Where is Ron Paul? At the 30th Anniversary of Mises Institute!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Trav, how does Mises' critique of a pacifistic principle in any way support your assertion about standing armies (which is an assertion I would agree with)?

First of all that was in response to archangel689, so I have no clue what you are referring to. Mises defined the state, law, and government in Liberalism, State and Government. Read it.

There were no standing armies allowed in the founding documents of America. That's my claim and I'm sticking to it.
 
Stop crying.

I'm not crying. I am trying to share something very valuable with you, if you want to promote your message. A lot of third graders believe that anarcho capitalism is anarchism. You fail in your message. You get a lot of idiots thinking the wrong path to liberty. I am trying to get you to stop failing.
 
Yes, you are crying. Your are crying that I've dispelled your equivocation fallacy. But I know you'll whine and bitch and moan and say that I'm snipping because I can't deal blah blah blah whine whine whine. Stop being so cowardly as to whine.


There were no standing armies allowed in the founding documents of America. That's my claim and I'm sticking to it.

So what. The constitution has no authority. The social contract is bullshit.


http://jim.com/treason.htm

*waits for dial a fallacy fallacy in 3...2..1*
 
Last edited:
First of all that was in response to archangel689, so I have no clue what you are referring to. Mises defined the state, law, and government in Liberalism, State and Government. Read it.

There were no standing armies allowed in the founding documents of America. That's my claim and I'm sticking to it.

Yes I realize it was in response to archangel69. It still didn't make sense.

In response to archangel689 you posted Mises' quote:

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

Mises is clearly referring to a pacifistic principle. You can replace "anarchism" with "pacifism" if you want. Which makes it very peculiar that you're using that quote to back up your assertion that "standing armies are not compatible with liberty".

How exactly does the quote support your assertion? An assertion which I (and I'm sure most here) would completely agree with you by the way, and I'm sure Mises would agree with it as well... but your quote still has absolutely nothing to do with it.
 
So what. The constitution has no authority.

"It cannot be said that the Constitution formed "the people of
the United States," for all time, into a corporation. It does not
speak of "the people" as a corporation, but as individuals. A
corporation does not describe itself as "we," nor as "people," nor as
"ourselves." Nor does a corporation, in legal language, have any
"posterity." It supposes itself to have, and speaks of itself as
having, perpetual existence, as a single individuality.

Moreover, no body of men, existing at any one time, have the
power to create a perpetual corporation. A corporation can become
practically perpetual only by the voluntary accession of new members,
as the old ones die off. But for this voluntary accession of new
members, the corporation necessarily dies with the death of those who
originally composed it.

Legally speaking, therefore, there is, in the Constitution,
nothing that professes or attempts to bind the "posterity" of those
who established it."

http://jim.com/treason.htm

So now I learn that you are simply one of the third graders. It is too bad. The indoctrination is so deep. All I can suggest now is I hope you will someday read Mises and his message of liberty.
 
Yes I realize it was in response to archangel69. It still didn't make sense.

In response to archangel689 you posted Mises' quote:



Mises is clearly referring to a pacifistic principle. You can replace "anarchism" with "pacifism" if you want. Which makes it very peculiar that you're using that quote to back up your assertion that "standing armies are not compatible with liberty".

How exactly does the quote support your assertion. An assertion which I would completely agree with you by the way, and I'm sure Mises would agree with it as well... but your quote still has absolutely nothing to do with it.

The Mises quote suggests that the state is the provider of law and government officials are charged with carrying out the law. archangel689 made the claim that it is better for individuals to each own their own standing army (police protection) (security) than it is to rely on law administered through the state by government officials. You stepped into the pile of shit without any boots on. Don't blame me.
 
The Mises quote suggests that the state is the provider of law and government officials are charged with carrying out the law. archangel689 made the claim that it is better for individuals to each own their own standing army (police protection) (security) than it is to rely on law administered through the state by government officials. You stepped into the pile of shit without any boots on. Don't blame me.

What a lovely strawman.
 
The Mises quote suggests that the state is the provider of law and government officials are charged with carrying out the law. archangel689 made the claim that it is better for individuals to each own their own standing army (police protection) (security) than it is to rely on law administered through the state by government officials. You stepped into the pile of shit without any boots on. Don't blame me.

How manipulative.
 
What a lovely strawman.

All I am asking is that you grow up and do your own homework. Land law is the basis for all law because land claims are aggressive in nature even though they promote liberty, peace, and prosperity for individuals. Somehow the "Mises Institute", and all schools, avoid that issue. I wish they wouldn't.
 
Your inculcation via the state-run brainwashing centers (schools) has left you incapable of grasping that it is impossible for people to sign the unborn into contracts.

All it takes is just a little bit of critical thinking here. At what age? At what age are people allowed to either accept the government they are born into or deny it? At what age? Before they are born? After they are born? At 1? At 2? At 3? At what age are people supposed to sign the document or deny it? At 14? At 15? At 18? What age? When?
 
Being knee deep in shit without boots is not a good place to be. Get a clue... get your boots on.

Oh, I see the problem here. No wonder you're all contaminated and confused. Boots are insufficient when you have feces going all the way up to your knees, man. You gotta wear a full hazmat, that stuff is nasty.

I always put on a hazmat before responding to you, now I know why.
 
Last edited:
All it takes is just a little bit of critical thinking here. At what age? At what age are people allowed to either accept the government they are born into or deny it? At what age? Before they are born? After they are born? At 1? At 2? At 3? At what age are people supposed to sign the document or deny it? At 14? At 15? At 18? What age? When?

Only a self owner can decide when they are ready for action XYZ.
 
All it takes is just a little bit of critical thinking here. At what age? At what age are people allowed to either accept the government they are born into or deny it? At what age? Before they are born? After they are born? At 1? At 2? At 3? At what age are people supposed to sign the document or deny it? At 14? At 15? At 18? What age? When?
What is your answer to this question? I would like to finally see a reply that isn't completely arbitrary from any "social contract" theorist for once. If the doctrine of social contract were valid, there never would have been an American Revolution-the contract had been established for generations with England.

Some of the classical liberals liked to use the "age of reason" to advance arguments like this, but it has been well established that not everyone gains the capacity to reason at the same time.
 
Last edited:
Oh, I see the problem here. No wonder you're all contaminated and confused. Boots are insufficient when you have feces going all the way up to your knees, man. You gotta wear a full hazmat, that stuff is nasty.

I always put on a hazmat before responding to you, now I know why.

Only a self owner can decide when they are ready for action XYZ.

Third graders. I'll bet you both still think fart jokes are funny.
 
What is your answer to this question? I would like to finally see a reply that isn't completely arbitrary from any "social contract" theorist for once. If the doctrine of social contract were valid, there never would have been an American Revolution-the contract had been established for generations with England.

My answer is that everyone accepts the life they are born into. Then, when they become intelligent enough, if they do not like it... they change it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top