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

[noneedtoaggress]

Third graders. I'll bet you both still think fart jokes are funny.

Apparently you still think calling people third graders is winning an argument. I've heard some humorous anecdotes about flatulence before, it's true.

 

[Travlyr]

Third graders. I'll bet you both still think fart jokes are funny.

And another neg rep from the third grade jackass who can't read.

HB34 - "Denying self-ownership is an epic fail for anyone."

Re-read my posts. I clearly stated that Individualism is the most basic right known to man.

 

[Travlyr]

Apparently you still think calling people third graders is winning an argument. I've heard some humorous anecdotes about flatulence before, it's true.

True patriot. I'll bet you like TV too.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

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.

Come, now, I'm being serious. You know very well that this doesn't work in practice. None of us would be here if your claim were correct. I would've just altered my "relationship" with the government so I don't have to suffer their tyranny, and TPTB would leave me alone. That's just not how the world works.

 

[Travlyr]

Apparently you still think calling people third graders is winning an argument. I've heard some humorous anecdotes about flatulence before, it's true.

No, actually I am thinking you are still in third grade. Your arguments suggest that. This is the Internet after all. I have no other reason to believe otherwise unless you establish yourself as a critical thinker.

 

[archangel689]

If the Lockean social contract theory is taken to its logical conclusion, no state in the history of mankind can be legitimate.

 

[Travlyr]

Come, now, I'm being serious. You know very well that this doesn't work in practice. None of us would be here if your claim were correct. I would've just altered my "relationship" with the government so I don't have to suffer their tyranny, and TPTB would leave me alone. That's just not how the world works.

So you want to be born into Utopia eh? Well grow up. Utopia is for the afterlife.

 

[Travlyr]

If the Lockean social contract theory is taken to its logical conclusion, no state in the history of mankind can be legitimate.

The Earth is not Utopia. All men/women are fallible.

 

[archangel689]

The Earth is not Utopia. All men/women are fallible.

It is the nature of government, they do not rely on the market. They are socialist entities.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

No, actually I am thinking you are still in third grade. Your arguments suggest that. This is the Internet after all. I have no other reason to believe otherwise unless you establish yourself as a critical thinker.

You're a third grader unless you "critically think" what I think and stop criticizing it.

Good job there.

 

[Travlyr]

It is the nature of government, they do not rely on the market. They are socialist entities.

You entirely misunderstand the role of government.

John Locke said it best,

4.4 The Function Of Civil Government

"Locke is now in a position to explain the function of a legitimate government and distinguish it from illegitimate government. The aim of such a legitimate government is to preserve, so far as possible, the rights to life, liberty, health and property of its citizens, and to prosecute and punish those of its citizens who violate the rights of others and to pursue the public good even where this may conflict with the rights of individuals. In doing this it provides something unavailable in the state of nature, an impartial judge to determine the severity of the crime, and to set a punishment proportionate to the crime. This is one of the main reasons why civil society is an improvement on the state of nature. An illegitimate government will fail to protect the rights to life, liberty, health and property of its subjects, and in the worst cases, such an illegitimate government will claim to be able to violate the rights of its subjects, that is it will claim to have despotic power over its subjects." - John Locke

Read it.

 

[Travlyr]

You're a third grader unless you "critically think" what I think and stop criticizing it.

Good job there.

Don't get me wrong. There are a lot of third graders on the Internet. If you have already "passed" the third grade, then prove it with argumentation rather than name calling.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Don't get me wrong. There are a lot of third graders on the Internet. If you have already "passed" the third grade, then prove it with argumentation rather than name calling.

Uh, you do realize that I'm the one making arguments (telling people to think like you and ignoring criticism is not advocating "critical thinking"), while you're in the middle of calling me a third grader... right?

 

[Travlyr]

Uh, you do realize that I'm the one making arguments (telling people to think like you and ignoring criticism is not advocating "critical thinking"), while you're in the middle of calling me a third grader... right?

Yes, I completely understand your tactics of discrediting the messenger rather than the message. Most of us abandoned those tactics in the fourth grade.

 

[archangel689]

Except you haven't posted anything that hasn't been refuted. You haven't proved that a monopoly over territory is necessary. Polycentric law has existed for thousands of years.

 

[Travlyr]

Except you haven't posted anything that hasn't been refuted.

Ron Paul, and Ludwig von Mises philosophy have been refuted? By whom? Third grade philosophy?

 

[Travlyr]

When we get done here... with the bullshit from third graders... we will be able to move forward with intelligent philosophy. Until then, we will just have to put up with the crap from people who do not like to do their homework.

 

[archangel689]

When we get done here... with the bullshit from third graders... we will be able to move forward with intelligent philosophy. Until then, we will just have to put up with the crap from people who do not like to do their homework.

The burden of proof, in an argument about political philosophy or politics, is on the person who is making positive assertions such as the necessity of the state, the legitimacy of the state, the exclusive ability of the state to provide certain services. That's simply a matter of basic logic. Someone who claims that the state can legitimately outlaw all competitors, for example, faces a burden of proof for this claim. They can't just assume their own premises as a pretext to the discussion or argument.

 

[Travlyr]

The burden of proof, in an argument about political philosophy or politics, is on the person who is making positive assertions such as the necessity of the state, the legitimacy of the state, the exclusive ability of the state to provide certain services. That's simply a matter of basic logic. Someone who claims that the state can legitimately outlaw all competitors, for example, faces a burden of proof for this claim. They can't just assume their own premises as a pretext to the discussion or argument.

Perhaps you overlooked this post #87. Or perhaps it went clear over your head. Either way... it makes no difference.

I must prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that only the state can provide these services, eh? It is actually easy for me to see it, so I'm not sure at what level you are, but I'll try. Just like a shoe store provides shoes, the state provides law, and government, which protects property.

The very first concept to understand about the necessity for the state is property. Individuality generally and property specifically. Land rights are at the heart of the origin of the state. Kings ruled over land and the resources contained in his land. Land owners are kings of their own castle. Just like kings protected their land ... homeowners must also protect their land.

The State is a monopoly of force in a given territory. The minimalist state is individualism. As individuals we have the duty to protect our own life. That is ours and ours alone. (i.e. we have a monopoly of force in our given territory.) In other words, however far we can swing our arms to protect ourself. If an individual has a gun then that territory expands to the limits of the gun. The individual with a gun expands his monopoly of force from the swing of his arms to perhaps a few hundred yards. His/her monopoly of force has expanded to a greater circumference. If a group of individuals get together and build a nuclear weapon, then the monopoly of force expands even greater perhaps for miles upon miles. If that nuclear weapon is put on a rocket then the monopoly of force expands even greater still and can become offensive rather than defensive for hundreds or thousands of miles. Indeed, any individual can become offensive rather than defensive. An offensive individual, or group of individuals, must be restrained in order to protect liberty. So, the weapon can be used, by individuals, or a group of individuals, for defense or offense. If used for defense, then it, protects liberty, and is a legitimate state. If it is used for offense, then it, fails to protect liberty, and is an illegitimate state.

When land is claimed to be "owned" by someone, then along with the ownership claims comes rights. For example, the right to exclude anyone from trespassing. (i.e. no one is allowed to come into your home without your permission... even... no one is allowed to set foot on your property without your permission.) Who protects that right? The land owner. Who backs the land owner up if he/she kills a mean bully who steps on your land and rapes you? The State. That is the purpose of the legitimate state.

Mises said it best,

We call the social apparatus of compulsion and coercion that induces people to abide by the rules of life in society, the state; the rules according to which the state proceeds, law; and the organs charged with the responsibility of administering the apparatus of compulsion, government.

In other words, the state says, by law, NO mean bullies have the right to rape another human being. If a mean bully comes into your home and tries to rape you of your person or your property, then the state will back you up when you stop him. You have a monopoly of force in your given territory.

That is the purpose of the legitimate state. The protection of property, liberty, and peace.

I will defend my rights to land ownership to the death.

 

[Travlyr]

The burden of proof, in an argument about political philosophy or politics, is on the person who is making positive assertions such as the necessity of the state, the legitimacy of the state, the exclusive ability of the state to provide certain services. That's simply a matter of basic logic. Someone who claims that the state can legitimately outlaw all competitors, for example, faces a burden of proof for this claim. They can't just assume their own premises as a pretext to the discussion or argument.

Child's play. Do you believe in Santa Claus? Do you like Barbie Dolls?