The Delusion of Limited Government

[HVACTech]

You seem to be dragging an awful lot out of the very simple concept of "no rulers".

on what basis sir, shall I consider YOU smarter than John Adams or Ron Paul?


and yes! I am outta neg rep for you!

 

[HVACTech]

I hate to tell you, but Ron wasn't in it to win...he was is in it to spread a message and wake people up. Now you know what we're still doing here. Fuck the state you love so much, and all its cousins of various levels of tyranny.

You cannot, like all statists, defend the state with valid premises and consistent logic. Pragmatic arguments are dispatched via free market economics and anthropology/history of stateless societies. There is no reason to believe we need a coercive monopoly over any market in order for the market to exist to meet consumer demand (if consumers want law, they will get law, etc.). Every reason you express is crushed. And ethics? It's not even a question...the state is evil. Even your worshiped Founders admitted that. The only question is of necessity among the Founders, not the ethical nature of the state. They knew the state was pure evil...they just thought it necessary. But how much time do people who despise evil spend on abolishing this evil, by making it unnecessary? Almost none, except the anarchists. Everyone else acknowledges the evil or is delusional and denies it, but either way just ignore their obligation to make it unnecessary, if indeed it ever was necessary.

So, when you can use valid premises and consistent logic to make sound philosophical arguments that the state is ethical (impossible) OR it is necessary (have not run across an argument yet that I didn't myself make as a statist before becoming an anarchist, and yet cannot today show it plausibly false or logically inconsistent). In the end though, it's only the ethics that matter...

...because the reason to end chattel slavery was not "we don't need it to bring cotton to market, it will be cheaper by way of paid labor, and I can foresee the future where giant machines do the work of 30 men". The reason to end chattel slavery was "regardless of the consequences, which will be likely better given the removal of initiated coercion, which then spurs innovation and invention to meet ACTUAL un-coerced consumer demand, we must abolish chattel slavery because IT'S FUCKING EVIL, ASSHOLE!"

But keep thinking your big tent strategy for Rand, which resulted in less money and less votes than his dad got with a much purer libertarian message that even us anarchists respected, even if we disagreed in part, is working or going to work. We aren't the ones who need to piss off. The question is "why are we still not purging all the non-libertarians from this forum who failed to yield us jackshit?" We watered down the crowd and the message with Rand and the non-libertarians he attracted. Maybe we should consider his shit results in doing that, and revert back to running candidates who want to win less than wake people up, and view winning like Ron did; not as the main goal, but as an unhappy consequence of waking up enough people. That way, we don't bullshit the people LIKE FUCKING STATIST political parasites always do...instead, we tell the Truth and then if we win it is merely a confirmation enough woke up and the people en masse are ready for radical (not reformist) changes.

We're glad you're out of neg rep...and if you hand it out over topics like this we'll endlessly neg rep you back until you stop being a thought nazi.

who do you think you are talking to Osan? I am a MinArchist.
I do NOT need the virtues of anarchy defined for me.

"anthropology/history of stateless societies."

.. OMG!... LOL! ^^ROTFLMAO!^^

 

[HVACTech]

This belongs here.

thank you.

yes. Ron Paul was a MinArchist.
listen to what the man says, and know why he was there in the first place!

who's job is it to protect the Amish? can they protect themselves?

 

[jmdrake]

thank you.

yes. Ron Paul was a MinArchist.
listen to what the man says, and know why he was there in the first place!

Funny thing about that video. People take from it what they want. What Ron actually said. "If you have a government, they will want us to all be socialistic. But they will never allow an enclave to go and become libertarian. Just accept nothing, receive nothing, no obligations. But if we had a libertarian society and people wanted to go and run things socialisticly, you had some of those in our early history, the literally lived in socialist enclaves. They didn't have to live off us. I mean even today, the people, the Amish, they'd like to be left alone. And they shouldn't be required to pay social security or the income tax...so libertarianism is much more tolerant than socialism."

Funny but I didn't hear the word or the concept "minarchism" being said from Ron Paul at all. He spoke of a socialistic government versus a libertarian society.

who's job is it to protect the Amish? can they protect themselves?

It's the job of the Amish Mafia according to the Discovery Channel. But seriously, if the Amish must be protected by some external government then shouldn't they have to pay taxes to that external government? Is it really fair for non Amish to pay taxes that support the U.S. military and state and local police for protection while the Amish get a free ride because they want to be "left alone?" Okay, let them opt out of social security, but Ron also said the income tax.

Edit: Anyway, in a libertarian society groups could choose to band together for the common defense, hire out their services for those who wanted to pay for them, and decide to do "charity justice" for groups like the Amish that didn't want to pay for them and didn't believe they needed the services because they believed God would protect they and if God didn't then what happened to them must be God's will anyway.

 

[AuH20]

Any system is only as good as the moral composition of the people running it. You could have an anarchist society be corrupted from within.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Any system is only as good as the moral composition of the people running it. You could have an anarchist society be corrupted from within.

True, but an anarchist society would not have an ultra-violent centralized gang of thugs (the worst rise to the top, as Hayek illustrated) "running" the masses mafia-style.

 

[Son_of_Liberty90]

True, but an anarchist society would not have an ultra-violent centralized gang of thugs (the worst rise to the top, as Hayek illustrated) "running" the masses mafia-style.

Right. We would still have to deal with the power hungry corporations, but government wouldnt be there to save them

 

[Cabal]

Right. We would still have to deal with the power hungry corporations, but government wouldnt be there to save them

Not that there wouldn't be greed, and the power-hungry, but corporations as we know them, and as they exist today are largely a product of the State.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Any system is only as good as the moral composition of the people running it. You could have an anarchist society be corrupted from within.

'Society' is really only a word, an abstraction with no existence nor characteristics nor wants nor abilities nor capacities.

All we've got is just folks, individuals, some net good, some net bad. <shrug>

 

[Ronin Truth]

Saw the movie. Jack wasn't talking to me. I could very easily handle that made up truth. Been doing it almost my whole life, since becoming a grown up.

 

[Ronin Truth]

If it helps any to get over the apparently insurmountable speed bump of 'anarchy', just go ahead and consider me a minarchist.

My min is ZERO, what's yours?

"An anarchist is anyone who believes in less government than you do." -- Bob LeFevre

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Not that there wouldn't be greed, and the power-hungry, but corporations as we know them, and as they exist today are largely a product of the State.

This^^ It should also be noted that the enormous power corporation have only exists because the regime wrote a bunch of laws and created the corporate (S and C corp, primarily) structure. PLUS, the state claims to be the sole regulator of corporations-even though it benefits directly from corporations. Conflict of interest much?

 

[ProIndividual]

I guess I find it odd that Ron would introduce himself as a "Champion of the Constitution." being a founding document of our Government. To be an Anarchist would be an enemy of the Constitution.

Let's ask Ron what he thinks, shall we?



And HVACTech, you keep neg repping me, so I'm going to keep doing it back, and encourage other anarchists to do the same (since he's doing it over my mere opinions expressed in this thread)...I'll do it alone until you stop, regardless, because I don't give fuck about rep on this site. Want to race to zero, statist? lol.

 

[ProIndividual]

Ron's favorite founding father is John Adams.

Who has called Ron an anarchist? Anarchists do not hold public offices.

ron paul lysander spooner

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en.....1ac.1.34.heirloom-hp..1.14.2423.Md3MQRybmOA

Actually quite a few anarchists have held public offices. The first man to call himself an anarchist, a Mutualist, and was, along with Josiah Warren, the first real market anarchists in modernity, Proudhon, was a politician.

 

[ProIndividual]

Ron recognizes the key flaw in anarchist philosophy, that it is an inherently transitional state to something else and not a stable, sustainable arrangement that can provide for long-term liberty.

Actually stateless societies were far more stable than nation-states. Look up the history...thousands of years for some stateless societies under the same polycentric legal regime and defense regime; meanwhile nation-states are lucky to last 100 years before a war breaks out over control of the state and Civil War or Revolution occurs, coups, assassinations, etc. No state has ever lasted under one legal and defense regime for thousands of years. Celtic Ireland, for one example, lasted 2,000 years under one polycentric legal order and defense order. This failed experiment with statism for less than 3% of human history is the transitional phase. It's unsustainable (it's entirely based upon coercion of the innocent by way of taxes to fund it, tariffs (same shit, different tax), and threats against both competition and to limit tort liability). Without such mafia shit, which you still have nostalgia for, the state cannot exist. And since that method of coercion is unsustainable, the state is unsustainable.

In short, the state is exactly what you just accused statelessness of.

 

[ProIndividual]

“Democracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy; such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man's life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit, and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable [abominable] cruelty of one or a very few.”

— John Adams (1797-1801) Second President of the United States and Patriot

that John Adams?

Yep same guy who thought we shouldn't be able to be armed to overthrow govt. He said that should be illegal...lol.

"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."

---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

So, Johnny, you think if a genocide is legal, and the militia attempts to stop it, THEY are the problem, not your dumbass laws? Welcome to authoritarian American thought in its infancy.

Same guy who wore purple king robes while President too. Not exactly someone libertarians should look up to.

 

[ProIndividual]

on what basis sir, shall I consider YOU smarter than John Adams or Ron Paul?


and yes! I am outta neg rep for you!

Hero worship is an appeal to authority and is irrelevant to philosophy. It's literally not an argument.

 

[ProIndividual]

who do you think you are talking to Osan? I am a MinArchist.
I do NOT need the virtues of anarchy defined for me.

"anthropology/history of stateless societies."

.. OMG!... LOL! ^^ROTFLMAO!^^

None of that was an argument in opposition to what I said in what you quoted. Again, literally not an argument.

 

[ProIndividual]

Any system is only as good as the moral composition of the people running it. You could have an anarchist society be corrupted from within.

Hence how the state got here....but not because a few corrupt people, but them AND the masses going along with it as social norm. You change that social norm, the state is just a protection racket and the people running it are just criminals. It's mass acceptance that is the problem. It is for this reason we need to convince more people to accept statelessness as better than a state, before the next violent revolution when this unsustainable system collapses. That way the corrupt remain thought of as criminals when that time comes, and that way the state cannot reemerge anymore than chattel slavery can.

Sure, it is POSSIBLE we re-install chattel slavery...but social norms of the masses (changed hearts and minds) prevent it from being very likely. This is true of the state as well. Once the masses are convinced, like with chattel slavery (which people also said would just reemerge the same way you did, or that we couldn't survive without it, etc.), it is very unlikely to reemerge, as the masses will see it a illegitimate (like chattel slavery today, but not how it was in 1800).

 

[ProIndividual]

Right. We would still have to deal with the power hungry corporations, but government wouldnt be there to save them

The state entirely created and empower corporations:

"Govt invented corporations by merely extending to cronies the same limits on tort liability and competition they themselves have (in an albeit purer form). Saying corporations run govt (or would replace it if the state were abolished) is like saying the abusive bully child created and parents the abusive bully parent. It's totally backwards. This is born out of the delusion the state would ever, or could ever, work against its own interests and be some benign entity that fights corporate greed...when they invented them and hand them every economic and social special privilege they enjoy.

The fact is, the state has all the guns and bombs and tanks and could nationalize or take away privileges from corporate entities at any time...but they don't want to, because it isn't in their interests. The govt hasn't been corrupted or bought...there has been no takeover by corporations. This is the way it is SUPPOSED to work, was designed to work, and the only way it can work. Saying otherwise assumes that it could or would be any other way, and that somehow the men with guns, bombs, and tanks and the legal ability to use them without consequence, and with such a cult and propaganda machine as to convince the idiot masses that it is legitimate ethically to do so, are incapable of realizing that anytime they want they can just use those weapons to take all the money from their corporate offspring.

Of course, they KNOW they can do that at any time...but then what? Then no more payday tomorrow. No one will keep producing for you anymore if you fuck them too hard. You can only rob them once. So, it is in the long term interest of the state to create corporate entities and hand them special privileges of pseudo-states, and to keep selling them power for money, and for the corporates to keep selling money for power. You have who runs who backwards, entirely, if you think corporations run the government (or would replace it in the state's absence)..."