Ron Paul & voluntarists

[LibertyEagle]

I does bring into question the relevance of the hyperventilation over it, however.

Think we might have a bit of an inflated sense of self-importance?

No, just a desire to see Ron Paul become President of the United States and a long history of Conza's agenda.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Your claim: that I have directly called Ron Paul an "anarchist" recently. I asked how you define the word, you don't answer. You then link the above as "proof" and "evidence".

Where in your link do I say what you say I do. Where do I directly call him an anarchist? [meaning chaos?] WHERE?! IT DOESN'T EXIST.

You, are, full, of, it. You are the liar. You are intellectually dishonest. Standard fare LE, standard fare. Act your age please.



You just did. Lie. Back up your claim, which you just openly failed to do. Your link backs up my claim. Dodge, dismiss, joke.

How many times do I have to do that, Conza? Go find the last time you asked me to do that and I posted some of them for you. lol

Why do you do this, Conza? It just makes you look foolish.

 

[Wesker1982]

"I like voluntarism. That's what a free society is supposed to be all about." - Ron Paul



1:16

 

[Conza88]

Hahaha , yes!

 

[Conza88]

How many times do I have to do that, Conza? Go find the last time you asked me to do that and I posted some of them for you. lol

Why do you do this, Conza? It just makes you look foolish.

You failed LE. You didn't backup your baseless assertion. You made a claim, and haven't backed it up.

Where is my apology?

It makes you look intellectually dishonest (which you are), which has been shown countless times. Thanks for re-iterating your inability to be open minded, making you a lesser amongst others here.

Why do I do what LE? You're the one you made a fallacious claim, you not being able to back it up... doesn't look poorly upon me, it reflects poorly upon you.

 

[newbitech]

Hahaha , yes!

You know, the one thing I think brings so many of us together, and what’s been happening these last couple of years, has been the idea of having change. As a matter of fact, somebody won an election with using that slogan of change. But there’s a change that we want that we haven’t gotten yet. And I think that’s what we’re here to talk about. What kind of change do we really want? And what can we agree on so that we’re not talking about different things? And to me it’s very important that we understand what conservatism means. To me, to be a conservative means to conserve the good parts of America and to conserve our Constitution.

Want more?

I am sure for every recent link you can cheer about Ron Paul supporting an idea that you want to twist to mean something other than what Ron Paul means, I can respond with at least 2 maybe 5 and possibly 10 links about Ron Paul supporting his own idea with out any twisting necessary.

You are an anarchist, even though you like to claim you made some kind of logical transition to anarchy and thank Ron Paul for leading you there. That may be true, but I can assure you that Ron Paul's idea is not to make everyone an anarchist.

No matter how you twist it, your goal here on this forum since you started posting was to use Ron Paul popularity and fresh approach to modern day liberty as pool to fish in for potential anarchist converts.

It's ok though, soon the R3volution will have runs its course and be transformed in to something else. You will be able to fall back on to whatever was successful for you before the explosion of freedom debate and popularity. IN the mean time, those of us who have really heard the message will continue to develop our personal philosophies with Ron Paul and his actions and choices as our guide.

 

[Conza88]

So the second most intellectually dishonest person on these boards, arrives. Sweet.

You'd rather me spread the message of "anarchy" to 4,000 Ron Paul supporters... than you simply provide the actual link to the thread you are quoting me about in your sig. No intellectual honesty there. So telling champ.

Want more?

“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

Want more?

How about I respost the video of Ron Paul saying compared to the US Constitution; he'd instead prefer voluntarism, i.e a non-return to the US Constitution.. i.e real liberty.

No matter how you twist it, your goal here on this forum since you started posting was to use Ron Paul popularity and fresh approach to modern day liberty as pool to fish in for potential anarchist converts.

Go check out my earliest posts, I was a 'limited government' supporter, I parroted his conclusions,... I didn't understand how he got there. You're full of #)%$) as per usual newbitech, go on... keep making stuff up .

It's ok though, soon the R3volution will have runs its course and be transformed in to something else. You will be able to fall back on to whatever was successful for you before the explosion of freedom debate and popularity. IN the mean time, those of us who have really heard the message will continue to develop our personal philosophies with Ron Paul and his actions and choices as our guide.

Blah, blah, blah... I've done more for the campaign of liberty 10,000 miles away than you have from 10. Good one, keep running your mouth .

Actions > words .

 

[Becker]

“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

good quote.

Replace the word Constitution with any concept, doctrine, principle in absence of force, and you have the same result. (as long as they are written, of course)

 

[Conza88]

So.... in the chat room:

I responded to an individual who was saying "to donate more, more, more..."

That it might be an idea to better donate your time to a liberty worthy cause, than simply ads.

CaseyJones considered that "discouraging political activism".

Which is completely dillusional.

I responded that I was encouraging it, but in a more productive fashion. And that I'm not against political activism, and that he should go read Hans-Hermann Hoppe's "What Must Be Done".

I was then banned.

Intellectual honesty?

 

[Conza88]

dp.

 

[newbitech]

So the second most intellectually dishonest person on these boards, arrives. Sweet.

You'd rather me spread the message of "anarchy" to 4,000 Ron Paul supporters... than you simply provide the actual link to the thread you are quoting me about in your sig. No intellectual honesty there. So telling champ.



“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

Want more?

How about I respost the video of Ron Paul saying compared to the US Constitution; he'd instead prefer voluntarism, i.e a non-return to the US Constitution.. i.e real liberty.



Go check out my earliest posts, I was a 'limited government' supporter, I parroted his conclusions,... I didn't understand how he got there. You're full of #)%$) as per usual newbitech, go on... keep making stuff up .



Blah, blah, blah... I've done more for the campaign of liberty 10,000 miles away than you have from 10. Good one, keep running your mouth .

Actions > words .

Nice trotting out the same stuff Conza. Get some new material. Please. There is a wealth of information, books, video's etc that you can view for free on the internet that will explain to you the history of the United States of America.

Ron Paul wants to uphold the Constitution. Plain and simple. Why can't you admit that without some qualifying statement? Does it bother you so much that the United States of America has a founding document that it's freedom and liberty minded people want to uphold?

Apparently so. From 10,000 miles away, you play around with your computer making videos to try and attract attention to yourself by using Ron Paul's name. You won't try to refute that evidence because it is evidence you willingly give away. Here you are again practically begging me to put a link to your video in my signature.

No. The quote in my signature is in context, and stands alone without a link. Why? Because you reference it and do not deny you said it, you simply ask for a link back to the video, thus fulfilling my claim backed by the text you quoted.

Of course you will lie and pretend like your self serving nature is really about trying to help Ron Paul spread his message and get elected. But all you do is point people to videos from what you said. Great man good for you. I actually live with these people that are converting to get behind Ron Paul. We actually live out the principles in our daily lives, and will do so long after you have reaped all the benefits of the connection between Ron Paul, the internet, and your delusions of grandeur.

Conza, please, make the next evolutionary step in your philosophical ambitions and start living the principles in your back yard. Report back when you have taken that first step. Thanks!

 

[Conza88]

Nice trotting out the same stuff Conza. Get some new material. Please.

Mate, you've never addressed the material. And just dodged it again. There is no need for new material, when the 'old' is perfectly fine in making the point.

There is a wealth of information, books, video's etc that you can view for free on the internet that will explain to you the history of the United States of America.

Ron Paul wants to uphold the Constitution. Plain and simple. Why can't you admit that without some qualifying statement?

What area of US History do you consider me ignorant in, aye? Would you like to back up your assertion that I somehow don't understand US History... which a specific case example?

"Ron Paul wants to uphold the Constitution". That's great, and so do I 'COMPARED TO' what we have now. This isn't a 'qualifying statement', it is a statement that is implicitly made with every statement. When you say you value honesty, that means nothing... unless there is the implicit (COMPARED TO lies / falsehoods).

I support liberty, i.e and that government and state intervention is economically and socially destructive. I thus support the US constitution; compared to what we have now. And if we ever get there, I'd support the articles of confederation... COMPARED to 'what we have now'... and on it goes to a truly free voluntarist society.

Does it bother you so much that the United States of America has a founding document that it's freedom and liberty minded people want to uphold?

Apparently so. From 10,000 miles away, you play around with your computer making videos to try and attract attention to yourself by using Ron Paul's name. You won't try to refute that evidence because it is evidence you willingly give away. Here you are again practically begging me to put a link to your video in my signature.

I don't try attract attention to myself at all. YOU GUYS are the ones who INCESSANTLY and CONSTANTLY harp on about me as a person and my character, you're the ones who keep trying to put the spotlight on me. my whole channel is geared towards RP you clown, go put the link to it in your signature then.

No. The quote in my signature is in context, and stands alone without a link. Why? Because you reference it and do not deny you said it, you simply ask for a link back to the video, thus fulfilling my claim backed by the text you quoted.

The quote isn't in context at all. That's all I ask for, I stand by what I said, sure. You don't want to link people to it, because then the real context will be revealed.. and it destroys your case. Intellectual honesty - you have none.

SURELY if you thought you had a case; directly linking to it - would SUPPORT IT. But you've DONE THE OPPOSITE.

True colors are showing NB, uhhh ohhh .

Of course you will lie and pretend like your self serving nature is really about trying to help Ron Paul spread his message and get elected. But all you do is point people to videos from what you said. Great man good for you. I actually live with these people that are converting to get behind Ron Paul. We actually live out the principles in our daily lives, and will do so long after you have reaped all the benefits of the connection between Ron Paul, the internet, and your delusions of grandeur.

Conza, please, make the next evolutionary step in your philosophical ambitions and start living the principles in your back yard. Report back when you have taken that first step. Thanks!

More ranting bs about my character, keep on running your mouth with nothing but baseless assertions and made up tripe.

I am living my principles in my backyard. I do what I do for RP, on TOP of what I do here. Your ignorance, isn't an argument. Nor do I need to prove myself at the alter of NB. There are folks on here who do know about the projects I have underway..

And yet... NB, I've still done more from 10,000 miles away than you have. You didn't actually offer a refutation of that. Pretty telling

 

[Travlyr]

Mate, you've never addressed the material. And just dodged it again. There is no need for new material, when the 'old' is perfectly fine in making the point.



What area of US History do you consider me ignorant in, aye? Would you like to back up your assertion that I somehow don't understand US History... which a specific case example?

"Ron Paul wants to uphold the Constitution". That's great, and so do I 'COMPARED TO' what we have now. This isn't a 'qualifying statement', it is a statement that is implicitly made with every statement. When you say you value honesty, that means nothing... unless there is the implicit (COMPARED TO lies / falsehoods).

I support liberty, i.e and that government and state intervention is economically and socially destructive. I thus support the US constitution; compared to what we have now. And if we ever get there, I'd support the articles of confederation... COMPARED to 'what we have now'... and on it goes to a truly free voluntarist society.




I don't try attract attention to myself at all. YOU GUYS are the ones who INCESSANTLY and CONSTANTLY harp on about me as a person and my character, you're the ones who keep trying to put the spotlight on me. my whole channel is geared towards RP you clown, go put the link to it in your signature then.



The quote isn't in context at all. That's all I ask for, I stand by what I said, sure. You don't want to link people to it, because then the real context will be revealed.. and it destroys your case. Intellectual honesty - you have none.

SURELY if you thought you had a case; directly linking to it - would SUPPORT IT. But you've DONE THE OPPOSITE.

True colors are showing NB, uhhh ohhh .




More ranting bs about my character, keep on running your mouth with nothing but baseless assertions and made up tripe.

I am living my principles in my backyard. I do what I do for RP, on TOP of what I do here. Your ignorance, isn't an argument. Nor do I need to prove myself at the alter of NB. There are folks on here who do know about the projects I have underway..

And yet... NB, I've still done more from 10,000 miles away than you have. You didn't actually offer a refutation of that. Pretty telling

Do us all a favor Conza... define Anarcho-Capitalism for us. Please.

 

[newbitech]

Mate, you've never addressed the material. And just dodged it again. There is no need for new material, when the 'old' is perfectly fine in making the point.

Yes Conza, I have addressed the material. You just like to pretend like I haven't. I could speculate on why that is, but I suspect you are hiding your motives which becomes clear to someone who has conversed with you for more than a few minutes or passing time.

What area of US History do you consider me ignorant in, aye? Would you like to back up your assertion that I somehow don't understand US History... which a specific case example?

Current events.

"Ron Paul wants to uphold the Constitution". That's great, and so do I 'COMPARED TO' what we have now. This isn't a 'qualifying statement', it is a statement that is implicitly made with every statement. When you say you value honesty, that means nothing... unless there is the implicit (COMPARED TO lies / falsehoods).

DO you have any idea how convoluted this response sounds? Yes it is a qualifying statement! If it is implicit, then why do you need to explicitly include it? No I can categorically say, and so does Ron Paul, that I want to support, uphold, restore, and legalize the Constitution of the United States of America! It's ok if you, a person from a different country don't want to do that! I would understand if you simply said, "well, I am from Australia, so I don't want the Constitution of the United States here in this country, it would probably break even sooner here in Australia than it broke there in the US! HAR HAR!"

Instead, you tried to convince the forum and the people of the United States working on Ron Paul's campaign that Ron Paul secretly wants there to be no documents that create government at all! This might be true on the federal level, but it's not what has the attention of his supporters, and it's certainly not what has propelled the ideas of liberty in to the national and world spot light.

Here is a nice link on qualifying statements. http://vlc.polyu.edu.hk/academicwriter/argument/qualifying.htm

I support liberty, i.e and that government and state intervention is economically and socially destructive. I thus support the US constitution; compared to what we have now. And if we ever get there, I'd support the articles of confederation... COMPARED to 'what we have now'... and on it goes to a truly free voluntarist society.

THanks for supporting the US Constitution compare to the Australian Constitution. I support holding those people who swore and oath to uphold the Constitution accountable to that oath. As far as the list going on and on to a truly voluntary society, I think you are working backwards. I have been telling you this since I first noticed you posting here. You won't listen. I linked you to the motor home diaries to show you what Ron Paul had to say about in Ghandi in India. You completely missed that because you were able to twist up Ron's words to make it look like I and many others were hypocrites in our support of his ideas. Go back and listen again. Better yet, realize that you don't need to get rid of government first in order to have a truly free voluntary society. Here's a quarter pal.

I don't try attract attention to myself at all. YOU GUYS are the ones who INCESSANTLY and CONSTANTLY harp on about me as a person and my character, you're the ones who keep trying to put the spotlight on me. my whole channel is geared towards RP you clown, go put the link to it in your signature then.

Evidence to the contrary. Your post totals. Your recent spamming on dead threads complaining of your ban. Your taking issues from this board to other boards. You constantly pointing out how great you have done for liberty.

Also, what is hypocritical of you is to complain in your words about about constantly being harped of for your character, and then in the next sentence turn around and call me a clown.

No, if you notice on this forum, we typically don't link to things that we think deserve no hits. I don't think your thread where you mislabel Ron Paul deserves hits. The context is clear Conza, you were pissed and made a threat to spread those same mislabels on a Twitter Account that may appear to be an official Ron Paul account (4k followers right). So because you didn't get your way, you threatened to do something that you knew would hurt many Ron Paul supporters who disagree with your mislabeling.

The quote isn't in context at all. That's all I ask for, I stand by what I said, sure. You don't want to link people to it, because then the real context will be revealed.. and it destroys your case. Intellectual honesty - you have none.

Thank you. You stand by what you said. I don't want to link to it because I am not trying to spread your mislabeling of Ron Paul. I am trying to point out that you would use your control of an official looking Ron Paul twitter account to try and coerce Ron Paul supporters to bend to your will. You did it again a few posts up. No further context is needed. I don't need to make a case, you apparently stand by your threat as you have continued to repeat it.

SURELY if you thought you had a case; directly linking to it - would SUPPORT IT. But you've DONE THE OPPOSITE.

Why do I need a link when I can call you as a witness?

True colors are showing NB, uhhh ohhh .




More ranting bs about my character, keep on running your mouth with nothing but baseless assertions and made up tripe.

I am living my principles in my backyard. I do what I do for RP, on TOP of what I do here. Your ignorance, isn't an argument. Nor do I need to prove myself at the alter of NB. There are folks on here who do know about the projects I have underway..

And yet... NB, I've still done more from 10,000 miles away than you have. You didn't actually offer a refutation of that. Pretty telling

No comment

 

[Conza88]

No comment

The irony of which, is a comment . Implicit short translation: you have no credible defense to offer, since your position to start with was untenable.

Wise move not to press on further.

Do us all a favor Conza... define Anarcho-Capitalism for us. Please.

. Ok, but first does that mean to imply you have conceded there is no legitimate argument for the state? (Since you've as such failed to provide one).

I defined the state quite clearly in another thread.

Anarcho-capitalism is a label for a political philosophy. The same thoughts, principles etc. can be labeled in different ways, but mean the same thing. Private Law society, Natural Order, Voluntarism, Self-Government, Libertarianism etc.

It relies on self-ownership, and thus original appropriation. Definition? Do I really need to go on to spell it out, did you miss the OP?

ADAM KOKESH: So you've described yourself as a voluntarist. Can you tell us what that means for the big picture, and what your ideal society would be, as a voluntarist?

RON PAUL: Voluntary means no coercion. So if you want to change people's habits or change the world you should do it by setting examples and trying to persuade people to do it. You can use force only when somebody uses force against you. So voluntary use of information and persuading people, I think, is the best way to go; and no matter what kind of problem you're looking at.

 

[Becker]

The irony of which, is a comment . Implicit short translation: you have no credible defense to offer, since your position to start with was untenable.

so every post you fail to respond to me, would be just that. thanks for the admission. (oh wait, you don't hold yourself to the same standards)

 

[Becker]

So.... in the chat room:

I responded to an individual who was saying "to donate more, more, more..."

That it might be an idea to better donate your time to a liberty worthy cause, than simply ads.

such as what? Conza's youtube channel? Liberty Australia?

 

[Conza88]

so every post you fail to respond to me, would be just that. thanks for the admission. (oh wait, you don't hold yourself to the same standards)

You're on my ignore list.

good quote.

Replace the word Constitution with any concept, doctrine, principle in absence of force, and you have the same result. (as long as they are written, of course)

Yep, totally agree.

The free market is a process.

Glad we cleared that up.

such as what? Conza's youtube channel? Liberty Australia?

I was referring to: What Must Be Done, Hoppe.

"But what then? Everything else falls almost automatically from the ultimate goal, which must be kept permanently in mind, in all of one's activities: the restoration from the bottom-up of private property and the right to property protection; the right to self-defense, to exclude or include, and to freedom of contract. And the answer can be broken down into two parts.

First, what to do within these very small districts, where a pro-private property candidate and anti-majoritarian personality can win. And second, how to deal with the higher levels of government, and especially with the central federal government. First, as an initial step, and I'm referring now to what should be done on the local level, the first central plank of one's platform should be: one must attempt to restrict the right to vote on local taxes, in particular on property taxes and regulations, to property and real estate owners. Only property owners must be permitted to vote, and their vote is not equal, but in accordance with the value of the equity owned, and the amount of taxes paid. That is, similar to what Lew Rockwell already explained has happened in some places in California." - What Must Be Done, HHH

 

[Becker]

You're on my ignore list.

to quote you :
Implicit short translation: you have no credible defense to offer, since your position to start with was untenable.

Yep, totally agree.

The free market is a process.

Glad we cleared that up.

you admit the market is neither perfect nor useful without force?

 

[Conza88]

to quote you :
Implicit short translation: you have no credible defense to offer, since your position to start with was untenable.

He literally quoted the whole post, and said "no comment".

Lulz, get off the drugs mate.. just because you have a right to consume, doesn't mean you should. It's affecting your comprehension skills.

you admit the market is neither perfect nor useful without force?

The market doesn't have a goal; it is not an entity, it is a process. Hence it is incomprehensible to apply the concept of 'failure' to it.

Do you know what a free market is? No? Didn't think so.

Do you understand that... Force/coercion ≠ aggression. No? Didn't think so.

Well that's great, I'm done wasting my time with you. I've got more productive things to do.

Back on ignore list. Won't be responding to your bs any longer unless someone requests it.