SPLIT: Ancap derail of "Best book on minarchism" thread

[LibertyEagle]

??

Did not Barney Frank take that same oath? What again does it mean?

You are sitting there and equating Ron Paul to Barney Frank? Oh really. Do tell.

Paul is against the state period, by whatever title you choose to call that.

Dr. Paul is a constitutionalist. I didn't pick that; that is what HE calls himself.

As for today, he is much like the ancaps here, we will work with minarchists hand in hand until we get government down to minarchy size, then we will work to keep making government smaller until it ceases to exist completely. Whether you want to fight us at that point is up to you.

You are putting words in Dr. Paul's mouth. Thanks, but I'd rather let him speak for himself and I have been listening to him for over 25 years. :/

So, sorry, but you will have to speak for yourself.

 

[__27__]

You are sitting there and equating Ron Paul to Barney Frank? Oh really. Do tell.

You implied that merely speaking an oath to the constitution makes him automatically a constitutionalist. Is Barney Frank then also a constitutionalist? Do tell.

Dr. Paul is a constitutionalist. I didn't pick that; that is what HE calls himself.

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and tells you it's a goose, it's a...?

You are putting words in Dr. Paul's mouth. Thanks, but I'd rather let him speak for himself and I have been listening to him for over 25 years. :/

So, sorry, but you will have to speak for yourself.

If you've been listening to him for over 25 years and still believe he would support oppressive government force to be used to meet an end (even a constitutional one) I have to wonder if you've really been listening, or just hearing what you wanted to hear.

 

[UnReconstructed]

This however is not a refutation of anarcho-capitalism, nor advocation of a stateless society - i.e voluntarism. The state is failing, it is inevitable. The system WILL collapse.

That's not a reason to not promote anarcho-capitalism / stateless society which is arrived at by reason and logic, not via the collapse of a failed state.

Again, none of that is actually a valid refutation.

Why are you being argumentative? I am not trying refute anything that you said or have said. Are you Conza88 operating under a different name?

 

[Joe3113]

I already refuted you and added to that, the fact that Ron Paul took an oath to uphold the Constitution, makes your argument beyond ridiculous.

No fortunately / unfortunately you haven't refuted that Ron Paul's ideal is "self government". Nor have you refuted that the context in which he said those words, means anarcho-capitalism / voluntarism.

Ron has taken that oath, yes - and that does nothing to refute my point that his ideal is anarcho-capitalism.