Please convince me of statism!

[Jake Ralston]

Seriously, if you're not interested in discussing the philosophical justification for the state, and all the consequences thereof, please give it a rest.

I understand that Conza bothers some of the minarchists around here. I don't personally care why, but I do think that this - even after 16 pages - has the potential to be an interesting discussion if someone - anyone - would be willing to take up his challenge rather than to make the thread about his perceived personality flaws. At this point I'm even willing to see someone play devil's advocate...

The point is, it doesn't matter. None of it matters at all. Thats why I don't get involved in the quagmire of Anarchism vs Statism. Yes this is a sub-forum of RPF. But this is RPF. Don't anyone ever forget that.

The reason people go after Conza personally is because he spews out blasphemies about the man we work so hard to support. He twists certain quotes and adds his own wording to try and make it sound like RP is an Anarchist. That couldn't be further from the truth. Has the man made mention of certain philosophical ideals towards voluntarism? Yes, on one or two occasions. But reality check folks, he is running for head of the state. He will restore our Consitutional liberties.

I defend RP and his character. I will not stand by idle and allow Conza to degrade him. I will not allow innocent bystanders to stumble into this thread and get the wrong idea about RP. I will not allow one of Conza's posts to be tweeted and then reported as fact in the MSM. That would potentially destroy RP's campaign. Yes, that is how dangerous Conza is.

The least I can do is debunk Conza (and others if necessary) in this thread, so that people won't be led too far astray.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

The point is, it doesn't matter.

No. That's not the point. The "point" is the OP. If the discussion in the OP doesn't interest you or "matter" to you, please bow out of the thread!

None of it matters at all. Thats why I don't get involved in the quagmire of Anarchism vs Statism.

:facepalm: But, see, YOU ARE INVOLVED IN THE QUAGMIRE OF ANARCHISM VS STATISM. THAT IS THE DISCUSSION GOING ON IN THIS THREAD. IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO BE INVOLVED, PUT YOUR KEYBOARD WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS AND MAKE THIS YOUR LAST POST.

Yes this is a sub-forum of RPF. But this is RPF. Don't anyone ever forget that.

'kay. Thanks.

The reason people go after Conza personally is because he spews out blasphemies about the man we work so hard to support. He twists certain quotes and adds his own wording to try and make it sound like RP is an Anarchist. That couldn't be further from the truth. Has the man made mention of certain philosophical ideals towards voluntarism? Yes, on one or two occasions. But reality check folks, he is running for head of the state. He will restore our Consitutional liberties.

I'm guessing that you do not know Conza personally? If that is the case, I would be careful about making assumptions about him.

I get that people don't care for Conza's take on Ron Paul's views. You have your take, he has his, I have mine, and everyone else has theirs. The reality is, as I've said before, none of us know precisely what Dr. Paul's views are. He's said and done things that justify both perceptions. I do not see the harm in having the discussion, myself, but on that basis the declarations that Ron IS or ISN'T something are unfounded. They are assumptions, not facts. You do not *know* that Ron is not a voluntaryist any more than Conza *knows* he is.

I defend RP and his character. I will not stand by idle and allow Conza to degrade him.

No, you're defending your IMPRESSION of Ron Paul. Unless Ron called and said, "Hey Jake - do me a favor and get into that thread and defend me against that bastard Conza!", you're just tilting at windmills.

I will not allow innocent bystanders to stumble into this thread and get the wrong idea about RP. I will not allow one of Conza's posts to be tweeted and then reported as fact in the MSM. That would potentially destroy RP's campaign. Yes, that is how dangerous Conza is.

Anyone could tweet anything they want to about Ron. A thread on a hidden subforum is the least of the worries of the campaign.

As to this notion that the mere usage of the word "anarchy" in a thread in a hidden subforum being detrimental to the campaign... come on. I'll respect the mods as overseers of the owners property, and if they decide to ban the discussion, that's their prerogative. But the notion that a potential voter might wander into this discussion and merely see the word anarchy - without any consideration of the discussion & context going on around that word - and run screaming over to MittRomneyForums is laughable.

Additionally, it is off-topic of the thread.

The least I can do is debunk Conza (and others if necessary) in this thread, so that people won't be led too far astray.

The least you could do in this thread is make a logically consistent argument on behalf of statism. You haven't. If you think Conza should be warned or banned, flag a comment of his and notify the mods. If you just don't like Conza, stay away from his threads/posts. I believe there is an ignore feature. Otherwise, address the OP, or leave the thread.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

To further address this idea that the media is going to "run" with seeing the word "anarchy, -ism, -ist" used in a thread in a hidden subforum:

Ron Paul has himself - in print in his books and in interviews - mentioned that he reads lewrockwell.com everyday. From the LRC store, one may in the same purchase have the following two items delivered to their home:

(In fact, now that I think about it, I may do just that myself! ).

This is not to suggest that Ron is an anarchist, or a voluntaryist; merely that it is quite clear that 1, Ron Paul does not disavow those who do openly take those positions, and 2, that if the media wanted to make an issue of this, they'd hardly need to look for it here.

 

[LibertyEagle]

You do not *know* that Ron is not a voluntaryist any more than Conza *knows* he is.

I know that he's not an anarchist. How do I know that? I know that because he has said flat out that he is not.

I also know that because I have read his articles and speeches for over 20 years. Many of those articles and books were about the need to reinstate the Constitution. His entire campaign is based upon this premise.

So, for someone, anyone to claim over and over and over again, on a forum that bears Dr. Paul's name, that Dr. Paul is an anarchist, rather than the Champion of the Constitution that he calls himself, is more than suspect as to their goals.

 

[LibertyEagle]

To further address this idea that the media is going to "run" with seeing the word "anarchy, -ism, -ist" used in a thread in a hidden subforum:

It's not so hidden. All someone has to do is become a member and hit New Posts.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

In your view, almost all people seem severely misguided. Isn't that true?

If all people are severely misguided, how is that conducive to anarchy? Hmmm?? (I'm not asking you, angelatc.)

 

[ClayTrainor]

I also know that because I have read his articles and speeches for over 20 years. Many of those articles and books were about the need to reinstate the Constitution. His entire campaign is based upon this premise.

That's part of how he plays the political game, yes... but politics is different than reality, and Ron Paul also takes the time to be realistic...

"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

"Governments by their very nature, notoriously compete with liberty, even when the stated purpose for establishing a particular government is to protect liberty." - Ron Paul, Introduction to Liberty Defined

So, for someone, anyone to claim over and over and over again, on a forum that bears Dr. Paul's name, that Dr. Paul is an anarchist, rather than the Champion of the Constitution that he calls himself, is more than suspect as to their goals.

Dr. Paul can and does speak for himself.

]

​

ADAM KOKESH: So you've described yourself as a voluntarist. Can you tell us what that means for the big picture, and what your ideal society would be, as a voluntarist?

RON PAUL: Voluntary means no coercion. So if you want to change people's habits or change the world you should do it by setting examples and trying to persuade people to do it. You can use force only when somebody uses force against you. So voluntary use of information and persuading people, I think, is the best way to go; and no matter what kind of problem you're looking at.

(Go to 4m5s)



MHD: "What do you say to people who advocate for self-government rather than a return to the Constitution? Just like ..."

Ron Paul: "Great. Fine. And I think that's really what my goal is."

 

[ClayTrainor]

If all people are severely misguided, how is that conducive to anarchy? Hmmm?? (I'm not asking you, angelatc.)

If men are severely misguided, than what makes them capable of the government of others?

If men are good, than they need no government. If men are bad, than governments of men, composed of men will be bad and probably worse due to the states amplification of coercive power. Most anarcho-capitalists believe that some men are good and some aren't, and there will always be some crime.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

If men are severely misguided, than what makes them capable of the government of others?

If men are good, than they need no government. If men are bad, than governments of men, composed of men will be bad and probably worse due to the states amplification of coercive power. Most anarcho-capitalists believe that some men are good and some aren't, and there will always be some crime.

That's exactly the problem. If people are severely misguided, someone is inevitably going to try, and other people are inevitably going to jump on the bandwagon. So, even in a perfect anarchist world, it will not last because some people will form a state where there was none before and claim it is for the good of "society." It's that easy to defeat anarchy. It just will never last. People want to cooperate with their fellow man to achieve more than they could by themselves. They form cults, organizations, and other such things. They will never be satisfied to live for their own freedom because they will always want more from someone else.

Either you can take away people's liberties (the unthinkable according to the framers), or you can deal with the effects. Minarchist governments aren't perfect or even good, but a necessary evil. A minarchist society can be maintained with strict guidelines, such as the Constitution, that limit its ability to compete with liberty. However, this can only be achieved through an educated populace. That is what we are attempting to do now, and I think we all agree it has more of a chance of happening than even 5% of the populace being willing to embrace anarchy. All it takes is a very small portion of people to ruin anarchism. It takes much more to override a system that is already in place. Anarchy would be nice, but those who think it is a feasible or realistic idea or hold it for any reason other than an entertaining notion, are naive at best.

Also, please learn how to use "than" and "then." That's just a little pet peeve of mine. If x, *then* y. It's not, If x, than y. Than is always used to refer to something that is more extreme than something else. X is more ____ than y. X is ____er than y.

 

[Wesker1982]

If men are severely misguided, than what makes them capable of the government of others?

If men are good, than they need no government. If men are bad, than governments of men, composed of men will be bad and probably worse due to the states amplification of coercive power. Most anarcho-capitalists believe that some men are good and some aren't, and there will always be some crime.

Another point that the advocates of limited government have yet to address is:

How can a population be educated and virtuous enough to achieve a limited government, but then claim that these very same people who have established a limited government are too evil or dumb to voluntarize everything?

The point is that once a limited government is achieved, it will be impossible to claim that the majority of people are too ignorant or evil for voluntaryism. Essentially, this makes limited government as an end goal illogical (because at this point voluntaryism is achievable). If mostly everyone respects property rights (proven by the fact that limited government was achieved in the first place through a non-violent revolution), you cannot simultaneously claim that these very same people are incapable of a respect for property.

If you get enough people to accept limited government, then it would be proof that an overwhelming majority of people have had a profound revelation in regards to libertarian philosophy and economics. It would be a contradiction to say that this very same society is incapable of respecting life and property.

Thus, it makes perfect sense that Ron Paul advocates the limited government position in his education* campaign with an end goal (like he has said himself) of a voluntary society. He knows that once enough people advocate achieving a limited government through *non-violent* means, then this means people overwhelmingly advocate liberty and a voluntary society is likely to be established.

*The situation would not be the same as it was during the first experiment with limited government, because obviously not enough people advocated true liberty before the Revolution. If they did, we wouldn't be where we are today. This is why he holds education above all of his other goals. If we have a violent revolution with an ignorant population then they will just return to the same failed philosophies.

 

[ClayTrainor]

That's exactly the problem. If people are severely misguided, someone is inevitably going to try, and other people are inevitably going to jump on the bandwagon.

That's not really an answer to my question, and the rest of your post is just a rant about how correct your position is, and how "naive" anarchy is... but i'll do ya the courtesy of responding to your points anyways... (would appreciate an answer to the question, though)

If men are severely misguided, than what makes them capable of the government of others?

So, even in a perfect anarchist world, it will not last because some people will form a state where there was none before and claim it is for the good of "society."

It's logically true that a state can form in an anarchic society, and it's also logically true that Slavery can form in a society without slavery, but let me ask you this... does that somehow effect the moral arguments for/against slavery and the state?

It's that easy to defeat anarchy. It just will never last. People want to cooperate with their fellow man to achieve more than they could by themselves. They form cults, organizations, and other such things. They will never be satisfied to live for their own freedom because they will always want more from someone else.

Ill give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume what you're saying here is true...

So, explain to me how a state will solve this problem instead of making it worse?

What kind of men do you think tend to gravitate towards an organization with the power to lay and collect taxes on other people?

A minarchist society can be maintained with strict guidelines, such as the Constitution, that limit its ability to compete with liberty.

"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

"Governments by their very nature, notoriously compete with liberty, even when the stated purpose for establishing a particular government is to protect liberty." - Ron Paul, Introduction to Liberty Defined

That is what we are attempting to do now, and I think we all agree it has more of a chance of happening than even 5% of the populace being willing to embrace anarchy. All it takes is a very small portion of people to ruin anarchism. statism

Fixed.

It takes much more to override a system that is already in place. Anarchy would be nice, but those who think it is a feasible or realistic idea or hold it for any reason other than an entertaining notion, are naive at best.

Not once throughout history has a government ever stayed limited. Even the US "Constitutional government" experiment has resulted in arguably the largest state in world history. It is utopian and naive to think that an organization financed through taxes will "stay limited" or "serve to protect liberty". Ron Paul understands this...

"Governments by their very nature, notoriously compete with liberty, even when the stated purpose for establishing a particular government is to protect liberty." - Ron Paul, Introduction to Liberty Defined

On the other hand....

If men are good, than they need no government. If men are bad, than governments of men, composed of men will be bad and probably worse due to the states amplification of coercive power. Most anarcho-capitalists believe that some men are good and some aren't, and there will always be some crime. This is hardly utopian or "naive". It is merely a recognition of human nature.


p.s. I put all of my questions in italics.... I would appreciate answers to the questions I asked, before you further respond to the other points I made.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

I know that he's not an anarchist. How do I know that? I know that because he has said flat out that he is not.

I also know that because I have read his articles and speeches for over 20 years. Many of those articles and books were about the need to reinstate the Constitution. His entire campaign is based upon this premise.

So, for someone, anyone to claim over and over and over again, on a forum that bears Dr. Paul's name, that Dr. Paul is an anarchist, rather than the Champion of the Constitution that he calls himself, is more than suspect as to their goals.

In the particular bit of text you quoted, the word "voluntaryist" was used.

Ron has said many things. None of us know what his underlying philosophy is because as far as any of us know, none of us know Ron personally and intimately.

And yet again, here we are discussing something completely irrelevant to the OP.

 

[ClayTrainor]

Also, please learn how to use "than" and "then." That's just a little pet peeve of mine. If x, *then* y. It's not, If x, than y. Than is always used to refer to something that is more extreme than something else. X is more ____ than y. X is ____er than y.

Thanks! I'll be sure to try and be more conscious of that. I actually really appreciate people who correct my grammar... I know I can be pretty sloppy with it sometimes, and would like to correct that a bit.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

It's not so hidden. All someone has to do is become a member and hit New Posts.

So what?

Unless the very word "anarchist" is so terrifying as to cause the person who reads it to disregard the context and discussion involving it, such that they are so intellectually stunted as to actually feel fear at just the mere sight of the word by itself, is it REALLY that big of a deal? Or is the case we're making in this and other threads in this sub-forum so complicated as to be completely indecipherable to a person that they might read that word and yet not be able to comprehend the context and discussion around it? Do a majority of people read a word and instantly, without concern to context, associate it with brick-throwers in Seattle and Pittsburgh?

If this is the level of confidence you have in your fellow GOP voter, I submit that the fight is well since lost, LE.

Again, the media has their fodder if they want it, provided by Dr. Paul himself. And if a GOP voter is so disabled by a word without regard to the discussion it's used in, it's already over.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

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

:thumbs:

 

[Wesker1982]

So what?

+1

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...Other-(POLL)&p=3443682&viewfull=1#post3443682

 

[newbitech]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...-of-statism!&p=3452742&viewfull=1#post3452742

can we get a counter on how many times a video has been posted at this site? I think that is what the anarchist are trying to accomplish.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?305625-Please-convince-me-of-statism!&p=3452742&viewfull=1#post3452742

can we get a counter on how many times a video has been posted at this site? I think that is what the anarchist are trying to accomplish.

Unclear grammatical subject. What is the "that" in this case? /curious

 

[Mr.Magnanimous]

...

 

[PaulConventionWV]

That's not really an answer to my question, and the rest of your post is just a rant about how correct your position is, and how "naive" anarchy is... but i'll do ya the courtesy of responding to your points anyways... (would appreciate an answer to the question, though)







It's logically true that a state can form in an anarchic society, and it's also logically true that Slavery can form in a society without slavery, but let me ask you this... does that somehow effect the moral arguments for/against slavery and the state?



Ill give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume what you're saying here is true...

So, explain to me how a state will solve this problem instead of making it worse?

What kind of men do you think tend to gravitate towards an organization with the power to lay and collect taxes on other people?



"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

"Governments by their very nature, notoriously compete with liberty, even when the stated purpose for establishing a particular government is to protect liberty." - Ron Paul, Introduction to Liberty Defined



Fixed.



Not once throughout history has a government ever stayed limited. Even the US "Constitutional government" experiment has resulted in arguably the largest state in world history. It is utopian and naive to think that an organization financed through taxes will "stay limited" or "serve to protect liberty". Ron Paul understands this...

"Governments by their very nature, notoriously compete with liberty, even when the stated purpose for establishing a particular government is to protect liberty." - Ron Paul, Introduction to Liberty Defined

On the other hand....

If men are good, than they need no government. If men are bad, than governments of men, composed of men will be bad and probably worse due to the states amplification of coercive power. Most anarcho-capitalists believe that some men are good and some aren't, and there will always be some crime. This is hardly utopian or "naive". It is merely a recognition of human nature.


p.s. I put all of my questions in italics.... I would appreciate answers to the questions I asked, before you further respond to the other points I made.

The problem here is that you say no government has ever stayed limited. I completely agree with that, and it is historically true. Neither have we seen anarchy ever successfully carry on. It is just as likely, if not more likely, to evolve into totalitarianism. So, even at best, it is no better than minarchism.

Here are my answers to your questions in order:

1)

does that somehow effect the moral arguments for/against slavery and the state?

No, not really. However, it does nullify the support for anarchy. Anarchy can never be achieved. Minarchism has been achieved, although it hasn't lasted. Still, that's a far cry better than hoping for some utopian world that will never happen. I'm a realist, and I recognize that anarchy will never satisfy people, and thus will never last. I don't see anything inherently wrong with anarchy because there is really no collective action to speak out against as wrong. However, that doesn't really affect the fact that people will never cooperate in such away as to make a harmonious anarchic society. Someone will want power, and they will get it one way or another. The problem is, that there is no position of power that would prevent this rise if people wanted it to happen, which they inevitably will at some point.

2)

So, explain to me how a state will solve this problem instead of making it worse?

The state doesn't solve the problem, since the problem IS the state. What I am saying is that the state is going to arise one way or another. Anarchy is not practical and will never last. There will be a state at some point. You can either control the effects, or you can take away people's liberties. Controlling the effects seems to be the only real option. I never said the state was a morally good thing. I said it was a necessary evil. That's the way Thomas Paine viewed it. He knew that people would always want some form of government, and in a way, it would be desirable. On the other hand, people who gained power would always seek more. Therefore, we had to have honest people found a government that was based on righteous principles to prevent the degrading of society into following whatever ruler was the flavor of the month. That's what would happen in anarchy, it would just be a series of oppressions and totalitarian governments. It's much easier to form a government where there was none in the name of the common good than it is to override a system that is based on giving people their freedom. It's evil in itself, but it's necessary because anarchy simply was not an option, it is not, and never will be.

3)

What kind of men do you think tend to gravitate towards an organization with the power to lay and collect taxes on other people?

What kind of men? Anyone who feels it would be in their interest to do so, if they were given the opportunity. It doesn't really matter who, but it does matter that there are a lot of those people who exist. Anarchy is never going to work because other people are going to agree that they need an authority figure and some people like that are going to offer that to them. Surely you can see that many people will prefer this based on their situation, no matter how logically sound it seems to just live for yourself. People think independence is great until they find themselves in trouble and they need someone reliable. I'm not saying the state can offer this, but I'm saying the state will inevitably arise as a result of people feeling this way. You just cannot prevent it by appealing to logic.

Like I said, I can't argue against anarchy because there is no collective action to argue against. Therefore, my opinion of it is neutral, especially since I have never seen anarchy in action, nor would I know it if I saw it. I doubt you would, either. That's because it is imaginary. Anarchy is simply a product of the mind trying to make up various scenarios, and trying to purify things to the form where they operate perfectly. However, I recognize that we live in a fallen world, one where people will face trouble based on their own behavior and will do crazy things because all they care about is finding their next meal. If they don't want to do it themselves, they will relegate someone else to the task, thus creating government. Pure anarchy isn't bad because immoral people would be free in such a scenario, it is bad because it does nothing to prevent people from usurping power where it is readily available and exploiting others on a much more massive scale than would ever happen with personal liberty. Yes, governments tend toward totalitarianism, but so does anarchy. It's no better than the state because it allows the state.

It's like you say the state is evil because we've all seen it tend toward totalitarianism, and then you say anarchy is better simply becaus we've never seen it. However, that's exactly my point. WHY do you think we've never seen it? There must be a reason for that.