I've known since 2007 that Dr. Paul said that he was not in it to win, as I gave my first donation to his 2008 Presidential Campaign as soon as it accepted them. However, I think that if there aren't many other candidates this time, then he could possibly win, and yes, he would be very surprised.
People have seen what Obama is like (i.e., Bush), and that he wasn't change, and I don't think enough people want another four more years of Bush.
Of course, I think it is also likely Dr. Paul won't win. As of now, it's a tossup.
I've known since 2007 that Dr. Paul said that he was not in it to win,
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
Because voting is purely didactic at most there is no significance in differentiating his reasons for running.
Libertyandlife: I've known since 2007 that Dr. Paul said that he was not in it to win,
YOU WIN MY GOOD SIR.
liberty student:Folks, there is no state, there is no Constitution, and there is no Congress. There are just people wearing costumes and adopting titles, pretending to be something which was never more than a delusion or fantasy.
Just when I almost give up hope around here, I see this. Thank you very much.
DD5: liberty student:Folks, there is no state, there is no Constitution, and there is no Congress. There are just people wearing costumes and adopting titles, pretending to be something which was never more than a delusion or fantasy. Just when I almost give up hope around here, I see this. Thank you very much.
The existence of such mass delusions is far from a delusion, though. They exist and affect everyone in a profoundly real way. Establishing that these mass delusions exist is only the first step toward dismantling them, or alleviating their negative consequences. President Ron Paul would be an excellent next step, IMO.
There is a State. There is a Constitution. There is a Congress.
And that's the problem.
The legitimacy of these institutions is a "delusion" according to us anarcho-capitalists.
"I'm not a fan of Murray Rothbard." -- David D. Friedman
Lagrange multiplier: There is a State. There is a Constitution. There is a Congress.
Have you checked the constitution's birth certificate? The government won't really tell us what happened on seven o four. Congress has been in bed with the Russians man and they've poisoned our state supply with fluoride!
^And that's how we appeal to conservatives.
DD5:Just when I almost give up hope around here, I see this. Thank you very much.
You're welcome. I am trying.
z1235:The existence of such mass delusions is far from a delusion, though.
That is exactly my point.
z1235:President Ron Paul would be an excellent next step, IMO.
There is no such thing as a President. It is a delusion.
Lagrange multiplier:There is a State. There is a Constitution. There is a Congress.
Prove any of them exist in a new thread.
Lagrange multiplier:The legitimacy of these institutions is a "delusion" according to us anarcho-capitalists.
First, they can't have any legitimacy because they are delusions.
Second, it's not according to ancap that they don't exist, it is a fact of reality.
Third, changing your name and avatar again Strangeloop/Neoclassical doesn't mean you grasp the philosophical foundations necessary to make your statement half true.
liberty student: There is no such thing as a President. It is a delusion.
Is there such a thing as:
1. a village
2. a herd
3. a family
4. a friend
5. a lover
6. a story
...or are these delusions, as well? What is your definition of delusion?
Can you define them individually please?
However you define them is fine.
It isn't. You introduced the terms, you define them. Accept the burden of proof or don't play.
libertystudent, since every thread is really your thread, who would you pick to be the next president?
since someone will be president in 2012, who would you want that person to be? If I put a gun to your head and said choose someone.
limitgov:libertystudent, since every thread is really your thread
Do you have anything substantive to say about my positions or do you just want to imply that there is something nefarious about my posting at all?
limitgov:lsince someone will be president in 2012, who would you want that person to be? If I put a gun to your head and said choose someone.
If you put a gun to my head, does it make any difference what my preference is? That's the issue with statism. Once there is coercion, how do you know you're getting that individual's expression of value preferences?
liberty student:There is no such thing as a President. It is a delusion.
Isn't the real dilusion here that there is such thing as society in the first place, furthermore, that "it" can be centrally planned by a group of preferential bureaucrats?
I wasn't playing but if you insist, please define "President" and "delusion" first.
freeradicals:Isn't the real dilusion here that there is such thing as society in the first place, furthermore, that "it" can be centrally planned by a group of preferential bureaucrats?
I haven't really ordered the delusions by significance. My point is, there is no US government, and there is no Constitution, so there cannot be an office of the President. Ron Paul knows this, he was the one who turned me on to Lysander Spooner.
President = as defined in the US Constitution
Delusion = belief in something false
liberty student:there is no US government
Great! Our work is done!
But isn't the perception of something false subjective?
Lagrange multiplier: liberty student:there is no US government Great! Our work is done!
Actually, Lysander Spooner did it. I am just summarizing his work. You have of course read Spooner right? Ron Paul and I have.
Amadeus:But isn't the perception of something false subjective?
Would that imply that there is no reality?
liberty student:You have of course read Spooner right? Ron Paul and I have.
That's pretty neat!
liberty student: President = as defined in the US Constitution Delusion = belief in something false
"False" as "not real" or "non existent" like, say, unicorns or Santa?
Btw, I've read Spooner, too, and quite enjoyed it.
z1235:"False" as "not real" or "non existent" like, say, unicorns or Santa?
Exactly. Like unicorns.
z1235:Btw, I've read Spooner, too, and quite enjoyed it.
You and I aren't far apart on much.
Do you differentiate at all between the following two types of non-existent entities (i.e. delusions):
1. A non-existent President that nukes Hiroshima and Nagasaki
2. A non-existent unicorn
liberty student:You and I aren't far apart on much.
True that.
"Would that imply that there is no reality?"
There is no set reality, all that matters is the individual's take upon reality. To most people there is an individual who they believe exists who is, according to a definition which was laid out in a document they know as the constitution, the president. At the same time however there is no such thing as property or even an individual, merely things which an individual claims to exist which fit these definitions of things.
z1235:A non-existent President that nukes Hiroshima and Nagasaki
The title of President, and the office it derives its power from is a delusion. Avoid a fallacy of composition.
Neodoxy:There is no set reality, all that matters is the individual's take upon reality.
So you're saying perception is reality? If someone believe 2 +2 = 5, then it is?
Does God exist because people believe in him?
Neodoxy:To most people there is an individual who they believe exists who is, according to a definition which was laid out in a document they know as the constitution, the president.
That's a belief, that doesn't mean it is true. Unless you really feel that beliefs are truth, but then I wonder how you deal with contradictions.
Neodoxy:At the same time however there is no such thing as property or even an individual, merely things which an individual claims to exist which fit these definitions of things.
This doesn't make any sense to me. Could you rephrase it?
liberty student:] So you're saying perception is reality? If someone believe 2 +2 = 5, then it is? Does God exist because people believe in him?
Two and two put together can never make five, that is incorrect and cannot be, however, if someone percieves the two or the two or the plus or the equals or the five in a different way then it is possible. Once all of these things are perceived in the same way by each individual or entity then they must come to the same conclusion, but if not then no. Perception is necessarily reality to that individual, one knows nothing of reality other than what one percieves. If I told you that "we're really all fish in a big fish tanks owned by sir Zork Esquire" you just didn't know it and you couldn't percieve this and it had no effect on you then so what? You'd continue facing that which was in front of you, your reality
If an individual believes that god exists then sure, he exists in your reality, this doesn't mean that he exists in mine. If person X is good in my mind and my reality this does not mean that he will be a good man in yours.
liberty student:] Neodoxy:At the same time however there is no such thing as property or even an individual, merely things which an individual claims to exist which fit these definitions of things. This doesn't make any sense to me. Could you rephrase it?
I'm pointing out that just as the idea of a president is an imaginary construct, so is the idea of property, or even something that constitutes an individual. Bob could not be considered bob, he could just be considered an extension of a greater force or of the environment or whathave you, the individual percieves his environment and world and ascribes to it that which he believes to be there.
Neodoxy:If an individual believes that god exists then sure, he exists in your reality, this doesn't mean that he exists in mine. If person X is good in my mind and my reality this does not mean that he will be a good man in yours.
So there are multiple realities? Does it matter at all if there is a God, or does it only matter if people believe or disbelieve there is a God?
I believe things like the "Constitution" certainly exist as a concept. What we call "The Constituition" is a specific piece of paper with scribblings on it. Whether it has any forceful effect on citizens is left for the citizens to decide. A "president" is a man in a suit, but you can also define president as, "a man in a suit that many others perceive to be their leader."
liberty student:there is no state, there is no Constitution, and there is no Congress. [...] There is no such thing as a President.
John James:Can you define them individually please?
I don't believe they exist, so how about one of the believers define them for us?
Eric080:I believe things like the "Constitution" certainly exist as a concept.
I don't think I have argued against this. They are a delusional concept.
Eric080:Whether it has any forceful effect on citizens is left for the citizens to decide.
There are no citizens.
Eric080:A "president" is a man in a suit, but you can also define president as, "a man in a suit that many others perceive to be their leader."
We can also define a President as a peanut butter cup.
liberty student:I don't believe they exist, so how about one of the believers define them for us?
What doesn't exist?
John James: liberty student:I don't believe they exist, so how about one of the believers define them for us? What doesn't exist?
What is the purpose of asking me to answer a question you and I have both already addressed? I can tolerate playing along to a certain point, but I am not even sure you have one if you want us to keep repeating ourselves.
Apparently, you're now asking me to tell you what you have already asked me.