Please convince me of statism!

[Conza88]

There are no absolutes.

Hahahah ! That's too good.

"There are no absolutes" .... is an absolute statement. Contradiction. Self-detonating statement. Invalid.

 

[Conza88]

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.

"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." - Footnote 14, from What Libertarianism Is - Kinsella.​

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>

See Points 1 & 2 in the OP.

 

[libertyjam]

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? !

No one else has called you on this BS yet?? If this is what you believe Conza you had better change your mind right now or I believe you are trying to get banned again. What is your game, to try to drive off as many voters as possible?

 

[Conza88]

No one else has called you on this BS yet?? If this is what you believe Conza you had better change your mind right now or I believe you are trying to get banned again. What is your game, to try to drive off as many voters as possible?

Probably because it's not bs . Beg's the question fallacy. So why is it bs LibertyJam? I am merely quoting what Ron Paul's niece has said, who is recounting what Ron said (private of course). It lines up with what Lew Rockwell has said, and pretty much everything else.

Did you miss the part where I said I don't think it'd be wise to promote this publicly or anything, much to the reason you allude to - voters being concerned about "winning" as opposed to matters of truth. It's even the case with[many people here].

Video I made contains the point perfectly by G.Edward Griffin.

​

And yet the above is the truth. No, my game is not to drive voters off - it is to help spread the message of liberty. Ron Paul running a successful campaign is part of that. The longer he's in the spotlight the better. Getting votes at the PRESIDENTIAL LEVEL is a corollary to merely about getting some form of "mainstream" acceptance and appearance of legitimacy. It'll force the ideas to be taken more seriously, and invite others to question their premises.

If he wins, it'll be a miracle.. and yet what can he do? Alot actually; which is laid out in Hans-Hermann Hoppe's book: Democracy: The God that Failed, which Ron Paul recommends you read[in his latest book]!

Again - all this is a red herring to this discussion. If someone wants to talk strategy, by all means - but it ain't going to take place here. Go start a new thread. Quite simply really though; I don't go promoting this view at all (even on these forums), it is always in RESPONSE to the bs posted by either LE, or newbitech. (Only times I've had to so far)... SO, if you don't want me to continue spreading the truth on here, which Ron Paul's niece confirms, then my suggest would be to recommend others not to bring it up as some kind of fallacious 'argument', because then I won't have to knock it down.

 

[LibertyEagle]

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? !

She's a little girl, Conza.

Ron Paul has said he is running to win. Of course, in the process and when he wins, he will be spreading the message.

I do not understand what you think you have to gain by pushing the meme that he is not running to win? What is it, Conza? Why do you feel threatened by Dr. Paul running to win the presidency?

 

[Bman]

Some people lead a horse to water. Conza takes the horse to a bridge pushes it in and then jumps in and starts kicking it in the head til it drowns.

So much to say but no tact.

 

[Conza88]

She's a little girl, Conza.

A little girl who is a member of the Ron Paul family. And what does being little have to do with the truth? Do you consider her a liar?

Ron Paul has said he is running to win. Of course, in the process and when he wins, he will be spreading the message.

I do not understand what you think you have to gain by pushing the meme that he is not running to win?

I'm not pushing the meme he's not running to win, I'm defending the point that his ultimate goal is voluntarism / self-government, over a return to the constitution. HIS WORDS, not mine.

YOU are the one who pushes the meme he is running to win as some kind of argument against the above point. It is totally fallacious.

What is it, Conza? Why do you feel threatened by Dr. Paul running to win the presidency?

Lmao.. I don't feel threatened at all. Again, he's not running to "win" to control office, that is not his main objective. Spreading the message is. Secondary to that, I'd suggest is 'winning'. IF he does win, by all means - and I want him to; I think that'd be beyond epic. I just don't think it likely, not that changes anything. I don't think a free society is likely anytime soon, that doesn't change anything though. What is it you don't get?

 

[Conza88]

So much to say but no tact.

What's the point of displaying tact with intellectually dishonest individuals who are not open to reason?

I don't start with that assumption; I start based on the premise that people are open to reason. It is through the experience of continued discourse with them, that it is either confirmed or denied.

I'm sorry Bman - did you have something valuable to say, or do you just enjoy flinging personal attacks?

 

[Bman]

What's the point of displaying tact with intellectually dishonest individuals who are not open to reason?

I don't start with that assumption; I start based on the premise that people are open to reason. It is through the experience of continued discourse with them, that it is either confirmed or denied.

I'm sorry Bman - did you have something valuable to say, or do you just enjoy flinging personal attacks?

No I think I summed it up perfectly. If you can't take the criticism it is not my problem.

 

[LibertyEagle]

A little girl who is a member of the Ron Paul family. And what does being little have to do with the truth? Do you consider her a liar?

I consider her exactly what she is. A little girl.

I'm not pushing the meme he's not running to win, I'm defending the point that his ultimate goal is voluntarism / self-government, over a return to the constitution. HIS WORDS, not mine.

Talk about intellectual dishonesty. You have it in spades. You have claimed over and over again that Paul is not running to win the election. Further, you use the same two tired video spiffets to somehow insinutate that he must have been lying all the hundreds of times he has written and spoken about the need for us to reinstate the Constitution and follow it closely.

YOU are the one who pushes the meme he is running to win as some kind of argument against the above point. It is totally fallacious.

If you are not pushing the meme that he is not running to win, why do you keep claiming that he isn't? You have done it over and over in this thread, posting the video of the little girl as your supposed proof that he isn't running to win. You started this meme early in this thread and some of those posts thankfully were removed by the Mods.

All I have to say to you, Conza, is if Ron Paul keep gaining traction and other campaigns and/or the media finds this stuff by you claiming over and over that Ron Paul is an anarchist and uses it against him, I would imagine that it is really going to suck to be you.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Does anyone else think this conversation might go a little better in person, over a couple pints? Sometimes I really think things get lost in translation on the internet.

 

[Conza88]

No I think I summed it up perfectly. If you can't take the criticism it is not my problem.

I can. When it's constructive. When it's valid. Both of which your comment fails to achieve.

Do you have a justification for the state Bman, have you changed your tune in the last few years, or are you still stuck?

 

[Conza88]

I consider her exactly what she is. A little girl.

Yes, great, we've already confirmed that. Now, when she says her great uncle (Ron Paul) is "he's running just to make a point", what do you not understand? I am asking if you are saying she is a liar?

From her video:
"Uh no...my grandma and family love this video. So does everyone else. Im not damaging his campaign! Read the comments. So. No. Im not."
oakykoalapro123 - 20 thumbs up

Looks like you're the only one who thinks it's damaging to the campaign LE. Ron Paul's family loves it. How's that make you feel? Ron Paul moderators (the one/s who keep secretly removing the video), how's that make you feel given the above?

Talk about intellectual dishonesty. You have it in spades. You have claimed over and over again that Paul is not running to win the election. Further, you use the same two tired video spiffets to somehow insinutate that he must have been lying all the hundreds of times he has written and spoken about the need for us to reinstate the Constitution and follow it closely.

Over and over again? You mean just in response to your & newbitechs posts?

Since I've been doing it SO often rolleyes it should be amazingly easy for you to find an example of me doing it once - when I am not either responding to you, trav or any of the other clowns. I await your evidence - back up your claim, or apologise.

Same two videos? You mean the ones where he is being interviewed and is states in his own words; a voluntary society is his end goal? He'd prefer that when compared to the constitution? You mean THAT one? Yeah sure.. I am a Ron Paul supporter; posting a video of Ron Paul being interviewed. Highlighting his words. Guilty as charged.

I don't contend that he has lied. When he has been asked, or stated that he is a constitutionalist etc. it is from a STATIST perspective. I also support the constitution, COMPARED to what we have NOW. It is a transitional means to the end goal of a voluntary society. Again, what do you not understand? He uses the constitution as a rhetorical tool, in an age of manufactured consent. It makes it easier for people to accept his arguments for limited the activities of the state. HIS WORDS essentially. I am paraphrasing; DO YOU WANT ME TO LINK YOU TO THE VIDEO OF HIM SAYING THEM, or will it also be deleted?!

If you are not pushing the meme that he is not running to win, why do you keep claiming that he isn't? You have done it over and over in this thread, posting the video of the little girl as your supposed proof that he isn't running to win. You started this meme early in this thread and some of those posts thankfully were removed by the Mods.

"I'm defending the point that his ultimate goal is voluntarism / self-government, over a return to the constitution."

It was always in response to you or others making the claim he doesn't support that. Go on - prove it otherwise, you can't. Because that's all I've ever done. Responded to your cognitive dissonance. It's not a meme at all, it's the truth.

Oh so it hasn't been you who has been secretly removing the videos of Ron Paul's niece? Who has then? Anyone want to fess up and provide a justification for secretly deleting content? Let me get this straight...

A Ron Paul supporter, posts a video made by Ron Paul's niece - the guy who this forum is named after - and the moderators secretly continue to remove and delete the video being posted; I get no warnings, I get no infractions? Why? Because I haven't broken the rules, and yet somehow I am in the wrong?

Wow, total intellectual honesty there...

All I have to say to you, Conza, is if Ron Paul keep gaining traction and other campaigns and/or the media finds this stuff by you claiming over and over that Ron Paul is an anarchist and uses it against him, I would imagine that it is really going to suck to be you.

He'll deny he's an "anarchist", because the definition they'll be using is that of "chaos". I also refuse this label. I'd imagine he would say he supports self-government, and voluntarism... as he already has done .

I wonder how the media would try slam him? Ask him if all taxation is theft? I wonder how he'd respond?

WITH A "YES"?... (This scenario has already happened)... tell me LE, what changed? Anything?
I'd post the video, but the mods would probably secretly remove it anyway...

 

[Conza88]

Does anyone else think this conversation might go a little better in person, over a couple pints? Sometimes I really think things get lost in translation on the internet.

Yeah . Probably a whole lot. Tons to discuss that we're in agreeance on.

Though I must admit, I'd definitely be tempted to play the video of Ron Paul's Motor Home Diary interview from my phone, just to see the reaction hahah . Then I'd let the silence elicit a response .

 

[LibertyEagle]

Since I've been doing it SO often rolleyes it should be amazingly easy for you to find an example of me doing it once - when I am not either responding to you, trav or any of the other clowns. I await your evidence - back up your claim, or apologise.

Here ya go...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...-of-statism!&p=3448754&viewfull=1#post3448754

You also posted it a couple of times early in the thread. The Mods thankfully removed them.

You also continue to claim that Ron Paul is an anarchist.

I repeat....if Ron Paul keep gaining traction and other campaigns and/or the media finds this stuff by you claiming over and over that Ron Paul is an anarchist and uses it against him, I would imagine that it is really going to suck to be you.

 

[Conza88]

Here ya go...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...-of-statism!&p=3448754&viewfull=1#post3448754

You also posted it a couple of times early in the thread.

"- when I am not either responding to you, trav or any of the other clowns."

Who am I posting the video in a response too LE? You. Just like I said. Early it was newbitech.

So there is no "here ya go". I am still waiting for your evidence, and subsequent apology when you cannot back up your fallacious claim.

The Mods thankfully removed them.

They've removed a video that was put on the front page of www.ronpaul.com. Great job guys, awesome work mods. Saving the revolution! Haha hilarious. Why did they remove them? No reason has been given.

You also continue to claim that Ron Paul is an anarchist.

Just because you're a mod LE, doesn't mean what you're doing isn't trolling. How do you define "anarchist"? This should be interesting.

I repeat....if Ron Paul keep gaining traction and other campaigns and/or the media finds this stuff by you claiming over and over that Ron Paul is an anarchist and uses it against him, I would imagine that it is really going to suck to be you.

Spam. You repeat - you ignore. You don't address the points. You're intellectually dishonest and close minded.

"I repeat...."

He'll deny he's an "anarchist", because the definition they'll be using is that of "chaos". I also refuse this label. I'd imagine he would say he supports self-government, and voluntarism... as he already has done .

I wonder how the media would try slam him? Ask him if all taxation is theft? I wonder how he'd respond?

WITH A "YES"?... (This scenario has already happened)... tell me LE, what changed? Anything?
I'd post the video, but the mods would probably secretly remove it anyway...

Yes, great, we've already confirmed that. Now, when she says her great uncle (Ron Paul) is "he's running just to make a point", what do you not understand? I am asking if you are saying she is a liar?

From her video:
"Uh no...my grandma and family love this video. So does everyone else. Im not damaging his campaign! Read the comments. So. No. Im not."
oakykoalapro123 - 20 thumbs up

Looks like you're the only one who thinks it's damaging to the campaign LE. Ron Paul's family loves it. How's that make you feel? Ron Paul moderators (the one/s who keep secretly removing the video), how's that make you feel given the above?

Let me get this straight...

A Ron Paul supporter, posts a video made by Ron Paul's niece - the guy who this forum is named after - and the moderators secretly continue to remove and delete the video being posted; I get no warnings, I get no infractions? Why? Because I haven't broken the rules, and yet somehow I am in the wrong?

Wow, total intellectual honesty there...

 

[angelatc]

Does anyone else think this conversation might go a little better in person, over a couple pints? Sometimes I really think things get lost in translation on the internet.

No, because I sincerely believe that he's mildly autistic. They suck at communication. That's the only way I can imagine a sane claim to being honest and open to reason while simultaneously sincerely believing that government doesn't actually exist.

 

[Conza88]

No, because I sincerely believe that he's mildly autistic. They suck at communication. That's the only way I can imagine a sane claim to being honest and open to reason while simultaneously sincerely believing that government doesn't actually exist.

Hi angelatc , are you having a good day? While I realise that such a claim seems absolutely absurd (as I once did)... having actually listened to the arguments made, I saw that I was wrong.

"[T]he crucial question is not, as so many believe, whether property rights should be private or governmental, but rather whether the necessarily 'private' owners are legitimate owners or criminals. For ultimately, there is no entity called 'government'; there are only people forming themselves into groups called 'governments' and acting in a 'governmental' manner. All property is therefore always 'private'; the only and critical question is whether it should reside in the hands of criminals or of the proper and legitimate owners." ~ Murray Rothbard​

How do you define "government" angelatc? I am wondering, as you must contend that such an entity called "government" exists in physical reality, could you help point it out to me? Help meeee

 

[angelatc]

What happens is that you are tacitly admitting that your argument is flawed, based on violence and force, is logically inconsistent and should therefore be disregarded as a poor philosophical model.

There's a reason that philosophers don't rule the world. If you actually believe that the world will run on logic, then bless your naive, innocent little heart. But sweetie, his argument isn't "flawed," he just summed up humanity.

 

[Jake Ralston]

Conza88, how does posting other people's opinions/thoughts in the form of web and video links hold any sort of value? You post content from Rothbard, that stefbot dude, and other Anarchists and expect it to be accepted as viable truth and a worthy rebuttal.

Everybody has an opinion. How are the opinion's of those who you support any more "right" or "truthful" than anyone else?

which leads me to believe that just because Hoppe or Rothbard has their name attached to something, "libertarians" here take it for granted that its true. But its not a valid argument.