Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Minarchism is theft

rated by 0 users
This post has 114 Replies | 5 Followers

Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,011
Points 47,070

laminustacitus:
So, one kind taking 99% of the resources for himself, and leaving the other 1% to everyone else is just for the sole reason that it involved "meting out the earned"? Your concept of justice is far too vague.
Ummm.....Cartman, what the hell are you talking about?

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,538
Points 93,790
Juan replied on Tue, Sep 22 2009 10:07 PM
Dondoolee, none of the the definitions you quoted say anything about 'social cooperation' - thanks for making my point.

February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church.
Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,511
Points 31,955

Knight_of_BAAWA:

laminustacitus:
So, one kind taking 99% of the resources for himself, and leaving the other 1% to everyone else is just for the sole reason that it involved "meting out the earned"? Your concept of justice is far too vague.
Ummm.....Cartman, what the hell are you talking about?

 

Something it seems just flew over your head, oh well.

Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.

          - Edmund Burke

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,011
Points 47,070

Aha. So what were you talking about? You're going to have to actually state it. You can't rely on innuendo that only you get.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,511
Points 31,955

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Aha. So what were you talking about? You're going to have to actually state it. You can't rely on innuendo that only you get.

That there is more to a just society than merely the "meting out of the earned". Perhaps, I could even go as far as to state that "meting out the earned" already presupposes the existence of social cooperation, and by doing that is an unsound criterion for justice.

Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.

          - Edmund Burke

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,011
Points 47,070

Knight_of_BAAWA:
Aha. So what were you talking about? You're going to have to actually state it. You can't rely on innuendo that only you get.
laminustacitus:
That there is more to a just society
You said "justice", not "just society". Please don't shift the goalposts. 

Although if everyone individually meted out the earned, then "society" would be just.

 

laminustacitus:
Perhaps, I could even go as far as to state that "meting out the earned" already presupposes the existence of social cooperation, and by doing that is an unsound criterion for justice.
You could, but you'd be wrong, given that individuals do cooperate. And that you have a warped view of justice, involving more to justice than what actually is.

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,511
Points 31,955

Knight_of_BAAWA:
Knight_of_BAAWA:
Aha. So what were you talking about? You're going to have to actually state it. You can't rely on innuendo that only you get.
laminustacitus:
That there is more to a just society
You said "justice", not "just society". Please don't shift the goalposts. 

I'm not shifting the goal posts whatsoever: what is justice? Is it some platonic ideal? Or does is it contained in a just society? I would answer that there is no justice whatsoever without society; thus, the use of a "just society" instead of "justice" is completely correct.

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:
Although if everyone individually meted out the earned, then "society" would be just.

And how is that done?

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:
laminustacitus:
Perhaps, I could even go as far as to state that "meting out the earned" already presupposes the existence of social cooperation, and by doing that is an unsound criterion for justice.
You could, but you'd be wrong, given that individuals do cooperate.

Social cooperation does not happen everywhere, and it is a goal of justice to ensure that cooperation happens in the first place.

 

7. The Idea of Justice

One of the motives that impel men to search for an absolute and immutable standard of value is the presumption that peaceful cooperation is possible only among people guided by the same judgments of value. 

It is obvious that social cooperation would not have evolved and could not be preserved if the immense majority were not to consider it as the means for the attainment of all their ends. Striving after the preservation of his own life and health and after the best possible removal of felt uneasiness, the individual looks upon society as a means, not as an end. There is no perfect unanimity even with regard to this point. But we may neglect the dissent of the ascetics and the anchorites, not because they are few, but because their plans are not affected if other people, in the pursuit of their plans, cooperate in society.

There prevails among the members of society disagreement with regard to the best method for its organization. But this is a dissent concerning means, not ultimate ends. The problems involved can be discussed without any reference to judgments of value. 

Of course, almost all people, guided by the traditional manner of dealing with ethical precepts, peremptorily repudiate such an explanation of the issue. Social institutions, they assert, must be just. It is base to judge them merely according to their fitness to attain definite ends, however desirable these ends may be from any other point of view. What matters first is justice. The extreme formulation of this idea is to be found in the famous phrase: fiat justitia, pereat mundus. Let justice be done, even if it destroys the world. Most supporters of the postulate of justice will reject this maxim as extravagant, absurd, and paradoxical. But it is not more absurd, merely more shocking, than any other reference to an arbitrary notion of absolute justice. It clearly shows the fallacies of the methods applied in the discipline of intuitive ethics.

The procedure of this normative quasi science is to derive certain precepts from intuition and to deal with them as if their adoption as a guide to action would not affect the attainment of any other ends considered desirable. The moralists do not bother about the necessary consequences of the realization of their postulates. We need not discuss the attitudes of people for whom the appeal to justice is manifestly a pretext, consciously or subconsciously chosen, to disguise their short-run interests, nor expose the hypocrisy of such makeshift notions of justice as those involved in the popular concepts of just prices and fair wages. The philosophers who in their treatises of ethics assigned supreme value to justice and applied the yardstick of justice to all social institutions were not guilty of such deceit. They did not support selfish group concerns by declaring them alone just, fair, and good, and smear all dissenters by depicting them as the apologists of unfair causes. They were Platonists who believed that a perennial idea of absolute justice exists and that it is the duty of man to organize all human institutions in conformity with this ideal. Cognition of justice is imparted to man by an inner voice, i.e., by intuition. The champions of this doctrine did not ask what the consequences of realizing the schemes they called just would be. They silently assumed either that these consequences will be beneficial or that mankind is bound to put up even with very painful consequences of justice. Still less did these teachers of morality pay attention to the fact that people can and really do disagree with regard to the interpretation of the inner voice and that no method of peacefully settling such disagreements can be found.

All these ethical doctrines have failed to comprehend that there is, outside of social bonds and preceding, temporally or logically, the existence of society, nothing to which the epithet "just" can be given. A hypothetical isolated individual must under the pressure of biological competition look upon all other people as deadly foes. His only concern is to preserve his own life and health; he does not need to heed the consequences which his own survival has for other men; he has no use for justice. His only solicitudes are hygiene and defense. But in social cooperation with other men the individual is forced to abstain from conduct incompatible with life in society. Only then does the distinction between what is just and what is unjust emerge. It invariably refers to interhuman social relations. What is beneficial to the individual without affecting his fellows, such as the observance of certain rules in the use of some drugs, remains hygiene. 

The ultimate yardstick of justice is conduciveness to the preservation of social cooperation. Conduct suited to preserve social cooperation is just, conduct detrimental to the preservation of society is unjust. There cannot be any question of organizing society according to the postulates of an arbitrary preconceived idea of justice. The problem is to organize society for the best possible realization of those ends which men want to attain by social cooperation. Social utility is the only standard of justice. It is the sole guide of legislation.

Thus there are no irreconcilable conflicts between selfishness and altruism, between economics and ethics, between the concerns of the individual and those of society. Utilitarian philosophy and its finest product, economics, reduced these apparent antagonisms to the opposition of short-run and long-run interests. Society could not have come into existence or been preserved without a harmony of the rightly understood interests of all its members. 

There is only one way of dealing with all problems of social organization and the conduct of the members of society, viz., the method applied by praxeology and economics. No other method can contribute anything to the elucidation of these matters. 

The concept of justice as employed by jurisprudence refers to legality, that is, to legitimacy from the point of view of the valid statutes of a country. It means justice de lege lata. The science of law has nothing to say de lege ferenda, i.e., about the laws as they ought to be. To enact new laws and to repeal old laws is the task of the legislature, whose sole criterion is social utility. The assistance the legislator can expect from lawyers refers only to matters of legal technique, not to the gist of the statutes and decrees.

There is no such thing as a normative science, a science of what ought to be.

Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.

          - Edmund Burke

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,959
Points 55,095
Spideynw replied on Tue, Sep 22 2009 10:47 PM

alimentarius:

OK,  this has taken some time, but I think I can finally declare myself a libertarian (i. e. ancap). Even if I still get questions from critics that I have a hard time answering.

It's a tough pill to swallow.  But welcome to the ranks!  It really is the only consistent political philosophy.

At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,011
Points 47,070

Knight_of_BAAWA:
Knight_of_BAAWA:
Aha. So what were you talking about? You're going to have to actually state it. You can't rely on innuendo that only you get.
laminustacitus:
That there is more to a just society
You said "justice", not "just society". Please don't shift the goalposts.
laminustacitus:
I'm not shifting the goal posts whatsoever
Yes, you are.

 

laminustacitus:
what is justice?
The concept of meting out the earned.

The use of "just society" in place of "justice" is erroneous, for you need to know what justice is before you can have a "just society".

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:
Although if everyone individually meted out the earned, then "society" would be just.
laminustacitus:
And how is that done?
English is your third or fourth language, isn't it?

 

laminustacitus:
Perhaps, I could even go as far as to state that "meting out the earned" already presupposes the existence of social cooperation, and by doing that is an unsound criterion for justice.
Knight_of_BAAWA:
You could, but you'd be wrong, given that individuals do cooperate.
laminustacitus:
Social cooperation does not happen everywhere
No, it doesn't. But that doesn't mean anything, really.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,511
Points 31,955

Knight_of_BAAWA:
Knight_of_BAAWA:
Knight_of_BAAWA:
Aha. So what were you talking about? You're going to have to actually state it. You can't rely on innuendo that only you get.
laminustacitus:
That there is more to a just society
You said "justice", not "just society". Please don't shift the goalposts.
laminustacitus:
I'm not shifting the goal posts whatsoever
Yes, you are.

I'm not unless you believe that there can be justice without society; I, for one, do not believe so.

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:
laminustacitus:
what is justice?
The concept of meting out the earned.

According to what mechanisms? Does that mean that one person can claim all that is earned for himself, and be just in doing so?

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:
The use of "just society" in place of "justice" is erroneous, for you need to know what justice is before you can have a "just society".

Without society, "justice" is nothing.

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:
Knight_of_BAAWA:
Although if everyone individually meted out the earned, then "society" would be just.
laminustacitus:
And how is that done?
English is your third or fourth language, isn't it?

Can you detect rhetorical questions?

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:
laminustacitus:
Perhaps, I could even go as far as to state that "meting out the earned" already presupposes the existence of social cooperation, and by doing that is an unsound criterion for justice.
Knight_of_BAAWA:
You could, but you'd be wrong, given that individuals do cooperate.
laminustacitus:
Social cooperation does not happen everywhere
No, it doesn't. But that doesn't mean anything, really.

Actually, it means everything, read the quote of Theory, and History if you want to know why.

Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.

          - Edmund Burke

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,011
Points 47,070

laminustacitus:
I'm not shifting the goal posts whatsoever
Knight_of_BAAWA:
Yes, you are.
laminustacitus:
I'm not unless you believe that there can be justice without society
Non sequitur. Justice is an abstraction. You need to learn such words.

 

laminustacitus:
what is justice?
Knight_of_BAAWA:
The concept of meting out the earned.
laminustacitus:
According to what mechanisms?
That isn't germane.

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:
The use of "just society" in place of "justice" is erroneous, for you need to know what justice is before you can have a "just society".
laminustacitus:
Without society, "justice" is nothing.
You really need to learn what the word "abstraction" means.

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:
Although if everyone individually meted out the earned, then "society" would be just.
laminustacitus:
And how is that done?
Knight_of_BAAWA:
English is your third or fourth language, isn't it?
laminustacitus:
Can you detect rhetorical questions?
Yes. Feel free to write one.

 

laminustacitus:
Perhaps, I could even go as far as to state that "meting out the earned" already presupposes the existence of social cooperation, and by doing that is an unsound criterion for justice.
Knight_of_BAAWA:
You could, but you'd be wrong, given that individuals do cooperate.
laminustacitus:
Social cooperation does not happen everywhere
Knight_of_BAAWA:
No, it doesn't. But that doesn't mean anything, really.
laminustacitus:
Actually, it means everything
No, it doesn't. It means no more than saying we don't have anarchy everywhere.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,511
Points 31,955

Knight_of_BAAWA:
laminustacitus:
I'm not shifting the goal posts whatsoever
Knight_of_BAAWA:
Yes, you are.
laminustacitus:
I'm not unless you believe that there can be justice without society
Non sequitur. Justice is an abstraction. You need to learn such words.

No, justice is not something that one can hold up as a platonic idea. Instead, justice is something very real, and it is only in society can one give the epithet "just" to anything. 

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:
Knight_of_BAAWA:
The use of "just society" in place of "justice" is erroneous, for you need to know what justice is before you can have a "just society".
laminustacitus:
Without society, "justice" is nothing.
You really need to learn what the word "abstraction" means.

Abstracting justice from society is to have the concept of justice loose any of its meaning. 

Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.

          - Edmund Burke

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,011
Points 47,070

laminustacitus:
I'm not shifting the goal posts whatsoever
Knight_of_BAAWA:
Yes, you are.
laminustacitus:
I'm not unless you believe that there can be justice without society
Knight_of_BAAWA:
Non sequitur. Justice is an abstraction. You need to learn such words.
laminustacitus:
No, justice is not something that one can hold up as a platonic idea.
Good thing no one is. And justice isn't ontologically real; it's conceptually real. Learn. The. Difference.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,511
Points 31,955

Knight_of_BAAWA:
And justice isn't ontologically real; it's conceptually real. Learn. The. Difference.

The entire notion of "justice" is incomprehensible without society, so any attempt to idealize it beyond society is absurd - the questions: "What is justice", and "What is a just society" are one, and the same. Learn. That. Fact.

Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.

          - Edmund Burke

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,011
Points 47,070

Knight_of_BAAWA:
And justice isn't ontologically real; it's conceptually real. Learn. The. Difference.
laminustacitus:
The entire notion of "justice" is incomprehensible without society
The notion of a "just society" without having defined "just" is absurd on the face of it.

Learn. That. Fact.

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,850
Points 85,810

laminustacitus:
The entire notion of "justice" is incomprehensible without society

Well what do you consider 'society', two people? Ten people? thousands?

And how can 'society' have traits such as 'justice'? How can 'society' be 'just'? Or unjust for that matter? Do you believe that an abstraction can actually be personified?

'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,940
Points 49,115
Conza88 replied on Wed, Sep 23 2009 10:49 AM

alimentarius:
Conza88:
He's not publicly, nor should he be.

Why not?

Because if he was to come out & say he was an anarcho-capitalist, what do you think would happen? Talk about destroying the movement, lol. By the way, he has never defended the state, which is something worth pointing out. He favors civil disobedience when it comes to taxation. 

Anyway, all that would needs to be done by the establishment is tar him with the anarchist (traditional socialist) label. Scare tactics, he'd lose support by those still stuck in the statist mentality, and they'd be cut short before they could possibly get into Austrian Economics. Possibly lose his position in Congress, there goes the only radical abolitionist for Liberty in modern history, who is following the Rothbard Libertarian Caucus points to the letter. No more 434 votes to 1. No more spokesperson who gets on the House floor and tells it like it is. No more beacon of hope for millions, nor a relevant iconoclast pushing the important issues in the news and mainstream media (when he is able to penetrate it). No more "honest politician". No more filtering tens of thousands to the LvMI, no more spreading the message to millions around the world and giving people their "political education"... and thus no more opposition to the new world order.

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 244
Points 5,455
Felipe replied on Wed, Sep 23 2009 11:49 AM

I thought Ron Paul was a constitutionalist, is that incompatible with an-cap?

Can one person be both?

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,959
Points 55,095
Spideynw replied on Wed, Sep 23 2009 12:05 PM

Felipe:
I thought Ron Paul was a constitutionalist, is that incompatible with an-cap?

Yes.

Felipe:
Can one person be both?

No.

At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 757
Points 17,305
Poptech replied on Wed, Sep 23 2009 6:10 PM

Felipe:

I thought Ron Paul was a constitutionalist, is that incompatible with an-cap?

Can one person be both?

to elaborate...

A Constitutionalist would be a limited government libertarian (Minarchist) like Mises, Hayek, Hazlitt and Friedman.

Anarcho-Capitalists do not support any government including one based on a constitution.

 

"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,940
Points 49,115
Conza88 replied on Wed, Sep 23 2009 9:52 PM

Felipe:
I thought Ron Paul was a constitutionalist, is that incompatible with an-cap?

It is if you use it more than a rhetorical tool in an age of manufactured consent. What do you think trying to present anarcho-capitalist ideas in sound bites, would look like?

Can one person be both?

You can present yourself as a limited government type, yet point and lead people in the direction of anarcho-capitalism. The way the Ludwig Von Mises Institute presents itself is genius. Classical liberalism, libertarian political philosophy etc. reading the about page, anarchism is never mentioned and for a damn good reason.

Yet, when folks decide to check out the media section and literature, when they participate in the forum - they are met with the consistently applied logic of the NAP. Smile

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 757
Points 17,305
Poptech replied on Wed, Sep 23 2009 10:06 PM

I do not think it is genius if you don't really believe it. Talking about supporting the constitution when you really don't want any constitution is hypocritical and dishonest. All the Ron Paul supporters I met are strict constitutionalists, limited government types. They may want to abolish the Fed but not the U.S.

I said this before if the institute was here to promote anarcho-capitalism then it should have been called the Murray N. Rothbard institute. Otherwise Mises was no anarchist.

"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,940
Points 49,115
Conza88 replied on Wed, Sep 23 2009 11:11 PM

Poptech:
I do not think it is genius if you don't really believe it. Talking about supporting the constitution when you really don't want any constitution is hypocritical and dishonest.

No, it's not. The appeal is secondary. What part of that is not understood? Ron Paul doesn't hold his beliefs because a piece of paper says so. He supports Natural Law and Natural rights. The only reason he has his political career is because of Austrian Economics. He is publicly as radical & abolitionist as possible. 

Poptech:
All the Ron Paul supporters I met are strict constitutionalists, limited government types.

Well you need to meet more, preferably those who talk about the Austrian School. As for the rest that's because they've never questioned why Ron says what he says, or believes what he believes. They've never decided to investigate how or why he came to his conclusions. They just assume, ahh, he appeals to the constitution a lot - that must be why. Problem is, that's simple minded & fallacious.

Poptech:
They may want to abolish the Fed but not the U.S.

He would abolish the IRS, CIA, FBI, Federal Reserve, Dept. of Education, Dept. of Energy, Dept. of Labor, yada yada yada and on the list goes. Also don't equate the nation-state with the nation, because it is a non sequitur. Austro-Libertarians don't want to abolish the U.S either, just the parasitic class of thieves initiating violence against everyone else. And furthermore on this point, Ron Paul supports secession - so in essence, he does.

Poptech:
I said this before if the institute was here to promote anarcho-capitalism then it should have been called the Murray N. Rothbard institute. Otherwise Mises was no anarchist.

It's here to promote scholarship in the Misesian tradition. That is what it is doing. Mises stood on the shoulder of giants, Rothbard did as well and the tradition continues.

"In this cause, the Mises Institute works to advance the Austrian School of economics and the Misesian tradition, and, in application, defends the market economy, private property, sound money, and peaceful international relations, while opposing government intervention as economically and socially destructive."

It's not here to defend government intervention, that much should be obvious. Now the question posed to you is, what government intervention isn't economically & socially destructive? Wink

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 757
Points 17,305
Poptech replied on Wed, Sep 23 2009 11:58 PM

Conza88:
No, it's not. The appeal is secondary. What part of that is not understood?

I am not talking about appeals but ideals. Either you believe something or you don't. Pretending to support something is disingenuous.

Conza88:
Ron Paul doesn't hold his beliefs because a piece of paper says so. He supports Natural Law and Natural rights. The only reason he has his political career is because of Austrian Economics. He is publicly as radical & abolitionist as possible. 

Well you need to meet more, preferably those who talk about the Austrian School. As for the rest that's because they've never questioned why Ron says what he says, or believes what he believes. They've never decided to investigate how or why he came to his conclusions. They just assume, ahh, he appeals to the constitution a lot - that must be why. Problem is, that's simple minded & fallacious.

Ron Paul clearly calls himself a constitutionalist. I've met hundreds and many more online and they are not about abolishing the U.S.

Conza88:
It's here to promote scholarship in the Misesian tradition. That is what it is doing.

Which is not anarcho-capitalism. Trying to spin it as such is propaganda.

"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 11,343
Points 194,945
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Poptech:
Ron Paul clearly calls himself a constitutionalist.

It doesn't matter.  He cites Lysander Spooner as an influence, and he supports secession down the individual level.

 

"When you're young you worry about people stealing your ideas, when you're old you worry that they won't." - David Friedman
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 757
Points 17,305
Poptech replied on Thu, Sep 24 2009 12:04 AM

liberty student:
It doesn't matter.  He cites Lysander Spooner as an influence, and he supports secession down the individual level.

It does matter. Can you cite for me where he calls for the abolition of the United States? I've been getting too much spin and not enough sources.

"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 11,343
Points 194,945
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Poptech:
Can you cite for me where he calls for the abolition of the United States?

That is a strawman.

Have you read "The Revolution"?

"When you're young you worry about people stealing your ideas, when you're old you worry that they won't." - David Friedman
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 757
Points 17,305
Poptech replied on Thu, Sep 24 2009 12:10 AM

Does Ron Paul support the abolition of the United States? If so can you provide me with a source.

If you cannot do so you have no argument.

"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,124
Points 37,405
Angurse replied on Thu, Sep 24 2009 12:12 AM

Poptech:
Which is not anarcho-capitalism. Trying to spin it as such is propaganda.

Nor is it minarchism (and he didn't say that the Mises Institute was here to promote anarcho-capitalism). Its a think-tank, inspired by Mises - thats all.

"I am an aristocrat. I love liberty, I hate equality."
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 11,343
Points 194,945
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Poptech:
Does Ron Paul support the abolition of the United States?

I don't know.

Poptech:
If you cannot do so you have no argument.

No.  It means your strawman argument doesn't exist.  It doesn't change the fact that Paul supports the right of the South to secede during the civil war, and supports secession down the individual level, per the Declaration of Independence.

"When you're young you worry about people stealing your ideas, when you're old you worry that they won't." - David Friedman
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,940
Points 49,115
Conza88 replied on Thu, Sep 24 2009 2:37 AM

Poptech:
I am not talking about appeals but ideals. Either you believe something or you don't. Pretending to support something is disingenuous.

Speech by US Congressman Ron Paul at the "Prague Spring Lecture", Czech Republic, 29 May 2006
Theme: "Ludwig von Mises and Politics"
Ron Paul is hosted by Czech President Vaclav Klaus at the launch of the "Czech Translation of Human Action" organized by Liberální Institute.

6m45s - 9min.02s

"The Federal Government subsidizes those of us who want to live in a dangerous area. A lot of people live in the dangerous area, and lo and behold, their house gets blown down and the government pays for it.

My position of federal flood insurance is, they shouldn't have it. You shouldn't have flood insurance, bad economics, unfair to the people in Arizona to pay for the hurricanes in Texas. And yet, that one is a tough one...

But they know upfront that I don't vote for the flood insurance and yet it's very challenging.

... [Earmarks, get the money back, vote against them though] ...

Fortunately for me, though what I do is controversial to a large degree, I can use the argument of the constitution. Our Constitution is very small and very straight forward...

But, in the United States there is a still a lot of respect for the Constitution.

So, if you say: "Well I voted against the flood insurance and I realise the difficulty you might have, because you don't immediately have that. BUT, I am following my pledge and oath of office to obey the constitution, I believe in the rule of law, and therefore I am not going to vote, for that."

They will give you enough respect and give you a pass on that. That is easier, than if you would vote against it, and you had only voted against it for say, economic reasons. That would be different. They would have a little more difficulty in understanding the economics of it all."

His ideal is reducing the size of the state. Who are you to contend he privately doesn't want to do away with it completely. He's never defended it. Furthermore; Ron Paul is a Libertarian. He ran for the Libertarian Party in 1988. He is what he is because of Austrian Economics, he says so himself. (Libertarian + Austrian Economics) = Austro-Libertarian. He has denied Mises utilitarianism, he supports Natural Law and Natural rights i.e Rothbard. He is a radical abolitionist.

Washington Warp: Why Even Good People in the Beltway Can't Think Straight by Jeffery Tucker (25min):

"DC culture has the effect of turning people into secret anarchists or secret totalitarians."

I think it's clear which way Ron would lean.

Poptech:
Ron Paul clearly calls himself a constitutionalist. I've met hundreds and many more online and they are not about abolishing the U.S.

Again, non sequitur. Many more online - what, like here?

Poptech:
Conza88:
It's here to promote scholarship in the Misesian tradition. That is what it is doing.

Which is not anarcho-capitalism. Trying to spin it as such is propaganda.

The Misesian Movement by Lew Rockwell (Founder of the LvMI)

"In any case, when I speak of the Misesian movement, I am speaking of something much more important, something that is changing history, and something that will have a profound impact on the world, long after the regime in power is forgotten. I am speaking of an intellectual movement, a movement rooted in a certain understanding of society, economy, and history. It has a theory of the past and an agenda for the future, and both shed far more light on the realities of the present moment than the political apparatus ever can."

"I would also draw your attention to the work of Murray Rothbard... He was the key to the Mises Institute from its founding. He taught at all our programs. He established our journal. He wrote in all our publications. He inspired all of us on a daily and hourly basis. His passion and optimism were a constant source of inspiration for our supporters, for our faculty, for our students, for me. He made every conference unforgettable, and hardly any student who spent time with him left unchanged... What they underestimated was the power of his ideas – just as so many had underestimated the power of Mises's ideas."

By the way, you ignored this:

Conza88:

"In this cause, the Mises Institute works to advance the Austrian School of economics and the Misesian tradition, and, in application, defends the market economy, private property, sound money, and peaceful international relations, while opposing government intervention as economically and socially destructive."

It's not here to defend government intervention, that much should be obvious. Now the question posed to you is, what government intervention isn't economically & socially destructive?

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,940
Points 49,115
Conza88 replied on Thu, Sep 24 2009 2:43 AM

Poptech:

Does Ron Paul support the abolition of the United States? If so can you provide me with a source.

If you cannot do so you have no argument.

When are you going to drop the strawman? Who has said he does support the abolition of the United States (nation)? No one, so give it up.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

"The protection against centralized government failed because of too many loopholes in the Constitution."

~ Ron Paul from his book End the Fed, 2009

Maybe you should go buy it & read it... and that goes for his other books too. He writes about a free market in money, in Gold, Peace and Prosperity, that of which Rothbard wrote the preface.

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 757
Points 17,305
Poptech replied on Thu, Sep 24 2009 6:28 AM

Conza88:
Speech by US Congressman Ron Paul at the "Prague Spring Lecture", Czech Republic, 29 May 2006

That is him explaining how he markets his ideas. It does not imply he is anti-constitutional but uses the constitution to make his arguments for reducing the size of government. Nothing he said mentioned or implied abolishing the constitution or the United States.

Conza88:
He ran for the Libertarian Party in 1988

Which is not anarcho-capitalist

Conza88:
"DC culture has the effect of turning people into secret anarchists or secret totalitarians."

Which is Mr. Tucker's opinion not Ron Pauls.

Conza88:
Again, non sequitur

So Ron Paul is lying when he called himself a constitutionalist? Oh and your link does not work.

Conza88:
The Misesian Movement by Lew Rockwell (Founder of the LvMI)

The Misean movement is name after Mises who was not an anarchist, I've already proven this. If it is about anarcho-capitalism then it should be called the "Rothbardian movement". I never claimed Rothbard was not a key part of the institution. My statement which has not changed is that the institute is called "The Ludwig von Mises Institute" and Mises was not an anarchist. Rothbard was, which is fine but the institute is not named after him. This isn't complicated

Conza88:
By the way, you ignored this:

The statement "while opposing government intervention as economically and socially destructive" is not opposing or abolishing government. You consider the existence of government as intervention, I don't.  Lets not play word games, if the Mises Institute supports abolishing government then they should say so. If Ron Paul does to then he should say so, instead of pretending to be a constitutionalist.

"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 757
Points 17,305
Poptech replied on Thu, Sep 24 2009 6:31 AM

Conza88:
When are you going to drop the strawman?

It is not a strawman, you can't answer the question and it is a legitimate question.

Conza88:
Who has said he does support the abolition of the United States

I don't know, does he

Conza88:
In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

"The protection against centralized government failed because of too many loopholes in the Constitution."

Yes the constitution has problems, many of which has to do with word usage, which can be addressed. This has nothing to do with abolishing it.

"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,940
Points 49,115
Conza88 replied on Thu, Sep 24 2009 8:25 AM

Poptech:
That is him explaining how he markets his ideas. It does not imply he is anti-constitutional but uses the constitution to make his arguments for reducing the size of government.

That's exactly what I said. He uses it as a rhetorical tool.

Poptech:
Conza88:
He ran for the Libertarian Party in 1988
Which is not anarcho-capitalist

Are you suggesting he is not logical and principally consistent? There's a Rothbard caucus in the LP. The revolution has followed it to a tee.

Poptech:
Conza88:
"DC culture has the effect of turning people into secret anarchists or secret totalitarians."

Which is Mr. Tucker's opinion not Ron Pauls.

Nah, seems to be Ron's aswell.

Pablo:
liberty student:
To be more precise, Ron Paul is an anarchist at heart, who plays a constitutional minarchist on TV.

You got that too? I was WAY too active in his campaign, and met with him person to person a number of times. I asked him what his thoughts were on anarcho capitalism, he said it would be a great idea to strive for. The man is really well read, and incredibly intelligent. I'm sure he has followed the non-aggression principle to its end. Regardless, he opened my eyes to the evils of the state, and for that, I have a ton of respect for him.

Poptech:
Conza88:
Again, non sequitur

So Ron Paul is lying when he called himself a constitutionalist?

No, and you're being fallacious when you consistently disregard the fact that no-one here has called for the abolition of the United States (nation). When you understand the difference between the state and society, let us know.

Why do you persist? We've already covered this, he uses it as a rhetorical tool in an age of manufactured consent. You heard the speech, you agreed to it. Move on.

Poptech:
Oh and your link does not work.

Ah, apparently you need to be signed in. "Quick Minarchism vs. Voluntarism/Anarchism Poll" at Ron Paul Forums.

View Poll Results: Have you converted?
I have converted to anarchy/voluntarism/market anarchism/anarcho-capitalism 41 39.81%
I support some form of government. 62 60.19%

Voters: 103. You have already voted on this poll

Poptech:
The Misean movement is name after Mises who was not an anarchist, I've already proven this.

That's not why it was named after him. So no, you've proven squat. Mises was for conscription. Should we all support conscription now? Aye? Is this in the tradition and spirit of Liberty? Do you understand what the word 'tradition' means?

Poptech:
If it is about anarcho-capitalism then it should be called the "Rothbardian movement". I never claimed Rothbard was not a key part of the institution. My statement which has not changed is that the institute is called "The Ludwig von Mises Institute" and Mises was not an anarchist. Rothbard was, which is fine but the institute is not named after him. This isn't complicated

Your premise is flawed, the naming of the institute has nothing to do with whether Mises was an anarchist or not, and that is where your analysis fails.

What is the Misesian tradition besides the obvious scholarship in Austrian Economics?

"The Institute's official motto is Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito, which comes from Virgil's Aeneid, Book VI; the motto means "do not give in to evil but proceed ever more boldly against it." Early in his life, Mises chose this sentence to be his guiding principle in life."

Poptech:
The statement "while opposing government intervention as economically and socially destructive" is not opposing or abolishing government. You consider the existence of government as intervention, I don't.

What doesn't the government intervene in? It doesn't have a monopoly on the use of violence over a given territory?

How on earth can you say an institution protects property, when it must violate it to exist?

Poptech:
Lets not play word games, if the Mises Institute supports abolishing government then they should say so.

The Mises Institute is about advancing the scholarship of Liberty in the tradition of the Austrian School. It's not too hard to understand. The debate has taken place within this framework, it just happens to be most people these days have overcome the fallacies. You unfortunately haven't worked out the logical contradictions of classical liberalism yet. Universality and Equality of Law for all - no doubt you'd agree people should not be allowed to go down the street and hold a gun to someones head and say "Your money or your life!". Correct?

Well what gives a group of individuals who call themselves "the government" the right to do so?

Poptech:
If Ron Paul does to then he should say so, instead of pretending to be a constitutionalist.

If he did, what would you do? What do you think would happen to the movement? How would the MSM react? Would you still vote for him?

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,940
Points 49,115
Conza88 replied on Thu, Sep 24 2009 8:47 AM

Poptech:
Conza88:
When are you going to drop the strawman?

It is not a strawman, you can't answer the question and it is a legitimate question.

No the question is a straw man and it is illegitimate. When you ask a valid question, you'll get a valid response. There is a difference between the nation-state and the nation. At the moment you are equating them both. You've specified constantly, 'abolish the United States' , well what I was trying to get you to do is, clarify which one you mean.

If you mean the abolition of the Union? The United States government? Sure - Ron Paul is for secession.

If you mean the nation, called the United States - No. Ron is for America. Obviously... lol.

Poptech:
Yes the constitution has problems, many of which has to do with word usage, which can be addressed. This has nothing to do with abolishing it.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Dr. Ron Paul, End the Fed 2009

So wait... why is this person, who, according to you - is a strict Constitutionlist... why is this Champion of Liberty writing in his book, that the Constitution is useless and "incapable of achieving limited government, no matter how well written"? Aye? Funny that.. that's something an anarcho-capitalist would say.

Go on, try rationalize it... maybe you should instead check your own premises and the legitimacy of your beliefs. No?

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 11,343
Points 194,945
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Poptech is being asked to post a higher standard of discourse, and instead of arguing semantics in every thread, demonstrate familiarity with the source material and be able to convey discussion about it in context.

If you believe he has not satisfied the minimum burden of basic research, then simply ignore him.  That includes, reading TEOL, or FANL, and in any debate on Ron Paul, considering some of us here worked damn long and hard for the campaign, and thus are more expert than the media pundits who interview him, The Revolution and/or End the FED.  Those books, at a minimum.

Besides googling up a quote from Mises on anarchism, I've yet to see any understanding of praxeology, methodological individualism, free market economics (in the Austrian tradition) or any conception of liberty in the Austrian tradition.

It won't last.  It's been several months now, and we're still stuck with the same pedantry, and no real substance in debate.

"When you're young you worry about people stealing your ideas, when you're old you worry that they won't." - David Friedman
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,914
Points 70,630
wilderness replied on Thu, Sep 24 2009 10:03 AM

Poptech:
The Misean movement is name after Mises who was not an anarchist, I've already proven this.

you didn't prove anything in that thread.  i was rather convinced otherwise, as many others in that thread were too.

 

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 757
Points 17,305
Poptech replied on Thu, Sep 24 2009 5:44 PM

Conza88:
That's exactly what I said. He uses it as a rhetorical tool.

No he did not state he does not support it and only mentions it for arguments sake. If he does please show me where he said this. What he did say was that he can convey his argument better using the constitution than simply expressing free market ideology. Nothing Ron Paul stated in that video implied he does not support the U.S. Constitution.

Conza88:
Are you suggesting he is not logical and principally consistent? There's a Rothbard caucus in the LP. The revolution has followed it to a tee.

I am telling you the Libertarian Party is not anarcho-capitalist. The existence of a caucus, is not the views of the party.

Conza88:
Nah, seems to be Ron's aswell.

You have failed to prove this.

Conza88:
No, and you're being fallacious when you consistently disregard the fact that no-one here has called for the abolition of the United States (nation).

Calling for something and secretly wanting it to happen are the same thing. Talking one game and believing another is disengenuous.

Conza88:
Quick Minarchism vs. Voluntarism/Anarchism Poll" at Ron Paul Forums.

WOW! 41 people, soon you will have as many people that live on my street.

Conza88:
That's not why it was named after him. So no, you've proven squat. Mises was for conscription. Should we all support conscription now? Aye? Is this in the tradition and spirit of Liberty? Do you understand what the word 'tradition' means?

Whatever the reason it was named after him has to be based on his ideology not someone elses. You cannot apply theories and ideas he did not advocate and use them in his name. Yes I have proven he did not support anarchism.

Conza88:
Your premise is flawed, the naming of the institute has nothing to do with whether Mises was an anarchist or not, and that is where your analysis fails.

Logic fails? Really? If the institute was not named after Mises in relation to anarchy  and it is shown Mises does not support anarchy than all arguments that the only position one at the Mises institute can hold is "anarcho-capitalism" are wrong.

Conza88:
What is the Misesian tradition besides the obvious scholarship in Austrian Economics?

Austrian Economics espoused by Mises. Rothbard's views cannot be part of the "Misesian tradition" because Mises views were not based on Rothbard's theories which includes anarcho-capitalism.

Conza88:
What doesn't the government intervene in? It doesn't have a monopoly on the use of violence over a given territory?

How can a government have a monopoly on violence when I can commit violence in the territory at any time?

Conza88:
How on earth can you say an institution protects property, when it must violate it to exist?

This is subjective.

Again, Lets not play word games, if the Mises Institute supports abolishing government then they should say so.

Conza88:
If he did, what would you do? What do you think would happen to the movement? How would the MSM react? Would you still vote for him?

I would not support him. The one thing I can promise you is that he will be asked this question in the future.

"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,914
Points 70,630

Poptech:

Again, Lets not play word games, if the Mises Institute supports abolishing government then they should say so.

I told you before.  LewRockwell founded this Institution and is an anarcho-capitalist.  He says so himself.  get educated

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
  • | Post Points: 35
Page 2 of 3 (115 items) < Previous 1 2 3 Next > | RSS