Please convince me of statism!

[Wesker1982]

I wish you could understand English. I was wrong by making that statement but it was an honest mistake which I admitted immediately following.

I saw your post, I just don't believe that it was an honest mistake. I have had multiple long conversations answering questions for you, so unless you are senile (if so, my apologies!), it was intentionally dishonest.

 

[Travlyr]

I saw your post, I just don't believe that it was an honest mistake. I have had multiple long conversations answering questions for you, so unless you are senile (if so, my apologies!), it was intentionally dishonest.

No it was not dishonest. You did avoid answering my question that day as evidenced by the posts. You still have not answered this question.

Where in the Constitutions do they say the purpose of the State is to provide security?
Articles & Sections please.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...voluntarists&p=3410147&viewfull=1#post3410147

There is no dishonesty on my part. I admit that I am not infallible ... and I am not dishonest.

Maybe you could honor us with your answer now?

 

[Wesker1982]

hmmmmmmm I wonder why there's been such a strong and consistent trend towards voluntaryism with the members of this forum.

Oh wait, no i don't.

This, lol. Sometimes I think that a few here arguing in favor of limited government are actually trying to promote Voluntaryism.

I don't spend hours debating with certain people here to necessarily change their minds. It is nice if that happens, but I have no delusions about the stubborn cognitive dissonance and/or Stockholm syndrome that isn't likely to wither in some people. Watching other people debate each other about anarcho-libertarianism on the 2+2 forum is how my mind was changed too, btw.

I really appreciate the discussion, though. The minarchists will probably lol at this, but thanks to them, I have an answer for everything now. I have had to ponder about certain criticisms that never even crossed my mind before some of the debates here occurred. It is so easy to get stuck in auto-pilot answering easy questions about roads or taxes that sometimes I forget that once in a while someone might actually come up with a criticism that I haven't addressed 10,000 times already. That is the main reason why I post.

They have also inspired me to continually desire more knowledge in economics. At some point I figured out that many of the criticisms are based on many of the same economic fallacies that frustrate the minarchists themselves when debating the average American. Oddly enough (but makes perfect sense now), studying economics, not anarchist theory, has helped me understand how a voluntary society would function.

Another point: in my view, we are about as likely to achieve minarchy as we are to achieve anarchy. I.e., both are remote possibilities. What is striking is that almost every criticism of "impracticality" that minarchist hurl at anarchy is also true of minarchy itself. Both are exceedingly unlikely. Both require massive changes in views among millions of people. Both rest on presumptions that most people simply don't care much about.- Stephan Kinsella

I appreciate and respect the philosophy, I just don't agree with the possibilities for implementation. I have yet to hear anything remotely close to a solid plan of action based on this philosophy that will get results in a time frame that I consider to be agile and pragmatic. This is important to me, because even though I am willing to give up my lifetime for future generations, I believe this root problem will be a recurring theme in the future and work needs to be done to develop an action plan that keeps the frog OUT of the boiling pot of water.

If I didn't know any better, this post could be about limited government.

 

[Wesker1982]

You did avoid answering my question that day as evidenced by the posts.

But this is not what you claimed. Are you making an honest mistake now, or being dishonest?

You never answer the questions.

Notice the plural form here. And also note that you said never. This post claims I never answer the multiple questions you present. Now you are claiming that you really meant that I only avoided one question and it only happened once.

You cannot get these two statements confused. It was a dishonest statement and being dishonest in attempts to defend it only makes it more apparent that you are indeed dishonest. I have had multiple long conversations with you and although we disagree on a lot, I have been nice to you. Not only have I done nothing to deserve dishonesty from you, it also makes you appear insecure in your beliefs because if you were confident in the validity of your position, you would not have to resort to dishonesty.

My advice would be that if you cannot participate in these type of discussions without getting emotional, you should avoid them.

 

[newbitech]

If I didn't know any better, this post could be about limited government.

Of course, you want anarchy. No amount of government is acceptable to you. If you actually accepted limited government as a satisfactory and valid outcome to your efforts, the plan of action and implementation would become crystal clear. Since you want 0 government, and reject limiting government, any plan to limit government to reduce it to anything other than 0 is not solid, agile, pragmatic, possible to implement or have an acceptable time frame.

Yet, you will continue to push the philosophy even if it conflicts with a limited government philosophy in the realm of actions.

 

[Travlyr]

But this is not what you claimed. Are you making an honest mistake now, or being dishonest?



Notice the plural form here. And also note that you said never. This post claims I never answer the multiple questions you present. Now you are claiming that you really meant that I only avoided one question and it only happened once.

You cannot get these two statements confused. It was a dishonest statement and being dishonest in attempts to defend it only makes it more apparent that you are indeed dishonest. I have had multiple long conversations with you and although we disagree on a lot, I have been nice to you. Not only have I done nothing to deserve dishonesty from you, it also makes you appear insecure in your beliefs because if you were confident in the validity of your position, you would not have to resort to dishonesty.

My advice would be that if you cannot participate in these type of discussions without getting emotional, you should avoid them.

The proof is in the pudding. The video you posted claimed that the "State exists to provide security." I asked where in the constitution is that claim made. You never answered. That claim is a dishonest claim by you unless you can back it up.

So I ask again.

Where in the Constitutions do they say the purpose of the State is to provide security?
Articles & Sections please.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...voluntarists&p=3410147&viewfull=1#post3410147

 

[ClayTrainor]

The proof is in the pudding. The video you posted claimed that the "State exists to provide security." I asked where in the constitution is that claim made. You never answered. That claim is a dishonest claim by you unless you can back it up.

Been over this many times.

At 39 seconds into this video the video maker lies about the State and misrepresents Ron Paul's position.

"The purpose of the State is to provide security" is an out-n-out lie.

What did they constitution mean by "Provide for.... and secure the blessings of liberty" in the preamble?

I read secure the blessing of liberty as intending to establish courts of justice.

How is that not "providing" a form of "Security", with regards individual liberty?

Where in the Constitutions do they say the purpose of the State is to provide security?
Articles & Sections please.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

[CCTelander]

Been over this many times.

And STILL no reasonable answer. Not that I ever expected you to get one, but...

 

[ClayTrainor]

And STILL no reasonable answer. Not that I ever expected you to get one, but...

After calling him out for avoiding that question (among many others) several times, he finally took the time to answer it by setting up a straw man. Here was his answer.

It is not true that the State was formed to redistribute wealth, provide police, or cradle to grave services. The primary purpose of the State (which I stated many times) is to organize property and provide for contract law.

AS you can see, this is in no way an actual answer to my question, but is in fact just a straw-man. Nothing about my question implies that I ever claimed the state was formed to provide police, redistribute wealth. I am merely questioning him on a direct quote from the preamble of the constitution, and he completely dodged it by setting up a straw man.

So yea... Been there, done that. :o

 

[CCTelander]

After calling him out for avoiding that question (among many others) several times, he finally took the time to answer it by setting up a straw man. Here was his answer.


Like I said, still no REASONABLE answer. That's why I seldom bother to respond at much length to Trav's ranting anymore. It gets old FAST.



So yea... Been there, done that. :o

Like I said, still no REASONABLE answer. That's why I seldom bother to respond at any length to Trav's rantings. He seldom if ever responds in a straightforward manner.

 

[ClayTrainor]

Like I said, still no REASONABLE answer. That's why I seldom bother to respond at any length to Trav's rantings. He seldom if ever responds in a straightforward manner.

You're right, but I do appreciate him constantly arguing against voluntaryist philosophy, because...

I sincerely believe the reason there is such a strong and growing Voluntaryist presence on this board is not because of people like me who argue in favor of it, but moreso because of the obvious flaws in the arguments that are used to against it, especially when they begin to get emotional.

All we need to do is continue to ask the tough questions, and the truth will reveal itself to those who are curious enough to discover it.

Discussions like this are why I lean more and more towards anarchy each day. Almost all of the arguments against it are based on strawman.

With Voluntarism, the logical inconsistancies are largely gone. There are no contradictory beliefs about how the income tax is immoral, but a sales tax or tariff tax is ok. There are no pet issues. There isn't the belief that many other Libertarians have that the Austrian School of economics is right on all but one pet issue, where it just so happens that the random libertarian and the government knows more than all Austrian economists. There are no excuses for advocating government coercion with voluntarism.

 

[Travlyr]

Why doesn't Wesker answer the question? He is the one who posted the video.

Originally Posted by Preamble of the constitution
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

To secure the blessings of liberty is the security that Wesker was referring to at 22 seconds into the video? Seriously? Sounds more like he intended it to mean security teams to me. What did you mean by that Wesker?

Or was the implication public security services vs. private security services?

All services, including security, are provided by competing private firms.

In any case, the purpose of the state is not to provide security.

The State was not formed to redistribute wealth, provide police, or cradle to grave services. The primary purpose of the State is to organize property, rights, law, and justice.

 

[ClayTrainor]

To secure the blessings of liberty is the security that Wesker was referring to at 22 seconds into the video? Seriously? Sounds more like he intended it to mean security teams to me.

At 22 seconds, the video is describing voluntaryism, not minarchism. At 39 Seconds, it describes the Minarchist position. Here's a screenshot.

And now back to the question that you've never bothered to answer, unless you count a strawman logical fallacy as an answer....

At 39 seconds into this video the video maker lies about the State and misrepresents Ron Paul's position.

"The purpose of the State is to provide security" is an out-n-out lie.

What did they constitution mean by "Provide for.... and secure the blessings of liberty" in the preamble?

I read secure the blessing of liberty as intending to establish courts of justice.

How is that not "providing" a form of "Security", with regards individual liberty?

The State was not formed to redistribute wealth, provide police, or cradle to grave services. The primary purpose of the State is to organize property, rights, law, and justice.

LMFAO!!! Are you serious!?!?! This is the exact same straw man fallacy that you already committed!

It is not true that the State was formed to redistribute wealth, provide police, or cradle to grave services. The primary purpose of the State (which I stated many times) is to organize property and provide for contract law.

AS you can see, this is in no way an actual answer to my question, but is in fact just a straw-man. Nothing about my question implies that I ever claimed the state was formed to provide police, redistribute wealth. I am merely questioning him on a direct quote from the preamble of the constitution, and he completely dodged it by setting up a straw man.

 

[CCTelander]

Why doesn't Wesker answer the question? He is the one who posted the video.


To secure the blessings of liberty is the security that Wesker was referring to at 22 seconds into the video? Seriously? Sounds more like he intended it to mean security teams to me. What did you mean by that Wesker?



Or was the implication public security services vs. private security services?

In any case, the purpose of the state is not to provide security.

The State was not formed to redistribute wealth, provide police, or cradle to grave services. The primary purpose of the State is to organize property, rights, law, and justice.

Once again, your argument makes no sense.

Every single thing you cite as legitimate purposes for the state do, in fact, amount to the provision of SOME FORM of security.

You just added the crap about redistributing wealth and cradle to grave service yourself. It's just another one of your straw men. Nobody else has even alluded to those things.

I really have difficulty believing that ANYONE could honestly be this obtuse. Nobody with a 3 digit IQ, anyway.

 

[Travlyr]

Again what is the problem with allowing Wesker answering questions about the video he posted?

 

[CCTelander]

Again what is the problem with allowing Wesker answering questions about the video he posted?

No problem at all.

However, since this IS a "public" forum, there's also no problem with others chiming in as they see fit. That is the nature of Internet Forums after all.

 

[ClayTrainor]

Again what is the problem with allowing Wesker answering questions about the video he posted?

I'm sure Wesker can and will respond to your post if he wants, but since I've already completely exposed your "argument" by demonstrating chronoligically ordered quotes of you avoiding questions and building straw men I'm not sure it'd be worth his time to even bother. But of course, I don't claim to speak for wesker.

You're asking about something that I've tried to talk and question you about at least a dozen times by now, in several threads. As you know, I've chronologically quoted many of our conversations to quickly expose the arguments that you repeat ad-nauseum, and demonstrate how you avoid questions and, at best, build straw men to respond to them.

Of course, I don't really need to even make this case. The evidence already speaks for itself.


So, Is it fair to say that you'll never give me a direct answer to my question (without committing a Straw Man Fallacy)?

At 39 seconds into this video the video maker lies about the State and misrepresents Ron Paul's position.

"The purpose of the State is to provide security" is an out-n-out lie.

What did they constitution mean by "Provide for.... and secure the blessings of liberty" in the preamble?

I read secure the blessing of liberty as intending to establish courts of justice.

How is that not "providing" a form of "Security", with regards individual liberty?

 

[Travlyr]

I'm sure Wesker can and will respond to your post if he wants, but since I've already completely exposed your "argument" by demonstrating chronoligically ordered quotes of you avoiding questions and building straw men.

You're asking about something that I've tried to talk and question you about at least a dozen times by now, in several threads. As you know, I've chronologically quoted many of our conversations to quickly expose the arguments that you repeat ad-nauseum, and demonstrate how you avoid questions and, at best, build straw men to respond to them.

Of course, I don't really need to even make this case. The evidence already speaks for itself.



So, Is it fair to say that you'll never give me a direct answer to my question (without committing a Straw Man Fallacy)?

Clay Trainor, I have lost all respect for you so this will be the last time I respond to anything you have to say.

 

[ClayTrainor]

Clay Trainor, I have lost all respect for you so this will be the last time I respond to anything you have to say.

Heh... I'll wear that as a badge of honor.

Rest assured I will continue to cite and demonstrate the glaring flaws and fallacies in your arguments, regardless of if you respond or not. I'm already kinda used to you not answering my questions, so this really won't be any different for me.

 

[Travlyr]

No problem at all.

However, since this IS a "public" forum, there's also no problem with others chiming in as they see fit. That is the nature of Internet Forums after all.

Chris, if you are serious about your philosophy, then why not be completely open and honest?

Start a chip-in to grow your movement on TV, radio, newsprint or some sort.

Something like this:
Anarchists Wanted
As anarchists we want to eliminate the State. We want to destroy the U.S. Constitution and the Constitutions of the 50 States in America. We have a better idea. Join us today.

I'm pretty sure that most homeowners will be like WTF? But, if you are honest... that is your goal, right?