Please convince me of statism!

[A Son of Liberty]

lol what a joke...

 

[Conza88]

Every single individual who has participated in this thread [and doesn't consider Ron Paul a voluntarist] is or has been guilty of using this in the present/past: Argumentum ad nauseam.

Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repitition). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again. But no matter how many times you repeat something, it will not become any more or less true than it was in the first place. Of course, it is not a fallacy to state the truth again and again; what is fallacious is to expect the repitition alone to substitute for real arguments.

Nonetheless, this is a very popular fallacy in debate, and with good reason: the more times you say something, the more likely it is that the judge will remember it. The first thing they'll teach you in any public speaking course is that you should "Tell 'em what you're gonna tell 'em, then tell 'em, and then tell 'em what you told 'em." Unfortunately, some debaters think that's all there is to it, with no substantiation necessary! The appropriate time to mention argumentum ad nauseam in a debate round is when the other team has made some assertion, failed to justify it, and then stated it again and again. The Latin wording is particularly nice here, since it is evocative of what the opposition's assertions make you want to do: retch. "Sir, our opponents tell us drugs are wrong, drugs are wrong, drugs are wrong, again and again and again. But this argumentum ad nauseam can't and won't win this debate for them, because they've given us no justification for their bald assertions!"

Jake Ralston, do you have a valid argument that supports the concept of a state [as defined in the OP]?

 

[angelatc]

Don't need to convince you of it. That's kind of the point.

 

[Conza88]

Don't need to convince you of it. That's kind of the point.

 

[Jake Ralston]

Jake Ralston, do you have a valid argument that supports the concept of a state [as defined in the OP]?

Conza88, I don't have enough respect for you to loan even half an effort towards proving a concept, idea, or principle. Nor do I feel any obligation to do so.

I know you've been told this before, and once you even acknowledged it. You are a terrible salesman. The "product" (idea, whatever) you are selling is not in the least bit appealing to the vast majority of humans. In your mind, it is perfectly logical and moral. Most disagree with you. The odds are stacked heavily against you, and you know it. To be blunt about it, you will never find your utopian Anarchy. You will spend your years reading about it, arguing and debating, and then going home banging your head against the wall in frustration. So much dedication, effort and time spent towards something you will never see come to fruition. But hey, maybe your laying the framework down for future generations, right? Which brings me back to my first point, your a terrible salesman. Your not helping the cause of Anarchy. There are a few reasons why you come here to the RPForums to unleash your rage:

1. Libertarians and Ron Paul supporters alike are some of the most intellectually honest people in the world. They know and care about politics.
2. The above mentioned cherish liberty and limited government, which in most cases is a few steps short of your goal.

You know you don't even stand a chance at converting the normal "sheeple" of the world. The people that follow the status quo, suck off the teet of the entitlement system, don't give a rats ass about politics, or even care to discuss it.

So you come here, with your condiscending attitude, your smartass remarks, your fallacies, your "logic" and "facts" and "intellectual honesty", your 90 minute youtube videos and 200 page articles, and everything else that comes with it. Yet you still fail.

One of these days you will need to acknowledge that those of us who decide we don't like your idea, simply don't want it. There is no arguing about it, no PROVING to you that our personal views of the State are justified in some way that makes sense to you. Anarchy is a no-go, and thats final.

So what does that mean for me (us)?

We are the following:

1. Intellectually dishonest.
2. Close minded.
3. Ignorant.
4. Lost.
5. Bound by fallacies.
6. ?
7. ?
8. ?

I left a few openings for you to insert any vocabulary that you see fit. But it doesn't matter. If we don't care about you or your ideas, we don't care which vocabulary you use to describe us. And it really shouldn't matter to you anyways, because you failed. You need people to join your cause. And when for whatever reason they don't, thats a failure on your end.

So what are you going to do about it? Keep spam posting? Keep spitting venom? Keep linking 90 minute youtube videos and 200 page blogs?

How about man-up and move on.

Try talking about Ron Paul and what your doing to help him get elected. Talk about activism or donating money to the cause. Find areas you can agree with people on and appreciate that, expand on it. Make friends from different walks of life. Broaden your horizons.

Or are you consumed by insanity? Trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?

 

[Conza88]

Do you still do drugs Jake?

Fallacy: Ad Hominem

"Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."...

Jake Ralston, do you have a valid argument that supports the concept of a state [as defined in the OP]?

No? Then be man enough to admit you have no legitimate basis for your beliefs... don't hide behind an irrational & invective filled diatribe... which has nothing to do with the OP.

 

[libertyjam]

The fact that you have no arguments - means you then move onto the question of strategy... which is completely irrelevant. That discussion is something that can be had elsewhere if it is so wished.

.

I don't believe that there are no arguments, just there are no arguments that you accept. Also it is false to claim that just because no arguments have been made directly to you, that there are no arguments.

 

[Conza88]

I don't believe that there are no arguments, just there are no arguments that you accept. Also it is false to claim that just because no arguments have been made directly to you, that there are no arguments.

Excuse me? Lmao! . Yeah, and it's a strawman to attribute that claim to me. Please link and quote me the arguments made that justify the existence of the state in this thread. What did I miss?

Regardless of their non-existence, can you please go ahead and provide those arguments you contend as existing and we will use reason & logic to see if they are valid.

 

[libertyjam]

Jake Ralston, do you have a valid argument that supports the concept of a state [as defined in the OP]?

I had to go back and see what this concept of the state as defined in the OP is, and I daresay most reject the definition out of hand, it contains so many errors.
Nor will I and I suspect most others waste time even arguing about it, there are much more important fish to fry for most . It may make an interesting discussion someday pointing out all the fallacies of Hans-Herman Hoppe and his faulty premises, and maybe someone will take you up on it, provided of course you are someone a person actually could have a rational discourse with and not merely the cudgel beating with words type that we see with others here.

 

[Conza88]

I had to go back and see what this concept of the state as defined in the OP is, and I daresay most reject the definition out of hand, it contains so many errors.
Nor will I and I suspect most others waste time even arguing about it, there are much more important fish to fry for most . It may make an interesting discussion someday pointing out all the fallacies of Hans-Herman Hoppe and his faulty premises, and maybe someone will take you up on it, provided of course you are someone a person actually could have a rational discourse with and not merely the cudgel beating with words type that we see with others here.

Oh great... so you didn't even read the OP before commenting? You just decided to weigh-in, in a state of ignorance? That's exactly what you just admitted.

*sigh*.

Why am I not surprised by this response?

What errors? What on earth is wrong with it? All I am after in this world is the truth. It's the reason I currently hold this intellectual position, I think what I accept is. And yet that is always the case for most people, so the key is being intellectually honest with an open mind. Premises often need to be questioned. I once believed what you do [check this forum, the posts would still be there]. I was shown the contradictions I held, and so I moved to the better argument. I don't like being wrong.. so when that happens I am easy in accepting that and acknowledging it, because then I won't have to be again [until someone else presents a better argument that refutes my position], and so on it goes.

And yet... surely if I'm acting like a pompous ass-clown [as some would no doubt content] & surely if those exact same people had reason, logic, evidence and truth on their side - they'd be able to show me the error of my ways & school me like there is no tomorrow, to put my ignorant & arrogant ass in it's proper place.

But it's not like they've even tried... perhaps it's because deep down they know... there is no justification for the state. Or is there? , I'm all ears .

 

[newbitech]

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".

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".

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.

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.

Not sure why you need to be convinced. If you want someone to convince you that it is right, the Hannity forums would probably be a good place to get something more substantial.

 

[angelatc]

Ladies and gentlemen, I rest my case.

 

[ClayTrainor]

Don't need to convince you of it. That's kind of the point.

Ladies and gentlemen, I rest my case.

Who needs "convincing" when you have the state on your side, eh?

 

[Conza88]

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..

 

[Conza88]

Ladies and gentlemen, I rest my case.

. And what 'case' is it that you are resting? Please elaborate and explain your position - so that it is actually coherent.

 

[CCTelander]

Who needs "convincing" when you have the state on your side, eh?

A gun shoved in one's face can be VERY "convincing."

 

[Conza88]

 

[heavenlyboy34]

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Conza88 again." IOU a +rep for that awesome pic^^^, Conza.

 

[Anti Federalist]

True, that, and it's only taken roughly 500 years to wash the idea that cutting people's hearts out for the benefit of the ruling class is good, from the mass consciousness.

We made a pretty historic leap forward right here, for all our faults, but went off the rails about 100 years ago.

So, let's turn around on the path back to get back to that point where things went wrong, and then continue onward from there.

Trying to get back to point A from this point, 1-A, (that being where we are right now in bizarro world) would shred the space-time continuum.

 

[Bman]

Who needs "convincing" when you have the state on your side, eh?

You beat me to it. That's how you convince someone. Not everyone, I certainly doubt Conza, but that's what your up against.