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

[LibertyEagle]

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

If homeowners in a given community decide to have a home owner's association, do you consider that force?

"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.

Yeah, that Ron Paul sure is wasting his time in those murky depths and logical inconsistency.

 

[pcosmar]

If homeowners in a given community decide to have a home owner's association, do you consider that force?

If it was not in place when I bought my property and I am not in agreement with their decisions I would feel free to ignore any and all of their decisions. If they imposed those decisions on me it would be force.

 

[Lothario]

If it was not in place when I bought my property and I am not in agreement with their decisions I would feel free to ignore any and all of their decisions. If they imposed those decisions on me it would be force.

+1

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Also, arguably one of the greatest moments of the primary debates. He straight up mocked statist quo and had fun with it.

Almost as awesome as the tie he wore that same night...

Seriously, Clay. You may say you're not claiming anything, but implicitly, you are suggesting a whole lot about Ron that you cannot justify or back up in any way. It needs to stop. Ron is not ancap so get over it.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

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



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.

This is downright false. You are suggesting that I am the same as the kid in the video, when you know that's not the case. Perhaps you feel justified grouping statists all in the same category, as often seems to be part of the ancap's aggressive debate tactics, but you know there is a difference between socialists like that guy and me because you know there is a difference between him and Ron Paul. I agree with Ron Paul, and Ron Paul is not an ancap, nor a socialist. Please don't spread disinfo. Don't be like that.

Oh, and your last sentence there is really distracting from the real issue, which is that we have never observed stateless societies. Why do you think that is? Because it doesn't f*cking work. I really don't know why you have to be so aggressively anti-state, when you know anarchy will never be achieved, much less would it last. You are a fool if you think otherwise. Minarchism has worked, but only for a limited time and in a limited amount, but that's more than we can say about anarchy. It has NEVER worked, hence it has never even existed. The fact that you can dump on minarchy while avoiding the fact that anarchy has never even gotten anywhere is laughable.

Also, I'm not so sure that this is the "largest, most violent and obscene leviathan in human history." That is a big, baseless claim, and you are just spewing it out like your shit smells like roses.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

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.

What is it with ancaps acting like they're the epitome of logical and moral consistency? To me, that's just arrogance.

The question is, what are your moral standards? Why do you say that you are more morally consistent? Moral according to who? If someone could answer this, I would be grateful. As for logic, well the ancap would realize that their society is bound to be run over by ruthless dictators where they were either destroyed or someone came to power. If you can't see that it's not going to last and is nothing more than a hopeless pipe dream, then you need your head examined.

The arrogance and the vitriol is just blinding from these people.

 

[Oddone]

All I can say is wow to this video... The people at these things are insane.. I have never met anyone like this face to face.. Where are they hiding?

 

[ClayTrainor]

Ron is not ancap so get over it.

I have never once labelled him as such. The man can speak for himself, he doesn't need you or me to speak for him.

"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

"Governments by their very nature, notoriously compete with liberty, even when the stated purpose for establishing a particular government is to protect liberty." - Ron Paul, Introduction to Liberty Defined

​

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.

(Go to 4m5s)



MHD: "What do you say to people who advocate for self-government rather than a return to the Constitution? Just like ..."

Ron Paul: "Great. Fine. And I think that's really what my goal is."

 

[ClayTrainor]

Seriously, Clay. You may say you're not claiming anything, but implicitly, you are suggesting a whole lot about Ron that you cannot justify or back up in any way.

In the post above I am implying 2 things...

1. Ron Pauls tie is awesome.

2. He flat-out mocked the statist quo when he responded to the heroin question.

Which one is false and can not be backed up in any way?

 

[ClayTrainor]

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

Ron Paul has thought it out...

"The government is incapable of doing what it's supposed to do. A job like the provision of security is something best left to private institutions." - Ron Paul, Liberty Defined, page 288

 

[Lothario]

The question is, what are your moral standards?

The initiation of force is immoral.

Why do you say that you are more morally consistent?

Simple - because I am philosophically opposed to all things that violate the above moral standard.

Moral according to who? If someone could answer this, I would be grateful.

The question doesn't make rational sense. Morality by definition must be objective and equally true for all people - otherwise its simply opinion and preference.

As for logic, well the ancap would realize that their society is bound to be run over by ruthless dictators where they were either destroyed or someone came to power.

Well its quite clear you haven't given much serious thought at all to researching the philosophy. Again your question is derived from false premises - ancap is a philosophical doctrine of a society, meaning you can't bomb DC and say we are an ancap society, the same way you can't blow up a community church and conclude they must now be atheist. Sure, if society didn't accept the non-aggression principle and we suddenly lost the political class, the seat of power would be ripe for the taking for any thug or dictator. An adult elephant can be held chained to a toothpick because it was chained to a firm stake as a baby. Ancap involves a philosophical and moral shift in society - not just the sudden disappearance of the "stake" that is the political class.

 

[jazzloversinc]

damn socialists. Ugh.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

This is downright false. You are suggesting that I am the same as the kid in the video, when you know that's not the case. Perhaps you feel justified grouping statists all in the same category, as often seems to be part of the ancap's aggressive debate tactics, but you know there is a difference between socialists like that guy and me because you know there is a difference between him and Ron Paul. I agree with Ron Paul, and Ron Paul is not an ancap, nor a socialist. Please don't spread disinfo. Don't be like that.

I said "there is little substantively to differentiate you..." - you both have stuck your head in the sand.

Oh, and your last sentence there is really distracting from the real issue, which is that we have never observed stateless societies. Why do you think that is? Because it doesn't f*cking work. I really don't know why you have to be so aggressively anti-state, when you know anarchy will never be achieved, much less would it last. You are a fool if you think otherwise. Minarchism has worked, but only for a limited time and in a limited amount, but that's more than we can say about anarchy. It has NEVER worked, hence it has never even existed. The fact that you can dump on minarchy while avoiding the fact that anarchy has never even gotten anywhere is laughable.

Talk about making assertions... do a google search, once.

Again, minarchists have the same problem anarchists do.

Also, I'm not so sure that this is the "largest, most violent and obscene leviathan in human history." That is a big, baseless claim, and you are just spewing it out like your shit smells like roses.

Really? There have been other multi-trillion dollar governments with a book of regulations literally tens of thousands of pages long, the currency of which was both globally ubiquitous and utterly fiat, whose military claimed hegemony over the entire planet?

Yeah, ancaps are the aggressive/disingenuous debaters.

 

[Working Poor]

wow Adam, that was incredible dude. +rep for that and you really made that guy look like a fool.

Adam did not make him do anything he did it on his own.

 

[tnvoter]

loved it

 

[Fredom101]

I guess they will vote for Obama then? The Fed helps the poor? Wow. WTF are they marching for then if they want the status quo?

 

[FrankRep]

Somebody should send this interview clip to Cliff Kincaid (AIM blogger) who hates Adam Kokesh. Maybe it would open up his eyes.

This video by Adam Kokesh has impressed me.

Before, though, I figured Adam would have supported the Occupy DC/Wall Street thing.

 

[Wesker1982]

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".

I prefer voluntary trade. People think of Herbert Hoover when they hear laissez-faire lol.

As for logic, well the ancap would realize that their society is bound to be run over by ruthless dictators where they were either destroyed or someone came to power.

This is very basic and obvious objection that has been discussed ad nauseam. No one has accepted Voluntaryism who first did not think of this objection and then figure out why it is not a problem. It really is the very first thing one has to understand before they accept Voluntaryism. Rothbard responded to this objection decades ago (I think Linda and Morris Tannehill even before that), and it has been ignored because no one can refute it.

Corrupt Defense Agencies and Courts (1973)
Warring Defense Agencies Objection
But Wouldn't Warlords Take Over?
Warring Defense Agencies and Organized Crime (1970)
Conflict Resolution in a Free Society
Warlord Dictator Objection

Also, Ron Paul advocates the private production of all defense services (this is very clear). I wonder why he is so foolish to ignore that obviously one of these private defense agencies would turn criminal and take over the world. Or maybe he has concluded that having all the power concentrated into one coercive monopoly is much more dangerous than decentralized voluntarily funded defensive services.

If you can't see that it's not going to last and is nothing more than a hopeless pipe dream, then you need your head examined.

If you can persuade people on a large enough scale to accept lasting limited government, you have a society ready to do without coercive monopolies.

 

[Travlyr]

Also, Ron Paul advocates the private production of all defense services (this is very clear). I wonder why he is so foolish to ignore that obviously one of these private defense agencies would turn criminal and take over the world. Or maybe he has concluded that having all the power concentrated into one coercive monopoly is much more dangerous than decentralized voluntarily funded defensive services.

Wesker, do you see any correlation between the "greenbacks", Civil War, and the expansion of the federal government? Or the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, WWI in 1914, The New Deal, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam conflict, The Great Society, Middle East conflicts, and the continued expansion of the Federal Government?

Are you aware that Ron Paul consistently refers to how honest sound money limits governments ability to expand or start wars? When I say consistently I mean in almost all his writings and speeches. Big government growth is directly correlated with fiat money. That is why the IMF wants a world fiat currency. Without fiat money the government officials hands are tied. Honest sound money is what Ron Paul brings to the presidency and along with it ... limited government.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Wesker, do you see any correlation between the "greenbacks", Civil War, and the expansion of the federal government? Or the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, WWI in 1914, The New Deal, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam conflict, The Great Society, Middle East conflicts, and the continued expansion of the Federal Government?

Are you aware that Ron Paul consistently refers to how honest sound money limits governments ability to expand or start wars? When I say consistently I mean in almost all his writings and speeches. Big government growth is directly correlated with fiat money. That is why the IMF wants a world fiat currency. Without fiat money the government officials hands are tied. Honest sound money is what Ron Paul brings to the presidency and along with it ... limited government.

That's not an argument against ancap at all. I imagine ancaps would argue that a free society would choose honest, sound money, as money deriving from the free market would be sound.