Where do Ron Paul's ideas come from?

[Wesker1982]

No, it doesn't.

If you ignore the decisions that are made by the people in a democracy, men will eventually come to your house with guns and use physical violence to compel you to comply. The voluntary market doesn't use physical violence to compel consumers to buy a service or product.

if the majority "decides" that a person has no right to own something, he does not own it.

The majority could use force to deny property to someone, but this establishes no justification for it.

I don't need precedence, no more than you need precedence to tell me stealing is wrong/illogical/criminal.

How is the color green violent by it's nature? What basis in reality is there for this claim?

There are natural (hence natural law) consequences of stealing. What are the natural consequences of wearing green?

So what? He can get away with it.

Yeah... and??? No system of law could obtain perfection.

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.

I don't believe X Y or Z is aggression because the majority says so, nice strawman. What I maintain is that the majority of people happen to be right most of the time when it comes to identifying aggression.

 

[Becker]

I

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.

He'd be proud to hear that I'm sure.

 

[Becker]

If you ignore the decisions that are made by the people in a democracy, men will eventually come to your house with guns and use physical violence to compel you to comply. The voluntary market doesn't use physical violence to compel consumers to buy a service or product.

Why do you assume "buy a service or product" are the only ways one can be forced against his will? Have you no imagination?
The so called "voluntary market" is either one which all people agree on rules, or one which oppresses those who do not recognize property rights.

The majority could use force to deny property to someone, but this establishes no justification for it.

Who cares about justification if they can get away with it without punishment?

How is the color green violent by it's nature? What basis in reality is there for this claim?

Like I said, I don't need to make any clever arguments behind the simple facts : Somebody who has force says so, the somebody who does lives in reality, so he needs not convince you by logic.

There are natural (hence natural law) consequences of stealing. What are the natural consequences of wearing green?

WRONG, there are NO consequences of stealing other than what people have learned and been brainwashed to do as punishment.
Stealing has a net result of gaining with little work, and losing without compensation.
The only consequences are the work of social contracts, that which a majority of the people have made, and forced the minority to accept.

Yeah... and??? No system of law could obtain perfection.

I don't believe X Y or Z is aggression because the majority says so, nice strawman.

You do, or else you'd never ever say "the vast majority would agree who is aggressing or justified". Let me know if you made a different argument.

What I maintain is that the majority of people happen to be right most of the time when it comes to identifying aggression.

How convenient, and how do you know they are not right just because they said so, or just because they can get away with enforcing it?
If nobody was around to say what is aggression, would it still be aggression? (the act would be the act, but would it be a crime, violation, or punishable offense absent the enforcers?)

 

[Wesker1982]

Why do you assume "buy a service or product" are the only ways one can be forced against his will?

I don't. I never said buying a service or product were the only things people could be forced to do. lol.

Who cares about justification if they can get away with it without punishment?

People who are interested in justice.

Like I said, I don't need to make any clever arguments behind the simple facts : Somebody who has force says so, the somebody who does lives in reality, so he needs not convince you by logic.

Just because rights can be violated does not mean rights do not exist.

WRONG, there are NO consequences of stealing other than what people have learned and been brainwashed to do as punishment.

Actions have consequences in human relationships, this is in the nature of man, a natural law. You don't have to be brainwashed to trust a thief less than you would a non-thief. Not being trusted is a natural consequence of stealing.

how do you know they are not right just because they said so

Because aggression has consequences, and the consequences can be observed. Unlike claiming the color green is violent, lol.

 

[Becker]

I don't. I never said buying a service or product were the only things people could be forced to do. lol.

So then why did you bring it up?

People who are interested in justice.

Yeah, I'm sure that's everybody.

Just because rights can be violated does not mean rights do not exist.

What do rights mean if they're not unviolateable? Need I say they're not "natural"? Do you concede they're social constructs?

Actions have consequences in human relationships, this is in the nature of man, a natural law. You don't have to be brainwashed to trust a thief less than you would a non-thief. Not being trusted is a natural consequence of stealing.

Not being trusted isn't necessarily a negative consequence, depending on whether the person who you want to trust you has power over you.

Because aggression has consequences, and the consequences can be observed. Unlike claiming the color green is violent, lol.

I never said aggression has no consequences, but the punishment, reaction, are not guaranteed results. Thus there's no reason to believe that punishment, social reactions, social attitudes towards "crime" are anything BUT social constructs, arbitrary and defined by those who are in power.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

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

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

I see what you're saying, and would not disagree with it in the least. The masses of young people are, just as the masses in all demographics, fairly mainstream and conventional and yes, they even tend strongly Democratic.

I was just referring to the much smaller universe of our movement, the liberty movement. It is a growing movement. New people are coming into it. The older people in it, yes, they often are Constitutionalists or old-right conservatives. The new young people, on the other hand, while they may start out Consties or conservies, almost always eventually find their way to Austrian Economics and a more radical brand of libertarianism. This is unsurprising, as youth seem to be historically, perhaps naturally, more idealistic and radical in their political opinions than their elders. The visions of Bill Buckley or Alexander Hamilton just aren't compelling to them. Milton Friedman or Barry Goldwater's visions... perhaps a little more so, but still not there yet. Murray Rothbard, L. Neil Smith, the Tannehills? Now you're talking. Young people want a powerful vision for a bright and exciting future, not merely a pining for an old document or a regurgitation of the ideas of the past.

So hopefully I have communicated my meaning to you more successfully this time. Within the relatively small community of liberty-oriented Americans, it appears that the more moderate positions of Constitutionalism, conservatism, even minarchism, are concentrated in the older generations and thus desined to die out, while the more radical position of anarchocapitalism/voluntarism/free-marketeer-ism is concentrated in the younger generation and thus destined to dominate. What's more, intellectually, the more moderate positions simply don't have a leg to stand on. The great libertarian scholars today, save a very few (Tibor Machan comes to mind), are all ancap.

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

Taxonomy is one of the great acheivements of modern science. To reject it would be tragic. We should, and I do, deal with others as unique individuals. Nevertheless, "labels" as you call them, are efficient, effective, and immensely valuable tools to quickly define aspects of our individuality to others. Yes, I am ancap. Just think of all the information about my political ideas I've communicated to you with that one five-letter word. I am American. That tells you something about my geographical location, the cultural mileu in which I have likely grown up, etc. I am Mormon. That tells you, aha, some of the assumptions about my cultural background that would be true of most Americans are not true of me. I can communicate vast volumes of information about myself, to the informed and literate, by using "labels" as you call them to define my ideas, habits, and associations. "Labels" help us understand each other as individuals. Without "labels", we all just fall under one vast collectivistic label: human.

 

[Becker]

Taxonomy is one of the great acheivements of modern science. To reject it would be tragic. We should, and I do, deal with others as unique individuals.

how is that not wanting it both ways?

 

[Wesker1982]

So then why did you bring it up?

Because you asked me why I did not favor what the majority decides through democracy but still accept what the voluntary market produces.

What do rights mean if they're not unviolateable? Need I say they're not "natural"?

If you managed to load an airplane with enough fuel to stay in flight for 50 years, it would not be said that the law of gravity does not exist for those 50 years. Gravity would still be a natural law, the people in the airplane would "breaking" this law, but the law still exists. Someone who interacts aggressively (or even peacefully I guess) towards other humans might be able to avoid the consequences of his actions for 50 years until he dies, but it is a natural law that human action in human relationships has consequences (good or bad).

Do you concede they're social constructs?

Statutory laws not based on natural law are arbitrary. A legal system based on natural law is objective. All legal systems are social constructs since they are not inherent in nature. A natural law legal system is just the legal enforcement of natural laws.

Not being trusted isn't necessarily a negative consequence, depending on whether the person who you want to trust you has power over you.

Right, but stealing still has natural consequences. I did not claim the consequence good or bad. The consequences, good or bad, are a natural result of the action.

Thus there's no reason to believe that punishment, social reactions, social attitudes towards "crime" are anything BUT social constructs, arbitrary and defined by those who are in power.

I think it depends on the nature of the "crime". I don't think someone's reaction towards an aggressive person is formed by social constructs. I think there is a natural reaction to aggression that would be present with or without social constructs. Now if someone in power decides that using the color green is a crime, I would consider this nothing but an arbitrary social construct with no basis in natural law.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

how is that not wanting it both ways?

Come on, perhaps it's a little subtle, but not too much! Another word for "labels" is "language". We take pieces of reality and give them "names". One rock may not be identical to another rock. One vegetarian may not be identical to another vegetarian. Do we thus say "don't go around 'labeling' things or people as rocks or vegetarians"? To say that would be to reject language, and thus ultimately to make impossible all conscious rational thought.

 

[newbitech]

I see what you're saying, and would not disagree with it in the least. The masses of young people are, just as the masses in all demographics, fairly mainstream and conventional and yes, they even tend strongly Democratic.

I was just referring to the much smaller universe of our movement, the liberty movement. It is a growing movement. New people are coming into it. The older people in it, yes, they often are Constitutionalists or old-right conservatives. The new young people, on the other hand, while they may start out Consties or conservies, almost always eventually find their way to Austrian Economics and a more radical brand of libertarianism. This is unsurprising, as youth seem to be historically, perhaps naturally, more idealistic and radical in their political opinions than their elders. The visions of Bill Buckley or Alexander Hamilton just aren't compelling to them. Milton Friedman or Barry Goldwater's visions... perhaps a little more so, but still not there yet. Murray Rothbard, L. Neil Smith, the Tannehills? Now you're talking. Young people want a powerful vision for a bright and exciting future, not merely a pining for an old document or a regurgitation of the ideas of the past.

So hopefully I have communicated my meaning to you more successfully this time. Within the relatively small community of liberty-oriented Americans, it appears that the more moderate positions of Constitutionalism, conservatism, even minarchism, are concentrated in the older generations and thus desined to die out, while the more radical position of anarchocapitalism/voluntarism/free-marketeer-ism is concentrated in the younger generation and thus destined to dominate. What's more, intellectually, the more moderate positions simply don't have a leg to stand on. The great libertarian scholars today, save a very few (Tibor Machan comes to mind), are all ancap.

Taxonomy is one of the great acheivements of modern science. To reject it would be tragic. We should, and I do, deal with others as unique individuals. Nevertheless, "labels" as you call them, are efficient, effective, and immensely valuable tools to quickly define aspects of our individuality to others. Yes, I am ancap. Just think of all the information about my political ideas I've communicated to you with that one five-letter word. I am American. That tells you something about my geographical location, the cultural mileu in which I have likely grown up, etc. I am Mormon. That tells you, aha, some of the assumptions about my cultural background that would be true of most Americans are not true of me. I can communicate vast volumes of information about myself, to the informed and literate, by using "labels" as you call them to define my ideas, habits, and associations. "Labels" help us understand each other as individuals. Without "labels", we all just fall under one vast collectivistic label: human.

I appreciate you taking the time to clarify your meaning. It is tragic that the youth of this country are still brainwashed in to believing in the left right paradigm. I see that changing. I also think it is tragic that the nature of youth as you have described it, has tended to manifest itself in the voting youth by those young people moving in the direction of socialism.

That being said, I don't think that the moderate version of our movement is destined to die out, even granting that the youth of this movement may lean more radical, just because that is where the youth lean. I think what you are witnessing is the youth tending more to choose radical language because they have not yet had the opportunity to apply these principles in their lives.

The adults and more seasoned have recognized that moderating the rhetoric allows them to find weaknesses in the system by gaining acceptance and tolerance and even sympathy from those folks outside of the movement.

I could go more in to this, but still don't agree that the youth are converting to radicalized libertarinism, especially when Ron Paul even says that the mainstream center is starting to move closer to his ideals. This tells me that the radicalized aspect of the movement is really less radicalized than the youth might like it to be, granted the nature of the youth.

Interesting topic that really deserves it's own thread, with more facts to paint a better picture for analysis.

 

[Becker]

Because you asked me why I did not favor what the majority decides through democracy but still accept what the voluntary market produces.

So you accept the majority rule when it happens to agree with you. When the market is "voluntary" by your standards , or by the standards you've been led to believe is within your rights.

If you managed to load an airplane with enough fuel to stay in flight for 50 years, it would not be said that the law of gravity does not exist for those 50 years. Gravity would still be a natural law, the people in the airplane would "breaking" this law, but the law still exists. Someone who interacts aggressively (or even peacefully I guess) towards other humans might be able to avoid the consequences of his actions for 50 years until he dies, but it is a natural law that human action in human relationships has consequences (good or bad).

And for his life's purposes, natural laws have no power on him.

Statutory laws not based on natural law are arbitrary. A legal system based on natural law is objective. All legal systems are social constructs since they are not inherent in nature. A natural law legal system is just the legal enforcement of natural laws.

What are natural laws and how are you so convinced you know them? How do you know they are not also social constructs forced on you, just because you happen to agree?

Right, but stealing still has natural consequences. I did not claim the consequence good or bad. The consequences, good or bad, are a natural result of the action.

Ok, so stealing doesn't have necessarily bad consequences? Thanks.

I think it depends on the nature of the "crime". I don't think someone's reaction towards an aggressive person is formed by social constructs. I think there is a natural reaction to aggression that would be present with or without social constructs. Now if someone in power decides that using the color green is a crime, I would consider this nothing but an arbitrary social construct with no basis in natural law.

yeah, you don't think. natural reaction to aggression wouldn't exist unless there were first a social body of people (group of people), then, people will react any way they like, until they're told how to react is appropriate. There is no basis in nature or reality that says stealing must be punished by imprisonment or by hanging, it's a social construct. There's no reason stealing can't be rewarded with money, other than the fact our society has chosen not to, possibly because we cannot afford to.

 

[Becker]

Come on, perhaps it's a little subtle, but not too much! Another word for "labels" is "language". We take pieces of reality and give them "names". One rock may not be identical to another rock. One vegetarian may not be identical to another vegetarian. Do we thus say "don't go around 'labeling' things or people as rocks or vegetarians"? To say that would be to reject language, and thus ultimately to make impossible all conscious rational thought.

so collectivism isn't purely illogical, its just how we apply them, right?

 

[Wesker1982]

So you accept the majority rule when it happens to agree with you.

No. If 51% decided that Mortal Kombat for the Sega Genesis is the best game ever and I agreed with them, I would not advocate they force this view on to the 49% who prefer Donkey Kong. I would also not force my view that shampoo is better if the other 49% thought conditioner was better.

When the market produces more of one good over another, no one is ruling over anyone. It is the result of voluntary exchange (i.e. no violence) and free association. Decisions made by democratic governments are backed by violence.

“Other Forms of Coercion”: Economic Power

And for his life's purposes, natural laws have no power on him.

Yeah, that was my point. The natural law still exists.

What are natural laws?

Laws that are inherent in nature. For example, humans can run but they cannot jump from California to New York in a single leap. If humans do not drink enough water, they will die. Actions have consequences.

how are you so convinced you know them?

I observe them daily.

Ok, so stealing doesn't have necessarily bad consequences? Thanks.

Of course. It depends on the values of the thief. But it necessarily has consequences.

natural reaction to aggression wouldn't exist unless there were first a social body of people

I definitely think people have a natural reaction to aggression. Humans are naturally defensive against people who initiate violence against them. Humans naturally avoid involuntary situations.

There is no basis in nature or reality that says stealing must be punished by imprisonment or by hanging

I never made this claim.

"All legal systems are social constructs since they are not inherent in nature. A natural law legal system is just the legal enforcement of natural laws."

 

[Becker]

No. If 51% decided that Mortal Kombat for the Sega Genesis is the best game ever and I agreed with them, I would not advocate they force this view on to the 49% who prefer Donkey Kong. I would also not force my view that shampoo is better if the other 49% thought conditioner was better.

When the market produces more of one good over another, no one is ruling over anyone. It is the result of voluntary exchange (i.e. no violence) and free association. Decisions made by democratic governments are backed by violence.

“Other Forms of Coercion”: Economic Power

Yeah, that was my point. The natural law still exists.

I apologize for not caring about things which have no power over me. Feel free to be "right" about it existing though.
Voluntary exchange is impossible without threatening violence against those who disrespect or disregard property.
You take for granted that people have accepted property , as if they were never forced or brainwashed to, as if they'd choose it if they has a choice without consequences.
You (or somebody in this thread) said that property is essential for survival, by that logic, theft, robbery or trespassing are all justified if it were for survival.

Laws that are inherent in nature. For example, humans can run but they cannot jump from California to New York in a single leap. If humans do not drink enough water, they will die. Actions have consequences.

You are conflating things with IMMEDIATELY GUARANTEED AND OBSERVABLE consequences, with things that MIGHT have consequences years or lifetimes later, which depend on PEOPLE to make them happen.

I observe them daily.

No, you don't, you observe what's been forced and majority ruled on you by the populus.

Of course. It depends on the values of the thief. But it necessarily has consequences.



I definitely think people have a natural reaction to aggression. Humans are naturally defensive against people who initiate violence against them. Humans naturally avoid involuntary situations.



I never made this claim.

"All legal systems are social constructs since they are not inherent in nature. A natural law legal system is just the legal enforcement of natural laws."

if it needs enforcement, it's by definition not a self enforcing "law". So unless natural law can enforce itself, it's just another imagination which we're supposed to believe is natural or inescapable, it isn't. It's a human invention, social construct, forced on people who disagree.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

so collectivism isn't purely illogical, its just how we apply them, right?

Umm, if by "collectivism" you mean "grouping like things together mentally and giving them names", then collectivism is not illogical. I don't know anyone else who would define collectivism this way, nor any reason to do so.

Also, I don't know that collectivism by the normal definition is illogical -- I just (largely) disagree with it.

Also, "collectivism" is not a "them".

 

[helmuth_hubener]

I could go more in to this, but still don't agree that the youth are converting to radicalized libertarinism, especially when Ron Paul even says that the mainstream center is starting to move closer to his ideals. This tells me that the radicalized aspect of the movement is really less radicalized than the youth might like it to be, granted the nature of the youth.

Interesting topic that really deserves it's own thread, with more facts to paint a better picture for analysis.

Thank you for your kind response. As long as an adequate number of ancaps arise so that we can try our version of society comewhere, I will be happy. Actually, as long as Ron Paul is elected I will be happy. Let's stick to that, I guess.

If Ron Paul gets elected, we'll be on the right trajectory and all my libertarian dreams will likely be soon to come true. And yours as well. Yours first, mine later. That's OK, I'm patient.

 

[Becker]

Umm, if by "collectivism" you mean "grouping like things together mentally and giving them names", then collectivism is not illogical. I don't know anyone else who would define collectivism this way, nor any reason to do so.

Also, I don't know that collectivism by the normal definition is illogical -- I just (largely) disagree with it.

Also, "collectivism" is not a "them".

how do you define collectivism? and how do you treat people like individuals?

 

[helmuth_hubener]

How you you define "people"? And how do you define "define"?

 

[Conza88]

So.... in the chat room:

I responded to an individual who was saying "to donate more, more, more..."

That it might be an idea to better donate your time to a liberty worthy cause, than simply ads.

CaseyJones considered that "discouraging political activism".

Which is completely dillusional.

I responded that I was encouraging it, but in a more productive fashion. And that I'm not against political activism, and that he should go read Hans-Hermann Hoppe's "What Must Be Done".

I was then banned.

Intellectual honesty?

This bump is dedicated to CaseyJones.​

 

[HigherVision]

lol at half of us being crypto-anarchists