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

[Wesker1982]

Travlyr,

I don't intend to start discussions on Voluntaryism in the main forum, but I will respond to fallacies when they come up.

If the mods decide to not move or delete the first post that brings up the forbidden topic, I advise you guys to ignore it. I know your intentions are to discredit the posts on the forbidden topic, but it is counterproductive to your own goal. There is one relatively insignificant post on the forbidden topic, which would have gained relatively minor attention. By responding to it, you make it the main focus of the thread, it has gained much more attention than it otherwise would have if you would have just ignored it.

 

[Travlyr]

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.

I'm sure they would. The thing is ... we have a constitution that is not being followed. When we adhere to the supreme law of the land as it is currently written, then the President is not allowed to assassinate citizens or print money out of nothing which achieves three fundamental goals ... liberty, peace and prosperity. It is all in place. We don't have to re-invent the wheel. We don't have to eliminate the State. All we have to do is enforce the rule of law. That is what Ron Paul is trying to accomplish with the support of most of us.

When that is accomplished to a major degree, then continue to use the rule of law to make the government as small as society wants it.

 

[Travlyr]

Travlyr,

I don't intend to start discussions on Voluntaryism in the main forum, but I will respond to fallacies when they come up.

If the mods decide to not move or delete the first post that brings up the forbidden topic, I advise you guys to ignore it. I know your intentions are to discredit the posts on the forbidden topic, but it is counterproductive to your own goal. There is one relatively insignificant post on the forbidden topic, which would have gained relatively minor attention. By responding to it, you make it the main focus of the thread, it has gained much more attention than it otherwise would have if you would have just ignored it.

So you do, or don't, understand that at the heart of big government is fiat money?

 

[jkr]

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?

MorE!

 

[reardenstone]

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 .

Capitalism is controlled by the government and always has been. Mercantilism to capitalism was a seamless transition. Our wealth as a nation is a false bubble wealth born on the backs of centuries of indenturism, manorialism, slavery, stolen land and blood. That's my view and that is why I am a free market anti-capitalist.

Give me mutualism, anarchism or anything else other than the false system we have now.

 

[reardenstone]

This might even be better than the last video. Please don't forget to share it if you appreciate it!

The blond guy is right (on the first half). Only the state and the banker class have the power to "own property and do what they will with it. Lets start over with real rights. From there on he is wrong (Okay?)

Who here really owns land that they can start a factory with?
Would our government even allow worker federations to start their factories. Co-op groceries; yeah sure.

Our "property rights" system has never been free. We have never been free.

 

[FrankRep]

The blond guy is right. Only the state and the banker class have the power to "own property and do what they will with it. Lets start over with real rights.

Who here really owns land that they can start a factory with?
Would our government even allow worker federations to start their factories. Co-op groceries; yeah sure.

Our "property rights" system has never been free. We have never been free.

The blond guy wants property rights abolished. Read the Communist manifesto.

I can contact a Realtor right now and buy some commercial land if I wish.

 

[Travlyr]

The blond guy is right. Only the state and the banker class have the power to "own property and do what they will with it. Lets start over with real rights.

Who here really owns land that they can start a factory with?
Would our government even allow worker federations to start their factories. Co-op groceries; yeah sure.

Our "property rights" system has never been free. We have never been free.

Not everybody has been free, but I have a lot of ancestors who were property owners and lived quite free.

 

[reardenstone]

The blond guy wants property rights abolished. Read the Communist manifesto.

I can contact a Realtor right now and buy some commercial land if I wish.

Don't jump to conclusions. I have read the manifesto and I think it is the best explanation for the historical process of wealth accumulation by states. I disagree and diverge when Marx around chapter 3-4 starts advocating for a "temporary" central government.
You should check out Bakunin's "Statism and Anarchy". He advocates freedom from the ground up not from the top down. The baker class rule we have now is unfair and it will not be righted until we abandon these banks and the Fed and start over, everyone on their own or in groups, rebuilding.

BTW -
But what can you do with that land? Will you be allowed to raise a farm on it? Start a worker factory?
Can you build whatever the hell kind of house you want or will there be conditions attached? Will you own it or be paying rents on it to a bank?

 

[reardenstone]

The blond guy wants property rights abolished. Read the Communist manifesto.

I can contact a Realtor right now and buy some commercial land if I wish.

Don't jump to conclusions and write them off. We have a real opportunity for freedom here and we can draw attention to the bad banker class and Fed practices then have a real discourse with them. Approach from anarchy or Bakunin instead of from orthodox Rothbard and Hayek. Talk and listen -don't start blabbing "but what about property rights, but what about property rights?"

Embrace the wars issue, empire, drug war, etc... teach them free market anti-capitalism.

To address your remark that I should read Marx, I have read the manifesto and I think it is the best explanation for the historical process of wealth accumulation by states. I disagree and diverge when Marx around chapter 3-4 starts advocating for a "temporary" central government. have YOU read it with an open mind to the process of how states really acquired wealth and then how mercantilism granted private thugs the right to pillage for the crown which later became the foundation of our capitalism?

You should check out Bakunin's "Statism and Anarchy". He advocates freedom from the ground up not from the top down. The baker class rule we have now is unfair and it will not be righted until we abandon these banks and the Fed and start over, everyone on their own or in groups, rebuilding.

BTW -
But what can you do with that land? Will you be allowed to start a commercial farm on it? Start a worker co-op factory? Can you build whatever you want or will there be conditions attached? Will you own it or be paying rents on it to a bank?

 

[FrankRep]

Don't jump to conclusions. I have read the [Communist] manifesto and I think it is the best explanation for the historical process of wealth accumulation by states.

That's pretty jacked up. No wonder you like the Blonde haired Communist.

I disagree and diverge when Marx around chapter 3-4 starts advocating for a "temporary" central government.

That's the "got ya" about Communism -- the government never gives it back.

You should check out Bakunin's "Statism and Anarchy". He advocates freedom from the ground up not from the top down. The baker class rule we have now is unfair and it will not be righted until we abandon these banks and the Fed and start over, everyone on their own or in groups, rebuilding.

Oh look, I can read it on Marxists.org

Statism and Anarchy
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1873/statism-anarchy.htm

BTW -
But what can you do with that land? Will you be allowed to raise a farm on it? Start a worker factory?
Can you build whatever the hell kind of house you want or will there be conditions attached? Will you own it or be paying rents on it to a bank?

Big Government and (Communist) Centralized planning sucks. Yeah, we know this.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

I'm sure they would. The thing is ... we have a constitution that is not being followed...

Huh. How about that?

Looks like minarchists suffer from the same problem ancaps do...

 

[reardenstone]

That's pretty jacked up. No wonder you like the Blonde haired Communist.

That's the "got ya" about Communism -- the government never gives it back.






Oh look, I can read it on Marxists.org

Statism and Anarchy
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1873/statism-anarchy.htm




Big Government and (Communist) Centralized planning sucks. Yeah, we know this.

Of course that's the gotcha and why I disagree with it. I edited my first post to be more clear. I agree with the blond guy when he says that property rights require force. I disagree with his embracing the Fed and saying we need a centralized banking system.

I, OTOH feel that we should be able to trade whatever we want... bit coins, chickens, whatever.

The problem Adam had though is that instead of trying to meet them half way, he went straight in with rhetoric and talking points about "property rights". Most of the time, we end up talking apples and oranges and no one ends up listening which is why the libertarian party is still the party of 2-4%.

Instead we should learn to speak their language and find common ground which is what Nader is doing by giving kudos to Ron Paul.

 

[jtstellar]

2 idiots at the end 'freshmenfreshmenfreshmen'.. idiots keep going back to the only place they know.. graduate the hell out of school already dumbass.. i like how libertarian/convervatism is such a widely debated topic nowadays in the public sphere with more educated liberals usually targeting ayn rand or milton friedman, but the only personal reference they can come up with is their experience in the college 'freshmen dorm rooms'.. hilarious

 

[Travlyr]

Huh. How about that?

Looks like minarchists suffer from the same problem ancaps do...

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913. A quick jot through history lane will pretty much prove that the constitution was revered until then. Like Ron Paul says, "follow the constitution." The rule of law is established by the constitution. As a Ron Paul supporter, I will help to teach the people why following the constitution is the best first step back to liberty, peace, and prosperity.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913. A quick jot through history lane will pretty much prove that the constitution was revered until then. Like Ron Paul says, "follow the constitution." The rule of law is established by the constitution. As a Ron Paul supporter, I will help to teach the people why following the constitution is the best first step back to liberty, peace, and prosperity.

That's a nice story. 100 years have come and gone and our government under the ever-watchful eye of the citizenry responsible for protecting the republic has grown, Grown, GROWN into an abominable creature, unbound and unconcerned with your quaint little document...

AGAIN - YOU MINARCHISTS SUFFER FROM THE SAME PROBLEM THE HATED ANARCHISTS SUFFER FROM...

 

[Travlyr]

That's a nice story. 100 years have come and gone and our government under the ever-watchful eye of the citizenry responsible for protecting the republic has grown, Grown, GROWN into an abominable creature, unbound and unconcerned with your quaint little document...

AGAIN - YOU MINARCHISTS SUFFER FROM THE SAME PROBLEM THE HATED ANARCHISTS SUFFER FROM...

We didn't have the Internet (the truth machine) at our fingertips until the 90s. And its effectiveness in overcoming media propaganda is even newer than that. Ignoring the constitution is bad policy. Re-establishing the rule of law is a good idea ... Ron Paul's idea ... one which I support.

I don't hate anarchists. I think they are misguided, but that's their problem, not mine. Our whole fight against anarchists on this forum stems from people trying to label Ron Paul with labels he never uses. Have you heard this one before, "Let Ron Paul promote Ron Paul." That and the fact that if older GOP voters believed that all Ron Paul supporters are anti-state (hate the staters), and since likely 30% -> 40% of voters work for the state, then they would not vote for him. We are trying to get bang for our buck and get Ron Paul elected in 2012.

It is more than a nice story. The people believed so much in the constitution in those days that they amended it for prohibition:

Prohibition in the United States
The Senate proposed the Eighteenth Amendment on December 18, 1917. Having been approved by 36 states, the 18th Amendment was ratified on January 16, 1919 and effected on January 17, 1920.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

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.

I used the word primarily to ask what you believed his ultimate goal was, not his immediate goal. You're playing games.

Do you think he would prefer people learn about libertarian philosophies and economics or having a seat of power in government? What is Ron's ultimate "agenda"?

Do you think Ron Paul would prefer if people did not educate each other and themselves about the ideas brought up by Spooner and debate about it if it would mean winning a political office instead? (Edit: And I'm not saying he's not 'in it to win it' by asking this.)

That being said... you're right, they're not mutually-exclusive, but you're the one acting like they are because you're scared the 'anarchists' are going to undermine Ron's chances in the election through association. This is your own personal issue, LE. This has nothing to do with Ron Paul or his "agenda"... this has everything to do with your own personal perceptions about Ron's campaign and your own personal feelings about 'the anarchist element' and you feeling like it's your duty to distance him from us for political reasons. This is about you and your feelings, not "supporting Ron's agenda".

The funny thing is it was your response to Ron Paul's name being mentioned in a segment where Adam advocated voluntaryism on his own YouTube show that prompted this entire thread to turn into what it has.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

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

LOL, ancap pretty much started with the security issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustave_de_Molinari

 

[noneedtoaggress]

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.

Anyone else see the irony in the last sentence?

Hey I found some more:

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.