Re: Nice dodge. You keep harping on 'selling out' and that Rand Paul is 'selling out' because Romney isn't 'pure' enough. Why wasn't Rothbard, Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell 'selling out' when Ron Paul dropped out to make room for Pat Buchanan and Rothbard and Lew Rockwell worked to help get him elected? Or are YOU saying that Pat Buchanan is a more 'pure' liberty candidate than Ron Paul?
Again, was Pat Buchanan a better liberty candidate than Ron Paul? If he wasn't, why was campaigning for him not 'selling out' when Rothbard and Lew Rockwell did it?
Also, just as a quick question, do you think Rand Paul wasn't a sellout if he'd made the endorsement by saying something like, yeah they're both worthless hacks, but Romney is marginally less worthless than Obama?"
For the millionth time.. I wonder if it will finally sink in?
"This is how Rothbard started his "endorsement":
Yes, gulp, I'm down to the grim, realistic choice: Which of two sets of bozos is going to rule us in 1993-1997?
This is how Rothbard ended his "endorsement":
A victory for Bush will--at least partly--hold back the hordes for another four years. Of course, that is not exactly soul-satisfying. What would be soul-satisfying would be taking the offensive at long last, launching a counter-revolution in government, in the economy, in the culture, everywhere against malignant left-liberalism.
If Rand would have started or ended like this, I would have cheered on his endorsement. He did no such thing."
Thank you for the very thoughtful response Andrew. You said the following:
". A distrust and general dislike would likely to arise from this situation and more then likely lead to a petty nationalism."
While I don't think this is necessarily the case, it is plausible as the basis of your opinion. Fair enough."
""libertarian" racists like to claim intolerance can be apart of a libertarian society). It is not just following the NAP. The NAP is a big deal, yes, but for a liberation society to prosper you need equality of law and other secondary tenets which foster a better environment."
I think I would tend to agree with you here. I think any group needs agreed upon etiquette.
"What would there need to be an accountant for in the first place?"
To count money and compute economic figures for the purpose of running a business efficiently. The specific example given was running a business.
"You seem to be already centralizing power into specific institutions and giving them legitimacy in the case of background checks."
Jobs background check people all the time... I am not sure why this is a big deal. I agree if it were against someone's will then fine, but as a condition to do work, get paid,and be part of the organization I don't see how this is bad. This is probably just a difference in how we view the validity of authority, where authority and hierarchy in my view are not 'bad' or undesirable so long as all of those involved willfully and openly consent to the terms.
"You cannot control emigration or immigration, you can attempt to but then you are just another government who thinks it has a claim over a territory. "
Given this logic, are you saying that a community who screens who can and cannot come onto its own land is a government? Does screening the people who come into and out of your house make your house a mini-state? (this is not bad or good as some people do indeed believe we should all be mini states, I just want some clarification on this issue) Are you a Propertarian? In other words, do you think that property is legitimate and that I can do what I want with my own property?
"Well that is crap because now I can say fraud is not illegal because I am not physically harming you. People just need to stick to the NAP. It is clear, concise and encompassing. "
The NAP has problems as well. We can use the famous pushing a child out of the way of a moving car debate as an example. We can also use preemptive force to prevent an enemy from massing in order to attack as another very real and practical consideration. What counts as aggression is always hotly debated. My point is not to open an debate about the NAP, it is to illustrate that the NAP is not perfect and neither is the harm principle. No human institutions or concepts are necessarily perfect. In cases of fraud, there is usually a clear measurable loss usually in terms of money or property.
"Religion is voluntary."
O-O I am sorry but this is just Historically and presently False. Perhaps today we in "the west" have the liberty to be heretical. I would cite Saudi Arabia and other theocracies, particularly rules dealing with women : education bans, forced headgear and attire, even for visiting women, their inability to drive insome places, the one sided court system in favor of men, female genital mutilation in Africa. Male Genital Mutilation in the US. There are many states in the world today that have official state religions enforced at the point of the gun. How about all the gays and adulteresses and rape victims who have been stoned to death for breaking some religious law. Or perhaps right here in America, again, the Salem witch trials or the Puritan settlements of the early colonies that were not too tolerant of non-beleivers or even other sects. Myraids of religious lynchings throughout time. Social ostracism and mental torment for those who refuse to conform. Not to mention the Drug war spawned in part by religious prohibition-ism. Prohibition of prostitution. Everyone's church morality is shoved down my throat and yet I must be open to their arcane beliefs. I have to strongly disagree in this area.
I mean I can't possible quote or source every example where religion was forced onto people violently or as a practical necessity in live.
"I think that if a society such as an enclave conducts background searches on all of its immigrants then it will foster a sense of skepticism toward outsiders, thinking that they are trying to sow cords of distrust and discord.A society such as this will, naturally in my mind, slowly shut itself off in order to protect itself. While not completely closed, which like I said before is near impossible, it will close until it falls apart. "
OK, thank you for the clarification. This indeed seems plausible if the members become xenophobic or somehow think they are superior because they are "in" the group.
"Yea and in our own small ways we give shit back to the government as well. Fudge our taxes, run red lights, speed, DUI. I mean we're not gunning cops down in the street but the principle is still there, just not the degree. "
True. I would say that the gang and cartels are far more effective in terms of degree, or that perhaps a more extreme degree gets more immediate and visible results. Still, gunning them down is not necessarily the best approach and we are in agreement there.
"If the government went "full tyranny on us" like you say then the very first people they would target are those who have the ability to strike back in great force. "
Although I still think they would at least have a shot at resistance, you are absolutely correct in terms of a government strategy. They would indeed target enclaves first. An example would be in Syria or Libya, where the government bombed and shelled rebel enclaves first, literally with everything they had: tanks, artillery and attack helicopters. However, this backfired. The enclaves survived and grew and received arms. They organized and counter-attacked exploiting pre-existing rebel enclave rank structure and social ties (tribes in Libya) and because of the government's heavy hand, got a lot of support. We will never know until it comes to that day if it comes to that day.
"No, I am saying that if civil disobedience makes you happy and makes you feel like you are making a difference then do it. I am just waiting for the system to collapse. That does not mean another government may arise to take its place but hopefully I can squeak through the cracks and ensure that I am not apart of that new government. It is all about timing with me I guess. "
Understood.I guess this makes sense, and thus, can be extended to the plan that was laid out. If collaborating with other ancaps makes them feels like they are making a difference they should go ahead and do it. I have no quams with the personal strategy you choose to embrace against the state.
And once again, I'm not talking about fucking Bush. I'm talking about Pat Buchanans run for president. Rothbard and Rockwell were building Ron Paul up for a presidential run, Ron Paul got the call from Buchanan, and dropped out, with the consent of Rothbard, then Rothbard and Rockwell campaigned for Buchanan. Was that selling out, or was Buchanan a purer, better liberty candidate than Ron Paul?
Re: "And once again, I'm not talking about fucking Bush. I'm talking about Pat Buchanans run for president. Rothbard and Rockwell were building Ron Paul up for a presidential run, Ron Paul got the call from Buchanan, and dropped out, with the consent of Rothbard, then Rothbard and Rockwell campaigned for Buchanan. Was that selling out, or was Buchanan a purer, better liberty candidate than Ron Paul?"
How about you first source everything.. and see if you can do better than Eric Dondero aye? .
"To count money and compute economic figures for the purpose of running a business efficiently. The specific example given was running a business."
No the example we were talking about, or at least I was, was concerning background checks and allowing immigrants into the enclave. What did you mean by bringing up an accountant?
"Jobs background check people all the time... I am not sure why this is a big deal. I agree if it were against someone's will then fine, but as a condition to do work, get paid,and be part of the organization I don't see how this is bad. This is probably just a difference in how we view the validity of authority, where authority and hierarchy in my view are not 'bad' or undesirable so long as all of those involved willfully and openly consent to the terms"
Again, I was talking about immigration into the enclave, not employment.
"Given this logic, are you saying that a community who screens who can and cannot come onto its own land is a government? Does screening the people who come into and out of your house make your house a mini-state? (this is not bad or good as some people do indeed believe we should all be mini states, I just want some clarification on this issue) Are you a Propertarian? In other words, do you think that property is legitimate and that I can do what I want with my own property?"
Communities do not have rights, individuals do. A community has no claim over any border system or demarcation line, only individuals do. So a "community" has no right to say who comes in and who goes out because it is not a property owner. If an individual wanted to decide who comes into their property, then this is valid because he/she can claim ownership. So an "enclave" which is a community, cannot decide who comes in and out of property since it can own no property.
"The NAP has problems as well. We can use the famous pushing a child out of the way of a moving car debate as an example. We can also use preemptive force to prevent an enemy from massing in order to attack as another very real and practical consideration. What counts as aggression is always hotly debated. My point is not to open an debate about the NAP, it is to illustrate that the NAP is not perfect and neither is the harm principle. No human institutions or concepts are necessarily perfect. In cases of fraud, there is usually a clear measurable loss usually in terms of money or property."
The NAP stands up to all lifeboat situations, all that is needed is to establish rightful owners and their property. Your harm principle only stated physical harm. Losing money is not physically harming you. Being defrauded out of a savings is not physically harming you.
"O-O I am sorry but this is just Historically and presently False. Perhaps today we in "the west" have the liberty to be heretical. I would cite Saudi Arabia and other theocracies, particularly rules dealing with women : education bans, forced headgear and attire, even for visiting women, their inability to drive insome places, the one sided court system in favor of men, female genital mutilation in Africa. Male Genital Mutilation in the US. There are many states in the world today that have official state religions enforced at the point of the gun. How about all the gays and adulteresses and rape victims who have been stoned to death for breaking some religious law. Or perhaps right here in America, again, the Salem witch trials or the Puritan settlements of the early colonies that were not too tolerant of non-beleivers or even other sects. Myraids of religious lynchings throughout time. Social ostracism and mental torment for those who refuse to conform. Not to mention the Drug war spawned in part by religious prohibition-ism. Prohibition of prostitution. Everyone's church morality is shoved down my throat and yet I must be open to their arcane beliefs. I have to strongly disagree in this area."
Social ostracism, mental torment, actions that do not involve coercion, while terrible are not acts of violence against an individual. Feeling left out because you don't get to get the Jesus cracker on Sunday is a personal issue which is not connected to legal codes. Genital mutilation, if voluntary, is acceptable. If it is not, I will be against it. Are there laws that force individuals into certain behavior? Yes. These are acts of the state, and I welcome that state's demise. Religious legal codes that do not involve the tradition murder,rape, assualt etc. (the natural rights portion) are acted upon because of the largesse of the state. The state allows certain religious fundamentalists to enact their vision of a moral society upon their peers and I think without the state, these crimes would be largely absent. Sure, some people want to have Sabbath laws and liquor laws. However, they are just like anyone else who wants to control others. Just a different aspect of the same principle. Remove the ability to control. Much of the world, not all of it, has voluntary religions.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
I thought you were talking about joining a business venture within a given enclave, I must have misunderstood. Even with immigration though, it seems it would make sense to background check people coming in. Do you really want random people joining a given community? I see value in determining whether or not these people are trust worthy (creditworthiness, reputation) whether or not they are known thieves or murderers or rapists, and what their previous political affiliations were, if any. Basic standards of entry are not uncommon in private communities.
To just trust anyone off the street seems dangerous, but to each is own I guess. There are private and gated communities in existence today that do indeed have requirement for new buyers. An example of this is a senior living area. They can say "only people over 55 can live in this community" and then check the information of potential buyers to that effect. Why is it different for an enclave? I can understand if you are saying it shouldn't be that way, OK, but it IS that way now.
Andrew Cain said :
"The NAP stands up to all lifeboat situations, all that is needed is to establish rightful owners and their property."
What is needed is an agreed upon definition of aggression. Again, this is hotly debated. The HP says don't harm people's person or property. Someone's money is their property. Losing money is akin to losing property. Therefore, monetary loses due to fraud or theft are covered. The people using the principle can use their brains to decide where it should be applied or not applied and not just apply it wherever. Judges and courts exist to decide where to apply these principles and it’s that same with the NAP. People will disagree about whether or not they aggressed, especially if no definition was generally agreed upon and you go to a judge or court or "DRO" to figure out who’s right. Same with the HP. ther eneeds to be a legal definition for both aggressiona nd harm in both cases.
"Communities do not have rights, individuals do. A community has no claim over any border system or demarcation line, only individuals do."
Um... of course a community has rights and can own property. A most basic example is a family unit. A husband and wife both own a house. That mini-community can decide separately or as a group who comes into and out of the house. A company, with many shareholders is owned in common. Perhaps you are saying you don't believe property owned in common is legitimate, which is fine, but I assure you it is real and it is happening right now. People do not lose 'rights' just because there are more of them. If one person has free speech, three people have free speech. I one person has the 'right' to contract; three people have the 'right' to contract. The same goes for property. If a friend and I decide to buy a car together, we can both decide who can come into and go out of the car. Therefore, if a group purchases land as a joint venture, they can write down what rules they want people coming onto the land to follow. Again, this is common, when you go to Wal-Mart, there are Wal-Mart standards of admission, when go to the mall, there are mall standards of admission. Why don't we get to make standards?
"Social ostracism, mental torment, actions that do not involve coercion, while terrible are not acts of violence against an individual. Feeling left out because you don't get to get the Jesus cracker on Sunday is a personal issue which is not connected to legal codes."
OK, so mental torment does not count as coercion. This is an interesting question. I stated previously that the NAP depends on the definition of aggression. A contract signed under mental torment, for example, is not valid because even though the person signed it voluntarily they did so under duress. (This is today’s law, which you may or may not agree with.) One can say "I only threatened to blow his brains out, but I didn't actually do it therefore I did not coerce him into signing it"
Again, this is where judges, courts and "DROs" come in. It is not as cut and dry as just stating a principle. I wouldn't say being in an environment where you are denied food and shelter because you do not believe, and lacking means to leave, gives you much leeway. We are back to the love it or leave it concept.
Surely you must agree that there are many instances of religions, without a state, forcing their views upon people. I have already demonstrated a few examples in my previous post. Many countries literally have religious police. Here is an example of the latest such event:
http://www.examiner.com/article/indonesian-man-jailed-for-atheist-comments
"Genital mutilation, if voluntary, is acceptable. If it is not, I will be against it."
The genital mutilation I was referring to happens when the individuals are babies, typically. It also happens to young women who are held down and have their clitoris cut off. Unless you think babies can consent, I assume you are against it. Of course, anyone who consents to some kind of procedure does so at their own risk.
"Are there laws that force individuals into certain behavior? Yes. These are acts of the state, and I welcome that state's demise. Religious legal codes that do not involve the tradition murder,rape, assualt etc. (the natural rights portion) are acted upon because of the largesse of the state. The state allows certain religious fundamentalists to enact their vision of a moral society upon their peers and I think without the state, these crimes would be largely absent."
My argument is that even without a state, many powerful religious institutions have always forced their views upon others at the point of the sword or gun. The aztecs cut people's hearts out on Temple as a religious sacrament. The Crusades were fought in large part by armies that recruited religious pilgrims from both sides. Religions take the place of the state in a vacuum. Personally, I think they are the same thing and they simply claim to derive authority from different sources. In other words, if the state disappeared tomorrow, the catholic church would start recruiting soldiers to enforce divine will and thus become the state de facto. We say Somalia has no state even though it has armed religious groups enforcing religious law over given territories and extracting “tithes” from people. Sounds like a state to me.
The only reason we don't see religious police in America is because the police already enforce religious laws under the guise of public health and safety. The church has already infiltrated the state.
My position, with regard to historical references, has many instances of religious institutions engaging in war and murder and forced conversions without any state guidance or help. Even when there was, say,a kingdom that went along or supported conversion it was the churches that were the main proponents of the conflicts I cited. Look at the history of the Caliphates. Neither of us can predict the future, however, and perhaps absent the state the churches will just keep to themselves and stop proselytizing, even though in Christian and Muslim religious texts, they are commanded to convert people, by force if necessary.
“Sure, some people want to have Sabbath laws and liquor laws. However, they are just like anyone else who wants to control others.”
That’s right, they do seek to control us all. Agreed. At this moment in time their most effective tool is the state. However, I am convinced that post-state, their desire for control and world conversion will not dissipate.
"What is needed is an agreed upon definition of aggression. Again, this is hotly debated. The HP says don't harm people's person or property. Someone's money is their property. Losing money is akin to losing property. Therefore, monetary losesdue to fraud or theft are covered. The people using the principle can use their brains to decide where it should be applied or not applied and not just apply it wherever. Judges and courts exist to decide where to apply these principles and it’s that same with the NAP. People will disagree about whether or not they aggressed, especially if no definition was generally agreed upon and you go to a judge or court or "DRO" to figure out who’s right. Same with the HP. ther eneeds to be a legal definition for both aggressiona nd harm in both cases."
If that is your new definition of the harm principle then it is just another name for the NAP. Before you said just physical harm to a person.
"Um... of course a community has rights and can own property. A most basic example is a family unit. A husband and wife both own a house. That mini-community can decide separately or as a group who comes into and out of the house. A company, with many shareholders is owned in common. Perhaps you are saying you don't believe property owned in common is legitimate, which is fine, but I assure you it is real and it is happening right now. People do not lose 'rights' just because there are more of them. If one person has free speech, three people have free speech. I one person has the 'right' to contract; three people have the 'right' to contract. The same goes for property. If a friend and I decide to buy a car together, we can both decide who can come into and go out of the car. Therefore, if a group purchases land as a joint venture, they can write down what rules they want people coming onto the land to follow. Again, this is common, when you go to Wal-Mart, there are Wal-Mart standards of admission, when go to the mall, there are mall standards of admission. Why don't we get to make standards?"
Communities are not tangible entities and do no have rights. Your example of husband and wife is an example of individuals, specific ones which have ownership over a house. A company stock owner is an owner of a specific amount of shares in said company. All of your examples are individuals owning property. You and your friend buying a car is establishing your right over the car but you are not a "community."
"OK, so mental torment does not count as coercion. This is an interesting question. I stated previously that the NAP depends on the definition of aggression. A contract signed under mental torment, for example, is not valid because even though the person signed it voluntarily they did so under duress. (This is today’s law, which you may or may not agree with.) One can say "I only threatened to blow his brains out, but I didn't actually do it therefore I did not coerce him into signing it""
The NAP covers not only acts of violence but threats of violence. Walter Block sums it up nicely when he says (paraphrasing) you are not allowed to threaten what you cannot already do.
"The genital mutilation I was referring to happens when the individuals are babies, typically. It also happens to young women who are held down and have their clitoris cut off. Unless you think babies can consent, I assume you are against it. Of course, anyone who consents to some kind of procedure does so at their own risk."
That rises the question of whether children can be looked at to give consent or whether their guardians are acting within their perceived interest.
"My argument is that even without a state, many powerful religious institutions have always forced their views upon others at the point of the sword or gun. The aztecs cut people's hearts out on Temple as a religious sacrament. The Crusades were fought in large part by armies that recruited religious pilgrims from both sides. Religions take the place of the state in a vacuum. Personally, I think they are the same thing and they simply claim to derive authority from different sources. In other words, if the state disappeared tomorrow, the catholic church would start recruiting soldiers to enforce divine will and thus become the state de facto. We say Somalia has no state even though it has armed religious groups enforcing religious law over given territories and extracting “tithes” from people. Sounds like a state to me."
Religions, yes even the Aztecs and the Catholics, were perceived to be so powerful because the state authorized them. The Catholic church would not execute victims of their inquisitions because it was a crime to murder. Even they realized that so what they did was "release" the prisoner to the state who would then execute them. It's amazing that the Inquisition myth, the myth that there was this big vast institution within the Catholic Church that was sweeping all across Europe, still exists when it was thoroughly disproved more then 40 years ago. What inquisitions there were, were largely unorganized, extremely ineffective and ridiculously asinine. The Spanish Inquisition was really the highlight of the Church inquisitions and it was only in Spain and it was so effective because Ferdinand and Isabella were such raving lunatics. The inquisitions in Southern France were largely ineffective. Cathars are still there even today I think. I can actually recommend some books to you on the topic.
"That’s right, they do seek to control us all. Agreed. At this moment in time their most effective tool is the state. However, I am convinced that post-state, their desire for control and world conversion will not dissipate."
Listen as bold as these people talk, they are not going to do it themselves unless under dire circumstances. It is like taxation and people who propound it. Sure they are for it, but their opinion changes if they have to do it themselves.
Andrew Cain said:
"If that is your new definition of the harm principle then it is just another name for the NAP. Before you said just physical harm to a person. "
The entire time I have been making references to the article I linked to. This is the definition right at the top of the article:
Harm Principle: Activities are permitted so long as they do no harm to third parties or a third party’s property. – personal definition
I typed in 'definition community' into google. Here is the top result
So you are saying a husband and wife are not living together in one palce and practicing common ownership. Indivisuals who buy land and live on it are a group of indivisuals, living together in one place, practicing common ownership. By this definition, they are indeed a community. Yes, a community is a gorup of indivisuals, but they can choose to share ownership like any group of indivisuals and call it a community.
"The Catholic church would not execute victims of their inquisitions because it was a crime to murder. Even they realized that so what they did was "release" the prisoner to the state who would then execute them. It's amazing that the Inquisition myth, the myth that there was this big vast institution within the Catholic Church that was sweeping all across Europe, still exists when it was thoroughly disproved more then 40 years ago. "
Source: "inquisition." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, 2011.
"In 1184 Pope Lucius III required bishops to make a judicial inquiry, or inquisition, for heresy in their dioceses, a provision renewed by the fourth Lateran Council in 1215. Episcopal inquisitions, however, proved ineffective because of the regional nature of the bishop's power and because not all bishops introduced inquisitions in their dioceses; the papacy gradually assumed authority over the process, though bishops never lost the right to lead inquisitions."
"From the 15th to the 19th century, inquisitions were permanently established, bureaucratically organized, appointed, and supervised tribunals of clergy (and occasionally laymen). They were charged with the discovery and extirpation of heterodox religious opinion and practice in Christian Europe."
Both inquisitions were started by the papacy and trials were carried out by the clergy AND as you correctly stated, by members of states. The Spanish inquisition was part of the 15-19th century inquisitions. Clearly, The church organized and oversaw the procedures even if they did not pull the trigger so to speak, themselves.
"Judicial penances were imposed on those who had been convicted of heresy and had recanted. The most common punishments were penitential pilgrimages, the wearing of yellow crosses on clothing (which was feared because it led to ostracism), and imprisonment.The inquisition employed two kinds of prisons, both staffed by laymen. One type was the murus largus, or open prison, which consisted of cells built around a courtyard in which the inmates enjoyed considerable freedom. The other type was the murus strictus, a high-security prison, where inmates were kept in solitary confinement, often in chains. Heretics who admitted their errors but refused to recant were handed over to the secular authorities and burned at the stake."
So while killing was rare, there were cases where people were publicly executed and burned atthe stake by the inquisitors and the men under their control.
"Even where it did operate—in much of Italy and in kingdoms such as France and Aragon—the inquisition relied entirely on the secular authorities to arrest and execute those whom it named and to defray all its expenses. The money came partly from the sale of the confiscated property of convicted heretics."
Some states did not allow the inquisitions to take place. In those that did, however, the church would find heretics and defer them to the state, as you stated. The state would arrest and execute/punish them. The papacy initated both inquisitions and guided the hand of the state. Furthermore the inquisitors has communication with bishops, the papacy, and the local clergy. The institution, per se, was the church itself.
"The Spanish and Portuguese tribunals were departments of state intended initially to detect crypto-Judaism among Jewish converts to Christianity and their descendants and later to detect and eradicate Protestant Christianity. The Roman and other inquisitions were also departments of state, designed chiefly to combat Protestantism, which was conceived and defined as heresy in Catholic territories. All inquisitions had the power to supervise and discipline the moral failings of both clergy and laity."
The article did go on to say that some of the efforts were not well coordinated in the first inquisition and that the first one was more like a large group of people with coordianted desires. However, by the second inquisition it was institutionalized.
So what we saw with the inquisitions was a state's policies being controlled by a religion. Well, not really controlled, actually integrated into the fabric of the state.This is not unlike what is going on today in the middle east with the Islamic republics and the religious police. I don't think pushing a button to get rid of these people is bad since they keep using their religion to take power and punish heretics all throughout time.
Furthermore I have demonstrated that religion has not been and in many places now, is not voluntary.
Now, you say that they don't have the guts to do their killing themselves. Based on what I have read you may be correct. Still though, they (The major religions and their clergy) have shown an uncanny ability to have people fight and die for them in the past. There are no shortages of faithful here or around the world. We already see religiouly motivated fighting via jhadists on every major middle eastern battlefield.
"Walter Block sums it up nicely when he says (paraphrasing) you are not allowed to threaten what you cannot already do."
If there is a youtube for this particular statement or point please link it or send it to me. It seems like it would be an interesting read or view.
Who the fuck cares? They are politicians. You idiots who believe that politicians have standards are pathetic. Ron Paul is a man who is a politician, but he has principles--as an individual. Rand is not Ron, and libertarians confuse the two. You are implicitly begging for an aristocracy, wanting the son to follow the father and being disappointed.
Who cares? It's all a game. Just sit back, enjoy the show, and in case it's real, vote.
I just had the biggest epiphany.
Someone needs to make one of those compilation/remix types of videos, mixing a repetitive 2 second clip of Rand Paul's words of endorsement with words that disgust people said by Romney and Paul, over a song with a strong back beat and pictures of torture, bloodshed, murder, police state brutality, corruption, child sex slavery and so on... You know what I mean, like a Rand Paul version of the classic George Bush Remix video (sadly I can't find a link...) where it has George Bush announcing his support of--and then it uses clips of him saying words like torture, rape, mass murder, and so forth to a beat.
Rand Paul: "Tonight I'm uh...happy to announce that I'm gonna be supporting--torture *tss chka* murder *tss tss* mutilation with drills *dun dun dun dun* I'm happy to--be supporting--the NSA groping children at the airports *tss chka* etc etc etc"
Andrew Cain:I do not believe in minarchism. I think any form of constitutionalism is doomed, while not to repeat because I do not believe history is cyclical, to at least correlate with the current system.
I think you're right IF the new constitution is predicated on the socialist-ethic allowing majority rule over a dissenting minority. However, in an autarchy, majority rule is not possible. Such a system should have a completely different trajectory from current nation states. Similarly, the political-right of micro-secession (such as I call it) has game-changing potential.
We tend to think that the political structures we have today are all that there is, but perhaps there are indeed fundamentally different and even better ways to build a republic.
It should be remembered that Europe was quite skeptical of republicanism when the US announced its constitution. Neither did they well understand it.
Perhaps autarchy must undergo a similar period of confusion and doubt.
Andrew Cain: "Voting is little more than the choice of whom should rule you, like hens electing which foxes to let into the chicken-coop. It's long been equated with freedom--the French thought they were free because they elected Napolean :P But is it?" And that is why voting is effective because it gives the semblance of you having choice in how you are ruled.
"Voting is little more than the choice of whom should rule you, like hens electing which foxes to let into the chicken-coop. It's long been equated with freedom--the French thought they were free because they elected Napolean :P But is it?"
And that is why voting is effective because it gives the semblance of you having choice in how you are ruled.
Yes, it provides public sanction for the use of force. But it's ridiculous to vote for people in government and ask them to limit themselves. Voting is not direct control. How much does your vote affect the Secretary of Health and Human Services? Not at all.
Andrew Cain:"That link ACTF pointed you to contains my idea of an autarchic republic which would abadon the idea of majority rule for individual rule, a political order predicated not on the socialist-ethic of majority rule but on the individualist-ethic of self-rule, otherwise known as autarchy. Were the world to abandon the democratic republic, which is inherently predicated on the socialist-ethic, for the individualist autarchic republic, we would likely achieve the kind of voluntaryist world libertarians have been dreaming about for so long." That is what the country started as in theory. A constitutional republic is one that has the interests of the common man's rights at heart and is codified into a document (a constitution). The problem is that the government will always see the people as rabble needing a firm guiding hand by elites in government.
Were the world to abandon the democratic republic, which is inherently predicated on the socialist-ethic, for the individualist autarchic republic, we would likely achieve the kind of voluntaryist world libertarians have been dreaming about for so long."
That is what the country started as in theory. A constitutional republic is one that has the interests of the common man's rights at heart and is codified into a document (a constitution). The problem is that the government will always see the people as rabble needing a firm guiding hand by elites in government.
That's fine, but in an autarchy they would find themselves powerless to effect any such vision. Absent a mechanism to force laws on people, they'd be faced with the prospect of arguing for the adoption of certain laws. And doubtless some would accept these ideas and join them, and those who do not accept those ideas would very simply secede from that jurisdiction, or not join in the first place, and start a new jurisdiction nearby and allow them to reap the whirlwind of their ideas.
Such a thing as forced redistribution of income, for instance, would be impossible in an autarchy. Without that, Bismarckian politics goes right out the window. That's a game-changer.
Andrew Cain:That was the argument between Jefferson and Hamilton, though Jefferson at first agreed more with Hamilton's views on how to rule the people. He mellowed out in his later years. The question between them was not so much self-rule or aristocratic rule. It was disinterested politicians or interested politicians. Disinterested implying that one does not get into government to better one's self and your friends. Jefferson believed disinterested elites should be in power to guide the people and not to gain from such guidance. Kind of like serving the public of miscreants who are your social lessers.
The poison pill of the US Constitution is the acceptance of representative democracy via majority vote. An autarchy dispenses with majority rule for self-rule and individual sovereignty.
Andrew Cain: Hamilton, I would say, was more bodacious about having elites create this system and guide it to fruition. Historians call it the American plan or American school. This was the notion that government must be there to provide infrastructure such as roads, banks and waterways or else American would have lopsided development or underdevelopment. I mean you cannot trust the people to build the Erie canal. They are illiterate mobs of drunkards who would sooner trade their crops for whiskey then for better infrastructure. Some people like to think that Jefferson won. He never did. There was really no "Age of Jefferson" or Jeffersonian politics unless you follow his earlier ideas which again were closer to Hamilton. It has always been Hamilton. It has always been the plutocracy using courts to set prices for tobacco or liquor or prohibit sales, utilize fines, etc. etc.
Hamilton, I would say, was more bodacious about having elites create this system and guide it to fruition. Historians call it the American plan or American school. This was the notion that government must be there to provide infrastructure such as roads, banks and waterways or else American would have lopsided development or underdevelopment. I mean you cannot trust the people to build the Erie canal. They are illiterate mobs of drunkards who would sooner trade their crops for whiskey then for better infrastructure. Some people like to think that Jefferson won. He never did. There was really no "Age of Jefferson" or Jeffersonian politics unless you follow his earlier ideas which again were closer to Hamilton. It has always been Hamilton. It has always been the plutocracy using courts to set prices for tobacco or liquor or prohibit sales, utilize fines, etc. etc.
No major disagreement on your recount of history here. Just that an autarchy may violate your preconceived notions of what a state is, can be, and can do--which is much more limited than a modern state. I think Autolykos has the same problem.
acft: As for the debate between anenome and auto, you both have valid points. However, it seems to me that you should first decide on a definition of a state. It seems that according to what anenome laid out in the thread where we were discussing his political system, what he advocates is not really what I would call a state. If there are no taxes and your are not forced to obey edicts, it does not fit the definition of a state, at least to me.
As for the debate between anenome and auto, you both have valid points. However, it seems to me that you should first decide on a definition of a state. It seems that according to what anenome laid out in the thread where we were discussing his political system, what he advocates is not really what I would call a state. If there are no taxes and your are not forced to obey edicts, it does not fit the definition of a state, at least to me.
It dispenses with probably 95% of what we'd call the modern state. Where it does replicate what the state does now is in administration of justice and civil-dispute resolution, and national defense from foreign aggression.
acft:It seems what he is really talking about is charter cities, where everyone agrees to a set of rules before hand, there are private police and courts, anyone can seccede at any time and all services are paid for voluntarily. As long as this is the case it can hardly be considerred a state in the traditional sense which I would describe as 'a group of people with a monopoly on force who extract taxes and enforce laws over a given geographical area.'
Agreed.
Anenome:Start a new country based on libertarian principles in the only land on earth left unclaimed by nation states: in the oceans.
Sea-steading?
Correct, I think it makes sense to sell the sea floor--the only land left unclaimed on earth. Probably rich in various areas with natural resources. It would also make sense to sell sections of surface-water for artificial dwellings and the like. We don't really have a word for such a thing, a 'water plot'? But, as it would be places where a boat could dock, we do call that a 'landing' :P Superficial symmetry perhaps :P
That leaves a lot of unowned water between the seafloor and the surface, and that would be sold next.
The Pacific Ocean alone represents some 40 billion acres as the crow flies...
We should really be glad that the oceans haven't been colonized by statists up to now. If our only option was to go into space we'd be far worse off, orders of magnitude more expensive and difficult. Also, there's increasing evidence that people cannot well survive long-term zero-gravity.
Did Rand Paul compromise his principles by endorsing Mitt Romney?
It is obviously possible to have cities on mobile platforms in the sea as well as to have encircled areas. At the moment the sea is kind of a commons area.
Ron Paul CNN Interview 06/19/12, Lawsuit On RNC, Mitt Endorsement? RNC CONvention
Gotta love his response to the question. Good ol' Ron.
How BRILLIANTLY, flawlessly, perfectly predictably political. Oh politics, why did you have to stop blowing my mind...
Jack Hunter: Final Thoughts on the Reaction to Rand's Endorsement
Rand Paul Negative Feedback to Romney Endorsement Explodes on Facebook
Has Rand Paul Sold Out on End the Fed?
Is Rand Paul Taunting 'Internet Libertarians'?
Rand Paul on Mitt Romney's View of the Fed Versus the Truth
Justin Raimondo in 2010 on Rand Paul (Did Justin nail it 2 years ago?)
Has the Rand Paul Campaign Been Infiltrated?
On the Murray Rothbard-Rand Paul Supposed Endorsement Connection (quoted earlier by Conza)
Rand Paul Getting Rinsed and Tumbled Inside the Establishment Machine
(One more example in the continuous string of ways Block disappoints the crap out of me.)
I also like the way Wenzel puts it...I think it's very accurate:
"He will not be able to go to the farm belt and talk cutting farm subsidies. He will not be able to go to Boeing and talk defense cuts. He will not be able to go to Sheldon Adelson and talk elimination of foreign aid to Israel. You see, none of these will advance the Romney cause and the Romney cause for Rand will be put ahead of the liberty cause. The establishment will stick Rand inside the machine running rinse and tumble over and over again. It will mean Rand' making the wrong kind of compromises---ones that will advance his standing in the machine. That's not what we need."
Send that to Jack Hunter and his supporters.
Rand Paul Blows Off Ambush Luke Rudkowski Interview about Bilderberg
Rand Paul Distances Himself from the Anti-Government Libertarian Wing
Okay he's totally drank the kool-aid.
Rand Paul Before and After Endorsing Mitt Romney
Larison: Content of Rand's Endorsement Ought to be Alarming
Rand Paul Explains the Difference Between Romney and Obama (before his endorsement)
It's happening: Rand Paul's Useless TSA Bill
Ron Paul Called Rand's TSA "Reform" Phony
What Can Rand Paul Accomplish by Cozying Up to Mitt Romney
Justin Raimondo on Ron vs. Rand: A Study in Betrayal
Leo Tolstoy on Attempting to Change Government from Within (Or Via Violence)
Rand Advisor: Ron Paul OK with Rand's Romney Endorsement
Politician Math
Rand Paul Backs Away from His Full Endorsement of Mitt Romney
Raimondo: Rand Paul is as Phony as Ever
More Sad News from Rand Paul
National Review: Rand Paul about to Hit the Trail for Romney
Murray Rothbard's Take on Where Rand Paul Stands on the Political Spectrum
Is Rand Paul Being Groomed to be the Next Ronald Reagan? (sounds about right to me)
Rand Paul Kicks More Sand in the Face of Libertarians
Rand Paul: "I am not a libertarian"
Just for the record, I knew Rand was a wolf in sheep's clothing from the beginning.
Still, the ONLY thing that I cannot put a reason behind, well wait a sec, maybe I can, was his voiced opposition to including Georgia into NATO. Now that I think about it....stay with me on this...
Rand halted a procedure to include Georgia into NATO. If we look at the 2008 Georgian war, we can easily see the dynamics of the Pro NATO (Georgia & U.S.) and anti NATO (Russia & the separatists) segments of Georgia (Ossetia and Abkhazia). The NATO issue is precisely why that war and those separatist movements exist. Pay mind to this. Russia and the U.S. have a long held understanding that NATO will never completely surround Russia. Russia views NATO as its primary geostrategic advesary.
Well, Georgia is the only country that is left. If the separatist movements are officially recognized, then Georgia looses territory and there are then two slivers of land that Pro Russia elements will occupy. If Georgia is included into NATO, then Russia has allowed itself to be surrounded after all these years...
So, when McCain gets caught taking money from Georgian lobbyists in 2007/8 to vote Georgia into NATO, which happens by 2011, Rand throws a wrench into the machine. This prevented a very different reality of relations with Russia (especially in light of the escalating Syria debacle). I will submit that Rand used this a his card to say, "I know the jig. Let me in."
You see, Rand Paul's outspoken-ness about the issues that we (Ron Paul supporters) support was not directed at us...ever. He was poking the bear and saying I'll be a thorn in your side unless I am included in your crooked deals. I'll help you contain my father's supporters." He throws bones to little things while selling out on the big ones.
Now that Rand Paul is in, seemingly, it is encumbent upon him to support McCain. He says things like, "McCain isn't an imperailist." (you can read it in the preview section that Mazon ives you; Jack Hunter helped Rand write his book) What a joke. McCain and the other three esteemed members of the Senate, aforementioned, in fact, are imperialists. Their brazen behavior surrounding a war with Russia and Iran demonstrate this. They want to extinguish the classical nemesis; the foil to the U.S. protagonist.
Rand is not stupid, he knows that NATOs inclusion of Georgia would ruin Obama with Russia. Any possible international cooperation would cease immediately. Syria would be a very different situation is Georgia had been allowed into NATO in December of 2011. Obama would certainly not be reelected if Russia doesn't cooperate to some level (just as Israel must) in the international arena. Obama had this very shaky "RESET" policy with Russia. Russia responded by putting Putin back in charge. Think about this.
The other issue that comes with this is if Romney is elected and sticks to the Paul's claim that, "The Congress must declare war!" this could means that whatever military projects are on the horizon, may indeed, get that declaration. This could mean a much more expensive and bloody war affair than anything Bush Jr. and Obama are responsible for.
Could Rand be inadvertently helping the NeoCon wet dream of war with Russia? Could Ron Paul inadvertently be helping the NeoCon wet dream of war with Russia?
Addendum:
I am not sure if Ron Paul would not have helped point Rand to the "true" policy making institutions. I could see Ron Paul saying, "If you want to join 'em, then that's your decision." After years and years of Ron saying, "I can beat them. I can beat them. We can beat them. It can be done. The Federal Reserve..." His lousy kid comes along and says [chewing bubble gumand a toothpick out the side of his mouth and his leather Fonzie jacket and hairdoo], "Look pops {crackle of chewing gum}...if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. 'Raw milk, light bulbs, blah blah blah.'"
Another thing to help support my main point, Rand has made a name for himself by pointing out the light bulb, raw milk, NLRB issues. Doesn't the NATO/Georgia thing stand out? He is a Junior Senator...what in the hell does he know about Eastern European/Russian/NATO military strategies and prospects...? Wasn't he an eye doctor just two years before? Did he just intuitively know, that ' Oh, McCain and Rubio are really pushing this stealthily, it must be important...' or is something else afoot?
With Israel's wartime government already formed with an Iranian strike the premise for it and the timetable for the strike ending in October 2012, my guess is that Russia has plans if the West sets things off in the middle east. There is no way that the U.S. doesn't have plans as well. Israel's reticence to attack Iran now is entirely reliant on whether or not the U.S. will support it. Bibi knows that Romney and the GOP will be better wartime allies than Obama and the democrats (like Carter, the ilk of Obama, who support the Palestinians). Russia has drawn the line with Syria; they are selling them air defense gadgets. Iran is a step further. I may be wrong, but I think this is the 21 century's first candidate for a "Great Game." With this said, keep in mind that "Iran" may actually be a "for public consumption" codeword for "Russia."
All of the sudden that "threat to the U.S. factor" is there.
Rand Paul may or may not know what he is doing...
I posted my latest ramblings on Rand Paul here. It will end up as a post in this thread and as its own; they are both currently under moderation.
Hint: Don't attribute a conspiracy to everything to everything you may not like or understand.
The guy may just have made a move towards the more succesful center. Integer? Perhaps not, but also not something so uncommon.
Who does Jack Hunter write for these days?
He's been the "professional blogger" for the Ron Paul campaign (you can find his stuff at the official website), and I've seen a number of his articles picked up by The Daily Caller.
@ about 5:40 Rand plugs Romney. "Romney said he'll grant a waiver through executive order."