Thought y'all would want to know what Occupy DC thinks of Ron Paul

[A Son of Liberty]

I know it will never work.

In holding such a viewpoint, there is little substantively to differentiate you from the kid in the video.

If men were all virtuous, we would never need government. The thing is, you think the failure of government means no government is better, when no government in reality, would only promote the rise of more authoritarian government. The failure of government is due to people's failure to educate themselves on the purpose of a government by the people and for the people.

Men are not virtuous. How does it follow then that the solution to this problem is to create an agency in society with socially-sanctioned absolute power?

Anarchists are often said to suffer from the fact that there are either no stateless societies, or only failed or conquered ones. Minarchists suffer from the same problem, however - the United States were the great experiment in minarchism, and yet here we are some 200 years later with the largest, most violent and obscene leviathan in human history. It's failure was baked in the cake.

So, actually you *think* stateless societies won't "work"; but it is observable that minarchism does not.

 

[dbill27]

The best part is the first couple seconds of the video where you don't notice what he's saying unless you watch it a couple times but it's basically:

"You're familiar with newseum, its that museum you have to pay for, they're unfriendly, sweet, we can protest that too"

 

[A Son of Liberty]

The best part is the first couple seconds of the video where you don't notice what he's saying unless you watch it a couple times but it's basically:

"You're familiar with newseum, its that museum you have to pay for, they're unfriendly, sweet, we can protest that too"

You have to PAY for it!? That's BS!

The part that annoyed me the most was when these disrespectful, mealy-mouthed little punks tried to force the door open...

 

[Dary]

Interesting how at 4:52 the guy interjects himself into the conversation that Adam is having with the guy from Salon, then after Adam engages with him, at 5:13 the guy tells Adam to "go the fuck" away.
Does the guy want a conversation or not?

I'm supposed to believe that this guy believes in god? Which is really what his whole argument comes down to in that he says that he is licensing his body from god, and he doesn't even own it. He may be genuine in his belief. I don't know. Who am I to judge? But I've heard this same argument before. It is more like an out rather than an argument. It's a way to sidestep being trapped. Maybe his god is the state? Well what if I don't believe in his god?

Is it too much for him to just tell the truth and say that he believes that we are all slaves to the state and that we don't actually own our own bodies? Maybe he thinks that would just be too much and that it would be going too far for most people to actually believe and accept. He's afraid that he would lose potential followers. So he uses the god out.

Fail.

 

[Adam Kokesh]

Maybe it's just me, but it seems to me the demographic of "Republican primary voters who are smart enough to know what anarcho-capitalism is but dumb enough to confuse it with constitutionalism and not vote for someone based on that confusion" has to be pretty small.

I think I would have added a bunch of expletives, but this is money.
The man said openly in a presidential debate that he doesn't think heroin should be illegal.
What in the flying fuck can incidental mention of anarchy do to him that this openly self-stated position of his hasn't done already?

Thank you!

 

[LibertyEagle]

I don't know, silly me, I thought the idea was to HELP Ron Paul, not to saddle him with some of our own agendas.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

I don't know, silly me, I thought the idea was to HELP Ron Paul, not to saddle him with some of our own agendas.

Your constant attacks on the enthusiastic support that people have for Ron Paul isn't helping him win the nomination, I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at.

Like it or not, he has attracted a wide range of support. Division of labor is set up beautifully, encourage it.

 

[Wesker1982]

If men were all virtuous, we would never need government.

Given that all men are not virtuous is why it is so dangerous to centralize power into one coercive monopoly. "The great non sequitur committed by defenders of the State, including classical Aristotelian and Thomist philosophers, is to leap from the necessity of society (i.e. law and order) to the necessity of the State (i.e. monopolist provision of law)".

We need legal system, what we don't need is a coercive monopoly to provide it.

The Jurisprudence Of Polycentric Law
Customary Legal Systems with Voluntary Enforcement & The Rise of Authoritarian Law
The English Experience With Private Protection
Voluntaryism and Protective Agencies in Historical Perspective
Law Prior to the State (Polycentric Law)
The Jurisprudence Of Polycentric Law

The failure of government is due to people's failure to educate themselves on the purpose of a government by the people and for the people.

This is one of the greatest inconsistencies of minarchists. For if reaching Minarchism is a worthy goal, why not Voluntaryism? This is an important but ignored question. It is important because we are only slightly more likely to ever reach a Minarchist society than a Voluntaryist one. But the most important fact here is that if people are ever educated enough on large enough scale to implement Minarchism, then it would be in contradiction to reality to say that this same society is incapable of Voluntaryism. Because in order for Minarchism to be achieved, people would have to overwhelmingly accept and understand the principles of libertarian philosophy. At this point, it would be illogical to say these people are incapable of self-governance.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Don't be surprised if they act with animosity toward your ideas because you can't automatically assume that they will be open to them just because you have so much confidence in your persuasion abilities. Some people really just aren't open to it.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

I don't know, silly me, I thought the idea was to HELP Ron Paul, not to saddle him with some of our own agendas.

Or maybe you have personal issues with radical anti-statists.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Or maybe you have personal issues with radical anti-statists.

I'm not here to promote anyone's agenda besides Ron Paul, his platform and his candidacy. As long as you can say the same, we're buds. But, if you cannot....

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Would you describe Ron's "agenda" as primarily being educational, or primarily to win a seat of power in government?

 

[LibertyEagle]

Would you describe Ron's "agenda" as primarily being educational, or primarily to win a seat of power in government?

Since you used the word, primarily, I take him at his word that right now he is running to win the election. However, winning an election and educating people along the way, are not mutually-exclusive events. He is educating as he is campaigning. But, his primary goal right now is to win the Republican nomination.

 

[deadfish]

These days I only log into facebook to read the latest from Adam and my RP meetup.

http://www.yaliberty.org/posts/reasons-i-use-facebook

 

[Lothario]

There can be a government that exists without force

In the exact same way that you can have a square circle.

"What's the difference between a libertarian minarchist and an ancap? Usually about 5-6 years, if you're paying attention." Forgot who said that - fortunately the difference for me was only 3 or 4 months...not too much time wasted in the murky depths of moral and logical inconsistency.

 

[AuH20]

In the exact same way that you can have a square circle.

"What's the difference between a libertarian minarchist and an ancap? Usually about 5-6 years, if you're paying attention." Forgot who said that - fortunately the difference for me was only 3 or 4 months...not too much time wasted in the murky depths of moral and logical inconsistency.

Too bad the ancaps never fully thought the security issue out. There is always a bigger fish.

 

[Travlyr]

In the exact same way that you can have a square circle.

"What's the difference between a libertarian minarchist and an ancap? Usually about 5-6 years, if you're paying attention." Forgot who said that - fortunately the difference for me was only 3 or 4 months...not too much time wasted in the murky depths of moral and logical inconsistency.

For Ludwig von Mises and Ron Paul it took a little longer than that ... like never.

 

[PeteinLA]

Wait.....What?....Oh I get it.

 

[Lothario]

Too bad the ancaps never fully thought the security issue out. There is always a bigger fish.

Actually...Stefan Molyneux has put quite a bit of thought into it. Check out his site freedomainradio.com - he has thousands of podcasts and thousands of pages of free books on it...quite a bit of thought indeed.

Anyways, I'm of the belief that the initiation of force is immoral - always. The end of slavery was proposed and people asked, but how will the cotton be picked? It doesn't matter how the cotton is picked my friend, nor how roads will be built or security provided or fancy phones with touch screens designed - all that matters is that the initiation of force is immoral. The initiation of force is immoral....the initiation, of force, is immoral.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Haha. That guy being interviewed after the salon.com reporter is obviously a reddit guy. He can't stand Ron Paul.

Good job Adam, it's extremely amusing, and quite sad that these people think what we have now is capitalism and capitalism is controlled by government.

Haha, I love how he just starts shouting after he gives his pretty terrible argument against Ron Paul. Then you explain the inflation tax, and he tells you the conversation belongs in a freshman dorm room .

Technically, that's true though. Marx coined the word "capitalism" as an epithet, having in mind what we now call "cronyism". I prefer the word "Laissez-faire" to "capitalism".