Ron Paul & voluntarists

[Conza88]

If you have a dictionary, use it.

I am asking which definition YOU are using, not the one I use. Seriously, wtf are you genuinely this slow? Did you have a learning problem at all? Not a rhetorical question btw, just of interest in terms of 'engaging' with you.

I've read plenty of Mises, Rothbard, Paul, and Mullins.

That's great, and yet that isn't the question. So what books by Rothbard have you read on voluntarism / anarcho-capitalism / self-government / private law society / natural order / logical and principled libertarianism?

Look, I know Mises and Ron Paul are voluntarists - and I'm glad you have conceded that, but what books specifically then? Mullins is a voluntarist? lol, what books has he written on anarcho-capitalism?

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.

That's greaaat and yet get rid of their monopoly and ability to tax, there goes the cabals power. Cartels and monopolies can only be supported by the state.

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.

Pity Hayek misses the mark.

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.

Yeah, I'm also talking about real life. The following was an attempt at an answer, whilst better - is still a dodge, as you did not answer the question. So I ask it again.

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.

 

[Conza88]

Now you have.

Noooo, you haven't.

Quotation marks and the presence of another word, gives it a different meaning. Or do the basic mechanics of the English language completely escape you? There is also the indication towards another individual... maybe if you weren't ignorant in terms of their history and content, you'd understand the context.

Mises was better than the classical liberals. There is no 'constitutionalism' or any of that bs. His principle of liberalism, is that of individual secession. The only thing stopping his support was 'the technical considerations', but if it could be done... it would and should be. So 'in theory' he was, hence 'philosophical anarchist'. Call it whatever the fck you want, he didn't support a state.

If you want to say you follow Mises, you need to contend with that.

All you do is further embarrass yourself.. the fact you don't even realise it is even more amusing.

 

[Theocrat]

Self-Government & Limited Government Are Not Mutually Exclusive

I'll stick to defending Ron Paul's true political position against so called "supporters" thanks.

​

All Ron Paul's words... why he prefers a voluntary society (self-government) OVER a return to the Constitution...

You don't have an issue with me [I'm just the messenger], you actually have an issue with Ron Paul. Why don't you go critique the video then. I'm not the one living in the fantasy world lady, you are.

And that's not my problem. So by all means, keep posting irrational tripe - and keep bumping this post for new forum members to see.

Conza, you keep making this issue into an "Either/Or" argument, but it doesn't have to be. One can be for self-government and for limited government at the same time, but each government applies to a different realm of jurisdiction and are linked. The principle of self-government relates to how an individual governs himself in society. The principle of limited government relates to how civil governments are governed in society (by a rule of law).

When individuals are unable to govern themselves in society by committing egregious acts of some kind, then the civil government has the duty to deal with those individuals. What limits the civil government is that it cannot do things to individuals which are reserved to other governments in society (like family government and church government). That is how self-government and limited government are linked.

Yes, Ron Paul is for self-government, first. He knows that on an individual level, self-government is the foundation for the success of other governments, like family, church, and state. But just because Ron emphasizes a need for self-government, it should not be misconstrued that he advocates no civil government at all. Nowhere in any of his books, articles, or speeches has Ron ever suggested we need to get rid of the State. Voluntarists need to be more intellectually honest about that, and stop using Ron Paul's campaign as a springboard for their own agenda. Ron Paul has always been known as the "Champion of the Constitution," not the "Champion of the Absence of Government."

 

[Deborah K]

Conza, don't be a hypocrite on top of everything else. You are well known for your condescensions and demeaning remarks as you attempt to defend your positions. The bottom line is, you are putting the cart before the horse and you don't even realize it. What a shame.

 

[Theocrat]

Cult-Like Behavior

Conza, don't be a hypocrite on top of everything else. You are well known for your condescensions and demeaning remarks as you attempt to defend your positions. The bottom line is, you are putting the cart before the horse and you don't even realize it. What a shame.

Agreed, and somehow, he thinks he will win more people over to his views by his condescensions and demeaning remarks. All it does is turn people away from what he trying to defend, and most members of the forum see him for what he truly is. Conza is not trying to help Ron Paul win an election; he is trying to steal supporters for his own school of thought in Voluntarism, and he twists Ron's words to make it seem like Ron is on his side.

 

[josh b]

The Spanish Anarchists: The Heroic Years 1868-1936
I don't know if this is the same Spanish anarchists to which you refer, but if so they were a century behind the colonies which morphed into States. Constitutional government seems to be the elder of libertarianism.

You misunderstand me. I'm referring to ideologies within the libertarian movement. Rothbardians got there first and are now apparently at odds with the more moderate elements. The point about the Spanish anarchists was to draw the connection with Rothbard. He was the one who created the modern 'libertarians'. I'm not saying that voluntarist thought preceded the idea of limited government. That would be a different argument.

Mises understood and Paul understands that the State is actually a good design for property distribution and rights. I don't know where Rothbard stands on that.

Wait, what? Rothbard didn't think the State should exist.

 

[ClayTrainor]

Yeah, I'm also talking about real life. The following was an attempt at an answer, whilst better - is still a dodge, as you did not answer the question. So I ask it again.

It's amusing because travlyr is constantly accusing others of "never answering tough questions", but he constantly dodges questions himself. After he dodges the question, you'll notice that he'll try to bring up brand new arguments and assertions to try and take the conversation onto a tangent he is more comfortable with.

Intellectual honesty is not his specialty. Case in point:

Encouraging debate is our goal. We just ask you bring honesty, integrity, and intellect to the debate. .

Interesting coming from someone who has been constantly avoiding questions.... I count at least 4 of my own that you simply never answered...

First Question you avoided:

And I don't want to take-up arms against my brothers.

Do you wish to impose the state on your brothers who don't want one and have committed no aggressive crime?

2nd Question you avoided

The State can be amended to be voluntary..

Out of all the states that exist in the world today, which ones are 100% voluntary?

No State that I know of today is voluntary, but they can be amended as such.

Would you argue the same about the mafia? They aren't voluntary, but can be amended as such?

Third Question that you avoided:

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?

Fourth Question that you avoided:

They are doing everything in their power to destroy his campaign.

That's quite a bold claim. Are you asserting this towards anyone specifically, or collectively?

For someone who constantly says things like....

They never answer the tough questions.

You misrepresent the state by lying to your recruits, and claim you have a better solution but can never answer questions posed to you by property owners.

.... It sure is interesting that you don't grant the same courtesy that you demand of others.

Not only do you avoid my questions, but your follow up responses are also full of ad-hominem personal attacks, as well as constant accusations of lying and not answering questions.

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.

I find this one ↑↑↑ rather amusing, since you in fact lied before you accused other people of lying.

Stupid anarchy cult is stupid.

All of this, and you still have the audacity to say...

We just ask you bring honesty, integrity, and intellect to the debate. .

Travlyr, I think it's fair to say that you are engaging in behaviour that is quite blatantly intellectually dishonest.

I don't really have any interest in continuing this discussion with you at this point, other than maybe continuing to cite and expose your supposed "arguments" and demands for what they really are, if you continue to make them.

It's conversations like this that I believe make a strong case for my hypothesis...

I really think the forum minarchists who make a point of arguing against an-cap and voluntaryist philosophy on a regular basis are probably responsible for opening more minds up to voluntaryism and anarchy than the an-caps themselves.

...so for that, I thank you!

 

[Wesker1982]

You can move freely from state to state

Ron Paul advocates individual secession. He does not advocate "like it or move", more like "like it or secede".

but I will be delightfully surprised if you achieve anything like voluntaryism as you describe in my lifetime. You guys are out of my league philosophically. I am now bowing out.

Great!.....

It is extreme and I want nothing to do with it.

Address the public property deed recorded at the county which gets its authority from the State issue honestly. What's your plan? Not what it could be, but what it is before you dismantle the State.

What plan do YOU think would be better than surveying property boundaries and keeping land deeds publicly recorded at the county clerk's office?

There is no reason to assume it wouldn't be done in virtually the same way (except it would be voluntarily funded). The service would just be provided by a private business instead of a county clerk. Something like a reputable "Land Deed Data Base" company.

For example, tomorrow morning you show up at my door with an offer to eliminate the State and I ask, "What about land deeds?"
What do you offer me?

If the people (i.e. consumers) want a particular service to function a certain way, taking away the State won't change their preferences and customs. The market is the best way to find out the most efficient method to satisfying consumer demands. The market result would just be a reflection of what people wanted their county government to do, except the market would do it more efficiently.

Customs, preferences, and respect for land boundaries would already be practically universally accepted in a state of minarchy (this is proven by the fact that minarchy was achieved in the first place). At this point, especially given the fact that the maximum efficiency of the market has been illustrated, consumers would demand the private production of this service.

And if we got to the point of minarchy, property boundary services would probably already be provided by the market. So the question should be equally directed at minarchists.

It would probably be done the same way in a voluntary society. It really isn't that difficult to imagine replacing the above wages with voluntary wages, instead of coercive taxation.


Equating wanting to voluntarize property title distribution with wanting to destroy property itself is a giant strawman. It is precisely because of a respect for property rights that all services should be voluntarily funded.

The fact that these services are needed is not being disputed, what is being argued is that the use of violence is not as efficient or necessary to provide these services.

 

[Travlyr]

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.

I do not intend to tell you what I have read or not read. It is none of your business. You, Clay, ProIndividual, and A Son of Liberty have made it painfully obvious that I am just an intellectually dishonest illiterate statist sociopath clown that needs destroyed because I don't understand your definitions of State and Anarchy.

For me, the State of Michigan is a state, and the dictionary is where I get my word definitions. Anarchy is:

an·ar·chy
noun \ˈa-nər-kē, -ˌnär-\
Definition of ANARCHY
1
a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2
a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker>

For you anarchy is something wonderful. Problem is that I am not going to be asking you for the meanings of words because the dictionary is much easier to use. And I am not going to wait around for you to tell me. Since you don't use meanings of words from the dictionary, then I generally have no idea what you are talking about anyway. And I do not wish to read more books on the subject that interests you because I have more fun stuff to do that interests me. You read it and share if you choose. I'll run my own life and do as I please.

For you the State may, or may not, be a constitutional republic surveyed bounded and recorded for public display so that everybody can determine who owns which property and the size of it. Like the State of Illinois for example. Bounded by the Mississippi, Ohio, and Wabash Rivers and closed with imaginary lines drawn from the Mississippi River on the North and Wabash River on the East toward Lake Michigan. The State of Illinois has 102 counties with sheriffs, district attorney, county clerks, county boards, etc. Are we on the same page with the definition of the state? If so, then I want nothing to do with getting rid of it. If not, then I don't know what you are talking about.

I am not evil for liking a State like that. Someday, I hope to buy 40 acres and set-up a little mini farm with a home, barn, a few livestock, pets, and big garden for fun and food. I am not a sociopath for wanting that.

I am a defender of my property and rights. Other than that I do my best to be a non-violent person.

Ron Paul can also speak for himself. Ron Paul openly admits taxation is theft, unlike you who tells people that you think they should grow up when they make such a claim.

C'mon Ron Paul, Travlyr thinks you should Grow Up!

Ron Paul is a voluntarist who always chooses liberty, who believes that voluntary interaction is ALWAYS the best way to go.

They do it to me too Dr. Paul. They make statements that I said something I didn't say, they place labels on me that I do not place on myself. It is frustrating.

No Congressman Paul, I do not think you should grow up. I am so proud to have met you and delighted that you held that liberty candle in that socialist dark room for so long. Thank you for sharing the light of liberty. Soon we will reach critical mass.

Like you I understand that taxes taken coercively is theft. Like you Dr. Paul I do not cry about it or focus on it because I understand that you have bigger fish to fry. I know that you are a voluntary guy. I know you are not running for President of the United States of America to rule over the masses. Most of us get that you want to re-establish the rule of law by limiting lawmakers to the bounds of the Constitution. First things first ... we must keep the cart behind the horse. We can win this ... Thank You Ron Paul for everything you have done for us.

"Land Deed Data Base" company.

I'm done with the debate part. I favor a State as I've defined it in this thread because I hope to own a small farm some day.

Your it might be this way or it might be that way company works great philosophically. It fails in the real world because it doesn't exist. What is the name of your company, "Land Deed Data Base, LLC"? What benefit does your company offer? Not your maybe it would be company... your already established company. Otherwise I'm keeping my land deed for public data at the county clerk and recorder's office. I am not paying for no service and I'm not moving my property deed until you OFFER me a better service for less cost.

It has been fun fellows. Let Ron Paul speak for himself. Labeling others is not fair or accurate... it is dishonest.

 

[Wesker1982]

For me, the State of Michigan is a state, and the dictionary is where I get my word definitions. Anarchy is:

What do you think Ron Paul thinks the State is?

Rothbard taught me to always keep the distinction between peaceful market activity and State coercion in my mind. It served as a constant guide once I was in office. - Ron Paul

 

[Travlyr]

What do you think Ron Paul thinks the State is?

Rothbard taught me to always keep the distinction between peaceful market activity and State coercion in my mind. It served as a constant guide once I was in office. - Ron Paul

A taxing district?

I thank Ron Paul for working so diligently for so long within the system. He has taken brutal personal attacks, had his words twisted, and his ideas bastardized by both well intentioned and malicious people. Ron Paul's integrity is honorable.

 

[Wesker1982]

And he has explicitly said that taxation is theft.

 

[Travlyr]

And he has explicitly said that taxation is theft.

Right, and thankfully he has worked within the system. There is a lesson there.

 

[Wesker1982]

Your it might be this way or it might be that way company works great philosophically.

And historically. You must not have known that property law has efficiently existed voluntarily quite a few times throughout history.

Not your maybe it would be company... your already established company.

My established company will do it the same way, except it will be cheaper and more efficient due to the inherent efficiency of the voluntary market. Why will my company do it the same way? Because that is what the consumers (You) want!

 

[Travlyr]

And historically. You must not have known that property law has efficiently existed voluntarily quite a few times throughout history.

Not in my lifetime. I like the State of Montana just fine. You don't... that's okay with me. There is no need to hate me for wanting to own 40 acres under the authority of a State.

My established company will do it the same way, except it will be cheaper and more efficient due to the inherent efficiency of the voluntary market. Why will my company do it the same way? Because that is what the consumers (You) want!

Great. When you get your company set up, PM me. I love competition.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Not in my lifetime. I like the State of Montana just fine. You don't... that's okay with me. There is no need to hate me for wanting to own 40 acres under the authority of a State.

Great. When you get your company set up, PM me. I love competition.

I don't think any of us hate you, Travlyr. At least I don't. I personally think you've closed your mind to the possibility of what we're advocating. I agree wholeheartedly with Dr. Paul when he said, "To bring about radical and permanent change in any society, our primary focus must be on the conversion of minds through education." (Once again, h/t Wesker). I'm fully aware that this philosophy that I espouse is extremely unlikely to come to fruition in my or my childrens' lifetime... perhaps ever. Yet I recognize the objective truth of it. I wish I could describe it to you in terms you could understand and embrace, because I am so passionate about this fundamental, observable truth and I truly, deeply believe that humanity would benefit immensely if we could get enough people to recognize it. We abhor violence in all it's manifestations, and believe that individuals should be free to associate with whomever they wish. The state - objectively defined as that entity which enjoys a monopoly of force within a given geographic region - does not allow this in any area it deems it's sole pervue. This is fundamentally unjust, because of the objective truth of the sovereignty of the individual - morally, how can some group of individuals form an association and determine that all individuals within some particular area may not engage in non-violent commerce with each other on agreed-upon terms? This is fundamentally unjust. So, even allowing for the state on the very minimal terms you've suggested STILL creates this moral paradox wherein some group of individuals dictate the terms of interaction to everyone else.

So, Wesker will never get the opportunity to contact you regarding his deed-holding company, because the state will not allow him to establish it.

I do not consider you to be "an intellectually dishonest illiterate statist sociopath clown that needs destroyed because I don't understand your definitions of State and Anarchy." It's true that, in the course of debate, passions arise. I apologize if I've given you the impression that I think this of you. Like you, I get frustrated when it seems as though, despite my best and most thorough efforts, I fail to convince you of my argument. I often find myself thinking that these conversations always go better for both sides in person, over a pint. At least in that circumstance, when we disagree we can still toast each other!

So, in sum, I recognize to an extent the futility of my position. Yet I stand my ground, on principle. I can even recognize the utilitarian argument for the state, and even sympathize with it. Yet philosophically I cannot help but point out the logical inconsistency of it, again on principle. My effort is directed toward exposing/educating people of the objective truth of the soveriegnty of the individual, and the logical consequences thereof, and sometimes that can be a frustrating proposition.

Cheers.

 

[Wesker1982]

There is no need to hate me for wanting to own 40 acres under the authority of a State.

I don't hate you for wanting titles to legitimate property recognized, but I do hate any institution which accomplishes this task through the initiation of violence. It is a false dichotomy to say that if I don't want a violent monopoly to provide X, that I do not want X provided at all.

Why do you oppose a method that is basically the same (surveying land, making titles public, etc.), the only difference being that the service is not delivered through the initiation of violence and is open to competition?

Great. When you get your company set up, PM me. I love competition.

Then you should join us in our goal of voluntarizing this service. Note that what you said here advocates the privatization of what you are apparently against privatizing...

 

[Conza88]

I do not intend to tell you what I have read or not read. It is none of your business. You, Clay, ProIndividual, and A Son of Liberty have made it painfully obvious that I am just an intellectually dishonest illiterate statist sociopath clown that needs destroyed because I don't understand your definitions of State and Anarchy.

Admit it, you have read nothing substantial [beyond wikipedia and yet I doubt even that] about self-government, anarcho-capitalism, voluntarism, private law society etc.

You continue to dodge the question, it's a pretty simple one mate. And yes, you continue to show yourself an intellectual dishonest ____.

For me, the State of Michigan is a state, and the dictionary is where I get my word definitions. Anarchy is: an·ar·chy

noun \ˈa-nər-kē, -ˌnär-\
Definition of ANARCHY
1
a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2
a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker>​

For you anarchy is something wonderful. Problem is that I am not going to be asking you for the meanings of words because the dictionary is much easier to use. And I am not going to wait around for you to tell me. Since you don't use meanings of words from the dictionary, then I generally have no idea what you are talking about anyway. And I do not wish to read more books on the subject that interests you because I have more fun stuff to do that interests me. You read it and share if you choose. I'll run my own life and do as I please.

See how retarded this is - you throw labels at us, the hypocrisy is out-friggin-standing... you're a walking parody! You do not first ask what is meant by a word... because you don't care to have an intelligent discussion, that much is obvious. All you want to do is rant against the strawman you draw up - too feel good in your fantasy world of make believe.

What you have described and continue to mindlessly repeat ad neuseum (for your own sake, not others) is that I support your definition of "anarchy". Epic fail as usual. That is not what I support. I support self-government. What I consider the legitimate use of anarchy - means "no rulers", THAT does NOT mean "no rules".

Demented fools do not understand that, so I choose other words to use and associate with as rhetoric plays a role in discussion. The fact you continue to throw this label around shows your dishonesty.

If you want to continue to adopt that as your definition - by all means, but know I don't support what you think it is I support, nor that when I choose to defend the concept - I'm defend freedom, not your bs notion of it.

For you the State may, or may not, be a constitutional republic surveyed bounded and recorded for public display so that everybody can determine who owns which property and the size of it. Like the State of Illinois for example. Bounded by the Mississippi, Ohio, and Wabash Rivers and closed with imaginary lines drawn from the Mississippi River on the North and Wabash River on the East toward Lake Michigan. The State of Illinois has 102 counties with sheriffs, district attorney, county clerks, county boards, etc. Are we on the same page with the definition of the state? If so, then I want nothing to do with getting rid of it. If not, then I don't know what you are talking about.

Do you not understand the difference between nation and nation-state? Don't worry about an answer - it's bloody obvious you don't.

I am not evil for liking a State like that. Someday, I hope to buy 40 acres and set-up a little mini farm with a home, barn, a few livestock, pets, and big garden for fun and food. I am not a sociopath for wanting that.

I am a defender of my property and rights. Other than that I do my best to be a non-violent person.

Nope, not the definition of the state. You're missing the whole monopoly on coercion and taxation / threat of aggression and violent force part... KIND OF THE WHOLE POINT.

Waste of time bro. The only reason you haven't gone on ignore yet, is because it's hilarious pointing out your intellectual dishonesty. Haven't got the guts to admit the truth - to yourself above of all people.

You know nothing about which you deny. You have a closed mind. For shame - hardly a Ron Paul supporter worthy of the name.

 

[Conza88]

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." ~ Herbert Spencer.

*COUGH*

 

[newbitech]

voluntarism, anarchism (any form)



http://www.lyricsfreak.com/j/john+cale/dying+on+the+vine_20073082.html

John Cale Dying On The Vine Lyrics

I've been chasing ghosts and I don't like it
I wish someone would show me where to draw the line
I'd lay down my sword if you would take it
And tell everyone back home I'm doing fine

I was with you down in acapulco
Trading clothing for some wine
Smelling like an old adobe woman
Or a william burroughs playing for lost time

I was thinking about my mother
I was thinking about what's mine
I was living my life like a hollywood
But I was dying on the vine
[ Lyrics from: http://www.lyricsfreak.com/j/john+cale/dying+on+the+vine_20073082.html ]
Who could sleep through all that noisy chatter
The troops, the celebrations in the sun
The authorities say my papers are all in order
And if I wasn't such a coward I would run

I'll see you me when all the shooting's over
Meet me on the other side of town
Yes, you can bring all your friends along for protection
It's always nice to have them hanging around

I was thinking about my mother
I was thinking about what's mine
I was living my life like a hollywood
But I was dying, dying on the vine