Ron Paul & voluntarists

[A Son of Liberty]

Ron Paul is quite qualified to promote himself. And he is not an anarchist who wants to dismantle the government. Conza paints him wrong on this forum. When was the last time you heard Ron Paul say that he starts his day on Lew Rockwell.com?

How'd I miss this? Ron Paul has stated that he reads LRC everyday.

So do I.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

I didn't hear Ron Paul say that, but...

"Visit LewRockwell.com, an outstanding and crucially important Web site I visit every day."
-- Ron Paul, "THE REVOLUTION, A MANIFESTO" (page #158)
http://books.google.com/books?id=Mu...important Web site I visit every day"&f=false

You beat me to it!

 

[Travlyr]

Too funny. It's too bad YOU don't respect property and an individual's right to freely associate.

Because I don't agree with you? Total baloney.

The case has been made so effectively and in such detail in this thread that it seems you're just being oppositional. I can understand and even appreciate a utilitarian argument from your perspective, but from a logically consistent philosophical point of view, you don't have a leg to stand on.

This is not a philosophical debate. This is real life. Millions upon millions of voters do not want a disruption of their property. You guys advocate it philosophically. Millions of voters need to know that Ron Paul has no intention to disrupt property ownership as you would do. Also, that Ron Paul has plenty of supporters who will defend property rights.

We're not buying what you are selling. Ron Paul is not selling what you are selling. If Ron Paul gets elected as President of the Untied States in 2012, then for the first time in my life a positive step ... gigantic step ... toward liberty, peace, and prosperity will be achieved. Finally. I've waited a long time. I hope to see it soon.

I do not intend to let a few anarchists misrepresent Ron Paul's policy positions on property rights and chase voters away just because they never took the time to understand it.

 

[Travlyr]

I didn't hear Ron Paul say that, but...

"Visit LewRockwell.com, an outstanding and crucially important Web site I visit every day."
-- Ron Paul, "THE REVOLUTION, A MANIFESTO" (page #158)
http://books.google.com/books?id=Mu...important Web site I visit every day"&f=false

Fair enough. What 3 years, or so? Like I mentioned earlier in the thread, he seems to be shying away from saying the Mises Institute and Lew Rockwell this election cycle because he kind of got stabbed in the back last time. Ron supports their philosophy, but they do not return political support in kind.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Because I don't agree with you? Total baloney.

No. For seemingly the hundredth time - because you advocate a monopolistic entity.

This is not a philosophical debate. This is real life. Millions upon millions of voters do not want a disruption of their property. You guys advocate it philosophically, millions of voters need to know that Ron Paul has no intention to disrupt property ownership as you would do. Also, that Ron Paul has plenty of supporters who will defend property rights.

Please cite this figure.

Even if it were accurate at this time, it discounts the possibility that your legion property owners are not so dense as to be incapable of being persuaded against coercion and violence.

We're not buying what you are selling.

I'm a property owner. Please stop trying to speak for me. You do not speak for all property owners.

Ron Paul is not selling what you are selling. If Ron Paul gets elected as President of the Untied States in 2012, then for the first time in my life a positive step ... gigantic step ... toward liberty, peace, and prosperity will be achieved. Finally. I've waited a long time. I hope to see it soon.

I agree, and am working toward that end.

I do not intend to let a few anarchists misrepresent Ron Paul's policy positions on property rights and chase voters away just because they never took the time to understand it.

First of all, a philosophical discussion in a philosophy sub-forum is not going to derail the campaign.

Second of all, it has been shown that some of the few anarchists you've been debating right here have done more for the campaign over a greater length of time than you have.

 

[Conza88]

​

Ron Paul "supporters" need to listen to Ron Paul. Pity if they actually did, this whole thread wouldn't be necessary...

 

[Travlyr]

I'm a property owner.

I'm not here for the debate. I am here to win some freedoms back that we've lost since the Civil War.

Your current property rights only come from the authority of the State. If you do away with the State your property and your property rights go bye bye. Is that what you want?

How does that work in your mind?

 

[Conza88]

http://audiovideo.economist.com/?fr_story=78d8c6ec44f78962754fcbbe3124cfccea02eb95&rf=bm

Ron Paul reads Rothbard...

... but then that isn't really news, nor the fact that Rothbard supports Ron Paul. How lemmings here cannot understand that, is an indictment of them - not anyone else.

Rothbard on the Ron Paul campaign
Posted by Norman Singleton on August 19, 2007 05:15 PM

This quote from a 1987 Liberty Magazine article refers to Dr. Paul's run as the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate, but I think the potential of impact of a Ron Paul presidential run that Rothbard foresaw in 1987 is being realized in Dr. Paul's current campaign:

"The importance of this campaign is that Paul is an Old Right libertarian in the best sense, and that his 1988 campaign has the wonderful potential of reactivating a large number of instinctively libertarian and anti-Establishment Americans, men and women who, for thirty years*, have been deprived of articulate libertarian leadership. The Paul campaign can rouse these numerous Americans from their frustration and torpor and bring them into the libertarian movement, at the same time enlarging the ranks of libertarianism to make it a powerful force in American life."

*Rothbard is referring to the mid-fifties displacement of the Old Right of Taft and Buffet with the pro-war, "conservative movement" centered around National Review.

 

[Travlyr]

​

Ron Paul "supporters" need to listen to Ron Paul. Pity if they actually did, this whole thread wouldn't be necessary...

This is the wonderful thing about the Constitution and freedom - Ron Paul

Conza I learned today that you are a Ron Paul supporter. I read some of the threads you bumped yesterday and found you divisive with other Ron Paul supporters. I am divisive with anarchists because not one of them has put forth a viable proposal on how to handle property rights without a State or contract law. Yet they rant on and on about how we should hate the State. Can you? What would you hand the owner in place of his land deed on public display at the county clerk's office?

 

[Conza88]

Conza I learned today that you are a Ron Paul supporter. I read some of the threads you bumped yesterday and found you divisive with other Ron Paul supporters. I am divisive with anarchists because not one of them has put forth a viable proposal on how to handle property rights without a State or contract law. Yet they rant on and on about how we should hate the State. Can you? What would you hand the owner in place of his land deed on public display at the county clerk's office?

No, see Ron Paul "supporters", more to the point - did you notice the people I have been "divisive" against - they're all still here in this very thread (close minded as ever. The ones who are intellectually dishonest and have nothing but ad hominems). You're not open to reason either. Doesn't matter what is said.

Define 'anarchist' please. The onus of proof isn't on them - that's for starters. You're the one who is suggesting force be used against them. Can I?

I posted an entire thread dedicated to it, you clown. The thread you have already posted in, and got absolutely destroyed in. Want me to go bring it up? It'd be my pleasure. Go comment on it in there.

Yo, Trav - what books/sources have you read on anarcho-capitalism/voluntarism/natural order/private law society?

I have asked you this 4 times... and you dodge it ever time. <---- ZERO intellectual honesty, and that makes you a troll.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Fair enough. What 3 years, or so? Like I mentioned earlier in the thread, he seems to be shying away from saying the Mises Institute and Lew Rockwell this election cycle because he kind of got stabbed in the back last time. Ron supports their philosophy, but they do not return political support in kind.

Sure, they do. LRC has a whole archive dedicated to RP, and mises.org publishes voluminous interviews, speeches, books, etc. by RP. Lew has personally done interviews with Ron for the LRC podcast series.

 

[Travlyr]

The only amendment necessary is an amendment that will permanently end the coercive use of force. If the state choose to redefine itself and operate without violence, it can end itself. By your definition, the only way to end the state is to challenge it's monopoly in a violent manner. Thus provoking the state to violently defending its monopoly. Of course now we will abandon this definition and go back to, the state cannot be a person, yet once again, your definition proves that it can act as a person.

This definition makes it impossible for the state to exist without some form of violence. The only peaceful solution is for you to believe that the state will abandon itself, in which case it wouldn't have been a state to begin with. This leads me to believe that your definition of the state exists only in a fictional or hypothetical sense.

This is the same reason incidentally that I told COnza he can't have it both ways.

This ^^^ +rep

 

[Travlyr]

No, see Ron Paul "supporters", more to the point - did you notice the people I have been "divisive" against - they're all still here in this very thread (close minded as ever. The ones who are intellectually dishonest and have nothing but ad hominems). You're not open to reason either. Doesn't matter what is said.

I understand your side. Your side has no plan of action for property rights. I reject it.

Define 'anarchist' please.

I don't define words. I look them up in the dictionary.

The onus of proof isn't on them - that's for starters. You're the one who is suggesting force be used against them. Can I?

I posted an entire thread dedicated to it, you clown. The thread you have already posted in, and got absolutely destroyed in. Want me to go bring it up? It'd be my pleasure. Go comment on it in there.

What are you talking about?

Yo, Trav - what books/sources have you read on anarcho-capitalism/voluntarism/natural order/private law society?

I have asked you this 4 times... and you dodge it ever time. <---- ZERO intellectual honesty, and that makes you a troll.

If they are the same books you've read, I don't need to be dumbed down.

Ron Paul - Defender of Liberty & Supporter of the Constitution


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gm5yMq0w6OA

 

[Conza88]

I understand your side. Your side has no plan of action for property rights. I reject it.

What a load of bull. You don't understand libertarianism. What a joke.

I don't define words. I look them up in the dictionary.

Give us the definition you are using when you call me and others an "anarchist". Discussion with you is a waste of time.

What are you talking about?

Playing dumb? This is what I'm talking about. The answer to your question, is already there. You just chose not to read it - again, not my fault. Your problem, not mine.

If they are the same books you've read, I don't need to be dumbed down.

DODGE. Trav, you did not answer the question.

What books or sources have you read on voluntarism / anarcho-capitalism / self-government / private law society / natural order / logical and principled libertarianism?

Name them please. Or if you haven't read anything on the subject, please say so.

Intellectual honesty test. Round #5.

 

[Travlyr]

Exactly. That is why I keep saying that Voluntaryism can only work within the bounds of the State here on Earth because we live in an imperfect world. Anarchy is extreme and I want nothing to do with it. Personally, I will let you take it as far as you wish as long as it does not aggress against me.

HOPPE: Mises thought it was necessary to have an institution that suppresses those people who cannot behave appropriately in society, people who are a danger because they steal and murder. He calls this institution government.

But he has a unique idea of how government should work. To check its power, every group and every individual, if possible, must have the right to secede from the territory of the state. He called this the right of self determination, not of nations as the League of Nations said, but of villages, districts, and groups of any size. In Liberalism and Nation, State, and Economy, he elevates secession to a central principle of classical liberalism. If it were possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, he says, it would have to be done. Thus the democratic state becomes, for Mises, a voluntary organization.

Mises is not a self described anarchist. That label was put on him by others after he died.

Know This. I am not an anarchist under anybody's definition. When I die if others label me as an anarchist, then I'll haunt you if I can.

 

[Conza88]

Are you a robot, or a spambot? No? Then stop acting like one.

I don't define words. I look them up in the dictionary.

Give us the definition you are using when you call me and others an "anarchist". Discussion with you is a waste of time.

What are you talking about?

Playing dumb? This is what I'm talking about. The answer to your question, is already there. You just chose not to read it - again, not my fault. Your problem, not mine.

If they are the same books you've read, I don't need to be dumbed down.

DODGE. Trav, you did not answer the question.

What books or sources have you read on voluntarism / anarcho-capitalism / self-government / private law society / natural order / logical and principled libertarianism?

Name them please. Or if you haven't read anything on the subject, please say so.

Intellectual honesty test. Round #5.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Mises is not a self described anarchist. That label was put on him by others after he died.

Know This. I am not an anarchist under anybody's definition. When I die if others label me as an anarchist, then I'll haunt you if I can.

Who do you speak of? I've never heard anyone call him an anarchist-he wasn't. He did define government and its proper role differently than modern minarchists, though. Your Hoppe quote is very accurate.

 

[Conza88]

Who do you speak of? I've never heard anyone call him an anarchist-he wasn't. He did define government and its proper role differently than modern minarchists, though.

Absolutely. But welcome to the make believe world of Trav. He can make up claims all he wants. He has no proof. He has no supporting arguments. BUT he makes the claim none the less.

He gives legitimate Ron Paul supporters a bad name.

 

[Travlyr]

Give us the definition you are using when you call me and others an "anarchist". Discussion with you is a waste of time.

If you have a dictionary, use it.

Name them please. Or if you haven't read anything on the subject, please say so.

I've read plenty of Mises, Rothbard, Paul, and Mullins. I listened to Stefbot and other voluntarist videos. Stefbot and others are targeting "The State" while a counterfeiting cabal of Corporatocracy elitists destroy liberty around the world with their central banking practices. No matter how bad you want to end the State, the problem will persist because you are aiming at the wrong target of our day.

The only way to achieve a true voluntary society is under the design of the State while respecting honest sound money as prescribed by Dr. Ron Paul and denationalization of currency as put forth by Hayek.

I'm talking about real life not an imaginary one. The State of New York is my definition of a State. Property owners in the State of New York are authorized to own property surveyed and recorded in County Clerk's offices.

 

[Travlyr]

Who do you speak of?

Mises wasn't a statist. He was a philosophical 'anarchist' like Albert Jay Nock.

I've never heard anyone call him an anarchist-he wasn't.

Now you have.