Please convince me of statism!

[Conza88]

Already answered both of those questions. If you can't follow the thread, why bother responding?

You responded, but it wasn't a valid answer. Pity.. I don't think you guys are even capable of one.

 

[Conza88]

​

Guilty.

Guilty.

Guilty.

Guilty.

Guilty.

Two words for you guys: The Dunning-Kruger effect.

Justin Kruger & David Dunning.
Unskilled and unaware of It: how difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments.

Journal of personality and social psychology
1999, vol.77, no.6, pp1121-1134
©1999 by American Psychological Association, Inc.

 

[newbitech]

No, you haven't.

This isn't hard. This isn't complex.

Is the individual a sovereign political entity or not? Am I able to creep into your mind and take the controls? Are you able to creep into my mind and take the controls?

Of course not.

All manner of utilitarian justifications for the state can be made. But - respecting the indisputable sovereignty of the individual - no philosophically sound argument for the state may be made.

We either are individuals or a alternate-consciousness "colony". Philosophically, the answer is quite clear. Take the pragmatic discussion to another sub-forum. There's YET to be a legitimate, logically consistent case made that proves that one man may morally, justifiably hold dominion over another. NONE.

That was not the question. And regardless if you "liked" my answer or not, it was an answer that I already gave.

No philosophically sound argument for "the state"? I think the problem here is, as I have identified over the years, is that the philosophy of Rothbard, Mises, and even Ron Paul barely scratch the surface of a fully rounded philosophy, at least those parts that are made public that we read about.

We hear ancaps especially people who have explored Rothbard focus in on epistemology, ethics, political philosophy, and logic. What you do not hear is the metaphysics of their philosophy's. In fact, I have heard some e-scholars here flat out reject metaphysics as a point worth discussing. This shows me how black that hole really is, that missing piece of the puzzle so willfully ignored.

Your hatred of "the state", and elimination of "the state" will not fill that void. I suggest exploring the metaphysical side of the philosophy of freedom. Perhaps Gandhi, or even Martin Luther King Junior would be a way to ease in to it. Ron Paul gives hints at his metaphysics. I have talked at length about the ontology of self-government and where it breaks down and ultimately gets labeled as "the state".

My argument is valid and a very sound philosophical justification for "the state". The only way my justification for the state is not valid is if "the state" does not exist. If that is the case then anarchist are out looking for a boogey man to conjure "the state" in to existence so they may have something to blame for their philosophical failure. However, if "the state" does indeed exist, then it's existence is justified by it's very being. This is the metaphysical ontological justification. It is what it is, as the saying goes here stateside.

Now you can get in to some other realm of philosophy to try and invalidate "the state", but you won't be able to remove it's justification without completely eliminating, and since that is not something you can do with your mind alone, then my comments about pragmatism are absolutely in the right sub-forum.

Again, anarchist like to move the goal post and then claim that the goal was not met. "the state" is justified because "the state" exists.

There has yet to be made a case that a "statelessness" exists, can exist, or will exist, much less a case made that my life, your life, or anyone's life would be closer to freedom if that were the case.

At least in a Ron Paul society, people would be able to choose, and one would not be favored over the other. That is my goal.

 

[newbitech]

You responded, but it wasn't a valid answer. Pity.. I don't think you guys are even capable of one.

You aren't convinced, that's fine. It takes time, and experience for wisdom to bear fruit. Everything I said was valid, it's just easier for you to ignore it and say it's invalid. Wisdom is not something you can just read about online buddy.

 

[newbitech]

​

Two words for you guys: The Dunning-Kruger effect.

Justin Kruger & David Dunning.
Unskilled and unaware of It: how difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments.

Journal of personality and social psychology
1999, vol.77, no.6, pp1121-1134
©1999 by American Psychological Association, Inc.

At least with the constitution, I get due process. Here in your anarchist wonderland, it's just a popularity contest, right? See who can get the most "hits", and that's who wins right?

If I am guilty of anything in this thread, it's of thinking that you'd have grown up a little in the past few years. Of actually thinking you might be something other than a deeply embedded agent provocateur. Nah, you are here to stir dissension and to chip away at Dr. Paul's base.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

That was not the question. And regardless if you "liked" my answer or not, it was an answer that I already gave.

No philosophically sound argument for "the state"? I think the problem here is, as I have identified over the years, is that the philosophy of Rothbard, Mises, and even Ron Paul barely scratch the surface of a fully rounded philosophy, at least those parts that are made public that we read about.

We hear ancaps especially people who have explored Rothbard focus in on epistemology, ethics, political philosophy, and logic. What you do not hear is the metaphysics of their philosophy's. In fact, I have heard some e-scholars here flat out reject metaphysics as a point worth discussing. This shows me how black that hole really is, that missing piece of the puzzle so willfully ignored.

Your hatred of "the state", and elimination of "the state" will not fill that void. I suggest exploring the metaphysical side of the philosophy of freedom. Perhaps Gandhi, or even Martin Luther King Junior would be a way to ease in to it. Ron Paul gives hints at his metaphysics. I have talked at length about the ontology of self-government and where it breaks down and ultimately gets labeled as "the state".

My argument is valid and a very sound philosophical justification for "the state". The only way my justification for the state is not valid is if "the state" does not exist. If that is the case then anarchist are out looking for a boogey man to conjure "the state" in to existence so they may have something to blame for their philosophical failure. However, if "the state" does indeed exist, then it's existence is justified by it's very being. This is the metaphysical ontological justification. It is what it is, as the saying goes here stateside.

Now you can get in to some other realm of philosophy to try and invalidate "the state", but you won't be able to remove it's justification without completely eliminating, and since that is not something you can do with your mind alone, then my comments about pragmatism are absolutely in the right sub-forum.

Again, anarchist like to move the goal post and then claim that the goal was not met. "the state" is justified because "the state" exists.

There has yet to be made a case that a "statelessness" exists, can exist, or will exist, much less a case made that my life, your life, or anyone's life would be closer to freedom if that were the case.

At least in a Ron Paul society, people would be able to choose, and one would not be favored over the other. That is my goal.

Not exactly correct. Several libertarians have explored metaphysics, such as Nozik. Rothbard discusses Nozik and this issue (as well as related ones) in ROBERT NOZICK AND THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION OF THE STATE. Besides, the libertarian can get his metaphysics from other sources, such as religion. We have had discussions about past occurrances of statelessness. One that should be of interest to you is the statelessness of the early American West.

At any rate, I admire your goal of allowing people to choose. Very noble, and I applaud you for it.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

At least with the constitution, I get due process.

Sometimes. Then there are all those other times when a cop makes himself judge, jury, and executioner. And the times when the various levels of government seize property outright without due process. We have numerous horror stories like this documented on these forums.
(I'm not an anarchist, I just wanted to bring that point up)

 

[newbitech]

Not exactly correct. Several libertarians have explored metaphysics, such as Nozik. Rothbard discusses Nozik and this issue (as well as related ones) in ROBERT NOZICK AND THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION OF THE STATE. Besides, the libertarian can get his metaphysics from other sources, such as religion. We have had discussions about past occurrances of statelessness. One that should be of interest to you is the statelessness of the early American West.

At any rate, I admire your goal of allowing people to choose. Very noble, and I applaud you for it.

Sometimes. Then there are all those other times when a cop makes himself judge, jury, and executioner. And the times when the various levels of government seize property outright without due process. We have numerous horror stories like this documented on these forums.
(I'm not an anarchist, I just wanted to bring that point up)

NOt to be totally argumentative, but only about 99% argumentative, (see I leave some room for error = BBBBBBut..

that's what I mean, the metaphysics of those 3 icons barely scratch the surface. You have to dig deep for that stuff. As far as statelessness of the early American West, those moments in history where "the state" was very minimal were fleeting moments, transitory times. "the state" was not stamped out of existence. I could use the relatively to what argument so famously made as a backdoor escape route by our anarchist friends, but why should I? I'd just point out that if statelessness is defined as the absence of a coercive monopoly of force over a geographical region, all I would need to do to prove that the state existed would be to find such a monopoly in the American West.

So in my search for an example of statelessness in the early America West, I started here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Old_West and it seems like the settlers relied on the FEDGOV to protect them, and also settle property issues. Looks like pioneers chased statelessness into the Pacific? I'll have to dig more though, but it is a good recent, and relevant example to explore the nascent American "state". There is your 1% =)

Oh and the other thing, I think you missed my point. IN my comment that you quoted, I was pointing out the fact that Conza was acting like the judge, jury, and executioner by making that list of people and putting guilty by all there names, accusing them of having such poor skills as not to even realize their own mistakes. Of course this is Conza's excuse and justification for continually starting threads like this one where he pretends have an interest in honestly discussing topics that he knows will stir people up, just so he can accuse them once again of being idiots. It's his cycle and the punishment being, he will never stop it.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

NOt to be totally argumentative, but only about 99% argumentative, (see I leave some room for error = BBBBBBut..

that's what I mean, the metaphysics of those 3 icons barely scratch the surface. You have to dig deep for that stuff. As far as statelessness of the early American West, those moments in history where "the state" was very minimal were fleeting moments, transitory times. "the state" was not stamped out of existence. I could use the relatively to what argument so famously made as a backdoor escape route by our anarchist friends, but why should I? I'd just point out that if statelessness is defined as the absence of a coercive monopoly of force over a geographical region, all I would need to do to prove that the state existed would be to find such a monopoly in the American West.

So in my search for an example of statelessness in the early America West, I started here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Old_West and it seems like the settlers relied on the FEDGOV to protect them, and also settle property issues. Looks like pioneers chased statelessness into the Pacific? I'll have to dig more though, but it is a good recent, and relevant example to explore the nascent American "state". There is your 1% =)

Oh and the other thing, I think you missed my point. IN my comment that you quoted, I was pointing out the fact that Conza was acting like the judge, jury, and executioner by making that list of people and putting guilty by all there names, accusing them of having such poor skills as not to even realize their own mistakes. Of course this is Conza's excuse and justification for continually starting threads like this one where he pretends have an interest in honestly discussing topics that he knows will stir people up, just so he can accuse them once again of being idiots. It's his cycle and the punishment being, he will never stop it.

First, I apologize for jumping the gun and addressing your comment to conza. I'm sure there is some literature to suggest, as you say, that some settlers asked for help from the FEDs. There is also a body of literature to suggest otherwise. This may interest you-[h=1]The Culture of Violence in the American West: Myth versus Reality[/h]A few pull-quotes-[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]n contrast, an alternative literature based on actual history concludes that the civil society of the American West in the nineteenth century was not very violent. Eugene Hollon writes that the western frontier “was a far more civilized, more peaceful and safer place than American society today” (1974, x). Terry Anderson and P. J. Hill affirm that although “[t]he West . . . is perceived as a place of great chaos, with little respect for property or life,” their research “indicates that this was not the case; property rights were protected and civil order prevailed. Private agencies provided the necessary basis for an orderly society in which property was protected and conflicts were resolved” (1979, 10).[/FONT] [TABLE="width: 135, align: right"]
[TR]
[TD]

​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]What were these private protective agencies? They were not governments because they did not have a legal monopoly on keeping order. Instead, they included such organizations as land clubs, cattlemen's associations, mining camps, and wagon trains.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]So-called land clubs were organizations established by settlers before the U.S. government even surveyed the land, let alone started to sell it or give it away. Because disputes over land titles are inevitable, the land clubs adopted their own constitutions, laying out the “laws” that would define and protect property rights in land (Anderson and Hill 1979, 15). They administered land claims, protected them from outsiders, and arbitrated disputes. Social ostracism was used effectively against those who violated the rules. Establishing property rights in this way minimized disputes — and violence.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The wagon trains that transported thousands of people to the California gold fields and other parts of the West usually established their own constitutions before setting out. These constitutions often included detailed judicial systems. As a consequence, writes Benson, “[t]here were few instances of violence on the wagon trains even when food became extremely scarce and starvation threatened. When crimes against persons or their property were committed, the judicial system . . . would take effect” (1998, 102). Ostracism and threats of banishment from the group, instead of threats of violence, were usually sufficient to correct rule breakers' behavior.

Thanks for being civil. Nice talking with you, as always. [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
[/FONT]

 

[Conza88]

No you don't. You are two different people with two different life experiences.

Yes absolutely. And you are delusional if you think that has anything to do with making different his so stated political end goal. Self-government INSTEAD of a return to the constitution.

​

Further more, you are an anarchist, and your supreme is the individual. You wouldn't respect the individual if you didn't accept that each has their own differences on a fundemental level. You cannot hold the exact same position because you are not exactly him!

How are you defining anarchist? I'm not an anarchist in the popular conception of the world. I am a voluntarist, self-government, anti-monopolist supporter. You support monopolies and a gang of thieves writ large. As for me and RP - exact same position in regards to the state not being necessary for a free society. That a return to self-government INSTEAD of a return to the Constitution is his end goal. We have the exact same position in that regard. Self government is my end goal, so is his. Other things will be different for sure, but I wasn't talking about that was I? No. Drop the red herrings.

You "get" people to do what? It sounds to me like you are constantly working out the validity of your own position by hitching it to other individual's opinions and waiting for acceptance. There is no such thing as an "end goal". The world is constantly turning, people are constantly changing. Your mistake may be in thinking that there is any kind of finality to what you hope for. There is not. Even if the world was exactly how you wanted it, if people behaved and spoke exactly how you wanted them too, there would still be yet another "end goal".

When you attack my conception of an 'end goal', you're attacking Ron Paul's... as he has explicitly stated and what I agree with. I'm talking about the confines of political philosophy though, and the need for a state. Yeah, I understand your point .... and if it way erroneous, because it is an equivocation. I'm not talking about personal ends, you fool! Your ignorance is pathetic.

"Libertarianism, then, is a philosophy seeking a policy. But what else can a libertarian philosophy say about strategy, about “policy”? In the first place, surely-again in Acton’s words-it must say that liberty is the “highest political end,” the overriding goal of libertarian philosophy. Highest political end, of course, does not mean “highest end” for man in general. Indeed, every individual has a variety of personal ends and differing hierarchies of importance for these goals on his personal scale of values. Political philosophy is that subset of ethical philosophy which deals specifically with politics, that is, the proper role of violence in human life (and hence the explication of such concepts as crime and property). Indeed, a libertarian world would beone in which every individual would at last be free to seek and pursue his own ends-to “pursue happiness,” in the felicitous Jeffersonian phrase." - TEOL, chp 30
"​

WHAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT? SEE HOW USELESS YOUR RANT WAS? ​

One of the things I am constantly harping on anarchist about is time frames. What is your goal for tomorrow? Next week, Next Month, Next Year, 10 years, 50 years etc etc... Restoring the Constitution CAN happen in 4-8 years given the right set of circumstances and the right "rulers". That is an end goal if your time frame is 4-8 years. So what is the time frame for YOUR end goal, COnza?

I'm not an anarchist. Restoring the Constitution can happen in 4-8 years... LOL. Back up that claim please, with evidence.. something more than an assertion. Your day dreaming doesn't count. You don't know the future so this is a red herring. How is the number you arrived at NOT arbitrary? My time frame for living in a free society? I would hope in my lifetime. But I don't know the future, and neither do you - so I have no idea. But that doesn't matter. I think slavery is wrong. If I was around when chattel slavery was the norm, you think it would be legitimate to ask me what my time frame was - as the chief overriding concern about whether I should be against slavery or not? I'd be an abolitionist then against slavery... whether I got to see it repealed in my lifetime or not. The same goes with the state. I'm against it, whether I live to see it or not. It's called a legacy. And I hope to contribute to the edifice in a meaningful way.

I do however, have much more realistic plans than you do.. precisely because I want to live in liberty so badly.

THIS IS ABOUT STRATEGY THOUGH... A RED HERRING TO THIS DISCUSSION.

No having the Constitution as an end goal is NOT demented. Dr. Paul does accept it (he campaigns on it, and in fact, sells it), you just completely misunderstand the motor homes diary interview and twist Dr. Pauls words. That is the problem. But you won't see it any other way. He has not "outlined" any reasons. He has made a couple of comments in this regard amidst the overwhelming amount of comments to the contrary. Yet you cling to your tether that the man who is growing a freedom and liberty movement by his political actions is acting as some kind of anarchist who believes that the constitution has been a complete and utter failure and unworthy of further condsideration. Talk about demented.

Any sane person who views the above clip, can hear and understand Ron's point.

​

Yes you took his words out of context. The question was

You emphasize individual responsibility and freedom. I know you STAND for the Constitution, but what do you say to the people who advocate for the return to self-government rather than a return to the Constitution?
Ron Paul Stands for the Constitution.
Advocacy of self-government vs advocacy of a return to the constitution.
In this context, Ron Paul tells us his goal is a really a return to self-government.

So why are you taking his words out of context?

I didn't. They are in context, lmao.. how are they not? Yes to the above... and yes, (1) self-government vs. (2) return to constitution...

Returning to the constitution is a means, Ron Paul's end goal is self-government INSTEAD OF the latter. What is not understood?

You just said "he supports self-government instead of a return to the constitution". Well, does Ron Paul advocate a return to the Constitution? Yes! Does Ron Paul advocate "self-government", of course. So what does he say to those who advocate one instead of the other? He says "great"! From his actions and the way he answered this question, he could have said, "I advocate BOTH!" That is what his goal is! How can the man stand for the constitution, advocate the constitution, support the constitution, have a 30 record of voting strictly based on the constitution, and yet his goal be something other than advocating the constitution? Easy!

He advocates both! Now what is Ron Paul's "end goal" as you like to frame it? Who knows. He was never asked that question.

That's exactly what he said agreed to: "self-government instead of a return to the constitution". "That's really my end goal".

Ron Paul advocates a return to the constitution COMPARED TO WHAT WE HAVE NOW. As do I.
Ron Paul advocates self-government COMPARED TO the Constitution... As do I.

What is his end goal? He's literally, explicitly said it... cognitive dissonance.

Yeah, I ADOVCATE BOTH AS WELL if you want to put it that way. I advocate a return to the constitution compared to what we have now, then when we get there... I will carry on with Ron Paul... and advocate an actual free society... which is my end goal. And Ron Paul's as he has so said. Self-government.

By the way, you never talked about "self-government" until I introduced you to this video 3 years ago. DOn't say that I avoid it, because I was the one who originally posted it on these forums in a response to something completely different that you said that was also BS. I still remember and have that archive with you as well. You insisted that "all forms of government" were illigitimate. I said what about self-government? You had no idea what that was. That is why I told you to watch this video where Ron Paul talks about Ghandi. It was an easy example of the idea of self-government. This was also the conversation where we talked about national self-determination.

By the way, you'll notice that ancap/voluntaryism is not mentioned. At All.

You introducing me to it had nothing on the end result, I would have found that anyway. Regardless, the interviewer who uses the term "self-government" NOTICE: HE IS A VOLUNTARIST, AN ANARCHO-CAPITALIST! He is questioning the constitution, and put fowarding the argument for self-government. Ron Paul agrees.

I used to also say, regulation is bad... but upon hearing an alternative perspective; that regulation is good.. when done by the market, it is much better. Yes, national self-determination... where you are at your most delusional and set up strawman every sentence. Completely incoherent.

My one vote, trumps all the salesman calculus you just tried to pull to provide some kind of empirical evidence.

So one newbitech vote for Ron Paul > 10,000 enlightened new Ron Paul supporters thanks to me. RIIIGHHHHHHHHHHHHHT make a poll about that and see what the forum thinks.

I will make the point once again by using your favorite method, quoting someone else.

I'll even take it one step further by making the point as succint as possible and do you the honor of answering your OP once again all in the same breath.

Rothbard makes the distinction between what YOU believe as an ancap and the real world. You'd probably do well to follow his line of reasoning here as well and make the same distinction.

In the real world Conza, "the state" is ALWAYS justified, and for most of us, there need not be convincing, it is as you say, a priori. The problem, of course is that what I see in the real world is not what I see in my mind. In my mind, "the state" is not justified in so many ways. Unfortunately, it is not my mind that needs to be changed. And for your purposes, it is not by beliefs that need to be questioned.

You are insane if you think you Rothbard is arguing against my position, or if I disagree with it. I recommend everyone read the article National Self-Determination by Murray Rothbard. I support every word said and every point made. That you continue to think I was EVER in disagreement, or that you EVER had a valid objection against me using Rothbard is BEYOND ABSURD... seriously; think about what you are saying... hahaha

 

[Conza88]

Repost from page 10. Never got a response.

Occam's razor. The state has existed in the past, it exists now, therefor it will continue to exist in the future. That's a pretty easy justification for "the state".

That's not Occam's razor at all. It's a combination of argument from ignorance (stateless societies have existed in the past), but also the fact that governments are currently in a 'state' [using a diff def] of anarchy "no rulers" with each-other. Even more importantly, there are no rules imposed on the rulers, they are in a 'state' of lawlessness. A blatant contradiction. And it is also an appeal to tradition fallacy.

Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is older, traditional, or "always has been done." This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

X is old or traditional
Therefore X is correct or better.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because the age of something does not automatically make it correct or better than something newer. This is made quite obvious by the following example: The theory that witches and demons cause disease is far older than the theory that microrganisms cause diseases. Therefore, the theory about witches and demons must be true.

Here's another:

"Proponents of government intervention are trapped in a fatal contradiction: they assume that individuals are not competent to run their own affairs or to hire experts to advise them. And yet they also assume that these same individuals are equipped to vote for these same experts at the ballot box. We have seen that, on the contrary, while most people have a direct idea and a direct test of their own personal interests on the market, they cannot understand the complex chains of praxeological and philosophical reasoning necessary for a choice of rulers or political policies. Yet this political sphere of open demagogy is precisely the only one where the mass of individuals are deemed to be competent!" ~ Murray N. Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market (Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2004), p. 1302.​

Your argument [ONE SENTENCE] is invalid, as it constitutes as a logical fallacy.

The rest of your post is a red herring.

Why should anyone believe that statelessness can be achieved if it has never been achieved before? Or if I grant you that statelessness existed for a relatively short period only to be once again overtaken by "the state".

Firstly, because you cannot escape 'anarchy' [no rulers]. "Do we ever really get out of anarchy?" by Alfred G. Cuzan. I await your 'refutation' (in another thread where it will be relevant). Secondly, the exact same can be said about limited government - which is utopian. There has never been a state that has ever remained limited, nor will there ever be. See OP point 4.

Since I will have to make all kinds of new assumptions about the possibility of a stateless society, the fact that the state exists and requires no assumptions justifies the state.

Please refer to OP points 1 & 2. Failed attempt at shifting the burden of proof.

Deduction would be another way to convince you of statism. Since the fight against statism has been going on since the beginning of history, it should be pretty easy to figure out that this fight will continue on currently and in the future.

That is not a justification for the state. It is commentary on strategy. An ENTIRELY difference question. If you want to have that discussion by all means; but it is a red herring in this thread. This thread is about seeking justifications for said institution.

I am still waiting..

 

[Jake Ralston]

Conza:

Please stop holding Argument from Fallacy positions.​

You are being intellectually dishonest, and you have been caught red handed.
No I will not cite every single post that you have committed this fallacy. I am not your slave.
I want the thread-readers to see what you do in nearly every single post:

Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false. It is also called argument to logic (argumentum ad logicam), fallacy fallacy, or fallacist's fallacy.

Fallacious arguments can arrive at true conclusions.

You will be held to higher standard from now on Conza. I claimed long ago that you were titling people's arguments as "fallacies" and then refusing to acknowledge them afterward. Just simply title it a fallacy and put the head right back in the sand.

Not going to work anymore buddy, because you (hypocrite) have been just as fallacious (actually much more) than anyone else in this forum.

So you will understand that even though a post may be fallacious, it can still be true.
You will analyze people's arguments, and if you disagree you can explain why.

Your time of using fallacies as a crutch are over. Time to man up.

You can do it!

 

[Conza88]

Conza:

Please stop holding Argument from Fallacy positions.​

You are being intellectually dishonest, and you have been caught red handed.

No, I haven't. Any evidence to back up your baseless assertion?

No I will not cite every single post that you have committed this fallacy. I am not your slave.
I want the thread-readers to see what you do in nearly every single post:

Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false. It is also called argument to logic (argumentum ad logicam), fallacy fallacy, or fallacist's fallacy.
Fallacious arguments can arrive at true conclusions.

Haha, nothing to support your claim... should have known. If I've done it so much, should be easy right? . Oh I agree, but you guys use nothing but fallacies... all I do is point out your argument is invalid.

I am completely open to non-fallicious arguments that support whatever conclusion you hold that justifies the state....

i.e THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THIS THREAD.​

I'm just yet to see a non-fallicious argument presented...

So you will understand that even though a post may be fallacious, it can still be true.
You will analyze people's arguments, and if you disagree you can explain why.

Your time of using fallacies as a crutch are over. Time to man up.
You can do it!

Do you want to know how I see you guys: LE, Trav, Jake, newbitech etc.? When you post.. all of you remind me of this guy:

[video=vimeo;24718582]http://www.vimeo.com/24718582[/video]​

Loveable and yet so misguided... Thanks for helping me spread the message of liberty on these forums, couldn't do it without a soundboard.

 

[Jake Ralston]

No, I haven't. Any evidence to back up your baseless assertion?

The point of my post must have flown right over your head. I'm not trying to convince, prove or persuade YOU to agree with what I wrote.
Your skull is thicker than reinforced steel and I have not the energy to force truth inside of it. The point is to get other forum members aware as well, so they aren't on the recieving end of your intellectual dishonesty anymore.

Haha, nothing to support your claim... should have known. If I've done it so much, should be easy right? . Oh I agree, but you guys use nothing but fallacies... all I do is point out your argument is invalid.

Does a professor do his students homework for him? No.
If you want to learn from your mistakes YOU can do the work. I honestly don't care. The point is to make it evident to OTHERS that what you are doing is wrong.
I have led you to the source of water, I have shown you where to search for proof, the rest is up to you. Either way I don't care.
But if you must, the evidence is in your post history. Read and understand the Argument from Fallacy, and see how many times you've committed it!
The days of claiming fallacy as a rebuttal without even considering the post are over for you now though.

I am completely open to non-fallicious arguments that support whatever conclusion you hold that justifies the state....

Do you comprehend the concept of Argument from Fallacy?
Fallacious arguments can arrive at true conclusions.
If you want to point out that someone's argument is fallacious, have at it!
But that doesn't excuse you from giving thoughtful insite as to whether their claim and/or conclusion is true. Scary, ain't it!

I'm just yet to see a non-fallicious argument presented...

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

If P, then Q.
P is a fallacious argument. <----------------------CONZA's LOGIC
Therefore, Q is false.

All great historical and philosophical arguments have probably been fallacious in some respect.
—David Hackett Fischer

 

[A Son of Liberty]

This thread, and this discussion in general, has gone completely off the rails...

 

[Jake Ralston]

This thread, and this discussion in general, has gone completely off the rails...

Care to explain?

 

[Conza88]

This thread, and this discussion in general, has gone completely off the rails...

Sad isn't it. But at times, also mildly hilarious... in a 'oh wowwww /facepalm' kind of way haha .

There is some sheer inability of these people to actually put forward a valid argument for the state... I mean, no-one has even tried to use social contract theory, public goods argument etc. Whilst being flawed arguments would ultimately be a step above the ______ adhominems and constant attacking of others characters as some kind of argument or rebuttal.

Care to explain?

You wouldn't understand.

Do you have an argument to make which you think is valid, on behalf of the state? Why is a monopoly and coercive institution justified?

 

[Jake Ralston]

Hey Conza.

Was post #494 as educational for you as it was for me?

Did you learn from it? Care to respond, or just dodge?

I know you don't like it when others dodge your posts!

I find it relevant to the OP because some may use what you claim to be a fallacy, yet still remain in the realm of truth.

If you want, I can open a new thread discussing the Fallacy Fallacy?

Just want to make sure you don't keep making the same illogical arguments over and over, that's all.

 

[Conza88]

Hey Conza.
Was post #494 as educational for you as it was for me?
Did you learn from it? Care to respond, or just dodge?
I know you don't like it when others dodge your posts!
I find it relevant to the OP because some may use what you claim to be a fallacy, yet still remain in the realm of truth.
If you want, I can open a new thread discussing the Fallacy Fallacy?
Just want to make sure you don't keep making the same illogical arguments over and over, that's all.

You do realise how retarded your post was, right? Nothing but a mindless lecture from an ignoramus. I will answer your one question posed.

"Do you comprehend the concept of Argument from Fallacy?"

I do. And what I've been doing; doesn't qualify. I've been shooting down fallacies from you guys for 50 odd pages... the arguments are invalid.

The conclusion of whether the state is justifiable or not; I'm still open to... i.e see the whole point of this thread. I am yet to see a legitimate no-fallicious reasoning presented, an actual argument that doesn't fail.. to be presented, so I can consider it.

And yet what I have just done is repeat what I already said. Nothing in your post was worth responding to. THAT you have the arrogance to think you have 'schooled' me, is beyond laughable.

Once again: two words:

​

Two words for you guys: The Dunning-Kruger effect. Justin Kruger & David Dunning. Unskilled and unaware of It: how difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments.

Journal of personality and social psychology
1999, vol.77, no.6, pp1121-1134
©1999 by American Psychological Association, Inc.

And....

[video=vimeo;24718582]http://www.vimeo.com/24718582[/video]​

Let's hope I see an actual argument in the next 50 pages or so...

 

[Jake Ralston]

Do you comprehend the concept of Argument from Fallacy?

I do. And what I've been doing; doesn't qualify.

I've been shooting down fallacies from you guys for 50 odd pages... the arguments are invalid.

You haven't been explaining why the arguments are invalid. Actually you have ... you title them each as a specific fallacy and therefore claim it's invalid.

But your wrong.​

You will no longer be simply writing people off because they give what you claim to be a fallacy. You will proving through fact and sound logic why they are wrong. The crutch has been removed. Every time you put forth a Fallacy Fallacy, I will be there to put you in check.
The intellectual dishonesty stops here.