wilderness:I told you before. LewRockwell founded this Institution and is an anarcho-capitalist. He says so himself. get educated
right on. the LvMI has done such a great job advancing the scholarship of liberty that anarcho-capitalism is finally getting its radical voice heard out from under the mainstream pro-state 'Libertarians'
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
wilderness:I told you before. LewRockwell founded this Institution and is an anarcho-capitalist. He says so himself.
Can you show me where he says this.
"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises
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.
Agreed, anarcho-capitalism is not the Misean tradition for the man himself outright rejected the doctrine during his life.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
Poptech: wilderness:I told you before. LewRockwell founded this Institution and is an anarcho-capitalist. He says so himself. Can you show me where he says this.
As you would abandon Ron P., now you are free to abandon this forum:
1....
"Question: Some say you’re an anarchist; is that true?
Answer: The term anarchist is mostly used to mean someone who believes that if the state and law are gotten rid of, all property would become collectively owned. It was the great insight of Murray Rothbard that this is not the case: private ownership and the law that support it are natural, while the state is artificial. So he was an anarchist in this sense but to avoid confusion he used the term anarcho-capitalist. This doesn’t mean that he favored somehow establishing a capitalism system in place of the state. What he said is that capitalism is the de facto result in a civilized society without a state. Has this position made advances? Yes, but not so many that we can use the term anarchism without causing confusion. If the purpose of words is to communicate, I’m not sure that the term does that well.
As to my own views, I do believe that society thrives best without a state. But I’m with Rothbard, Nock, Molinari, Chodorov, and others who believe in law and private government, such as we find in corporations, housing subdivisions, and church hierarchies. So if by anarchism we mean a society without law, I’m completely against that idea."
2....
"Rockwell's political ideology, like Rothbard's in his later years, combines a form of anarcho-capitalism with cultural conservatism and the Austrian School of economics."
-----
I haven't read any of his books, but it wouldn't surprise me he discusses this in them too. I've read some of his written articles and listened to him talk on the internet. He regularly calls for getting rid of the government and advocates getting educated.
wilderness:As you would abandon Ron P., now you are free to abandon this forum:
I cannot support Ron Paul if he is for the abolishment of the United States Government entirely.
here's more from August '09, notice that one person says that Ron P. told him that the ideal is self-government (so you might want to think about packing your bags and supporting somebody, somewhere else on the internet):
wilderness: here's more from August '09, notice that one person says that Ron P. told him that the ideal is self-government (so you might want to think about packing your bags and supporting somebody, somewhere else on the internet):
I just love the excuses anarchist have for supporting Ron Paul, and deluding themselves he is not a statists, and therefore one of the enemies.
that sentence didn't really make sense, but oh well. i wouldn't vote for the guy, but of course you are a statist.
laminustacitus:I just love the excuses anarchist have for supporting Ron Paul, and deluding themselves he is not a statists, and therefore one of the enemies.
No need to be petty. Anarchists support Ron Paul because he supports individual secession.
wilderness:here's more from August '09, notice that one person says that Ron P. told him that the ideal is self-government (so you might want to think about packing your bags and supporting somebody, somewhere else on the internet):
Third person, not Ron Paul.
Who said I supported Ron Paul? I voted for Bob Barr not Ron Paul. Why are you so insistent that I leave? So far your arguments have not been convincing for your positions.
i didn't say you had to leave. i simply affirmed your abandonment position. you'll abandon anybody that you currently support if you find out they are a liberty lover all in the name of your statist agenda. that's you.
wilderness:i didn't say you had to leave. i simply affirmed your abandonment position. you'll abandon anybody that you currently support if you find out they are a liberty lover all in the name of your statist agenda. that's you.
To have an abandonment position, I would first need someone to abandon and since I have never been a Ron Paul supporter than it is not possible for me to "abandon him". But I will "abandon" anyone who pretended to hold my views but I later found out did not. These are the standards I hold myself to.
I don't have a statist (actual definition) agenda.
lol
i don't even need to comment beyond this.
I didnt want to start such controversy.
Can we all just get along?
Felipe:I didnt want to start such controversy.
You didn't. Neither Lam nor Poptech are particularly knowledgeable re: Ron Paul.
Felipe:Can we all just get along?
I don't think people who endorse the initiation of force, can get along with people who seek peaceful exchange. They are opposed philosophies.
laminustacitus: wilderness: here's more from August '09, notice that one person says that Ron P. told him that the ideal is self-government (so you might want to think about packing your bags and supporting somebody, somewhere else on the internet): I just love the excuses anarchist have for supporting Ron Paul, and deluding themselves he is not a statists, and therefore one of the enemies.
Some anarchists support Ron Paul because unlike McCain, Obama, Clinton, Giuliani, Thompson, Romney, Kucinic, and Gravel, he actually wants to reduce the size of government, and unlike Root and Barr, he is not a crony.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
liberty student: Felipe:I didnt want to start such controversy. You didn't. Neither Lam nor Poptech are particularly knowledgeable re: Ron Paul.
Liberty Student has deluded himself into thinking Ron Paul is a fellow anarcho-capitalist, how cute.
laminustacitus:Liberty Student has deluded himself into thinking Ron Paul is a fellow anarcho-capitalist, how cute.
I've already stated that Ron Paul supports individual secession, which is consistent with ancap.
Whether he is an ancap or not, is not a claim I have made. As you have posted that I have, you are in fact a liar.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Poptech: Conza88:That's exactly what I said. He uses it as a rhetorical tool. 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:That's exactly what I said. He uses it as a rhetorical tool.
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.
Everything he stated in that video implied he supports the U.S Constitution as a rhetorical tool in an age of manufactured consent. Appealing to it, means he can get a pass from the economically ignorant populace.
Poptech: 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: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.
Are you implying Ron Paul is a fool? Are you suggesting he is not logically & principally consistent? Rothbard converted Robert Nozick in 5 minutes. What do you think is the case with Ron, who was Rothbards friend for 30 years?
Poptech: Conza88:Nah, seems to be Ron's aswell.You have failed to prove this.
Conza88:Nah, seems to be Ron's aswell.
What is certain, is you've failed to prove it isn't. There is a myriad of information, examples and quotes that all point towards the beneath the surface obvious. There is more than one source stating Ron has told them, privately, that "his ideal is self government" and "anarcho-capitalism would be a great idea to strive for."
Poptech: 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: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).
Conza88: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.
And again, we've already addressed this. Ron uses it as a rhetorical tool. His appeal to the Constitution is secondary, not primary. It is not where he gets his positions from.
Poptech: 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: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.
Wrong. The point was 40%. The hot bed of activism during the Ron Paul campaign, where a lot of ideas sprang from, 40% from that poll. Voluntaryists. They support self government, just like Ron Paul. See the above motorhome diaries video? Are you calling that person a liar, who said Ron told them he is for self government? Are you calling the forum member here, Pablo - who asked Ron about anarcho-capitalism, to which the response was: "it is a great idea to strive for". Are you calling him a liar?
Poptech: 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: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.
Should the Ludwig Von Mises Institute support conscription? Yes or no? In this in the tradition and spirit of Liberty? Yes or no? Do you know what 'inspired' means? Do you know what 'tradition' means? Do you know what 'praxeology' is?
Conza88: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."
"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."
Furthermore, he did not have an ideology, he had a method. It is called praxeology. You do know what praxeology is, right? This is the method that is the underpinning of the Austrian school. That is the tradition it follows, Mises worked tirelessly to apply this method to economics / catallactics, and it is in this tradition that Rothbard has done the same. He extended its use and analysis. I suggest you read Power and Market.
Poptech: 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: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.
You are the one who is saying it must hold a specific position and that it must be minarchism, or it should change its name. In order to get to this position, you must twist reality. This isn't an Ayn Rand Cult. Austrian Economics is not a closed system. It is in the tradition of Mises character & determination, that the Institute advances the scholarship of Liberty.
Poptech:Again, Lets not play word games, if the Mises Institute supports abolishing government then they should say so.
Conza88: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?
Well what gives a group of individuals who call themselves "the government" the right to do so?
Poptech: 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 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.
What is the method Mises used and developed? What is the method Rothbard used and developed? Hint: it starts with 'P', ends with 'y'.
Poptech: 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: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?
It is time now to bring the State into our discussion. The State is a group of people who have managed to acquire a virtual monopoly of the use of violence throughout a given territorial area. In particular, it has acquired a monopoly of aggressive violence, for States generally recognize the right of individuals to use violence (though not against States, of course) in self-defense.5 The State then uses this monopoly to wield power over the inhabitants of the area and to enjoy the material fruits of that power. The State, then, is the only organization in society that regularly and openly obtains its monetary revenues by the use of aggressive violence; all other individuals and organizations (except if delegated that right by the State) can obtain wealth only by peaceful production and by voluntary exchange of their respective products. This use of violence to obtain its revenue (called "taxation") is the keystone of State power. Upon this base the State erects a further structure of power over the individuals in its territory, regulating them, penalizing critics, subsidizing favorites, etc. The State also takes care to arrogate to itself the compulsory monopoly of various critical services needed by society, thus keeping the people in dependence upon the State for key services, keeping control of the vital command posts in society and also fostering among the public the myth that only the State can supply these goods and services. Thus the State is careful to monopolize police and judicial service, the ownership of roads and streets, the supply of money, and the postal service, and effectively to monopolize or control education, public utilities, transportation, and radio and television.
Now, since the State arrogates to itself the monopoly of violence over a territorial area, so long as its depredations and extortions go unresisted, there is said to be "peace" in the area, since the only violence is one-way, directed by the State downward against the people. Open conflict within the area only breaks out in the case of "revolutions" in which people resist the use of State power against them. Both the quiet case of the State unresisted and the case of open revolution may be termed "vertical violence": violence of the State against its public or vice versa.
What doesn't the government intervene in?
Poptech: Conza88:How on earth can you say an institution protects property, when it must violate it to exist?This is subjective.
Conza88:How on earth can you say an institution protects property, when it must violate it to exist?
Lmao! How is it subjective? Answer the question. What do you see as the proper role of government?
How can say an institution say it protects property, when it must violate it to exist?
Poptech: 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.
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.
Wow, that is pathetic. So if he was to do exactly what he has been doing, saying the exact same things publicly, and you asked him privately, do you favor self government? And he said - "yes". You'd stop supporting him?
And why can you promise this question will be asked in the future? Are you going to be an ass and ask him about it publicly? It's already been tried. Two guys, one with a camera asked Ron about Lysander Spooners Constitution of No Authority, they asked a question, but it required a follow up - for them to 'catch him'. He didn't allow a follow up. He knew the argument. By the way, you conveniently ignored the other questions. What do you think would happen to the movement? How would the MSM react? I guess you wouldn't care though, right? Since you wouldn't support him anymore.
Conza88: 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?
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?
wilderness: Poptech: wilderness:I told you before. LewRockwell founded this Institution and is an anarcho-capitalist. He says so himself. Can you show me where he says this. As you would abandon Ron P., now you are free to abandon this forum: 1.... 2....
Question: Who would you support in the 2008 elections?
... Of course I’m cheering on Ron Paul because he is exposing the nature of the whole system. He is not running for president. He is running against the presidency as it is currently understood. Ultimately, however, I do not believe that politics offers a way out. What we need is a new consciousness concerning the idea of human liberty.
Question: Do you agree with Ron Paul that we should go by the Constitution and that’s it?
Answer: The Constitution would be a major improvement over what we have today. But we need to realize that the Constitution itself represented a major increase in government power over the Articles of Confederation, which would have served us quite well had it not been overthrown. I’m not impressed by the bunch that foisted the Constitution on us. They were really up to no good. We’ve all but forgotten that most everyone opposed it at the time. It only squeaked through once the Bill of Rights was tacked on. The Bill of Rights isn’t perfect, but it at least had the advantage of spelling out what the government could not do. In a rather ingenious twist, even that has been perverted: it is now seen as a mandate for the federal government to tell lower orders of government what they cannot do, meaning that it ends up being a force for centralization. This is such a tragedy. If Patrick Henry could see what became of it, I’m sure he never would have tolerated it. The same might be true of Hamiliton, for that matter. So long as we are talking about founding documents, the one that really deserves more attention is the Declaration of Independence. Now here is an inspiring document that shows us where we should go in the future!
Poptech:Who said I supported Ron Paul? I voted for Bob Barr not Ron Paul.
That explains a lot. Are you involved with the party at all? You seemed to take issue with the Rothbard caucus. How did selling out go for you guys, the LP? Any increase in votes? Oh wait, no...
Republican lite ftl.
Poptech: To have an abandonment position, I would first need someone to abandon and since I have never been a Ron Paul supporter than it is not possible for me to "abandon him". But I will "abandon" anyone who pretended to hold my views but I later found out did not. These are the standards I hold myself to. I don't have a statist (actual definition) agenda.
So you've never supported Ron Paul... then what exactly was the point of this?
Poptech: 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.
I would not support him.
You don't support him, nor will you ever, so why pretend, why care?
Conza88:Everything he stated in that video implied he supports the U.S Constitution as a rhetorical tool in an age of manufactured consent. Appealing to it, means he can get a pass from the economically ignorant populace.
He made no statement of his position on the constitution in that video. He merely commented on how he used it for his argument in one instance.
Conza88:Are you implying Ron Paul is a fool? Are you suggesting he is not logically & principally consistent? Rothbard converted Robert Nozick in 5 minutes. What do you think is the case with Ron, who was Rothbards friend for 30 years?
I am not implying anything as I would like to know Dr. Paul's true positions on these matters. What I am telling you is the Libertarian Party is not anarcho-capitalist. Why can you not show me any video or writing stating that Ron Paul is an anarcho-capitalist?
Conza88:What is certain, is you've failed to prove it isn't. There is a myriad of information, examples and quotes that all point towards the beneath the surface obvious. There is more than one source stating Ron has told them, privately, that "his ideal is self government" and "anarcho-capitalism would be a great idea to strive for."
Third party is not good enough. Ron Paul can answer this himself. So prove it.
Conza88:And again, we've already addressed this. Ron uses it as a rhetorical tool. His appeal to the Constitution is secondary, not primary. It is not where he gets his positions from.
No you haven't. So I will wait until you can provide actual proof. You could provide it for Mr. Rockwell, so surely someone as well known as Ron Paul should not be that hard.
Conza88:Wrong. The point was 40%. The hot bed of activism during the Ron Paul campaign, where a lot of ideas sprang from, 40% from that poll. Voluntaryists. They support self government, just like Ron Paul. See the above motorhome diaries video? Are you calling that person a liar, who said Ron told them he is for self government? Are you calling the forum member here, Pablo - who asked Ron about anarcho-capitalism, to which the response was: "it is a great idea to strive for". Are you calling him a liar?
The point was 41 people. Sample size matters in polls. I don't know the person in the video. What am saying is Ron Paul should state his beliefs clearly. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend. The only way I am going to believe it is if Ron Paul says it himself.
Conza88:Should the Ludwig Von Mises Institute support conscription? Yes or no? In this in the tradition and spirit of Liberty? Yes or no? Do you know what 'inspired' means? Do you know what 'tradition' means? Do you know what 'praxeology' is?
It would be hypocritical to say the view is not allowed here or "wrong". I find it disingenuous to use a person's name and then imply positions using that name that the person did not hold.
Conza88:Furthermore, he did not have an ideology, he had a method. It is called praxeology. You do know what praxeology is, right? This is the method that is the underpinning of the Austrian school. That is the tradition it follows, Mises worked tirelessly to apply this method to economics / catallactics, and it is in this tradition that Rothbard has done the same. He extended its use and analysis. I suggest you read Power and Market.
Yes I know what praxeology is. The problem is you don't know what the definition of ideology is.
Conza88:You are the one who is saying it must hold a specific position and that it must be minarchism, or it should change its name. In order to get to this position, you must twist reality. This isn't an Ayn Rand Cult. Austrian Economics is not a closed system. It is in the tradition of Mises character & determination, that the Institute advances the scholarship of Liberty.
That is not what I am saying. What am saying is you cannot say the only position held here must be anarcho-capitalism. If this is the case then yes you must change the name as Mises did not support anarchy.
Conza88:What is the method Mises used and developed? What is the method Rothbard used and developed? Hint: it starts with 'P', ends with 'y'.
But changes not sanctioned by Mises would not be "Misean" anymore. What if I took anarcho-capitalism and carried it on in the Rothbardian tradition to become a constitutional republic. Would this now be in the "Rothbardian Tradition"?
Conza88:What doesn't the government intervene in?
You didn't answer the question. If I can commit violence at anytime it is logically impossible for the government to have monopoly on violence.
Conza88: Lmao! How is it subjective? Answer the question. What do you see as the proper role of government? How can say an institution say it protects property, when it must violate it to exist?
It is subjective because of the use of the word "violate". The proper role of government should be for police, courts and the military.
Conza88:Wow, that is pathetic. So if he was to do exactly what he has been doing, saying the exact same things publicly, and you asked him privately, do you favor self government? And he said - "yes". You'd stop supporting him?
I never supported him so I would not have to "stop" but yes if I was supporting him based on him being a constitutional libertarian and found out later he was an anarcho-capitalist, I would stop. It is dishonest and fraudulent.
Conza88:And why can you promise this question will be asked in the future? Are you going to be an ass and ask him about it publicly? It's already been tried. Two guys, one with a camera asked Ron about Lysander Spooners Constitution of No Authority, they asked a question, but it required a follow up - for them to 'catch him'. He didn't allow a follow up. He knew the argument. By the way, you conveniently ignored the other questions. What do you think would happen to the movement? How would the MSM react? I guess you wouldn't care though, right? Since you wouldn't support him anymore.
If the right people ask the right questions and Paul refuses to answer them he will discredit himself. So you support him not being honest with the people who support him? Amazing.
Poptech:He made no statement of his position on the constitution in that video.
I never stated he did. But he has elsewhere.
Conza88:"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
Poptech:He merely commented on how he used it for his argument in one instance.
The situation he described and the issues involved applies basically for all his positions, not just one. That was just one example.
Poptech: Conza88:Are you implying Ron Paul is a fool? Are you suggesting he is not logically & principally consistent? Rothbard converted Robert Nozick in 5 minutes. What do you think is the case with Ron, who was Rothbards friend for 30 years? I am not implying anything as I would like to know Dr. Paul's true positions on these matters. What I am telling you is the Libertarian Party is not anarcho-capitalist. Why can you not show me any video or writing stating that Ron Paul is an anarcho-capitalist?
I'd like to ask him myself, in private. In the mean time, I'll go with his written works stating his support of Natural Law, Natural Rights and the only reason he has a political career is because of Austrian Economics. I'll also go with his use of the Constitution as a rhetorical tool to help his arguments that stem from a natural law, natural rights and Austrian economic perspective. There is also his newest book, where the Constitution is stated as essentially useless in achieving limited government. Or you could go watch the motorhome diaries video that has already been posted in this thread where it is stated that Ron is for "self government." Or you could ask the LvMI forum user, Pablo, about when he asked Ron what he thinks of anarcho-capitalism.
The Libertarian Party is not logically nor principally consistent? They are not radical? I know - that's the problem. That's why most Ron Paul supporters didn't vote for them at the election. And all this sudden interest in Libertarianism resulted in no more votes for Barr. Selling out is no way to achieve Liberty.
Poptech: Conza88:You are the one who is saying it must hold a specific position and that it must be minarchism, or it should change its name. In order to get to this position, you must twist reality. This isn't an Ayn Rand Cult. Austrian Economics is not a closed system. It is in the tradition of Mises character & determination, that the Institute advances the scholarship of Liberty. That is not what I am saying. What am saying is you cannot say the only position held here must be anarcho-capitalism. If this is the case then yes you must change the name as Mises did not support anarchy.
When was that ever said? It wasn't. Tsk tsk tsk. Strawman. So, really - you are the one who seems to have an issue with this - not anyone else.
Poptech: Conza88:What is the method Mises used and developed? What is the method Rothbard used and developed? Hint: it starts with 'P', ends with 'y'. But changes not sanctioned by Mises would not be "Misean" anymore.
But changes not sanctioned by Mises would not be "Misean" anymore.
Find out what the word "tradition" means. Mises had an opportunity to address those issues raised by Rothbard. His response was Rothbard is a great economist.
Poptech:What if I took anarcho-capitalism and carried it on in the Rothbardian tradition to become a constitutional republic. Would this now be in the "Rothbardian Tradition"?
Non sequitur. Begs the question.
Poptech: Conza88:What doesn't the government intervene in? You didn't answer the question. If I can commit violence at anytime it is logically impossible for the government to have monopoly on violence.
What is meant by the phrase a monopoly on the use of [initiation] of violence, over a given territory ala the state. It gives individuals who are part of the state, i.e the RULERS, the ability to rule over other individuals who are not part of the state, and these people are RULED. That's the proper class analysis. The state fails the universality & equality of law principles of classical liberalism. It is stuck in a contradiction, which is highlighted by the question below you refuse to answer.
The government has a monopoly on what is to be unjust or against the "law", which is often legal positivism... if it is not based on natural law. It is thus man made law, laws made by rulers to increase their power and oppress the people. Rulers follow their self interest, being in power doesn't change that. Refer to the classic Lord Acton quote; "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely."
You didn't answer the question, "what doesn't the government intervene in?"
Poptech: Conza88:Lmao! How is it subjective? Answer the question. What do you see as the proper role of government? How can say an institution say it protects property, when it must violate it to exist?It is subjective because of the use of the word "violate". The proper role of government should be for police, courts and the military.
Conza88:Lmao! How is it subjective? Answer the question. What do you see as the proper role of government? How can say an institution say it protects property, when it must violate it to exist?
No, it's not subjective. We're talking about property. Stock standard definition of violation applies. Why isn't "protect" subjective? . I'll simplify this for you:
How can you say the State protects property, when it must violate property to exist?
Or are you one of the crazies who thinks taxation is voluntary?
Ron Paul would abolish the CIA, FBI and bring all the troops home. How does that make you feel?
Poptech: Conza88:Wow, that is pathetic. So if he was to do exactly what he has been doing, saying the exact same things publicly, and you asked him privately, do you favor self government? And he said - "yes". You'd stop supporting him? I never supported him so I would not have to "stop" but yes if I was supporting him based on him being a constitutional libertarian and found out later he was an anarcho-capitalist, I would stop. It is dishonest and fraudulent.
It's not dishonest, it's not fraudulent, he's never lied. Go buy his End the Fed book, that'd be a good start. Doesn't matter either way, you've stated you don't support Ron Paul. Again, so why care? The trolling opportunity... right?
Poptech: Conza88:And why can you promise this question will be asked in the future? Are you going to be an ass and ask him about it publicly? It's already been tried. Two guys, one with a camera asked Ron about Lysander Spooners Constitution of No Authority, they asked a question, but it required a follow up - for them to 'catch him'. He didn't allow a follow up. He knew the argument. By the way, you conveniently ignored the other questions. What do you think would happen to the movement? How would the MSM react? I guess you wouldn't care though, right? Since you wouldn't support him anymore. If the right people ask the right questions and Paul refuses to answer them he will discredit himself. So you support him not being honest with the people who support him? Amazing.
He's been honest with those who support him. He's for self government, go check out the video. Go ask Pablo, a forum member here who asked him. Difference is they are not fools, who'd ask him publicly.
This whole conversation is becoming a joke. You don't even support Ron Paul, you supported Bob "cia" Barr.
Conza88: "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
Keyword : ITSELF
How can guns protect property when it must violate property to exist? (Keeping in mind two people may disagree on what qualifies as property)
Conagain:Keyword : ITSELF
Correct.
So what else will? Can anything limit the power of government? What can limit the power of a monopoly on the initiation of violence over a given territory, and is at the same time, the final arbiter?
Surely, you're not about to go blame the victims. Are you?
Conagain: Conza88:How can you say the State protects property, when it must violate property to exist? How can guns protect property when it must violate property to exist? (Keeping in mind two people may disagree on what qualifies as property)
Conza88:How can you say the State protects property, when it must violate property to exist?
Guns don't violate property to exist. A gun manufacturer voluntarily purchases material to produce the product, gun exists - no violation of property.
Yes, I WILL blame the victims, nobody is a victim in a free society.
Guns don't violate property to exist
Guns don't violate property to exist, but they violate a person's property by protecting another's.
If I own you as a slave, you using a gun against me (in the name of protecting yourself) is violation of my property (your disrespect for my claim to property is again violation of my property)
Conagain: If I own you as a slave, you using a gun against me (in the name of protecting yourself) is violation of my property (your disrespect for my claim to property is again violation of my property)
Meh. You get what you pay for.
Angurse: Meh. You get what you pay for.
no disagreement
Conagain: Surely, you're not about to go blame the victims. Are you? Yes, I WILL blame the victims, nobody is a victim in a free society.
That does not make any sense. Care to elaborate / explain?
Conagain:Guns don't violate property to existGuns don't violate property to exist
Good, you now agree with me. So maybe you should alter your origional question.
Yes, you and I disagree on who are "victims", so you call it "blame the victims" I call it "silence is consent".
I DID alter my question , and that is, how can guns protect property when using guns violates property?
Example : If I owned you as a slave, you using a gun to "protect yourself" is a violation of my property (your disrespect for my ownership is violation of my property)
Conagain:Yes, you and I disagree on who are "victims", so you call it "blame the victims" I call it "silence is consent".
Victims... yeah, those who have had the threat or violence initiated against them and their property.
"Silence is consent". - No it's not actually, and your premise is flawed because no-one is ever asked the question to begin with.
Conagain:I DID alter my question , and that is, how can guns protect property when using guns violates property?
When you initiate violence against someone, you lose the right to your property by the same extent. Thus when a person defends themselves against your initiation of violence, your rights are not being violated.
Don't like it? Don't initiate violence.
Conagain:your disrespect for my ownership is violation of my property
You never legitimately owned the slave. His normative rights never went away, only his legal and defacto ones. Again, your claim of violation falls flat on its face, because it assumes you legitimately own the property. You don't.
blanked
it helps to actually have a theory of justice instead of making one up as you go.
[part blanked]