Ron Paul, Tom Woods, Judge Nap at the Mises Summit

[gte811i]

Then you should consider involving yourself in your own governance and put a stop to that extortion because if you don't force them to obey the rule of law, then they might just claim the right to put you on a kill list and take away all your rights.

And what is the "rule of law"? It is simply what politicians have passed and what judges say it is. And what do politicians pass? Whatever laws the 51% have given authorization for by electing said politicians. What I am trying to say is that the "rule of law" is a farce. When laws are unjust and violate the natural rights of man, men still obey them. Why do men obey laws that they know are unjust? Because we have been taught that the "rule of law" is above all else, "we are a nation of laws". No there is something higher than the "rule of law", which just gives the power of men to make unjust laws. It is natural law.

 

[gte811i]

The states are required to be republics not democracies.

And how's that worked out for ya? The United States is required to be a republic, not a democracy . . . that worked out real well now didn't it.

And in effect it doesn't matter, 51% of the voting public, 51% of the lawmaking body it is still the same. As soon as 51% of whichever body sees they can plunder the 49% and get away with it through legalized plundered (i.e. laws) with no consequences then the system will devolve.

Just take a look on such a small scale as the State Conventions in the Republican primary. That is a republican system . . . yet still at some point in order for laws to be passed 51% of the voting body must accept it. As soon as 51% of the corrupt establishment realized they could get away with plundering the other 49% at the State Conventions, they slammed things through.

 

[fr33]

These speeches were great.

Ron Paul talked about such a variety of things. It's like he was spilling his guts on what's going on and what we should do. Even while acknowledging large obstacles he seems optimistic.

 

[Travlyr]

And what is the "rule of law"? It is simply what politicians have passed and what judges say it is. And what do politicians pass? Whatever laws the 51% have given authorization for by electing said politicians. What I am trying to say is that the "rule of law" is a farce. When laws are unjust and violate the natural rights of man, men still obey them. Why do men obey laws that they know are unjust? Because we have been taught that the "rule of law" is above all else, "we are a nation of laws". No there is something higher than the "rule of law", which just gives the power of men to make unjust laws. It is natural law.

The rule of law is due process of law. If someone breaks into your home and tries to harm you, then you have the law backing you up if you must use force to stop the intruder. You'll face investigation, perhaps charges, perhaps a jury... but it is through the due process of law that you can protect yourself from intruders.

I subscribe to John Locke's philosophy,

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

America has not had legitimate constitutional governance for 100 years, so if you are comparing what we endure today to legitimate governance, then study what Mises wrote in Liberalism. Many people lived free lives in near classical liberal societies in days gone bye.

 

[gte811i]

The protection of the state is the governing documents of standards and law. A pound is a pound the world around. If someone sells you a pound of rice, then, since the pound is a static standard, when you get home and weigh your pound of rice, it will equal 16 ounces. The state provides the protection of law as well. If someone breaks into your home, then by law, you can force them to leave and the law will back you up. That is the protection offered by the state. The state does not offer police protection. That is not what police are for.

I might be quibbling over words, but there is no "protection of the law" there is enforcement of the law. Ultimately, law is enforced through violence.

If someone breaks in your home, you have the right to protect what is yours, not because the law gives you the right to do so, but because it is inherit to you being you, to being an individual a human. The state may or may not back you up, depending on where you live. In many places and times in the world, the "state" did not back individuals protecting their inalienably rights.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

 

[Travlyr]

I might be quibbling over words, but there is no "protection of the law" there is enforcement of the law. Ultimately, law is enforced through violence.

If someone breaks in your home, you have the right to protect what is yours, not because the law gives you the right to do so, but because it is inherit to you being you, to being an individual a human. The state may or may not back you up, depending on where you live. In many places and times in the world, the "state" did not back individuals protecting their inalienably rights.

Counterfeiters are in charge of your government. Counterfeiters must use violence to keep their monopoly on money because if everybody was allowed to counterfeit money, then nobody's money would be worth anything. So counterfeiters seek out their competition and destroy them. That is the source of violence in the modern world.

 

[gte811i]

The rule of law is due process of law. If someone breaks into your home and tries to harm you, then you have the law backing you up if you must use force to stop the intruder. You'll face investigation, perhaps charges, perhaps a jury... but it is through the due process of law that you can protect yourself from intruders.

I subscribe to John Locke's philosophy,


America has not had legitimate constitutional governance for 100 years, so if you are comparing what we endure today to legitimate governance, then study what Mises wrote in Liberalism. Many people lived free lives in near classical liberal societies in days gone bye.

What I am arguing is that they only way to actually restrain government to a legitimate constitutional governance is through the threat of succession, without that the 51% will always feel empowered to pass whatever laws to plunder the 49% because they can with very little repercussions. It's been more than 100 years, more like over 150 years (Civil War). I have not and do not argue for anarchy, just that states, counties and individuals have the right to secede. The Revolutionary War was a war of succession.

I agree with due process of the law, but I'm not sure many people think of the rule of law as due process of law (but I could be wrong).

 

[gte811i]

Counterfeiters are in charge of your government. Counterfeiters must use violence to keep their monopoly on money because if everybody was allowed to counterfeit money, then nobody's money would be worth anything. So counterfeiters seek out their competition and destroy them. That is the source of violence in the modern world.

It's not counterfeiters . . . those who want to take from others are in control. The source of violence is a desire for power over others.

 

[Travlyr]

It's not counterfeiters . . . those who want to take from others are in control. The source of violence is a desire for power over others.

Along with the Counterfeiting Act of 1913 came the War economy, FBI, IRS, CIA, State Police, Prohibition, 17th amendment, and on and on. Prior to that many people were free. End the Fed and end the police state.

 

[sailingaway]

These speeches were great.

Ron Paul talked about such a variety of things. It's like he was spilling his guts on what's going on and what we should do. Even while acknowledging large obstacles he seems optimistic.

that was my take away, as well.

 

[Wesker1982]

the philosophy subforum is specifically for that

The *hidden* philosophy forum.

I want the podcasts here where people can see them

Yeah, people have a hard time seeing the promotion of *certain* ideas because the threads are only readable by members. If hiding the posts from lurkers is not censoring, then what is it?

What I meant by my post is that, yes I understand there is a (hidden) subforum for these ideas, but banishing any thread that includes discussion about ideas Ron Paul himself has no problem promoting and associating with doesn't make sense. This ideas are at least to some extent suppressed, and I say considering this is the Ron Paul Forum, ideas he promotes should not be suppressed at all. If the owners of this site are ashamed or afraid of what Ron Paul promotes, then the forum is misnamed.

 

[sailingaway]

The *hidden* philosophy forum.



Yeah, people have a hard time seeing the promotion of *certain* ideas because the threads are only readable by members. If hiding the posts from lurkers is not censoring, then what is it?

What I meant by my post is that, yes I understand there is a (hidden) subforum for these ideas, but banishing any thread that includes discussion about ideas Ron Paul himself has no problem promoting and associating with doesn't make sense. This ideas are at least to some extent suppressed, and I say considering this is the Ron Paul Forum, ideas he promotes should not be suppressed at all. If the owners of this site are ashamed or afraid of what Ron Paul promotes, then the forum is misnamed.

I don't know what to say, the forum was there before I got here.

I think it is because like the religion forum, people get into heated fights that are unattractive and attacking and few mods really want to spend enough time in them to weed them all out. NEITHER topic necessarily needs to be hidden, imho, but I think they like hot topics drew a certain combatativeness amongst some who feel very strongly about their positions.

In any event, this one is still here, as you may have noticed.

 

[Wesker1982]

I think it is because like the religion forum, people get into heated fights that are unattractive and attacking and few mods really want to spend enough time in them to weed them all out. NEITHER topic necessarily needs to be hidden, imho, but I think they like hot topics drew a certain combatativeness amongst some who feel very strongly about their positions.

I understand what you are saying here. But I think the forum is missing an opportunity. There are only two places I know of that get decent traffic that have open discussion, reddit and the mises.org forum. When I said:

This subject is never going to go away. This forum should get with the times and embrace the dialogue and debate.

I could have explained better. I am not sure how much the owners of this forum are paying attention, but these ideas are becoming very popular, and like when Ron Paul converted people to minarchism, once you *get it* you won't be changing your mind anytime soon. There is rapid growth (thanks to Ron Paul and the LvMI) that is not slowing down. The mises.org forum software SUCKS and for whatever reason they refuse to update it. Reddit is alright but is not in a traditional forum format.

There is a big demand for a libertarian forum where *all* ideas are openly discussed. Considering that:

1. RPF is already popular
2. The ideas I am talking about are ideas that Ron himself promotes
3. This might be the *fastest growing political philosophy ever* (no science behind this lol, it just seems very rapid to me)
4. There is demand for a popular libertarian forum with good software
5. There is no forum satisfying this demand

Then I think it makes sense for the Ron Paul Forums to adapt and evolve into a place where all ideas can be discussed (just like Ron would want!). I think it would grow tremendously if the discussion were more accepted. Right now it seems like instead of attracting the mises.org forum or the redditors, RPF is worried about pleasing the old timers around here who are afraid of change. It reminds me of this show "Bar Rescue" when bars are so worried about keeping a small group of regulars happy, that they end up missing the huge market of new customers that would make their business soar.

 

[sailingaway]

I understand what you are saying here. But I think the forum is missing an opportunity. There are only two places I know of that get decent traffic that have open discussion, reddit and the mises.org forum. When I said:



I could have explained better. I am not sure how much the owners of this forum are paying attention, but these ideas are becoming very popular, and like when Ron Paul converted people to minarchism, once you *get it* you won't be changing your mind anytime soon. There is rapid growth (thanks to Ron Paul and the LvMI) that is not slowing down. The mises.org forum software SUCKS and for whatever reason they refuse to update it. Reddit is alright but is not in a traditional forum format.

There is a big demand for a libertarian forum where *all* ideas are openly discussed. Considering that:

1. RPF is already popular
2. The ideas I am talking about are ideas that Ron himself promotes
3. This might be the *fastest growing political philosophy ever* (no science behind this lol, it just seems very rapid to me)
4. There is demand for a popular libertarian forum with good software
5. There is no forum satisfying this demand

Then I think it makes sense for the Ron Paul Forums to adapt and evolve into a place where all ideas can be discussed (just like Ron would want!). I think it would grow tremendously if the discussion were more accepted. Right now it seems like instead of attracting the mises.org forum or the redditors, RPF is worried about pleasing the old timers around here who are afraid of change. It reminds me of this show "Bar Rescue" when bars are so worried about keeping a small group of regulars happy, that they end up missing the huge market of new customers that would make their business soar.

I think we evolve in different ways here, and have already shifted somewhat. But I dont think we are ever going to want to have people attacking eachother on the front page. I don't really think civility is too much to ask.

 

[Wesker1982]

But I dont think we are ever going to want to have people attacking eachother on the front page. I don't really think civility is too much to ask.

Yeah this is definitely really important. But I don't think the solution is to prohibit the discussion, but instead be more strict with the rules. Along with the influx of new members means there would be more people to help moderate. Even right now I don't understand why there are so few mods on this forum. I understand that you guys don't want to have to be policing 24/7 and babysitting, but I don't think it would be difficult if there were more mods who were also active.

Make the rules clear and enforce them. Mods should moderate without bias. This really isn't hard imo. Have a strict set of rules for mods, and have the admin enforce them. The only reason I can think of as to why there are not more active mods here is because the admin doesn't trust enough people? I don't know, but I don't think keeping them in line would be tough if the mod conduct were strictly enforced.

 

[sailingaway]

Yeah this is definitely really important. But I don't think the solution is to prohibit the discussion, but instead be more strict with the rules. Along with the influx of new members means there would be more people to help moderate. Even right now I don't understand why there are so few mods on this forum. I understand that you guys don't want to have to be policing 24/7 and babysitting, but I don't think it would be difficult if there were more mods who were also active.

Make the rules clear and enforce them. Mods should moderate without bias. This really isn't hard imo. Have a strict set of rules for mods, and have the admin enforce them. The only reason I can think of as to why there are not more active mods here is because the admin doesn't trust enough people? I don't know, but I don't think keeping them in line would be tough if the mod conduct were strictly enforced.

The problem is that those interested in what you want to discuss tend to be anarchist tending, and would they really police the civility rules?

But why don't you post your idea in forum feedback? Josh has a new job and is going to be under for a week or so, he said, but that is where he looks. He may well not read every thread when he gets back, he will have missed quite a lot by then.

The thing is the mods moderate by interest, or by reporting. Reporting has draw backs because you don't necessarily see 'who started it' five pages back. But not many mods track through all those threads. They get very heated, and with no disrespect they really do seem to those not immersed in those topics like the religion ones where people have a philosophical stake in how many angels are on the head of a pin.

 

[Wesker1982]

The problem is that those interested in what you want to discuss tend to be anarchist tending, and would they really police the civility rules?

I can only speak for myself, but I understand that it would be good for the cause if they were held to high standards. I think most of them understand this as well. So I don't think it would be a problem. There should be very strict rules against name calling or any personal attacks, and the posts that break these rules should be mod edited regardless of the political leanings of the poster or mods.

But why don't you post your idea in forum feedback?

Never thought of this. Maybe I will.

The thing is the mods moderate by interest, or by reporting.

I noticed, specifically the lack of moderation in the philosophy subforum. But I think if there were more mods then more area would be covered.

 

[sailingaway]

I can only speak for myself, but I understand that it would be good for the cause if they were held to high standards. I think most of them understand this as well. So I don't think it would be a problem. There should be very strict rules against name calling or any personal attacks, and the posts that break these rules should be mod edited regardless of the political leanings of the poster or mods.


Never thought of this. Maybe I will.

I noticed, specifically the lack of moderation in the philosophy subforum. But I think if there were more mods then more area would be covered.

I think we'd need a mod for that subforum who has a temperament not to take advantage but also is interested enough to get to know what's going on there, regularly.