Live_Free_Or_Die
Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 5,852
If you owe $40k+ just for coming out of a womb in the U.S. it's not that difficult to envision existence insurance costing less than $40k+ a year....
Ron Paul & voluntarists
- Thread starter Conza88
- Start date
Conza88
Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2007
- Messages
- 11,472
Thanks! eOs
How about you address the posts I made earlier in the thread - which address this point and absolutely shatter your "argument". Ron Paul using same definition as Mises. Oh and Rothbard too for a time. It's a word, what does the user mean when they use it. He's using the Mises definition, that doesn't mean he's not for Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism AKA SELF-GOVERNMENT AKA VOLUNTARISM.
Rothbard's anarchism was not the sort of anarchism that his teacher and mentor Mises had rejected as hopelessly naive, of course. "The anarchists," Mises had written,
contend that a social order in which nobody enjoys privileges at the expense of his fellow-citizens could exist without any compulsion and coercion for the prevention of action detrimental to society. . . . The anarchists overlook the undeniable fact that some people are either too narrow-minded or too weak to adjust themselves spontaneously to the conditions of social life. . . . An anarchistic society would be exposed to the mercy of every individual. Society cannot exist if the majority is not ready to hinder, by the application or threat of violent action, minorities from destroying the social order.[10]
Indeed, Rothbard wholeheartedly agreed with Mises that without resort to compulsion, the existence of society would be endangered and that behind the rules of conduct whose observance is necessary to assure peaceful human cooperation must stand the threat to force if the whole edifice of society is not to be continually at the mercy of any one of its members. One must be in a position to compel a person who will not respect the lives, health, personal freedom, or private property of others to acquiesce in the rules of life in society.[11]
Inspired in particular by the nineteenth-century American anarchist political theorists Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker and the Belgian economist Gustave de Molinari, from the outset Rothbard's anarchism took it for granted that there will always be murderers, thieves, thugs, con artists, etc., and that life in society would be impossible if they were not punished by physical force. As a reflection of this fundamental realism—anti-utopianism—of his private-property anarchism, Rothbard, unlike most contemporary political philosophers, accorded central importance to the subject of punishment. For him, private property and the right to physical defense were inseparable. No one can be said to be the owner of something if he is not permitted to defend his property by physical violence against possible invaders and invasions. "Would," Rothbard asked, "somebody be allowed to 'take the law into his own hands'? Would the victim, or a friend of the victim, be allowed to exact justice personally on the criminal?" and he answered, "of course, Yes, since all rights of punishment derive from the victim's right of self-defense" (p. 90). Hence, the question is not whether or not evil and aggression exist, but how to deal with its existence justly and efficiently, and it is only in the answer to this question that Rothbard reaches conclusions which qualify him as an anarchist.
Last edited:
Conza88
Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2007
- Messages
- 11,472
lol.. smiling ... not weeping...
Excellent interview, Adam!
The champion of the Constitution in favor of a voluntary society and States rights is describing minarchy.
No he's not. He has explicitly said he is in favour of self-government OVER a return to the Constitution.
Ron Paul and Anarcho-Capitalism… Hint: He’s not a statist (4min+ of video).
For a better justification see this Mises thread here and my responses:
Ron Paul’s real goal is self government / anarcho-capitalism, instead of a return to the Constitution. The strategy merely differs. His role is educational, i.e directing folks to Libertarianism and Austrian Economics. He acknowledges that voting (in Congress) won’t change anything.
…
Except he’s never advocated it, when compared to a voluntaryist society. Philosophically, the question you need to ask is “Compared to what?”
COMPARED to what we have now, would you prefer a return to the size of government as outlined in the US Constitution? (Obviously leaving aside the fact that it would only grow in size again).
…COMPARED to what we have now, would you prefer a return to the size of government as outlined in the US Constitution? (Obviously leaving aside the fact that it would only grow in size again).
“… In the name of practicality, the opportunist not only loses any chance of advancing others toward the ultimate goal, but he himself gradually loses sight of that goal—as happens with any “sellout” of principle. Thus, suppose that one is writing about taxation. It is not incumbent on the libertarian to always proclaim his full “anarchist” position in whatever he writes; but it is incumbent upon him in no way to praise taxation or condone it; he should simply leave this perhaps glaring vacuum, and wait for the eager reader to begin to question and perhaps come to you for further enlightenment. But if the libertarian says, “Of course, some taxes must be levied,” or something of the sort, he has betrayed the cause.” - Rothbard’s 1961 Confidential Memo to Volker Fund
…
“But one must use democratic means only for defensive purposes; that is, one may use an antidemocratic platform to be elected by an antidemocratic constituency to implement antidemocratic — that is, anti-egalitarian and pro-private property — policies. Or, to put it differently, a person is not honorable because he is democratically elected. If anything, this makes him a suspect. Despite the fact that a person has been elected democratically, he may still be a decent and honorable man; we have heard one before.” - What Must be Done, Hoppe
…“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
…
“Ideas are the only things that count, and politicians are, for the most part, pretty much irrelevant,” Ron Paul told the London Independent in December.
Last edited:
Deborah K
Member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2007
- Messages
- 17,997
Conza, trying to propagate anarchy during an election period (when Dr. Paul has stated in debates that he considers himself the "Champion of the Constitution"), is a bad tactical move on your part, if you want to see the man get elected. How do you expect our country to advance out of the mess we're in without him?
Travlyr
Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 14,088
Ron Paul has said over and over again that he defers to the constitution when he votes. As president he would base all his decisions on the rule of law, the U.S. Constitution. If he felt that changes were needed to the constitution, Ron Paul would use the amendment process to effect changes.
Anybody who represents him in a different light is disingenuous at best, and they should cease and desist misrepresenting him.
For those who earnestly want to learn about Ron Paul, "Liberty Defined" is excellent!
Anybody who represents him in a different light is disingenuous at best, and they should cease and desist misrepresenting him.
For those who earnestly want to learn about Ron Paul, "Liberty Defined" is excellent!
Deborah K
Member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2007
- Messages
- 17,997
This
heavenlyboy34
Member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2008
- Messages
- 59,093
We've established in other threads that anarchists can use the political system as a means to an end-the destruction of statism. It seems that you are the disingenuous one. I wouldn't consider RP an anarchist, but many of his opinions are anarchist-friendly. He's more Voluntaryist than anarchist. It's difficult to put RP into any one neat category, really.
Last edited:
specsaregood
Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2007
- Messages
- 39,143
While we argue over the minutiae of constitutionalist vs voluntaryist vs. anarchist. The war machine continues to pound us all in the ass.
Deborah K
Member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2007
- Messages
- 17,997
The disengenuous ones are the ones who put their almighty philosophical points of view before the objective - which is to get Dr. Paul elected. We are living in a David and Goliath moment folks. Know thy enemy's strengths and weaknesses. The media crushed our chances last time. Learn from it. And don't make the mistake of thinking this forum is not being monitored.
Travlyr
Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 14,088
I'm not being disingenuous at all! Watch the videos! Ron Paul clearly states that he is working within the system and if others want to work outside the system it is fine with him. He ended the first video by stating the problem that anarchists on this forum cannot seem to learn. Keynesianism is the culprit of our day. Anarchists think that statism is the culprit which it clearly is not as evidenced by their inability to adequately answer some simple questions.
It never ceases to amaze me that anarchists cannot see that it is the anarchists who are the powers-that-be. They don't call it that, but it is the rulers who are above the law... the diplomatic immunity crowd that counterfeits money, profits from wars, socialize societies, rule the Mundanes with laws and police ... it is the Keynesians who have to go to achieve liberty, peace, and prosperity.
Ron Paul has consistently advocated for voluntary involvement as the "Champion of the Constitution." His goal is not to overthrow governments as anarchists claim. That is their agenda.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFYRHZpavX4&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RF1PMPbc0WA&feature=player_embedded
heavenlyboy34
Member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2008
- Messages
- 59,093
You MUST be kidding. TPTB have long been smearing anarchists. Remember the relatively recent riots in Europe? The rioters were called "anarchists", but were really rioting for more welfare. The bolded above is an absolute backwards understanding of reality. This should not be construed as a complete defense of or apologia for anarchism (I am not an anarchist myself). I'm just trying to get you to be honest.
heavenlyboy34
Member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2008
- Messages
- 59,093
It would be the same even if we weren't arguing these minutiae. The war machine is going to keep going till it runs out of money, runs out of victims, or is overthrown (the latter is not going to happen through political means anytime soon). War is about the only thing we have to export now that the regime has destroyed so much of the private sector's wealth.
Last edited:
Travlyr
Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 14,088
Not kidding... it is proved. At least I'm in good company.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIs5r3ujBmw&playnext=1&list=PLB8894DE8E2855597
Last edited:
specsaregood
Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2007
- Messages
- 39,143
No real disagreement there. But I'm of the opinion that our war export is just a side effect of propping up our primary export of debt.
I really just wanted to get the words "pound us all in the ass" into this thread. Thanks for the assist.
A Son of Liberty
Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2010
- Messages
- 6,514
I think I get Travlyr's point... the corporatists and the banksters operate above the law - they impose it, but are not subject to it so, in a sense, they are operating in a quasi-stateless environment.
While an interesting observation (if I'm correct in my interpretation), it is also abusive of the concept we anarchists are advocating. Also, these people are not above the state so much as they ARE the state, as much as a king might have been... or more so, really. They have seized the power of the state and turned it to their uses. We anarchists don't propose to subject these people to discipline meted out by the state - we propose to do away with the levers of power altogether... to do otherwise only invites it to happen again to another generation.
While an interesting observation (if I'm correct in my interpretation), it is also abusive of the concept we anarchists are advocating. Also, these people are not above the state so much as they ARE the state, as much as a king might have been... or more so, really. They have seized the power of the state and turned it to their uses. We anarchists don't propose to subject these people to discipline meted out by the state - we propose to do away with the levers of power altogether... to do otherwise only invites it to happen again to another generation.
Travlyr
Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 14,088
It is, but you anarchists are on a mission that Ron Paul is not on. We want to end all these false claims during the election cycle ... the "Ron Paul doesn't want to return to the constitution" BS because it is not true. Others drop-by the forum see anarchists and go running away or posting it on blogs.
When you say "state", are you referring to The State of Alabama? Do you want to do away with the State of Florida? That's what most people think of when they hear the word "State." I don't want to do away with that organizational structure and neither does Ron Paul. People who say he does are lying.
A Son of Liberty
Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2010
- Messages
- 6,514
Dr. Paul has left us with a pile of clues as to where his true moral compass points, but he has not really come out plainly and said, "I am a minarchist!", or "I am an anarchist!". It's true that he has said that he is a Constitutionalist - a Champion of the Constitution, even. But so am I, as I've stated in another thread - I would prefer strict adherence by the government to it over the present paradigm, and afterall it is the operating governing document of the federal government and as such ought to be held to it... but I'd also prefer the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution (and I believe Ron has said something similar, but I can't cite it at the moment), and the relative freedom of the colonies to the Articles, and ultimately real, true individual liberty. Just as well as calling himself a Constitutionalist, he's also said that the ultimate goal is self-government, the implication of course being that capital-G Government isn't necessary... and he's certainly made himself quite friendly with more than a few well-established anarchists.
Without offense, I find the unequivocal declarations that Ron IS or ISN'T something to be a bit absurd... he's never really come right out and said specifically that anarchism is preferable, or that government is. It's my personal opinion, from some of the things he's said and some of the folks he's associated himself with, that he is at least sympathetic to the philosophy of anarchism. In the end, frankly, it doesn't matter to me. It wouldn't matter to me if I were the only person on the planet who acknowledged the objective, moral truth of individual sovereignty.
heavenlyboy34
Member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2008
- Messages
- 59,093
The State, as anarchists use the term, is defined:
That institution which interferes with the Free Market through the direct exercise of coercion or the granting of privileges (backed by coercion).
[celine]
That organization that claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a given territory. [bk]
A compulsory territorial monopoly on final judgments. [hoppe]
The state is "the embodiment of the principle of invasion in an individual, or a band of individuals, assuming to act as representatives or masters of the entire people within a given area."
Government is "the subjection of the noninvasive individual to an external will."
[labadie]
Anarchists have no quarrel with any institution that contents itself with enforcing the law of equal freedom, and ... they oppose the State only after first defining it as an institution that claims authority over the non-aggressive individual and enforces that authority by physical force or by means that are effective only because they can and will be backed by physical force if necessary. Individual Liberty by Benjamin Tucker, "Liberty and Politics"
[tucker]
(involuntary government)SEK3
[sek3]
The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone expects to live at the expense of everyone else. Frederic Bastiat
[bastiat]
The State is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion. While other individuals or institutions obtain their income by production of goods and services and by the peaceful and voluntary sale of these goods and services to others, the State obtains its revenue by the use of compulsion; that is, by the use and the threat of the jailhouse and the bayonet. Having used force and violence to obtain its revenue, the State generally goes on to regulate and dictate the other actions of its individual subjects. [rothbard]
There will always be those who claim to have special rights over the rest of society, and the state is the most organized attempt to get away with it. Lew Rockwell, "Why the State Is Different"
[rockwell]
... while some Libertarians cling to the State as somehow capable of defending Liberty if only kept small enough, the modern Libertarian Movement ... considers the State ... a necessary or unnecessary Evil but definitely an Evil. In fact, the State is generally perceived as the institutional opposite of Liberty. SEK3
[sek3]
Nowhere has the coercive and parasitic nature of the State been more clearly limned than by the great late nineteenth-century German sociologist, Franz Oppenheimer. Oppenheimer pointed out that there are two and only two mutually exclusive means for man to obtain wealth. One, the method of production and voluntary exchange, the method of the free market, Oppenheimer termed the "economic means"; the other, the method of robbery by the use of violence, he called the "political means." The political means is clearly parasitic, for it requires previous production for the exploiters to confiscate, and it subtracts from instead of adding to the total production in society. Oppenheimer then proceeded to define the State as the "organization of the political means" -- the systematization of the predatory process over a given territorial area.
[Franz Oppenheimer, The State (New York: Vanguard Press, 1926), pp. 24-27 and passim.]
Let me begin with the definition of government: A government is a compulsory territorial monopolist of ultimate decision-making (jurisdiction) and, implied in this, a compulsory territorial monopolist of taxation. That is, a government is the ultimate arbiter, for the inhabitants of a given territory, regarding what is just and what is not, and it can determine unilaterally, i.e., without requiring the consent of those seeking justice or arbitration, the price that justice-seekers must pay to the government for providing this service.
Hans-Hermann Hoppe, "Government, Money, and International Politics" [PDF]
[hoppe]
The State is a group of people who have managed to acquire a virtual monopoly of the use of violence throughout a given territorial area. In particular, it has acquired a monopoly of aggressive violence, for States generally recognize the right of individuals to use violence (though not against States, of course) in self defense. The State then uses this monopoly to wield power over the inhabitants of the area and to enjoy the material fruits of that power. The State, then, is the only organization in society that regularly and openly obtains its monetary revenues by the use of aggressive violence; all other individuals and organizations (except if delegated that right by the State) can obtain wealth only by peaceful production and by voluntary exchange of their respective products. This use of violence to obtain its revenue (called 'taxation') is the keystone of State power.
"Let me say from the beginning that I define the state as that institution which possesses one or both (almost always both) of the following properties: (1) it acquires its income by the physical coercion known as "taxation"; and (2) it asserts and usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the provision of defense service (police and courts) over a given territorial area. An institution not possessing either of these properties is not and cannot be, in accordance with my definition, a state. On the other hand, I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of an individual. " Murray Rothbard, "Society Without A State"
A Son of Liberty
Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2010
- Messages
- 6,514
Okay...
"Our Constitution was designed to protect individual rights, and the Founders knew clearly that they wanted a republic, not a democracy, where the majority could not dictate the definition of rights of the minority. They did a reasonably good job in writing the Constitution but yielded to the principle of democracy in compromising on the slavery issue. The majority voted for supporting second-class citizenship for blacks, a compromise that we paid heavily for, not only in the 1860's but more than a hundred years later as well. It would have been better if we had stayed a loose-knit confederation and not allowed the failed principles of democracy and slavery to infect the Constitution."
Liberty Defined, pages 66-67.
We can go back and forth citing quotes... that's kind of the point I was making.
It seems you're a bit intractible on this, and that's fine. It's a bit odd to me, but to each his own.
Edit: In reply to Travlyr
"Our Constitution was designed to protect individual rights, and the Founders knew clearly that they wanted a republic, not a democracy, where the majority could not dictate the definition of rights of the minority. They did a reasonably good job in writing the Constitution but yielded to the principle of democracy in compromising on the slavery issue. The majority voted for supporting second-class citizenship for blacks, a compromise that we paid heavily for, not only in the 1860's but more than a hundred years later as well. It would have been better if we had stayed a loose-knit confederation and not allowed the failed principles of democracy and slavery to infect the Constitution."
Liberty Defined, pages 66-67.
We can go back and forth citing quotes... that's kind of the point I was making.
It seems you're a bit intractible on this, and that's fine. It's a bit odd to me, but to each his own.
Edit: In reply to Travlyr
