Please convince me of statism!

[LibertyEagle]

So what?

Unless the very word "anarchist" is so terrifying as to cause the person who reads it to disregard the context and

You're kidding, right? Most people have a pre-conceived notion of what it means. But, that isn't even the point. The problem is Conza's claims about Ron Paul.

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

You must have missed the many times he has grouped everyone short of the dog catcher in under the label of anarchist.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Statists are all alike.

A little collectivist, don't you think?

 

[josh b]

I don't understand all the hate for anarchists on this thread, and why the philosophy is treated as counter-productive to the movement. Sure, it's a little early to start talking anarchy when you look at the state of our country, but it's an end-goal to many liberty minded people. I've come to accept that many people on these forums don't accept anarchism, and that's fine, but what is wrong with debate? The point of this thread was really to get people talking about why they believe what they believe, and providing reasons, but it quickly degraded into personal attacks. I seriously doubt that conza or anyone else on this site is out to harm the Ron Paul campaign, and I don't get how this discussion will be detrimental to his bid. Even if someone tried pulling up these threads as dirt (they'd be really desperate), look at what happened last time the media tried that. Remember the "KKK member donates to campaign" headlines? Remember what happened? People forgot, because as Ron said, his supporter's don't necessarily reflect his ideas.

Can't we all just get along*


*very cliche voice

This post is too reasonable. We can't have that.

The issue was debated to death a while ago on the forums. At this point it's all just personal vendettas.

 

[Mr.Magnanimous]

...

 

[PaulConventionWV]

You're kidding, right? Most people have a pre-conceived notion of what it means. But, that isn't even the point. The problem is Conza's claims about Ron Paul.



You must have missed the many times he has grouped everyone short of the dog catcher in under the label of anarchist.

The problem is that Conza uses Ron's own words and thinks they mean something he agrees with, but never takes into account the fact that, at the same time that Ron Paul says those words that seem like they would be supportive of liberty, he also believes in minimal government. So, when he uses Ron's words to support his position, he is using the words of someone who really holds that view and believes it is consistent with "statism" or the existence of minimal government.

He acts as if those words could only mean anarchy, when in fact someone can honestly say that and still believe in minarchy. So that just proves that Conza himself is not always logically consistent.

 

[ProIndividual]

I'm here to show my support for the thread...I'd love to see some good arguments for the monopolist coercive State that don't reduce themselves to logically fallacious banter.

And these threads are beneficial to us all regardless of whether you think we are right or not...all intelligent debate is good. So can we see some now?

Saying Ron isn't in favor of anything but small govt Statism is another logical fallacy...appeal to authority. We don't believe Ron is 100% correct, but we support him anyway. He goes in our direction. He knows this, as he is close with many anarchists like Dr. Tom Woods, Dr. Bob Murphy, etc., etc.

Like Reagan said (another small govt Statist most of us like somewhat) "if you agree on 80% of the issues, you're allies." This is known as the 80% rule.

We are all alies, just trying to have a good philosophical debate. So, can anyone make any arguments without logical fallacy to support Statism? I'd say it's impossible...but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try. Instead of throwing up your hands and falsely accusing us of hurting the campaign all the time, try defending your position as we do ours, and thereby allow people who read the thread to discern reasonably who is correct.

I mean, you really think Ron's stances on the Drug War are LESS offensive to the very uptight possible voter than the mere word 'anarchism'? Obviously if they are turned away by this mere word, they would have been turned away by the Drug War ideas anyway. This thread, and threads like it, are no more dangerous to the campaign than Ron's own stances...I'd argue less so.

We can't censore ourselves, when we aren't being ridiculous, to try and win over every uptight voter. Soccer mom's are going to vote for someone else regardless. But we may wake someone up to the philosophy of liberty. If someone who was a big govt conservative comes here and just one of our logical points sink in, it could start an intellectual chain reaction that, while rejecting anarchism, would lead them to embrace at least small government Statism, or better yet minarchy (they aren't the same thing, minarchism allows for others to be anarchists as minarchism is voluntary; some mistakenly seem to think the Constitution is minarchist - it isn't. It could have been considered so in some ways before the Civil War however, to be fair).

Our ideas might be farther out than yours, but if even one sinks in, it is a life changing experience for a big government Statist. How do I know?

I used to be Leftist big government loving tyrant...the only reason I support Ron Paul is because I found anarchism...otherwise I'd still be a Democrat drone. Be thankful some find anarchism...it can transform them from big government Statists into either small government Statists (it gives them a new standard to temper their beliefs against), minarchists (also tempered against our farther out ideas), or very rarely anarchists. Anyway way you look at it...the most important part is that they become Ron Paul supporters and free market capitalists. Everything else is just frosting on the cake.

Ron Paul 2012! (Let's not forget why we're here fellow State-haters)

Edit: another post makes it clear in an interview Ron isn't a small govt Statist (I thought he was...lol), he is in fact a self described voluntarist, or a voluntary government guy. I didn't know until now Ron was actually a minarchist, in the sense minarchism means voluntary government. Learn something new (and encouraging) everyday.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Thank you for this response!!

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.

Yes, that's an understandable concern, but:

Here are my answers to your questions in order:

1)

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.

There are historic examples of stateless societies surviving and thriving for years, even centuries. And in those cases (I'm not sure about Iceland, but specifically Ireland and the relative stateless "Wild" American West) a state did not spontaneously arise. Notedly in Ireland, it took centuries for the British to subdue the island through a mixed process of warfare, occupation, colonization and even breeding. The state was imposed through outside forces - and again, in the case of Ireland, this took literally centuries... nearly a millenium.

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.

Harmony hasn't exactly been a characteristic of society under the state, wouldn't you agree? In fact, the state possesses the capacity to create far, far greater disharmony and sheer violence than any private actor could ever hope.

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)

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.

Thank you. I've been waiting 18 pages for a supporter of the state to admit that support for the existence of the state must be made on a purely utilitarian basis, as there is no logically consistent, moral argument for it that I can find. I believe that is a very important acknowledgment, because it frames the state properly.

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.

Understandable view. Again for reference, see above.

I also tend to agree with the notion that removing the state from present society altogether would probably be pretty disastrous, especially in this country - the "land of the free". Man has become so dependent, and so compliant, yet so poor at social interaction, curiously.

Anyway, I just wanted to respond to a couple of things here - I know this response was directed to Wesker who'll do a far better job than I in responding, but it seems like the first real attempt at an honest, calm and reasoned counter-point to the discussion at hand. So, again, thanks!

 

[A Son of Liberty]

You're kidding, right? Most people have a pre-conceived notion of what it means. But, that isn't even the point. The problem is Conza's claims about Ron Paul.

I agree that most people have a pre-conceived notion of what it means. I did too, not very long ago. I did just a very little reading and as it turns out I survived. In fact, I became an even BIGGER Ron Paul supporter as a consequence.

I understand that people have a prejudices, but what we present here as an argument for anarchism is not what people usually think of. Even the very slightest bit of reading reveals this, so again unless people actually tremble with fear such that they can literally read no further after the mere encounter with the word "anarchy, -ist, -ism", I think this is a lot more drama than your average 7th grade girl would ordinarily conjure.

You must have missed the many times he has grouped everyone short of the dog catcher in under the label of anarchist.

I must have. Maybe you should have quoted him, then.

 

[ClayTrainor]

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.

This is the utiliatarian argument, which seems to be the fundamental argument you are imposing against anarchy in this post. Is this fair to say?

If not, what precisely is your principled argument from morality, against Anarchy?

1)

No, not really.

What do you mean by "Not really"? Does this mean that you agree that Anarchy is the correct argument with regards to the logic of morality?

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.

Again, This is the utilitarian argument, not an argument from first principles. i.e. If "Minimal" slavery seemed more realistic than abolishing slavery, this in no way effects the moral arguments for/against slavery.

2)

The state doesn't solve the problem, since the problem IS the state.

Good start. I 100% agree with the above.

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.

This is the utilitarian argument, not an argument from first principle. i.e. If "Minimal" slavery seemed more realistic than abolishing slavery, this in no way effects the moral arguments against slavery.

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.

To be fair, the bold above is not the fundamental argument I'm making. I am arguing that anarchy is the logical conclusion of first principles such as the Non-Aggression Principle and Self-Ownership.

On Moral Grounds, arguing for an organization financed by taxation is a direct violation of these principles. A utilitarian case can be made for Minimal Slavery, or minimal taxation, but a consistent logical and moral case cannot.

Do you acknowledge that your argument against anarchy is not an argument from first principles? If not, than what are the first principles you are reasoning from?

WHY do you think we've never seen it? There must be a reason for that.

The same fundamental reasons that prevented slavery from being abolished for thousands of years...

Why We Couldn't Abolish Slavery Then and Can't Abolish Government Now

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Oh - sorry, PaulConventionWV was responding to Clay, not Wesker... :o:

Nice post, Clay. Sorry for the wrong attribution.

On Moral Grounds, arguing for an organization financed by taxation is a direct violation of these principles. A utilitarian case can be made for Minimal Slavery, or minimal taxation, but a consistent logical and moral case cannot.

:thumbs:

 

[LibertyEagle]

I agree that most people have a pre-conceived notion of what it means. I did too, not very long ago. I did just a very little reading and as it turns out I survived. In fact, I became an even BIGGER Ron Paul supporter as a consequence.

I understand that people have a prejudices, but what we present here as an argument for anarchism is not what people usually think of. Even the very slightest bit of reading reveals this, so again unless people actually tremble with fear such that they can literally read no further after the mere encounter with the word "anarchy, -ist, -ism", I think this is a lot more drama than your average 7th grade girl would ordinarily conjure.

Again, your belief or discussion of anarchy in the Philosophy subforum isn't the issue. The issue is when a few call Ron Paul an anarchist, or claim that he is not running to win. The people who do this are playing with fire and are putting their own egos and agendas ahead of Ron Paul and his campaign. I think that is pretty easy to understand.

I must have. Maybe you should have quoted him, then.

Nope. He's done it numerous times. You go back and find them if you want to see them. I am not wasting my time looking through Conza's numerous walls of appealing to authority, to find them.

Seriously, if you honestly haven't seen him doing this, feel free to ask heavenlyboy. He has commented about him doing it.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Again, your belief or discussion of anarchy in the Philosophy subforum isn't the issue. The issue is when a few call Ron Paul an anarchist, or claim that he is not running to win. The people who do this are playing with fire and are putting their own egos and agendas ahead of Ron Paul and his campaign. I think that is pretty easy to understand.

Nope. He's done it numerous times. You go back and find them if you want to see them. I am not wasting my time looking through Conza's numerous walls of appealing to authority, to find them.

Seriously, if you honestly haven't seen him doing this, feel free to ask heavenlyboy. He has commented about him doing it.

I'm just saying that you replied to me, not to him.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I'm just saying that you replied to me, not to him.

Fair enough and if you don't believe he did it, then feel free to peruse his walls of text or just ask heavenlyboy.

 

[ClayTrainor]

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.

Great post! The question in bold really strikes down at the heart of the arguments for minarchy being presented in here...

 

[Conza88]

A little collectivist, don't you think?

"Statists are all alike"...

True, I'll be more specific - The statists who are participating in this thread are all alike. There we go, much more accurate. Even more specifically; all alike in their dodging, ad hominems and overall intellectual dishonesty. Better?

The problem is that Conza uses Ron's own words and thinks they mean something he agrees with, but never takes into account the fact that, at the same time that Ron Paul says those words that seem like they would be supportive of liberty, he also believes in minimal government. So, when he uses Ron's words to support his position, he is using the words of someone who really holds that view and believes it is consistent with "statism" or the existence of minimal government.

He acts as if those words could only mean anarchy, when in fact someone can honestly say that and still believe in minarchy. So that just proves that Conza himself is not always logically consistent.

​

4min+

What did I get wrong? I am all ears.

"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

Do you have Ron Paul's new book? Liberty Defined? Go to the section on Democracy and recommended reading.
~ Abolish Government by Lysander Spooner.
~ Democracy: The God that Failed by Hans Hermann Hoppe.

... so guys, are you going to continue trying to slander me, or will you try offer a legitimate justification for the state? lol.

 

[Conza88]

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

They accept the same principles and agree with them: aggression is bad, murder is wrong, theft is bad etc. Some people just make the mistake of accepting delusions and myths, because it's what they've been told. I don't call them crazy, or autistic, or insane though. And yet that's precisely what you say to me; as you fail epicly to even pretend to even address my posts or answer ANY question, all legitimate ones.

I gave you the Mises quote, but you ignored it. So here's something more on your level. Some advice:

 

[Jake Ralston]

I gave you the Mises quote, but you ignored it. So here's something more on your level. Some advice:

And you give her a Dave Chappelle GIF? You are so rude and inapropriate it's downright repulsive.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

You must have missed the part where she ignored everything he had to say and called him autistic, I guess?

 

[ClayTrainor]

You are so rude and inapropriate it's downright repulsive.

Coming from someone who says things like...

Haha nice one! But yea right on. Sometimes a good 2 minute ass-whooping will fix an attitude that could normally take years to correct. I can think of a few here on this forum that could sure use one. Perhaps then we would see a little more respect. As I was always taught:

Show respect for your elders.
Pride comes before the fall. There is always someone bigger and stronger than you.

20 years and half a dozen ass-whoopings later and i've learned a lot.

It sure doesn't mean much...

 

[Jake Ralston]

You must have missed the part where she ignored everything he had to say and called him autistic, I guess?

Right. So an eye for an eye then.