Where do Ron Paul's ideas come from?

[A Son of Liberty]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Wesker1982 again.

Wow. Well said, Wesker. You even convinced me, and I didn't need convincing.

 

[Becker]

He said it is often used as a synonym. I am sure a lot of anarchists do not advocate chaos, but the vast majority of the population equate anarchy with chaos.

He doesn't advocate what most people view anarchy as (chaos and lawlessness). And his posts on monarchy vs democracy demonstrate he definitely does not view every form of government as equal. Some forms of government are most definitely more tyrannical than others.

Ok, but does he advocate what ANARCHISTS call anarchism?

A problem is that most people conflate society with government. If someone says they don't want a monopolistic (governmental) legal system, it is assumed they don't want a legal system at all. And since anarchy is seen as synonymous with chaos and lawlessness, it is not very useful to classify us as anarchists.

I don't conflate society with government, so you're not talking about me.
You don't want a monopolistic legal system? What legal system do you want and how would it be enforceable?

So if I am against coercive monopolies known as governments, but I am for law and order, am I an anarchist? Some would say yes since I am against all forms of coercive monopolies (governments), some would say no since I don't advocate chaos,lawlessness, or socialism.

I'm for non-coercive monopolies.

It doesn't. Private property and property rights are already valued by humans, most people are just mistaken as to what is necessary to protect them.

no, they are not.
at least, it's not a universal instinct what is or can be considered property.
also, just because most people WANT property rights for themselves, does not follow they will respect the rights others demand.

 

[Wesker1982]

Ok, but does he advocate what ANARCHISTS call anarchism?

Are you talking about the socialist anarchists? Anarchist is still a pretty vague term. It is probably safe to say he advocates anything that is voluntary, regardless of what it is called.

I don't conflate society with government, so you're not talking about me.

Great!

You don't want a monopolistic legal system? What legal system do you want and how would it be enforceable?

Right. Monopolies are inefficient at providing services, this doesn't somehow change when it comes to the provision of law. I want a legal system that is voluntarily funded and open to competition.

Check out: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...pitalist-Reference-List&p=3315262#post3315262

I'm for non-coercive monopolies.

Great!

no, they are not.

You don't think it is accurate to say most people value property? Property is necessary to live, humans value food, shelter, water, etc. Those people who don't value property would starve. If you cannot own property in food or water, you would be dead. Any human who is alive values property by the virtue of the fact that he is living.

at least, it's not a universal instinct what is or can be considered property.

Do you mean property law is not a universal instinct? I don't quite know what you mean, but I would still argue that property is valued by humans because it is necessary to sustain life.

also, just because most people WANT property rights for themselves, does not follow they will respect the rights others demand.

Some people will always invade the rights of others, that is why monopolies on defense services are so bad. Accepting that there will always be bad people, why give them a chance to gain control of a coercive monopoly? Imagine there are 30,000 defense agencies, it is a relatively minor situation if one turns into a criminal gang, especially compared to a criminal gang gaining control of the one and only monopolized defense service.

 

[Becker]

Are you talking about the socialist anarchists? Anarchist is still a pretty vague term. It is probably safe to say he advocates anything that is voluntary, regardless of what it is called.

No, anarchism is not a vague term. All anarchists have one thing in common, they do not believe in a formal government entity forced on people who disagree with them. Does he advocate letting murderers and rapists "voluntarily" submitting to a justice system? Or does he believe it's justified to FORCE them to be punished by a system they disagree with? Is there a voluntary DRO or PDA that will solve this problem of "force"?

Great!

Right. Monopolies are inefficient at providing services, this doesn't somehow change when it comes to the provision of law. I want a legal system that is voluntarily funded and open to competition.

Check out: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...pitalist-Reference-List&p=3315262#post3315262

"voluntarily funded and open to competition."
I was about to say Blackwater, but then you'd say they're tax funded. If I hired a PDA voluntarily to protect myself against you, what's stopping my PDA from excessively aggressing against you? I allow competition, except when I can get away with it. What's to keep me from stopping your competition? A mediation agency which I'll never agree to? (we call that force, or government). Or a mediation agency I agreed to in advance (which would mean you have zero power over people who never signed up to your DRO)

Great!

You don't think it is accurate to say most people value property? Property is necessary to live, humans value food, shelter, water, etc.

No, it's not accurate. It may be accurate in the modern world, but the fact most people may be greedy and possessive does not mean they have an instinct as to what is property, what is properly acquired...etc. WRONG, property is NOT necessary to live, it's only necessary when either there is limited resources, or there is competition for it. WHile this may be true in most cases in the modern world, it's not necessarily human nature.

Valuing something does not mean they value it as property, or will automatically respect another's claim to it as property. I value money, doesn't mean I will automatically respect the fact you own yours.

Those people who don't value property would starve. If you cannot own property in food or water, you would be dead. Any human who is alive values property by the virtue of the fact that he is living.

Those who do not respect property will strive, as we've seen in history. You conflate value of resources to value of property. A person may value and believe he has reasonable claim to a food resource if it was his labor or hunting or gathering, or even if he farmed his resources, but it is not always necessary.

By your logic, the fact I am alive means I value lack of competition, therefore it's human nature to want my competitors dead.

Do you mean property law is not a universal instinct? I don't quite know what you mean, but I would still argue that property is valued by humans because it is necessary to sustain life.

Yes, property law is not a universal instinct. At least, the sense of what is considered property, what is considered proper acquisition, what is reasonable means of defense, are not universal, not instinct. Greed and possessiveness, desire to eliminate competition, however, is mostly instinctual. Again, property is NOT necessary to sustain life, otherwise animals wouldn't exist. Animals live by opening their mouths and walking around, not by hunting, farming, negotiating, hoarding...etc. Humans CAN live on that alone, it may not be comfortable or sufficient by modern standards, but it would be , SUSTAINING LIFE.

Some people will always invade the rights of others, that is why monopolies on defense services are so bad. Accepting that there will always be bad people, why give them a chance to gain control of a coercive monopoly?

because they are in the minority and have a lessor chance? I don't know. Why do you assume competition is always better for justice? By this logic, all countries which there is less monopoly of force is better and safer to live in.

Imagine there are 30,000 defense agencies, it is a relatively minor situation if one turns into a criminal gang, especially compared to a criminal gang gaining control of the one and only monopolized defense service.

how convenient that you provide zero context.
30,000 defense agencies in a population of how many people?
why is it automatically assumed that it's a minor situation if one turns bad?
and without government to force people to respect each their property, who's to stop one group of agencies from turn against another?
better yet, who ensures that 30,000 are created to begin with? Are you completely ignoring the fact that the first 1,000 or 10,000 will do their best to prevent competition, with zero regard to another's rights to compete (oh yeah, silly me, its instinctual so it'll just never happen, or there's some natural force that'll prevent them from preventing competition, why didn't I see that all over the world)

 

[Wesker1982]

they do not believe in a formal government entity forced on people who disagree with them.

What Voluntaryists believe is all relationships and interactions between people should be on a voluntary basis. Force is only justified in reaction to force.

Does he advocate letting murderers and rapists "voluntarily" submitting to a justice system?

In the free society that I advocate, all property would be privately owned. No one would allow a known violent criminal on their property (anyone who did would also likely be ostracized). Since removing unwanted people from your property is legitimate, the criminals would be effectively outcast from society if they didn't submit to the justice system.

The way your question is framed is a bit odd. If someone invades another, the situation is no longer voluntary. By asking if criminals would "voluntarily" submit to the justice system, are you implying it is wrong to use force against someone who created a non-voluntary (forceful) situation? Once they initiate an involuntary act, they have demonstrated that they accept their actions and thus the situation (if they did not, they would not have acted).

Or does he believe it's justified to FORCE them to be punished by a system they disagree with?

If they initiated force, then they demonstrated that they agree with force. This isn't to say they enjoy it when force is used against them, but as a principle, it would be self-contradictory for a criminal to say they disagree with force (for at least at the time they used force, they agreed with it). Force is only justified against criminals. Although I believe it is justified to use force against a criminal (someone who initiated aggression), I advocate restitution and ostracism rather than punishment.

If I hired a PDA voluntarily to protect myself against you, what's stopping my PDA from excessively aggressing against you?

Because it is a PDA and not a criminal gang. How I come to this conclusion is the fact that it became a PDA in the first place. What I mean is that it is highly unlikely that a violent and aggressive criminals would turn into a successful business. A business does not become successful on the voluntary market by being violent (in contrast to business that use the force of government to impose barriers to competition). Violence is not only inefficient, but it is expensive, very expensive. The high costs and low efficiency of aggression will cause consumers to subscribe to competitors. Not only that, but unlike the current government apparatus, there would be no illusion of legitimacy if a defense agency becomes criminal. People would instantly see them for exactly what they are (a criminal gang), and would stop doing business with them. Also, any PDA that became violent would be a huge insurance liability, they would find it impossible to be insured, which would make their business that much more costly.

Remember that since the defense is funded voluntarily, people would not pay for expensive and inefficient services when there are better alternatives. When a government is violent, the actual people organizing the violence do not pay for it. The costs are forcefully burdened on the tax payer. In a market where defense is funded voluntarily, any additional costs would have to be funded by the consumer (and these huge costs would be blatantly obvious since there would be no inflation to hide the real costs). If one argues that the bulk of the population might be willing to pay for violent and invasive defense agencies, then I would reply that with a society composed of such individuals would be violent no matter what.

A mediation agency which I'll never agree to? (we call that force, or government).

Force is not justified on a non-criminal. It would be in your best interest to provide defense for yourself to better your chances of not being declared a criminal, but no force would be allowed unless you were a proven criminal.

But if it were found that you initiated force (i.e. you are a criminal), then it would evident that you do agree with force. It would be an obvious contradiction if you initiate force and then say you don't agree to force.

Or a mediation agency I agreed to in advance (which would mean you have zero power over people who never signed up to your DRO)

You wouldn't have to be a part of the same DRO, reputable agencies would cooperate (standardization would also eventually form over time, making it even less likely that conflict would occur). When they disagree on a decision, it would go to a third party.

If you aren't insured (i.e. you have no one representing you), you would effectively voluntarily outcast yourself. People would be hesitant to do business with you because it would be unnecessarily difficult to settle possible disputes. Someone who owns a road would probably not allow uninsured drivers use it because they would be a large liability, employers would be less likely to hire you, people in general would be much less likely to enter contracts, etc.

property is NOT necessary to live

If you could not have exclusive control over what is necessary to sustain life, then you could not live.

it's only necessary when either there is limited resources

In other words then, since resources are always limited, property is always necessary.

Valuing something does not mean they value it as property

Not everything that is valued is property, but everything that is property is valued (or else it would be unowned).

You conflate value of resources to value of property.

Once the resources are owned, they become property. If you bother to acquire a resource (thus owning it), you must value it or else you would not have acquired it.

Humans CAN live on that alone, it may not be comfortable or sufficient by modern standards, but it would be , SUSTAINING LIFE.

If you walk up to an unowned cob of corn in the wild and take a bite out of it to sustain your life, you have homesteaded it, it is now your property. If you were not allowed to make food your property, you could not sustain life.

Why do you assume competition is always better for justice?

This basically is asking why I think a forceful monopoly is good. Competition is better because violent monopolies are bad. If you really want, I can tell you why I think monopolies are bad at providing goods and services, but hopefully I don't need to.

how convenient that you provide zero context.
30,000 defense agencies in a population of how many people?

I wasn't trying to give an exact blueprint for a future market that is impossible to precisely predict (number was random). What I can do though is apply economic principles to future markets.

why is it automatically assumed that it's a minor situation if one turns bad?

Relatively minor. Sure, it is very bad if a group of 100 gangsters that are decentralized (as in they are confined to a relatively small effective area) from most of society go on a killing spree, but it is relatively minor compared to a gang with a monopoly on defense over the whole society going on a killing spree.

who's to stop one group of agencies from turn against another?

This has been discussed ad nauseam, so I will refer you to:

Law without Government: Conflict Resolution in a Free Society
Answering the Warring Defense Agencies Objection
Warring Defense Agencies and Organized Crime
Criminal Private Courts
But Wouldn't Warlords Take Over?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...pitalist-Reference-List&p=3315262#post3315262

 

[CCTelander]

Government planning is not chaos, it's order which you dislike.

Wow.

You can't possibly REALLY believe this, can you?

Even a cursory look at the world in which we live reveals the enormous error of such a statement. There is certainly no shortage of "government planning" in the world. But there is VERY LITTLE by way of order. In fact, almost everywhere governments attempt to plan things, they invariably wind up being LESS WELL ORDERED and MORE chaotic.

NOTHING government touches winds up better off as a result. Nothing.

 

[Becker]

Wow.

You can't possibly REALLY believe this, can you?

Even a cursory look at the world in which we live reveals the enormous error of such a statement. There is certainly no shortage of "government planning" in the world. But there is VERY LITTLE by way of order. In fact, almost everywhere governments attempt to plan things, they invariably wind up being LESS WELL ORDERED and MORE chaotic.

NOTHING government touches winds up better off as a result. Nothing.

Under your logic, ALL countries with less government are preferable to live compared to ALL countries with more government power and higher taxes. No exceptions are allowed. Go ahead and make your million excuses of why this country is still better based on crime, resources, history, ...etc, you've proven your argument null.

Be honest enough to admit SOMETIMES, SOME PLACES, government does a better job at taking care of an issue or project compared to private based alternatives, even if it comes at a price you're unwilling to pay.

 

[Becker]

What Voluntaryists believe is all relationships and interactions between people should be on a voluntary basis. Force is only justified in reaction to force.

Oh yes, and you get to subjectively define what is "force" you are reacting to, thus always justifying YOUR use of force.

In the free society that I advocate, all property would be privately owned. No one would allow a known violent criminal on their property (anyone who did would also likely be ostracized).

That's the society I already live in, we start by demonizing, labeling and designating who is a criminal and terrorist, then we deny them rights. You simply want to become the government you hate.

Since removing unwanted people from your property is legitimate, the criminals would be effectively outcast from society if they didn't submit to the justice system.

As such, libertarians, anarchists, and voluntaryists are justly labeled as criminals in the status quo, and denying them rights under the system they openly despise and disrespect is giving them exactly what they ask for.

The way your question is framed is a bit odd. If someone invades another, the situation is no longer voluntary. By asking if criminals would "voluntarily" submit to the justice system, are you implying it is wrong to use force against someone who created a non-voluntary (forceful) situation? Once they initiate an involuntary act, they have demonstrated that they accept their actions and thus the situation (if they did not, they would not have acted).

WOW, how convenient. So you simply start by saying "you did it first" and then you are justified to use force against a person who never agreed to YOUR RULES of judging who was wrong to begin with?

Here's an example : "I" start out by saying Wesker is not allowed to wear a t-shirt, doing so would be a violation of my code, my property. So the minute he puts on a t-shirt, I can say he's "violated me, broken my rules of voluntary" and then I am justified to use force against him based on my arbitrary rules he never agreed to.

In the real world : YOU, Mr. Wesker, have decided that the government has no right to violate your property via taxation, therefore you are justified in complaining. What you didn't know, or knowingly ignore, is that YOU arbitrarily decided YOU have rights to property, which the government NEVER granted you, and thus they are NOT in violation by THEIR standards.

Obviously, whoever makes the rules will say the other guy is in violation.

 

[LibertyEagle]

What you didn't know, or knowingly ignore, is that YOU arbitrarily decided YOU have rights to property, which the government NEVER granted you, and thus they are NOT in violation by THEIR standards.

Huh? The government does not grant rights. That was never intended to be their role in our country.

Note: By the way, I notice Conza is still trying to convince you that Ron Paul is an Ancap. Don't buy it.

 

[Becker]

Remember that since the defense is funded voluntarily, people would not pay for expensive and inefficient services when there are better alternatives.

But they will if the alternatives are not better. Which you cannot guarantee will exist in absence of a force which will ensure property rights to begin with.

When a government is violent, the actual people organizing the violence do not pay for it.

When somebody is not violent, they are powerless. What's your point?

The costs are forcefully burdened on the tax payer. In a market where defense is funded voluntarily, any additional costs would have to be funded by the consumer (and these huge costs would be blatantly obvious since there would be no inflation to hide the real costs).

Yes, and in a case where there is no superceding organization, the consumer or tax payer becomes whoever has the least force and most money.

If one argues that the bulk of the population might be willing to pay for violent and invasive defense agencies, then I would reply that with a society composed of such individuals would be violent no matter what.

Thus conceding that your world is no better, other than superficial labels.

Force is not justified on a non-criminal. It would be in your best interest to provide defense for yourself to better your chances of not being declared a criminal, but no force would be allowed unless you were a proven criminal.

As I've just demonstrated, it's easy to solve this problem. Invent a name for a crime you wish to charge a person with, since there is no law to prevent you do arbitrarily assign crimes, provide due process, or pay for wrongdoing, you can literally do whatever you can get away with. Proving a person a criminal is at the mercy of the person with most money, force, resources and popular support.

But if it were found that you initiated force (i.e. you are a criminal), then it would evident that you do agree with force. It would be an obvious contradiction if you initiate force and then say you don't agree to force.

No, just because I agree with using force against you, doesn't mean I agree to have force used against me. Why do you assume I treat every person equally, what forces me to accept that other than you saying so?

You wouldn't have to be a part of the same DRO, reputable agencies would cooperate (standardization would also eventually form over time, making it even less likely that conflict would occur). When they disagree on a decision, it would go to a third party.

Why would it go to a 3rd party?

If you aren't insured (i.e. you have no one representing you), you would effectively voluntarily outcast yourself. People would be hesitant to do business with you because it would be unnecessarily difficult to settle possible disputes.

So the poor and weak become more poor and weak, good.

Someone who owns a road would probably not allow uninsured drivers use it because they would be a large liability, employers would be less likely to hire you, people in general would be much less likely to enter contracts, etc.

That's what we have today, government forcing drunks off the road and decreasing liability for themselves. Employers forced to some extent to hire people which they never needed to pre-civil rights movement.

If you could not have exclusive control over what is necessary to sustain life, then you could not live.

Wrong, you only need sufficient control, not exclusive.

In other words then, since resources are always limited, property is always necessary.

Resources are limited, but not always so much that it needs be rationed or privatized.

Not everything that is valued is property, but everything that is property is valued (or else it would be unowned).

what is something valued, but not property?

 

[Conza88]

anarchy is not synonymous with chaos, no anarchist would say he supports chaos.

If you do not support anarchy, don't bash every form of government as if they are equal, they are not.

Government planning is not chaos, it's order which you dislike.

Ron Paul: "Government planning leads to chaos."- Mises and Austrian Economics: A personal view ​

Your thoughts?

Double standard, as if your form of anarchism or whatever system you advocate, does not require a change in human nature. Ever notice that your system only exists in your head and in the past? There's a reason why, human nature rejects it via the market.

Wrong.

​

It is you who requires a change in human nature.

Note: By the way, I notice Conza is still trying to convince you that Ron Paul is an Ancap. Don't buy it.

By the way, I notice Liberty Eagle has never actually addressed the argument or videos raised, she prefers to live in a world of cognitive dissonance.. rocking back and forth chanting the same things in an effort to try convince herself she's right.

First thread in my sig, LE, in bold... GO FORTH AND REFUTE RON PAUL'S OWN WORDS, all sourced. Good luck

 

[LibertyEagle]

GO FORTH AND REFUTE RON PAUL'S OWN WORDS, all sourced. Good luck

His words are just great. The way you twist them to suit your own agenda, is not.

Have you asked Lew Rockwell about Ron yet? No, I didn't think so, because you don't want to hear the answer.

 

[Becker]

Ron Paul: "Government planning leads to chaos."- Mises and Austrian Economics: A personal view ​

Unless he says always and only, you've taken him out of context.

Your thoughts?

Wrong.

​

It is you who requires a change in human nature.

Nope, I'm with the status quo. I know humans and use them to my advantage on a daily basis, you're the one who can only cite books and post on the internet.

Again, are you for abolishment of ALL FORMS OF GOVERNMENT? or just the forms which you disagree with?

 

[Wesker1982]

Oh yes, and you get to subjectively define what is "force" you are reacting to, thus always justifying YOUR use of force.

HUH? If society in general does not have a common basic agreement on what is considered force, no form of social organization could function. I find the basis for my belief in natural law and self-ownership, others find it in religion etc. But the conclusions most people come to are pretty much the same. That is, the vast majority of people would look at me like I am insane if I use violence on someone who is wearing a green shirt because I feel physically threatened by the color green. Most people will conclude that it was I who initiated violence, not the green shirt wearer. Claiming wearing the color green is an act of violence is simply not based in reality. For when has the color green ever initiated violence on anyone?

For objective law see Chapter 12 or Listen Here

It is also apparent that you could benefit from reading this Ron Paul recommended author: Antimarket Ethics: A Praxeological Critique, Part 2

That's the society I already live in

No. Not all property is owned by voluntary means. The government arbitrarily claims ownership to a lot of land, and it uses force to restrict freedom of association. This is in complete contrast to Voluntaryism.

You simply want to become the government you hate.

Baseless assertion. I do not want to restrict people's natural right of free association, nor do I want to arbitrarily claim ownership (and use violence to enforce it) of unused resources.

As such, libertarians, anarchists, and voluntaryists are justly labeled as criminals in the status quo, and denying them rights under the system they openly despise and disrespect is giving them exactly what they ask for.

The government doesn't and cannot legitimately own any property (because whatever they own they stole from someone else and whatever money they use to buy property from a rightful owner was stolen). The government restricting free association on property that they have initiation violence to acquire is vastly different than someone who voluntarily acquired their property doing the same.

So you simply start by saying "you did it first" and then you are justified to use force against a person who never agreed to YOUR RULES of judging who was wrong to begin with?

It depends on what they did. If they didn't use force, then it wouldn't be justified to react with force.

Here's an example : "I" start out by saying Wesker is not allowed to wear a t-shirt, doing so would be a violation of my code, my property.

Unless the t-shirt was your property, this claim would have absolutely no basis in reality.

So the minute he puts on a t-shirt, I can say he's "violated me, broken my rules of voluntary" and then I am justified to use force against him based on my arbitrary rules he never agreed to.

No. Force is only justified in reaction to force. You are arguing against a strawman. What libertarians object to is the initiation of force, they do not advocate the use of force against someone who might be offensive or someone who hurt your feelings. Property rights ultimately make issues very easy. Do you have the right to wear this or that? Depends on who's property you are on.

YOU arbitrarily decided YOU have rights to property

No. I decided this based on natural law. You should read the links I posted above.

which the government NEVER granted you, and thus they are NOT in violation by THEIR standards.

Rights are not granted by government, they are inherent in our nature. Government standards are in opposition to natural law.

But they will if the alternatives are not better.

This is a big IF, considering efficient defensive services do exist. Your "what if" situation is not based in reality.

Which you cannot guarantee will exist in absence of a force which will ensure property rights to begin with.

The claim that you need to violate property rights in order to protect them is such a blatant contradiction that I will let you figure out on your own why it is so fallacious.

When somebody is not violent, they are powerless. What's your point?

That people are more likely to initiate violence if they can force others to pay for the costs of it.

Thus conceding that your world is no better

This is based on a false assumption. The assumption being that I believe the bulk of society would voluntarily fund a criminal organization. I do not believe they would. The government is legitimate in the eyes of most people, a necessary evil at best, so they accept the atrocities because they are fooled into thinking it is necessary. If a voluntarily funded defense agency were to become criminal, there would be absolutely no illusions in the eyes of the public.

Invent a name for a crime you wish to charge a person with, since there is no law to prevent you do arbitrarily assign crimes, provide due process, or pay for wrongdoing, you can literally do whatever you can get away with.

Libertarian law would just be a legal expression of natural law.

Proving a person a criminal is at the mercy of the person with most money, force, resources and popular support.

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.

Law without Government: Conflict Resolution in a Free Society
Answering the Warring Defense Agencies Objection
Warring Defense Agencies and Organized Crime
Criminal Private Courts
But Wouldn't Warlords Take Over?

No, just because I agree with using force against you, doesn't mean I agree to have force used against me.

Duh. If you agreed it would not really be force. I already addressed this: "This isn't to say they enjoy it when force is used against them, but as a principle, it would be self-contradictory for a criminal to say they disagree with force (for at least at the time they used force, they agreed with it)."

What I mean is that it is initiating violence is obviously not against your own moral or ethical code (at least for the time being) if you engage in it.

Why would it go to a 3rd party?

Because consumers would rather disagreements be decided by an impartial 3rd party rather than the defense agencies resorting to violence.

So the poor and weak become more poor and weak, good.

First of all, in a truly voluntary market, wealth would be in abundance. There would be very few poor, and those being poor would be so mostly by choice (because there would be plenty of jobs, for everyone). And secondly, charity would take care of the poor, especially with those contributing to charity being much wealthier.

Another Ron Paul recommended author: Springing the Poverty Trap

That's what we have today, government forcing drunks off the road and decreasing liability for themselves.

Government using violence to enforce laws on property they do not own is not even close to the same as rightful owners enforcing rules on their property.

Wrong, you only need sufficient control, not exclusive.

Exclusive is required for sufficient. What good is food if someone else has the right to take it from you? I recommend watching Hans Hoppes video Private Law Society.

Resources are limited, but not always so much that it needs be rationed or privatized.

If scarce resources are not allocated rationally (by the market), there are shortages and conflict.

what is something valued, but not property?

Friends and family, i.e. relationships.

 

[brandon]

I just reread Ron Paul's personal view on Mises for the first time in about 5 years (Thanks Conza).

I must say, I'm very happy to see how much importance he places on the subjective theory of value, as that has also been the cornerstone of my understanding and belief in liberty and freedom.

 

[Becker]

HUH? If society in general does not have a common basic agreement on what is considered force, no form of social organization could function.

No kidding huh?

I find the basis for my belief in natural law and self-ownership, others find it in religion etc.

Are you both right or just happen to agree?

But the conclusions most people come to are pretty much the same. That is, the vast majority of people would look at me like I am insane if I use violence on someone who is wearing a green shirt because I feel physically threatened by the color green.

So why aren't you for democracy if you're willing to accept what "vast majority" wants?

Most people will conclude that it was I who initiated violence, not the green shirt wearer.

Democracy works for you then. Most people decide who is wrong.

Claiming wearing the color green is an act of violence is simply not based in reality. For when has the color green ever initiated violence on anyone?

I never claimed the color green initiated violence. I could say, that using green can be viewed as initiation of violence or violation of another's rights, if one defined it as such.

No. Not all property is owned by voluntary means. The government arbitrarily claims ownership to a lot of land, and it uses force to restrict freedom of association. This is in complete contrast to Voluntaryism.

Ok, good. so some property is not properly acquired. Glad we agree.
It's not complete contrast to voluntaryism, because if you claimed something and I didn't agree, it's not voluntary, you're forcing me to accept your claim.

Baseless assertion. I do not want to restrict people's natural right of free association, nor do I want to arbitrarily claim ownership (and use violence to enforce it) of unused resources.

Yes, you DO want to restrict a person's rights. You just don't agree with them what rights they have so you think you are justified in doing so, while they think they are justified in their use of freedom. You don't want to arbitrarily claim ownership, but you do.

The government doesn't and cannot legitimately own any property (because whatever they own they stole from someone else and whatever money they use to buy property from a rightful owner was stolen). The government restricting free association on property that they have initiation violence to acquire is vastly different than someone who voluntarily acquired their property doing the same.

Why the double standard for government? Are they not humans? I see you don't view all humans as equal, you have a separate standard for people who have authority, power and means, that's just what socialists and communists want, they hold the rich and powerful to standard they'd never accept for themselves.

It depends on what they did. If they didn't use force, then it wouldn't be justified to react with force.

Redefine force, problem solved.

Unless the t-shirt was your property, this claim would have absolutely no basis in reality.

There is no reality without words and definitions.

No. Force is only justified in reaction to force. You are arguing against a strawman. What libertarians object to is the initiation of force, they do not advocate the use of force against someone who might be offensive or someone who hurt your feelings. Property rights ultimately make issues very easy. Do you have the right to wear this or that? Depends on who's property you are on.

Again, redefine and win.
But you've just admitted as long as you're not on your own property you have no rights?

 

[Wesker1982]

Are you both right or just happen to agree?

We reach the same conclusion.

So why aren't you for democracy if you're willing to accept what "vast majority" wants?

Because democracy rests on the initiation of force. If by the market process, the majority "decides" that the market will produce more of X than Y, it would be fallacious to say all who prefer Y are having force used against them. For how could someone initiate violence by not acting, that is, by not producing Y? To say this would be force is to say voluntary exchange and mutual benefit is aggression (which is a contradiction), it is to say the free and voluntary market itself is violent. In democracy, whatever the majority prefers is forcefully imposed on the minority. Read: “Other Forms of Coercion”: Economic Power

I could say, that using green can be viewed as initiation of violence or violation of another's rights, if one defined it as such.

Claiming that using the color green is an initiation of violence has no basis in reality. Violence is not inherent in the nature of the color green. You could claim it, but it would just be a baseless assertion without any facts or historical precedence to back it up.

if you claimed something and I didn't agree

Then someone would be wrong.

it's not voluntary

Depends on whether or not anyone's rights have been violated.

you're forcing me to accept your claim.

If my claim is legitimate, then force used to defend my claim is justified.

you DO want to restrict a person's rights

The right to self-defense is not a restriction on one's right to violate another because one doesn't have the "right to aggress" in the first place. This is an old fallacy that was addressed decades ago.

Why the double standard for government?

Individuals have no right to steal, groups of individuals calling themselves the government also do not have this right.

Redefine force, problem solved.

You would have to redefine reality.

But you've just admitted as long as you're not on your own property you have no rights?

Human Rights as Property Rights

 

[Becker]

We reach the same conclusion.

Because democracy rests on the initiation of force.

No, it doesn't. It rests on what YOU say is force, what THEY say is justice. And your views are just the opposite. YOU decided that sicne MOST, vast majority would agree with YOUR standards of what rights and violations are, YOU are justified based on the market, or crowd, in using force to "defend" yourself.

If by the market process, the majority "decides" that the market will produce more of X than Y, it would be fallacious to say all who prefer Y are having force used against them.

I agree, however, that's not what I said.

What I said was, if the majority "decides" that a person has no right to own something, he does not own it. This is true unless you have a non-flexible definition or enforcement of property. In a market, the price of something only increases by demand BECAUSE people are forced to not steal and rob, if otherwise, the price would be zero (due to legalized theft, for lack of better name).

Claiming that using the color green is an initiation of violence has no basis in reality. Violence is not inherent in the nature of the color green. You could claim it, but it would just be a baseless assertion without any facts or historical precedence to back it up.

I don't need precedence, no more than you need precedence to tell me stealing is wrong/illogical/criminal. You only need to show me that there are people willing and able to use force to punish me if I don't listen to them. So as long as you can show me what the mob is willing to do to me, that's "reality" and a perfect basis for asking me to do something against my will.

Then someone would be wrong.

So what? He can get away with it.

Depends on whether or not anyone's rights have been violated.

Who decides what rights are?

If my claim is legitimate, then force used to defend my claim is justified.

Obviously you'll say its legit, and I will say its not. Which is why you hate the present system and I love it.

The right to self-defense is not a restriction on one's right to violate another because one doesn't have the "right to aggress" in the first place. This is an old fallacy that was addressed decades ago.

"No right to aggress" is a self serving rule made up by property owners to protect themselves from competition and license themselves to use force against anybody they dislike. YOU the property DEFINED that you have a right to not be aggressed by your own standards, and then everybody is your enemy from that point on.

Individuals have no right to steal, groups of individuals calling themselves the government also do not have this right.

According to you. According to them they do.

You would have to redefine reality.

No need to, there is no set definition I am forced to accept (or, maybe I am forced to accept, which is according to you intolerable). You simply conveniently use what is commonly accepted by "vast majority" arbitrarily, and force it on people who disagree, with zero regard to their right of opinion or competition of defining rights.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

I stand with Conza88. I thought you were banned. Well, good to see that rescinded -- truth and reasonableness prevail on RPF. LibertyEagle, why not just state when the last time you read an Austrian Economics book was? What's the harm in that, whatever the answer?

Anyway, thank you for the videos, Conza88. I've felt that Ron Paul was clearly advancing the cause of anarcho-capitalism (or whatever you want to call it) but these videos compile the evidence and state the case more convincingly than I've ever done.

Regardless of Ron Paul's personal beliefs, as a practical matter he is converting the young people to ancap. You don't exactly see the John Birch Society teeming with interest and new young members. Nobody's joining Constitutionalism. It's a dying political philosophy, if you can even call it a philosophy -- affectation perhaps. The Mises Institute, on the other hand, is prospering, spreading, and bursting at the seams. Other Mises Institutes are being founded in countries around the world.

The young people are converting to radical libertarianism -- to voluntarism/ancap -- not to Constitutionalism. That is a bright sign for the future.

 

[newbitech]

I stand with Conza88. I thought you were banned. Well, good to see that rescinded -- truth and reasonableness prevail on RPF. LibertyEagle, why not just state when the last time you read an Austrian Economics book was? What's the harm in that, whatever the answer?

Anyway, thank you for the videos, Conza88. I've felt that Ron Paul was clearly advancing the cause of anarcho-capitalism (or whatever you want to call it) but these videos compile the evidence and state the case more convincingly than I've ever done.

Regardless of Ron Paul's personal beliefs, as a practical matter he is converting the young people to ancap. You don't exactly see the John Birch Society teeming with interest and new young members. Nobody's joining Constitutionalism. It's a dying political philosophy, if you can even call it a philosophy -- affectation perhaps. The Mises Institute, on the other hand, is prospering, spreading, and bursting at the seams. Other Mises Institutes are being founded in countries around the world.

The young people are converting to radical libertarianism -- to voluntarism/ancap -- not to Constitutionalism. That is a bright sign for the future.

Or they are running as fast as they can away from it.

http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/FactSheets/FS_08_exit_polls.pdf

I like that Ron Paul touts the youth vote, he really does deliver the message well to them, but to say that the young people are converting to radical libertarianism/ ancap/voluntarism, is an unsubstantiated claim.

Here is some more recent facts from the 2010 mid terms.

http://www.civicyouth.org/quick-facts/youth-voting/

It doesn't really seem that the ancap message is being heard with the voting youth.

I don't really see any young people converting to anything. What I do see, is more young people getting involved and getting educated, and I credit Ron Paul's consistent constitutional message and constitutional voting practices over the years as an inspiration to young people.

Also, I'd say that you are still running in to problems with slapping labels on people.