Please convince me of statism!

[A Son of Liberty]

Lemme take a stab at it: we have to have the state because people are bad. They rob, they steal, they kill. So we have to have an entity in society which enjoys authority over all other human beings to adjudicate over the robbing and killing of other human beings. How are we going to administer this entity, you ask? Well, with humans, obviously. Yes, that's correct - we are going to create an entity in human society with the authority to adjudicate theft and killing which will be populated with human beings.

What's the problem?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Lemme take a stab at it: we have to have the state because people are bad. They rob, they steal, they kill. So we have to have an entity in society which enjoys authority over all other human beings to adjudicate over the robbing and killing of other human beings. How are we going to administer this entity, you ask? Well, with humans, obviously. Yes, that's correct - we are going to create an entity in human society with the authority to adjudicate theft and killing which will be populated with human beings.

What's the problem?

You forgot to use Orwellian terminology.

 

[Travlyr]

Lemme take a stab at it: we have to have the state because people are bad. They rob, they steal, they kill. So we have to have an entity in society which enjoys authority over all other human beings to adjudicate over the robbing and killing of other human beings. How are we going to administer this entity, you ask? Well, with humans, obviously. Yes, that's correct - we are going to create an entity in human society with the authority to adjudicate theft and killing which will be populated with human beings.

What's the problem?

Of course, that is not what John Locke said, is it?

He called your definition of a state illegitimate. A state is not people. A state is a concept. Laws are not humans either. Government administrators who use laws to enforce the concept of a state is a legitimate state... according to Locke, Mises, Hume, Paul, Mason, and all the really smart liberty lovers in the world.

The aim of such a legitimate government is to preserve, so far as possible, the rights to life, liberty, health and property of its citizens, and to prosecute and punish those of its citizens who violate the rights of others and to pursue the public good even where this may conflict with the rights of individuals. In doing this it provides something unavailable in the state of nature, an impartial judge to determine the severity of the crime, and to set a punishment proportionate to the crime. This is one of the main reasons why civil society is an improvement on the state of nature. An illegitimate government will fail to protect the rights to life, liberty, health and property of its subjects, and in the worst cases, such an illegitimate government will claim to be able to violate the rights of its subjects, that is it will claim to have despotic power over its subjects. - John Locke

Or we can take your advice and just let the bad people keep killing and stealing.

 

[DamianTV]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Travlyr again.

Guess I better get to it.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Of course, that is not what John Locke said, is it?

He called your definition of a state illegitimate. A state is not people. A state is a concept. Laws are not humans either. Government administrators who use laws to enforce the concept of a state is a legitimate state... according to Locke, Mises, Hume, Paul, Mason, and all the really smart liberty lovers in the world.

Some really smart liberty lovers, but not ALL the really smart liberty lovers.

Can't believe you haven't been banned for your belligerence, Travlyr. I guess the standards are pretty low here. Whatever.

Or we can take your advice and just let the bad people keep killing and stealing.

That's your advice, obviously, since you advocate the creation of a super-social entity mysteriously made up of human beings who have the authority to kill and steal.

 

[Travlyr]

Some really smart liberty lovers, but not ALL the really smart liberty lovers.

Can't believe you haven't been banned for your belligerence, Travlyr. I guess the standards are pretty low here. Whatever.



That's your advice, obviously, since you advocate the creation of a super-social entity mysteriously made up of human beings who have the authority to kill and steal.

Yeah. I do happen to believe that Locke, Hume, Mises, Paul, Mason and millions upon millions of liberty lovers are smarter than you. I admit that.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Yeah. I do happen to believe that Locke, Hume, Mises, Paul, Mason and millions upon millions of liberty lovers are smarter than you. I admit that.

Appeal to authority. Logical fallacies are your forte.

 

[Travlyr]

Appeal to authority. Logical fallacies are your forte.

I confess. I think there are a lot of people a lot smarter than me. Not you, but a lot of people are.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Of course, that is not what John Locke said, is it?

He called your definition of a state illegitimate. A state is not people. A state is a concept. Laws are not humans either. Government administrators who use laws to enforce the concept of a state is a legitimate state... according to Locke, Mises, Hume, Paul, Mason, and all the really smart liberty lovers in the world.



Or we can take your advice and just let the bad people keep killing and stealing.

Mises was in favor of micro-secession and no friend of statism.

"The whole of mankinds progress has had to be achieved against the resistance and opposition of the state and its power of coercion." Liberalism, pg 58
"How fine the world would be if the State were free to cure all ills! It is one step only from such a mentality to the perfect totalitarianism of Stalin and Hitler." Beaurocracy, pg 7576
"Louis XIV was very frank and sincere when he said: I am the State. The modern etatist is modest. He says: I am the servant of the State; but, he implies, the State is God."
Bureaucracy, Beaurocracy, pg 7576
The state is a human institution, not a superhuman being. He who says state means coercion and compulsion. He who says: There should be a law concerning this matter, means: The armed men of the government should force people to do what they do not want to do, or not to do what they like. He who says: This law should be better enforced, means: the police should force people to obey this law. He who says: The state is God, deifies arms and prisons. Omnipotent Government, pg. 47

etc, etc, etc. Much more here.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

I confess. I think there are a lot of people a lot smarter than me. Not you, but a lot of people are.

In your assertion that there are a lot of people smarter than you, I could not agree more.

I personally have come across more intellectually compelling grade-schoolers.
I may not be "smarter" than you, Travlyr, depending upon one's definition of "smart". I'm not here to make such assertions, myself. My conclusions are logically and morally consistent, yet they seem to have escaped your intellect. Whatever you, I or anyone may think of our individual intellectual capacity, you have never made a successful counter to that position. That is readily apparent.

 

[Travlyr]

Mises was in favor of micro-secession and no friend of statism.

"The whole of mankinds progress has had to be achieved against the resistance and opposition of the state and its power of coercion." Liberalism, pg 58
"How fine the world would be if the State were free to cure all ills! It is one step only from such a mentality to the perfect totalitarianism of Stalin and Hitler." Beaurocracy, pg 7576
"Louis XIV was very frank and sincere when he said: I am the State. The modern etatist is modest. He says: I am the servant of the State; but, he implies, the State is God."
Bureaucracy, Beaurocracy, pg 7576
The state is a human institution, not a superhuman being. He who says state means coercion and compulsion. He who says: There should be a law concerning this matter, means: The armed men of the government should force people to do what they do not want to do, or not to do what they like. He who says: This law should be better enforced, means: the police should force people to obey this law. He who says: The state is God, deifies arms and prisons. Omnipotent Government, pg. 47

etc, etc, etc. Much more here.

I don't need anymore reading assignments from you guys. Answer me this: "What is micro-secession?"

 

[Travlyr]

In your assertion that there are a lot of people smarter than you, I could not agree more.

I personally have come across more intellectually compelling grade-schoolers.
I may not be "smarter" than you, Travlyr, depending upon one's definition of "smart". I'm not here to make such assertions, myself. My conclusions are logically and morally consistent, yet they seem to have escaped your intellect. Whatever you, I or anyone may think of our individual intellectual capacity, you have never made a successful counter to that position. That is readily apparent.

Which places you... where?

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Which places you... where?

Given that you've never mounted a successful intellectual counter-argument here? Ahead of you, obviously.

 

[Travlyr]

Given that you've never mounted a successful intellectual counter-argument here? Ahead of you, obviously.

You must have missed this post: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...es-for-his-Tampa-speech&p=4665662#post4665662

Or do you consider yourself to be the smartest liberty loving human being to have ever lived?

 

[A Son of Liberty]

You must have missed this post: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...es-for-his-Tampa-speech&p=4665662#post4665662

Or do you consider yourself to be the smartest liberty loving human being to have ever lived?

I recognize moral and logical consistency, Travlyr. This is a concept with which you most unfortunately struggle. I don't consider myself the smartest anything. I simply recognize some self-evident principles, which seem to evade you. You can grapple with the consequences of that all you like. I really don't care. You cannot challenge my assertions; in fact you have never tried. Your arguments typically amount to appeal to authority until you get frustrated, and then you resort to arguing against strawmen and ultimately name-calling and internet-bullying. I'm really not interested in having a discussion with you. I'm just enjoying the opportunity you're giving me to expose you for the intellectual fraud that you are. Thanks, by the way.

 

[Travlyr]

I recognize moral and logical consistency

If what you say is true, then you should be able to explain to the rest of us what this means. You said it ... explain in detail.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Because it would be the first time it'd been explained here in this forum? Right, Travlyr. It's been explained to you. In fact, it's been explained to you that it's been explained to you.

Here's where you say, "well gee I guess you can't explain yourself, so that means I'm right!"

:lol:

 

[Travlyr]

I recognize moral and logical consistency, Travlyr. This is a concept with which you most unfortunately struggle. I don't consider myself the smartest anything. I simply recognize some self-evident principles, which seem to evade you. You can grapple with the consequences of that all you like. I really don't care. You cannot challenge my assertions; in fact you have never tried. Your arguments typically amount to appeal to authority until you get frustrated, and then you resort to arguing against strawmen and ultimately name-calling and internet-bullying. I'm really not interested in having a discussion with you. I'm just enjoying the opportunity you're giving me to expose you for the intellectual fraud that you are. Thanks, by the way.

BTW... I am very impressed that you can read that post in 6 minutes, click the links, and understand it. Bravo!

 

[Travlyr]

Because it would be the first time it'd been explained here in this forum? Right, Travlyr. It's been explained to you. In fact, it's been explained to you that it's been explained to you.

Here's where you say, "well gee I guess you can't explain yourself, so that means I'm right!"

:lol:

Yes, indeed. That would be a first. Now you can go hide behind Mama's skirt instead of elaborating on what you meant with your gibberish.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Yes, indeed. That would be a first. Now you can go hide behind Mama's skirt instead of elaborating on what you meant with your gibberish.

Mama's skirt, Travlyr? That's you and the state. You're the one who's afraid to be a big boy and deal with the rest of us like an adult. You gotta have your mommy look out for you, because you're too afraid that someone like me is going to come and push you off your big wheel and take it from you. You're a coward. You're the one hiding behind your mama's skirt.