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

[PaulConventionWV]

I think you've already displayed that you have no idea what it is that ancaps claim.

I don't give a shit. I think you're full of it trying to redefine things to your liking. When I say something I think is true about ancap, you can say "no, that's not what ancap is all about" because, of course, you know what ancap truly is because you claim to believe in it.

Spare me.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

I'm not redefining anything to my liking. The only thing being redefined is your preconceived notions about what ancap is. The problem is your definition was a strawman that you made up yourself about what you thought it was.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Somehow I'm not so convinced.

Yeah, that's the pie in the sky part. In essence, though, you're a minarchist.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

So I'm a minarchist because you can't comprehend a free market society without the state, is that how it works?

 

[CCTelander]

There you go. You must live under a government because there is simply no other way. It is inevitable, so you might as well be a minarchist who likes pie in the sky.

With superlative reasoning and logic like THIS on your side, how could anyone fail to be convinced? /sarcasm

And you call we anarchists/voluntaryists arrogant?

 

[ClayTrainor]

I said you suggested it implicitly, not outright stated it. I said that for a reason because I know that you didn't actually say those things. However, telling us that Ron's tie was meaningful suggests that he chose it for the reason that it represented what you think it represents.

You're free to think that Ron Paul wears that tie, for whatever reason you wish, and you're free to reject anything that you believe I am implying by pointing out how awesome I think his tie was.

The whole tone of the post was to get people to think that Ron's beliefs are somehow in line with ancap beliefs, whcih there is really no grounds to suggest.

Except for the plethora of citations that are 100% consistent with an-cap philosophy, which are almost always provided with links to their full context, for anyone who thinks they're "out of context", not to mention his constant recommendations for people to read and understand literature from numerous Anarchist philosophers and economists like Rothbard, Lew Rockwell, Tom Woods, Lysander Spooner, etc.

since you have to believe that anyone who is logically and morally consistent would unequivocally reject the state, which is really not the case.

The initiation, or threat of initiating the use of force and coercion is not logically or morally consistent with the Non-Aggression principle, nor are the organizations that are financed through such means. (taxation)

 

[CCTelander]

The whole tone of the post was to get people to think that Ron's beliefs are somehow in line with ancap beliefs, whcih there is really no grounds to suggest.

Except for the plethora of citations that are 100% consistent with an-cap philosophy, which are almost always provided with links to their full context, for anyone who thinks they're "out of context", not to mention his constant recommendations for people to read and understand literature from numerous Anarchist philosophers and economists like Rothbard, Lew Rockwell, Tom Woods, Lysander Spooner, etc.

When I read that comment I had to do a double take.

You quite literally can't read ANYTHING RP has written, or listen to much of anything he says, without being hit square in the face with anarchist/voluntaryist philosophy. You'd have to be either not very bright, or deliberately trying VERY HARD to miss it. The claim that "there is really no grounds to suggest" that RP's beliefs are in line with anarchist/voluntaryist thought is just ludicrous.

 

[Lothario]

When I read that comment I had to do a double take.

You quite literally can't read ANYTHING RP has written, or listen to much of anything he says, without being hit square in the face with anarchist/voluntaryist philosophy. You'd have to be either not very bright, or deliberately trying VERY HARD to miss it. The claim that "there is really no grounds to suggest" that RP's beliefs are in line with anarchist/voluntaryist thought is just ludicrous.

vv

It's pretty funny, I ran into a fellow RP supporter yesterday and said, "so it's pretty crazy, I was watching some RP interviews today and it turns out RP's ideal society is voluntaryism. He's an anarchist!"

His response: "of course he's an anarchist! are you kidding me? that's nothing new, have you not seen the stuff he says and writes in his books?"

lol...who knew? I guess it's clear to everyone not trying to play campaign manager.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Let's put it this way:

Most of us are familiar with the term "dogwhistle".

Ron Paul's work is full of voluntaryist dogwhistles.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

When I read that comment I had to do a double take.

You quite literally can't read ANYTHING RP has written, or listen to much of anything he says, without being hit square in the face with anarchist/voluntaryist philosophy. You'd have to be either not very bright, or deliberately trying VERY HARD to miss it. The claim that "there is really no grounds to suggest" that RP's beliefs are in line with anarchist/voluntaryist thought is just ludicrous.

It's not that people are "not bright" or deliberate, it's that many of them confine themselves to looking at things through a statist paradigm because it's so fundamentally ingrained in culture. There's massive social pressure to put yourself in that box, it's cultish... full anti-statism is "heresy" and "false idols" against the state and the social contract. Questioning the existence of the state is taboo.

People are taught to self-identify with the state. To conflate society and civilization with the state. That which is good is fundamentally supported by a "necessary evil" which we must keep constant, vigilant guard against lest that evil grow and consume all that is good.

There you go. You must live under a government because there is simply no other way. It is inevitable, so you might as well be a minarchist who likes pie in the sky.

For instance, here PCWV pretends there's nothing worthwhile "outside this box of thought". Ancap is irrelevant and useless because it's just impossible and anyone with their head on straight should know that because it's "common sense". That's how it is: end of story, now off to something more worthwhile. They don't need to understand the argument, it's "anarchy" and that means it's a Utopian dreamworld and something that no one is ever going to go for in a million years.

The state is just a fact of life and that's just how we have to deal with it.




And obviously, since Ron Paul has "common sense", he understands this to be the case and anything outside that context is dark sorcery and 'illegitimate labelling' regardless of any evidence to the contrary.

 

[Travlyr]

Liberalism, State and Government

Ludwig von Mises
The Foundations of Liberal Policy
7. State and Government

Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints.

Liberalism is not anarchism, nor has it anything whatsoever to do with anarchism. The liberal understands quite clearly that without resort to compulsion, the existence of society would be endangered and that behind the rules of conduct whose observance is necessary to assure peaceful human cooperation must stand the threat of force if the whole edifice of society is not to be continually at the mercy of any one of its members. One must be in a position to compel the person who will not respect the lives, health, personal freedom, or private property of others to acquiesce in the rules of life in society. This is the function that the liberal doctrine assigns to the state: the protection of property, liberty, and peace. - Ludwig von Mises

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Mises was not criticizing what is today referred to as anarchocapitalism in that quote about anarchism by his own definition.

One must be in a position to compel the person who will not respect the lives, health, personal freedom, or private property of others to acquiesce in the rules of life in society.

Does this violate ancap principles?

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Did Beck really say this guy is calling for the end of capitalism? If so, good lord he's a maroon.

 

[Johnny Appleseed]

political masturbation...not gonna create much of anything but a mess

 

[Revolution9]

Loaded question much?

Left you with the inability to answer without compromising your rock solid philosophy. Amusing to watch from those so adamant.

Rev9

 

[Revolution9]

Does this violate ancap principles?

So..what if it does. The best question is "does this violate reality". So..do you adhere to labels or do labels adhere to you and why are so many that you fellers fling about in desultory abandon self adhesive.

Rev9

 

[low preference guy]

thread got derailed.

also, for the crappy RP is an anarchist debate, why doesn't somebody just ask him directly?

 

[wgadget]

did beck really say this guy is calling for the end of capitalism? If so, good lord he's a maroon.

this guy needs to replace timothy geithner. Asap.

 

[Sentient Void]

What an idiot. property rights require enforcement from the State? Huh?

I'm so tired of hearing such willfully ignorant trash.

Clearly he's not familiar with the (not so) 'Wild West'. Clearly he's never seen nor heard of a bear protect his perceived property rights of his rightly homesteaded cave. Clearly he's never seen a dog enforce protection of his bone. And on, and on, and on.

"We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." - George Orwell

My hat is off to you, Adam.

 

[reillym]

What an idiot. property rights require enforcement from the State? Huh?

I'm so tired of hearing such willfully ignorant trash.

Clearly he's not familiar with the (not so) 'Wild West'. Clearly he's never seen nor heard of a bear protect his perceived property rights of his rightly homesteaded cave. Clearly he's never seen a dog enforce protection of his bone. And on, and on, and on.

"We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." - George Orwell

My hat is off to you, Adam.

In this modern world, you think a single person could defend property against huge corporations? What world do you live in? Corporations are already stealing land all the time, even with property regulation. Fool. This isn't the "Wild West". We have huge mega rich people that control everything. Not even close.