Please convince me of statism!

[CCTelander]

Chris, if you are serious about your philosophy, then why not be completely open and honest?

Start a chip-in to grow your movement on TV, radio, newsprint or some sort.

Something like this:
Anarchists Wanted
As anarchists we want to eliminate the State. We want to destroy the U.S. Constitution and the Constitutions of the 50 States in America. We have a better idea. Join us today.

I'm pretty sure that most homeowners will be like WTF? But, if you are honest... that is your goal, right?

I already AM completely open and honest about my philosophy.

This post seems like a veiled accusation of dishonesty to me.

But hey, carry on.

 

[ClayTrainor]

I already AM completely open and honest about my philosophy.

This post seems like a veiled accusation of dishonesty to me.

But hey, carry on.

Get ready for his "put up or shut up" argument. My voluntaryist spidey sense is tingling.

 

[Travlyr]

I already AM completely open and honest about my philosophy.

This post seems like a veiled accusation of dishonesty to me.

But hey, carry on.

What is dishonest about it?

 

[CCTelander]

Get ready for his "put up or shut up" argument. My voluntaryist spidey sense is tingling.

ROTFL! "Voluntaryist Spidey Sense!

 

[CCTelander]

Get ready for his "put up or shut up" argument. My voluntaryist spidey sense is tingling.

double post

 

[CCTelander]

What is dishonest about it?

It seemed to be accusing ME of dishonesty.

But like I said, carry on.

 

[Travlyr]

It seemed to be accusing ME of dishonesty.

But like I said, carry on.

Oh no. I was simply referring to the fact that if your philosophy is valid, then you should have no problem promoting it rather than defending it.

 

[Conza88]

so what lew rockwell? Back to Conza. You accuse people of engaging in mythology, of being "guilty" of something since they support the Constitution as a means of limiting government.

I hold the exact same position as him. No, I get people to question the validity of their position - who think the Constitution is an END GOAL. Which as we both know is demented; and why the good Dr. doesn't accept it... for the reasons he has outlined many times.

You accuse Ron Paul of the same, BUT WAIT! You have a couple of out of context quotes from Ron Paul that allows you to give him a pass on this while burying everyone else who agrees with him.

It has been pointed out time and time again that you are using Ron Paul's words out of context, yet you CONTINUE TO DO SO! What is wrong with you?

The fact they're not out of context... the fact that I'm merely linking to a Ron Paul interview where he EXPLICITLY SPELLS IT OUT.

​

4+min ... you know; there is a reason why you "guys" have never addressed this video; and instead pretend it doesn't exist.

Ron Paul makes the anarcho-capitalist/voluntarist/self-government argument right after where he says he supports self-government INSTEAD of a return to the constitution. His end goal is self-government.

So you have a youtube channel. Great! I have a list of people IN THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA who I have either persuaded or in the process of persuading OR ALL to either

1.) Switch party affiliation during the primaries to vote for Ron Paul
2.) Donate money to the Ron Paul FOR PRESIDENT campaign
3.) Actively go out in to the world, jobs, grocery stores, beaches, parks, to engage in the discussion of liberty and freedom IN AMERICA
4.) Completely changed their minds on a host of issues

So my list vs your Youtube channel? I'll take my list all day every day. I'm not the one who started measuring dicks for Ron Paul. This is your fall back that you used 4 years ago. It's like you have to put up this facade of support for Dr. Paul in order to legitimize your asinine anarchist position.

My 1,000,000 youtube views, with tons of testimonials thanking for the Obama video I made that compares him to RP.. which is still bearing fruit. The video helping promote tips to on how to properly sell liberty? The passionate video supporting not giving up at the end of the last campaign? The numerous interviews of Ron Paul's I personally was able to market to get viral by getting them all on the prominent RP/Libertarian sites at the same time? The video attacking McCain and giving the RP alternative?

Let's say, for the sake of argument only 1% of the people who viewed any of my videos changed their mind... after being exposed to the liberty message... that's 10,000 people.

YOUR List versus my youtube? LOL!!!

And what.. you've probably barely even reached 1% of THAT? Compare e-penises? Bro, you're the one who is claiming I'm attacking America etc.. full of your bs rants, with a sad inability to distinguish between nation and nation-state. What a joke.

Here is a clue. Start a movement in your own back yard. Get a local meetup going somewhere in australia and find the best most consistent politician you can to fight for YOUR countries founding documents and RULE OF LAW. Then I will be impressed and be convinced that you have actually DONE something for liberty where it counts.

YOUR OWN BACK YARD!

Get a clue? You are so hilariously ignorant... I don't need to showcase what I am doing down under. If considering what I've done for another country; such as yours.. wtf do you think I may have done in my own? Your opinion / thoughts about me, I couldn't care less about.

So now you have changed what you wrote and I quoted after you wrote it. Tailoring your words.

Call me nationalistic will ya? Go look up what your hero Rothbard has to say about this in National Self-Determination, maybe then you'll understand why your attack against me on that front falls flat.

And it's too bad you aren't willing to address ALL of my post to you. You call it childish simpleton whatever. Par for the course for you. You can pick and choose all you want, but changing context doesn't change circumstance.

No, check time and edit stamps. Just because you take ages to think; that ain't my problem or fault. Nationalistic in the statist sense fool. Your entire diatribe against me earlier shows absolutely no understanding / comprehension between the differences of nation (America) and nation-state (The United States Government).

I know what Rothbard says, and your beyond absurd 'interpretations' are amazingly comical. Your post is full of bs, why repeat ad hominems?

YOU HAVE NOTHING IN THE FORM OF GIVING A LEGITIMATE ARGUMENT / JUSTIFICATION FOR THE STATE.

I am still yet to see it... now go on, go write another page length attack on my character Actions speak louder than words... and you're nothing but words bro.

 

[Wesker1982]

That claim is a dishonest claim by you unless you can back it up.

Could you show me where I made this particular claim? Thanks!

(since I never made this claim, it must just be another honest mistake on your part, right?)

You also failed to actually address the content of my post that proves that you are dishonest. That was what we were actually talking about, in case you don't remember. Red Herring, or another honest mistake?

 

[Wesker1982]

If you actually accepted limited government as a satisfactory and valid outcome to your efforts

Who said I didn't? You are attacking a strawman. I would love to see a limited government in my life time as an outcome of mine and other's efforts. A fine outcome it would be indeed, but as an end goal it is illogical (assuming you advocate maximum liberty) because at this point Voluntaryism is achievable.

you will continue to push the philosophy even if it conflicts with a limited government philosophy in the realm of actions.

Could you elaborate?

 

[Travlyr]

Could you show me where I made this particular claim? Thanks!

It is a video that YOU posted. You remind me of the little kid who kicks the dirt and cannot look a man in the eye all the while claiming ... "It wasn't me."

(since I never made this claim, it must just be another honest mistake on your part, right?)

22 seconds into the video YOU posted. "All services, including security, are provided by competing private firms." ... all the while completely ignoring the fact that our ancestors created the state for various reasons. Then at 40 seconds you make the claim that "The purpose of the state is to provide security." I call bullshit on your false claim.

I've been waiting since July 20th for you to answer the question:
Where in the Constitutions do they say the purpose of the State is to provide security?
Articles & Sections please.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...voluntarists&p=3410160&viewfull=1#post3410160

You also failed to actually address the content of my post that proves that you are dishonest. That was what we were actually talking about, in case you don't remember. Red Herring, or another honest mistake?

You, Wesker, are a pathetic liar.

 

[MaxPower]

Ahhh, noo.... What part of the US Constitution increasing the size of government is not understood? The articles of confederation...?

Everything that follows is irrelevant. The US Constitution increased the size of the state. It made EVERYTHING afterwards possible. To say otherwise is to completely ignore it's origin.

No, you miss my point. I admit that the Articles of Confederation were largely preferable to the Constitution- note that I referred to "every big-government-versus-small-government conflict which has come up since the 1780s." The fact that the Constitution authorized bigger government relative to the Articles of Confederation says nothing about its standing relative to the government we have now. Nowhere did I say that the standing Constitution was the most small-government document which could possibly exist, or that it was the most small-government document which ever has existed.

Rather, when I talked about government expansions which "would have happened anyway without the Constitution, and in fact would have been far more swift and severe were it not there impeding them," I mean relative to a state in which there were no Constitution. My point here is thus: perhaps the absolute abolition of government would be best, but where that is not achievable, surely a government with a Constitution is preferable to a government without one. If I have a tumor, I might indeed look to the complete removal of said tumor as the most ideal solution- but supposing that the tumor is at present inoperable, then I had best at the least take whatever medicine I can get that will contain it, inhibit its growth or even shrink it. Now, the Constitution may not be so strong a medicine as the Articles of Confederation it replaced but if properly administered, it is still pretty strong stuff as relates to our current problem.

 

[ClayTrainor]

Then at 40 seconds you make the claim that "The purpose of the state is to provide security." I call bullshit on your false claim.

This has been specifically addressed at least a dozen times in multiple threads, and Travlyr simply has not provided any sort of answer, other than a straw man.

At 39 seconds into this video the video maker lies about the State and misrepresents Ron Paul's position.

"The purpose of the State is to provide security" is an out-n-out lie.

What did they constitution mean by "Provide for.... and secure the blessings of liberty" in the preamble?

I read secure the blessing of liberty as intending to establish courts of justice.

How is that not "providing" a form of "Security", with regards individual liberty?

After avoiding the question multiple times, and accusing me of lying, being in a cult, etc.... He finally answered it, with a Straw-man

It is not true that the State was formed to redistribute wealth, provide police, or cradle to grave services. The primary purpose of the State (which I stated many times) is to organize property and provide for contract law.

AS you can see, this is in no way an actual answer to my question, but is in fact just a straw-man. Nothing about my question implies that I ever claimed the state was formed to provide police, redistribute wealth. I am merely questioning him on a direct quote from the preamble of the constitution, and he completely dodged it by setting up a straw man.

I've been waiting since July 20th for you to answer the question:
Where in the Constitutions do they say the purpose of the State is to provide security?
Articles & Sections please.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...voluntarists&p=3410160&viewfull=1#post3410160

It's been given to you dozens of times.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

You, Wesker, are a pathetic liar.

When all else fails, resort to ad-hominem personal attacks. Not uncommon for you, at all. For example...

Nonetheless, I have decided to end my debate with you anarchists because I have faith that your cult will fissile when people realize you lied to them.

Stupid anarchy cult is stupid.

I must sincerely thank you for helping to make the case for Voluntaryism and Anarchy so well. Your form of argumentation really helps demonstrate what Cutlerzzz was trying to describe.

Discussions like this are why I lean more and more towards anarchy each day. Almost all of the arguments against it are based on strawman.

With Voluntarism, the logical inconsistancies are largely gone. There are no contradictory beliefs about how the income tax is immoral, but a sales tax or tariff tax is ok. There are no pet issues. There isn't the belief that many other Libertarians have that the Austrian School of economics is right on all but one pet issue, where it just so happens that the random libertarian and the government knows more than all Austrian economists. There are no excuses for advocating government coercion with voluntarism.

 

[Conza88]

No, you miss my point. I admit that the Articles of Confederation were largely preferable to the Constitution- note that I referred to "every big-government-versus-small-government conflict which has come up since the 1780s." The fact that the Constitution authorized bigger government relative to the Articles of Confederation says nothing about its standing relative to the government we have now. Nowhere did I say that the standing Constitution was the most small-government document which could possibly exist, or that it was the most small-government document which ever has existed.

Ok, well it is good to see the preferability of AoC, nice.

Rather, when I talked about government expansions which "would have happened anyway without the Constitution, and in fact would have been far more swift and severe were it not there impeding them," I mean relative to a state in which there were no Constitution. My point here is thus: perhaps the absolute abolition of government would be best, but where that is not achievable, surely a government with a Constitution is preferable to a government without one.

I understand your point, and my objection was that those expansions would NOT "have happened anyway without the Constitution".

The anti-federalists had to fight tooth and nail, they lost. The compromise for the federalists was allowing the Bill of Rights. Constitutions / social contracts need not be limiting at all, and the US is really the only one that comes kind of close to being 'libertarian'.

What it does is provide a fallacious / mythical justification for 'we the people' are the government, and yet that is total bs. IF a state is too exist; the best form is as follows:

"The defining characteristic of private government ownership is that the expropriated resources and the monopoly privilege of future expropriation are individually owned. The appropriated resources are added to the ruler’s private estate and treated as if they were a part of it, and the monopoly privilege of future expropriation is attached as a title to this estate and leads to an instant increase in its present value (“capitalization” of monopoly profit).

Most importantly, as private owner of the government estate, the ruler is entitled to pass his possessions onto his personal heir; he may sell, rent, or give away part or all of his privileged estate and privately pocket the receipts from the sale or rental; and he may personally employ or dismiss every administrator and employee of his estate.

In contrast, in a publicly owned government the control over the government apparatus lies in the hands of a trustee, or caretaker. The caretaker may use the apparatus to his personal advantage, but he does not own it. He cannot sell government resources and privately pocket the receipts, nor can he pass government possessions onto his personal heir. He owns the current use of government resources, but not their capital value.

Moreover, while entrance into the position of a private owner of government is restricted by the owner’s personal discretion, entrance into the position of a caretaker-ruler is open. Anyone, in principle, can become the government’s caretaker.

From these assumptions two central, interrelated predictions can be deduced:

• A private government owner will tend to have a systematically longer planning horizon, i.e., his degree of time preference will be lower, and accordingly, his degree of economic exploitation will tend to be less than that of a government caretaker; and
• subject to a higher degree of exploitation, the nongovernmental public will also be comparatively more present oriented under a system of publicly owned government than under a regime of private government ownership." ~ Hoppe.

​

If I have a tumor, I might indeed look to the complete removal of said tumor as the most ideal solution- but supposing that the tumor is at present inoperable, then I had best at the least take whatever medicine I can get that will contain it, inhibit its growth or even shrink it. Now, the Constitution may not be so strong a medicine as the Articles of Confederation it replaced but if properly administered, it is still pretty strong stuff as relates to our current problem.

Yes, I understand that. I, like Ron Paul, consider using the rhetoric of the Constitution in an age of manufactured consent.. it is an 'even on their own terms, they fail to live up to it'. They swore an oath to this thing, and yet they do not follow it. It is like the argument Hoppe makes comparing Monarchy and Democracy.

Monarchy is a lesser evil; though it is not Hoppe's end goal.
Comparing constitution to now; the constitution is a lesser evil, but it is not Ron Paul end goal.
Comparing constitution to free society, the latter is the way to go.

I don't disagree with people using it as a means to an end of a free society. The discussion here though is not about getting people new to the message; (they're already on a Ron Paul forum), it's about radicalizing the 'supporters', to show the logical conclusions of their premises; to show that this is what Ron Paul actually supports.

 

[Wesker1982]

It is a video that YOU posted.

This does not equal me making a claim, your post is a red herring. Unlike you, I can actually show you exactly where you made a particular statement, proving that you lied:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...-of-statism!&p=3493338&viewfull=1#post3493338

You did avoid answering my question that day as evidenced by the posts.

But this is not what you claimed. Are you making an honest mistake now, or being dishonest?

You never answer the questions.

Notice the plural form here. And also note that you said never. This post claims I never answer the multiple questions you present. Now you are claiming that you really meant that I only avoided one question and it only happened once.

You cannot get these two statements confused. It was a dishonest statement and being dishonest in attempts to defend it only makes it more apparent that you are indeed dishonest. I have had multiple long conversations with you and although we disagree on a lot, I have been nice to you. Not only have I done nothing to deserve dishonesty from you, it also makes you appear insecure in your beliefs because if you were confident in the validity of your position, you would not have to resort to dishonesty.

My advice would be that if you cannot participate in these type of discussions without getting emotional, you should avoid them.

 

[newbitech]

I hold the exact same position as him. No, I get people to question the validity of their position - who think the Constitution is an END GOAL. Which as we both know is demented; and why the good Dr. doesn't accept it... for the reasons he has outlined many times.

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

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?

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.

The fact they're not out of context... the fact that I'm merely linking to a Ron Paul interview where he EXPLICITLY SPELLS IT OUT.

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?

Context:

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?

Ron Paul makes the anarcho-capitalist/voluntarist/self-government argument right after where he says he supports self-government INSTEAD of a return to the constitution. His end goal is self-government.

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.

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.

SO this little quip below is just patent Conza B.S.

4+min ... you know; there is a reason why you "guys" have never addressed this video; and instead pretend it doesn't exist.

My 1,000,000 youtube views, with tons of testimonials thanking for the Obama video I made that compares him to RP.. which is still bearing fruit. The video helping promote tips to on how to properly sell liberty? The passionate video supporting not giving up at the end of the last campaign? The numerous interviews of Ron Paul's I personally was able to market to get viral by getting them all on the prominent RP/Libertarian sites at the same time? The video attacking McCain and giving the RP alternative?

Let's say, for the sake of argument only 1% of the people who viewed any of my videos changed their mind... after being exposed to the liberty message... that's 10,000 people.

YOUR List versus my youtube? LOL!!!

And what.. you've probably barely even reached 1% of THAT? Compare e-penises? Bro, you're the one who is claiming I'm attacking America etc.. full of your bs rants, with a sad inability to distinguish between nation and nation-state. What a joke.

That is all crap you constantly try to bring up. I noticed that your 1 million + views had nothing to do with anarchy. hmmm... I know other types of people that manufacture acceptance in order to push an alternate agenda later on, and then claim support.

I never tried to trot out my personal achievements in this movement as some kind of validation that my support was real and worthy. I do one thing that you will never be able to do, and that is vote directly for Ron Paul. My one vote, trumps all the salesman calculus you just tried to pull to provide some kind of empirical evidence.

It doesn't matter though. That is your strawman that you try to pull. YOU CONSTANTLY QUESTION PEOPLE's SUPPORT! PEOPLE WHO GIVE HARD EARNED MONEY AND BUST THEIR ASSES IN THE REAL WORLD!
Strawman + Ad Hominem = ad Strawminem! That is what you do with your anarchist clap-trap!

Keep telling us how great you are at selling freedom and liberty, an idea that doesn't need to be sold, only spread to the masses. I am not buying your version and neither are the million views you have on that one video that doesn't mention anything about your brand of freedom and liberty.

Nice job having nearly 1 million total channel views. Can we get a break down on how many of those preached Ron Paul is an anarchist? How about how many of those you made? Really, how about something to back up your salesman calculus?
Or not, I don't care. Feel free to continue off on this tangent with the stuff you reposted from 3 years ago.

The world moves on from your "success".

Get a clue? You are so hilariously ignorant... I don't need to showcase what I am doing down under. If considering what I've done for another country; such as yours.. wtf do you think I may have done in my own? Your opinion / thoughts about me, I couldn't care less about.

Yeah, they are free around here. And, you haven't really done anything for my country that I can perceive. Anyone else see what he has done yet? Ok.. What do I think you have done in your own? Nothing.

Good, then if you care less, why the need to constantly question or "get" people to see things your way or question their own beliefs? Shouldn't you lead by example? Oh wait, your example is to repost MSM news on your channel. Great, I'll get right on hooking up cable t.v. so I can be more like you.

No Conza, you do care, in fact you care so much it makes you laugh when someone disagrees with you. Must be insecure or afraid while discussing life or death topics like this one. Especially when it is your views and opinions that are dangling on thin wire. Relax buddy, in a Ron Paul society, you'd be free to live in the ruins of Conza all by yourself with no one to think about you or have opinions that differ from your own.

No, check time and edit stamps. Just because you take ages to think; that ain't my problem or fault. Nationalistic in the statist sense fool. Your entire diatribe against me earlier shows absolutely no understanding / comprehension between the differences of nation (America) and nation-state (The United States Government).

I know what Rothbard says, and your beyond absurd 'interpretations' are amazingly comical. Your post is full of bs, why repeat ad hominems?

YOU HAVE NOTHING IN THE FORM OF GIVING A LEGITIMATE ARGUMENT / JUSTIFICATION FOR THE STATE.

I am still yet to see it... now go on, go write another page length attack on my character Actions speak louder than words... and you're nothing but words bro.

Little ad hominem in return from you? Nice! W/E you obviously edited your post while I was responding. You were obviously tailoring your words. Had nothing to do with how fast I think. Pay attention to words and their meaning for once why don't ya? You called me nationalistic because of the country sense, neither one of us brought up the Australian government. So once again, context eludes you.

Seems as though you can't address your hypocrisy when it comes to national self-determination as Rothbard describe it yet. That's pretty much where we left off a few years back. Too bad.

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

"In addition, the libertarian, especially of the anarcho-capitalist wing, asserts that it makes no difference where the boundaries are, since in a perfect world all institutions and land areas would be private and there would be no national boundaries. Fine, but in the meantime, in the real world, in which language should the government courts hold their proceedings? What should be the language of signs on the government streets? Or the language of the government schools? In the real world, then, national self-determination is a vitally important matter in which libertarians should properly take sides."

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.

Commense with your laughter willful ignorance of my response to your lack of one.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

So many words... so little moral, principled, philosophical justification for the state.

 

[newbitech]

So many words... so little moral, principled, philosophical justification for the state.

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

 

[A Son of Liberty]

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

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.

 

[A Son of Liberty]