolutes.

 

[Travlyr]

If you really believe that, then you miss the entire point of the Declaration of Independence.

Really? Silly me. The entire point? Gosh. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

If you really believe that, then you miss the entire point of the Declaration of Independence.

But this is to be expected, since, to understand the entire point of the Declaration of Independence, you would have to admit the existence of moral absolutes.

+infinity

 

[erowe1]

Really? Silly me. The entire point? Gosh. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

The point was not just to claim that they wanted to be free from the king, but that his rule over them is positively immoral and their freedom from it is positively right.

They did not say, "Our parents consented for us to be in this position, so it's right for us to stay in it." They recognized the king's actions as evil, and the fact that they did not consent to them is part of what made them evil. They appealed to "certain inalienable rights," not personal preferences.

They didn't just say "We will disobey the laws and pay the penalty." They said, "We will disobey the laws and pay the penalty because to do so would be to suffer for a greater good."

 

[Travlyr]

The point was not just to claim that they wanted to be free from the king, but that his rule over them is positively immoral and their freedom from it is positively right.

They did not say, "Our parents consented for us to be in this position, so it's right for us to stay in it." They recognized the king's actions as evil, and the fact that they did not consent to them is part of what made them evil. They appealed to "certain inalienable rights," not personal preferences.

They didn't just say "We will disobey the laws and pay the penalty." They said, "We will disobey the laws and pay the penalty because to do so would be to suffer for a greater good."

And they took this action as a unanimous declaration of statists.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

 

[erowe1]

And they took this action as a unanimous declaration of statists.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

If you mean that subsequent to signing that declaration they all turned around and went against the very principles they had proclaimed in it by refusing to allow secession from their own states, that is correct.

Had they instead taken a path more consistent with the document they signed, perhaps the word "state" would not gone on to become synonymous with rule over people without their consent, the way it is today.

 

[Travlyr]

If you mean that subsequent to signing that declaration they all turned around and went against the very principles they had proclaimed in it by refusing to allow secession from their own states, that is correct.

Had they instead taken a path more consistent with the document they signed, perhaps the word "state" would not gone on to become synonymous with rule over people without their consent, the way it is today.

Perhaps. Or the debasement of currency has undermined liberty again just like it always has since the times of Babylon.

 

[Conza88]

But you said yourself you will support a Constitutional-sized government. Nonetheless there is a time in which you are supporting violence. But your response when called out on it is a quote from Rothbard that basically states "the ends justify the means". So I suppose that is your justification excuse for practicing blatant hypocrisy?

You have been caught red-handed, Conza88. I don't expect you to admit it, because I know you won't. But it is right out there in plain sight for anyone to read. So come forth with your exquisite vocabulary, draw your own fallacies, and talk your way out of this one.

I support a constitutional-size government AS A MEANS, as a TRANSITIONAL PHASE to that of the END GOAL of a voluntary society.

I support a reduction in the size of the state; always. It's not hard to understand ffs. What hypocrisy? You're delusional.

I disagree. Why do I need to convince and justify this to you?

You don't need to do anything. If however, you want to have valid justifications for your position, then that would involve you actually doing so - having a theory on why the use of violence you support is valid.

"Grundnorm" was legal philosopher Hans Kelsen's term for the hypothetical basic norm or rule that serves as the basis or ultimate source for the legitimacy of a legal system. See Hans Kelsen, General Theory of Law and State, trans. Anders Wedberg (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1949). I employ this term to refer to the fundamental norms presupposed by civilized people, e.g., in argumentative discourse, which in turn imply libertarian norms. That the libertarian grundnorms are, in fact, necessarily presupposed by all civilized people to the extent they are civilized — during argumentative justification, that is — is shown by Hoppe in his argumentation-ethics defense of libertarian rights. On this, see Hoppe, A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, chapter 7; Stephan Kinsella, "New Rationalist Directions in Libertarian Rights Theory," Journal of Libertarian Studies 12, no. 2 (Fall 1996): 313–26; idem, "Defending Argumentation Ethics," Anti-state.com (Sept. 19, 2002).
For discussion of why people (to one extent or the other) do value these underlying norms, see Stephan Kinsella, "The Division of Labor as the Source of Grundnorms and Rights," Mises Economics Blog (April 24, 2009), and idem, "Empathy and the Source of Rights," Mises Economics Blog (Sept. 6, 2006). See also idem, "Punishment and Proportionality," pp. 51 and 70:

People who are civilized are … concerned about justifying punishment. They want to punish, but they also want to know that such punishment is justified — they want to legitimately be able to punish … Theories of punishment are concerned with justifying punishment, with offering decent men who are reluctant to act immorally a reason why they may punish others. This is useful, of course, for offering moral men guidance and assurance that they may properly deal with those who seek to harm them.
​

There is a distinct difference between "who wouldn't?" and "who within the libertarian movement wouldn't?". Your the master of semantics, two can play that game.

Yes there is, and this discussion is taking place in the Political Philosophy section of the Ron Paul forum, a big home of the libertarian movement - so WTF do you think is more likely aye? You're the master of delusion.

Okay. I have no justifications. /shrug

Then as such, you should probably keep quiet, stop embarrassing yourself by speaking out about matters you do not, nor even seek to understand and let the real men discuss matters.

 

[Conza88]

Blah, blah, blah, Conza. Ron Paul is running for President of the United States of America.

Deal with it.

And why is he doing that? Not to win office, but to spread the message of liberty. Or are you calling Ron Paul's niece a liar? !