Please convince me of statism!

[A Son of Liberty]

Right. So an eye for an eye then.

No, I guess I was just curious where your revulsion was when angelatc ignored the substance of Conza's post and went straight to an ad hominem attack.

 

[Jake Ralston]

No, I guess I was just curious where your revulsion was when angelatc ignored the substance of Conza's post and went straight to an ad hominem attack.

Ok so be straightforward and speak whats on your mind. Don't insinuate an "eye for an eye" scenario as a justification.

And its probably for the same reason that you didn't condemn Conza, yet you condemn her.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Ok so be straightforward and speak whats on your mind. Don't insinuate an "eye for an eye" scenario as a justification.

And its probably for the same reason that you didn't condemn Conza, yet you condemn her.

I didn't condemn either of them, Jake.

 

[Jake Ralston]

I didn't condemn either of them, Jake.

Fair enough. It's just that some of us don't appreciate when people are rude and insult the intelligence of others. If your okay with that type of behavior and choose to remain silent, thats okay too.

 

[Sentient Void]

Right. So an eye for an eye then.

I'll absolutely advocate an eye for an eye. Retribution and proportional self defense is absolutely justified. We are, uhh, libertarians - yknow?

You or someone say stupid shit like wanting to 'give people an ass whoopin' (as called out by Clay above) merely because they greatly disagree with you, because they said something you didn't like, is what is truly rude and inappropriate. You're a hypocrite and your statist advocation of violence due to mere disagreement comes out in full force here.

You and others making such inane comments deserve an appropriate response in kind. Tit for tag, baby. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Fair enough. It's just that some of us don't appreciate when people are rude and insult the intelligence of others. If your okay with that type of behavior and choose to remain silent, thats okay too.

I believe they're both adults who can deal with it themselves.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

"Statists are all alike"...

True, I'll be more specific - The statists who are participating in this thread are all alike. There we go, much more accurate. Even more specifically; all alike in their dodging, ad hominems and overall intellectual dishonesty. Better?

​

4min+

What did I get wrong? I am all ears.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."
~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

Do you have Ron Paul's new book? Liberty Defined? Go to the section on Democracy and recommended reading.
~ Abolish Government by Lysander Spooner.
~ Democracy: The God that Failed by Hans Hermann Hoppe.

... so guys, are you going to continue trying to slander me, or will you try offer a legitimate justification for the state? lol.

Yes, I just got his new book!

I think what I said is pretty self-explanatory. The fact that you can't think of any way in which someone says something you agree with and yet doesn't believe in anarchy demonstrates your preconceived notions. You can point to some things where Ron Paul says some things you agree with (duh), but you can't actually link me to a portion where he says he believes there should be no state or that he believes in anarchy. Voluntarism isn't the same thing. I've seen that video you gave me, and I find it laughable that you would think that suggests he believes in no government. He's talking about his moral principles REGARDING GOVERNMENT, not regarding no government.

Of course, he is right about the Constitution, and I agree with him that pretty much every single form of government (including self-government) will eventuall fall apart. That's why we, as a people are responsible for upholding the Constitution by educating and promoting ideals that are based on liberty. The Constitution, ITSELF, can't prevent totalitarianism, but the people can. That's why the Constitution deliberately gives power to the people. Of course, there are preconditions which must be met, namely the belief of the people in liberty, but that's exactly what we are doing with this r3volution. We are educating and trying to get back to the basics.

My main point, however, was that you are severely twisting Ron Paul's words. You can't provide me with a quote where he confirmed that he is an anarchist, and I have just demonstrated why he acknowledges the failure of government, and AT THE SAME TIME, still believes government is better than no government.

And give it a rest, dude. Nobody is slandering you.

Oh, and the utilitarian argument is all I need. Anyone who treats anarchy as anything more than an interesting idea is dreaming. And your claim that all government is immoral is collectivist. Your preconceived notion is that, in order for government to be moral, there must not be a state. Where do you even get your morals from in the first place?

 

[Conza88]

The fact that you can't think of any way in which someone says something you agree with and yet doesn't believe in anarchy demonstrates your preconceived notions. You can point to some things where Ron Paul says some things you agree with (duh), but you can't actually link me to a portion where he says he believes there should be no state or that he believes in anarchy. Voluntarism isn't the same thing. I've seen that video you gave me, and I find it laughable that you would think that suggests he believes in no government. He's talking about his moral principles REGARDING GOVERNMENT, not regarding no government.

Self-government is voluntarism. Self-government is a synonymous for anarcho-capitalism, private law society, anti-monopolism etc. He EXPLICITLY denies using force in anyway. He says taxation is all theft. Of course constitutionalists/minarchists claim that; and yet Ron Paul has EXPLICITLY said his end goal is self-government IN CONTRAST / COMPARED TO the Constitution...

Of course, he is right about the Constitution, and I agree with him that pretty much every single form of government (including self-government) will eventuall fall apart. That's why we, as a people are responsible for upholding the Constitution by educating and promoting ideals that are based on liberty. The Constitution, ITSELF, can't prevent totalitarianism, but the people can. That's why the Constitution deliberately gives power to the people. Of course, there are preconditions which must be met, namely the belief of the people in liberty, but that's exactly what we are doing with this r3volution. We are educating and trying to get back to the basics.

You don't know what self-government is. That's not my problem. You are the one who is taking what he says, and twisting it to your meaning. Self-government ≠ constitutionalism/minarchism.

My main point, however, was that you are severely twisting Ron Paul's words. You can't provide me with a quote where he confirmed that he is an anarchist, and I have just demonstrated why he acknowledges the failure of government, and AT THE SAME TIME, still believes government is better than no government.

When he has rejected the use of "anarchism", it was because he was being asked from a statist perspective. Their definition of the word they were using, what they meant when they asked him was "chaos". The libertarians who choose to use it (misguidedly) don't define it that way. Mises also rejected the label. It is the LABEL they are rejecting NOT the idea, of a society without rulers. No rulers does not mean no rules. It doesn't mean chaos. "GOVERNMENT PLANNING IS CHAOS" that is Ron Paul's words, not mine.

You demonstrated nothing. Self-government ≠ constitutionalism/minarchism. That's according to Ron Paul. To twist that into meaning the same thing is bs.

Oh, and the utilitarian argument is all I need. Anyone who treats anarchy as anything more than an interesting idea is dreaming. And your claim that all government is immoral is collectivist. Your preconceived notion is that, in order for government to be moral, there must not be a state. Where do you even get your morals from in the first place?

The utilitarian argument is invalid. Collectivist? What a demented notion, says the guy who fails in using methodological individualism.

"As regards the utilitarian position, the proof contains its ultimate refutation. It demonstrates that simply in order to propose the utilitarian position, exclusive rights of control over one’s body and one’s homesteaded goods already must be presupposed as valid. More specifically, as regards the consequentialist aspect of libertarianism, the proof shows its praxeological impossibility: the assignment of rights of exclusive control cannot be dependent on certain outcomes. One could never act and propose anything unless private property rights existed prior to a later outcome. A consequentialist ethic is a praxeological absurdity. Any ethic must instead be “aprioristic” or instantaneous in order to make it possible that one can act here and now and propose this or that rather than having to suspend acting until later. Nobody advocating a wait-for-the-outcome ethic would be around to say anything if he took his own advice seriously. Also, to the extent that utilitarian proponents are still around, they demonstrate through their actions that their consequentialist doctrine is and must be regarded as false. Acting and proposition-making require private property rights now and cannot wait for them to be assigned only later." - HHH, pg 354, Economics and Ethics of Private Property​

I get my ethics within political philosophy from argumentation ethics, and natural law. I get my personal morals from various sources, Aristotle amongst others.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Oh, and the utilitarian argument is all I need.

Utilitarian arguments always fail because 1) they lack morality 2) they discount reality. 3) they cannot be applied consistently. You definitely need more than the argument from utility if you want to convince any significant amount of people. For example, the Utilitarian can say x (say "x" is dismembering children for argument's sake) is good because it is legal. This is absurd.

 

[ProIndividual]

All -archists (min- or an-) please read this post:

I got banned from chat for NO reason after being attacked for a half hour for statements like "MOST (not all) politicians are liars"

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...following-all-archists-(min-or-an-)-read-this

 

[Conza88]

Still yet to see a solid attempt at justifying the state...

 

[Conza88]

​

Explicit reference to the Austrian Economists... and the individuals he has read and studied about the concept of liberty. i.e spreading the message .

 

[Sola_Fide]

Austrian economics does not imply Libertarianism. Austrian economics is a descriptive science. If a tyrant wanted to impoverish his people, he should listen to his Austrian advisors, they could tell him exactly how to do it.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

​

Explicit reference to the Austrian Economists... and the individuals he has read and studied about the concept of liberty. i.e spreading the message .

Actually, that was an implicit reference. ("The economists I listen to")

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Austrian economics does not imply Libertarianism. Austrian economics is a descriptive science. If a tyrant wanted to impoverish his people, he should listen to his Austrian advisors, they could tell him exactly how to do it.

True. Economics is value-free.

 

[Conza88]

Austrian economics does not imply Libertarianism. Austrian economics is a descriptive science. If a tyrant wanted to impoverish his people, he should listen to his Austrian advisors, they could tell him exactly how to do it.

Obviously. And yet all those he refers to are also libertarians. It's not a stretch. He reads Lew Rockwell daily. Elsewhere he's given you recommended reading; Abolish Government by Spooner, Democracy: God that Failed by Hoppe etc...

Actually, that was an implicit reference. ("The economists I listen to")

Yes, ok. Who are the Austrian's... lol

 

[Jake Ralston]

Still yet to see a solid attempt at justifying the state...

Why does it matter? Not everything in this world is just. Maybe you should come to terms with that.

 

[Conza88]

Why does it matter? Not everything in this world is just. Maybe you should come to terms with that.

No, see I have. YOU are the one who needs to come to terms with that. If you, and the other "supporters" do, then there will be nothing to talk about. It's up to you to accept though. Will you?

 

[Jake Ralston]

No, see I have. YOU are the one who needs to come to terms with that. If you, and the other "supporters" do, then there will be nothing to talk about. It's up to you to accept though. Will you?

Obviously you haven't. Your entire life is dedicated to abolishing the "unjust" State and you spend countless hours reading the works of philosophers who's work will never come to fruition. It's all based on morality, justice, what is "right" vs wrong, etc. You have embarked on a fools quest.

What can you do to help us get Ron Paul elected? Obviously your a Canadian or Brit or Australian or whatever you are. Can you help us?

FYI- Manipulating quotes, and misrepresented Ron in the name of Anarchy or Anarcho-Capitalism will only damage his campaign. I don't care how true you claim or believe it is. Ron mentions nothing about it to the media and is not running on it. He is more intelligent than you, hence his success and your failure. So why don't you either help us out, or get out of the way. Mises has a plenty of forum space for you to unleash your Anarcho-Insanity, it isn't helpful here.

 

[Conza88]

Obviously you haven't. Your entire life is dedicated to abolishing the "unjust" State and you spend countless hours reading the works of philosophers who's work will never come to fruition. It's all based on morality, justice, what is "right" vs wrong, etc. You have embarked on a fools quest.

I've embarked on a quest to understand reality. As a result of that I am championing justice; I support virtue. In turn, that leads to happiness. I will eventually found a company that will be a = http://libertarianpapers.org/2009/12-the-role-of-subscription-based-patrol-and-restitution-in-the-future-of-liberty/ based in Oz.

What can you do to help us get Ron Paul elected? Obviously your a Canadian or Brit or Australian or whatever you are. Can you help us?

By making videos / influencing yank voters. Which I have already done.. since I keep getting "thanks" from those who see my Obama vs RP video.

FYI- Manipulating quotes, and misrepresented Ron in the name of Anarchy or Anarcho-Capitalism will only damage his campaign. I don't care how true you claim or believe it is. Ron mentions nothing about it to the media and is not running on it. He is more intelligent than you, hence his success and your failure. So why don't you either help us out, or get out of the way. Mises has a plenty of forum space for you to unleash your Anarcho-Insanity, it isn't helpful here.

Yeah, accept that he's a voluntarist / anarcho-capitalist according to his own words (which he is).. and I have no need to continue to defend such a notion (the truth). Your choice.