...is based on the statist fallacy.
It is statists who clinge to the notion of some kind of great transparency or accountability in the government monopoly on force, to some kind of notion of the state's legitimacy. When I was still a minarchist, I thought CFR, Bilderberg, etc. were a big deal. Once I stopped, I realized that they are part and parcel with the state monopoly.
Yes, evil stuff is happening, but No, conspirators are not the problem - the state monopoly is. All power-seekers go the state, because it is the monopoly. It's the elephant in the room; the conspiracies are just the tumors on that elephant. "New world order" - the conspiracy theory to end them all - just means an even bigger state. There's nothing new about it, it's just a bunch of (international) oligopolists trying to become monopolists. It's tumors vying to take over a herd of unacknowledge elephants, and merge them into one giant one.
Why anarchy fails
You hit on it. The folks that see these conspiracies even if they exist do not see the forest because of the trees. The best example is the origination of the Federal Reserve, it was a conspiracy between the heads of the US Government and several large banks. But the rest of the congress and the president both had to pass the law and then the courts had to uphold it. So the point is that the conspiracy is not the evil part. It is the law making body that is the center of evil, the conspirators are simply taking advantage of the situation.
That's a very interesting way of looking at it. I too- used to think that all the power lie in those groups before I started studying anarchist philosophy. I tend now to look at it as the way the state comes to power. These groups are just power backers of the state. They are mainly results of the state. As you said- they're basically what results when you have statism. If you look at history- similar groups- have always seem to come to power... who want to rule the world. Much of it lies on as you said the monopoly of the state. AJ, I would agree with you on that.
If you don't mind I would like to issue an apology if I disrupted the board in that other thread. All I was really trying to do was to talk about the federal reserve's history. I was only also trying to explain the theories about David Rockefeller, and, why he is talked about so much. I wasn't trying to shift the board's focus from economics to conspiracy economics. I think however- I would agree that these groups (the bilderbergers, CFR, and the trilateral comission, the billionaire club), happen because of statist doctrines. And, they are the natural tendency of statism... for when you have the state having a monopoly of power- the criminals and liars of the various states would naturally tend to want to come together. I see it that communism was a global philosophy, and, now statism is a global philosophy so you have all these statists coming together with their control issues and they do things that there... to exert their power... etc.
Not to mention, the variety of unsubstantiated claims made concerning these events makes it very easy to discredit anybody opposing them. These people have cried "wolf" so many times that nobody will listen when somebody comes along who can actually provide some evidence.
I say we take this reasoning to the "oh noes! the Federal Reserve is a private company!!" folks and use it to get them to AnCap (but maybe leave out the hardcore conspiracy folks who haven't seen the big picture yet - wouldn't want to ruin whatever popular credibility we have).
Bill Still's The Money Masters and Alex Jones's Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement are terrifying documentaries for statists, especially if watched in that order. The Money Masters is to my knowledge entirely true (and a great history piece), but it advocates fiat money and trust in the government. These documentaries leave people with their worldviews shredded to pieces, but still not seeing the elephant (or gun) in the room. Like most of this material, it raises way more questions than it answers, leaving people with this awful feeling of confusion and general dread.
I think we can capitalize on this, and purge some conspiracy theorists from the libertarian population - two birds with one stone.
I've been wanting to see a comic-style illustration of "The Evolution of Thought on the Federal Reserve":
1. Reverence. New York Times. "Greenspan is a genius!"
2. Conspiracy fright. The Money Masters. "It's a CONSPIRACY!! The Fed is PRIVATE!!!!!1"
3. Subtle conspiracy. G. Edward Griffin (Creature from Jekyll Island, Freedom Force, minarchy). "Oh, so the fact that it is quasi-public lets it play both ends - be public when it gets flak, but private with it gets an FOIA request. Pretty tricky. Vote for Ron Paul......."
4. Understanding state monopoly. Mises.org, Rothbard, AnCap materials. "[what we're saying in this post]. Enforced monopolies are the real problem."
Why call it "conspiracy"? Most of this is just interest groups that are working towards common goal of an political, economical or ideological nature. You'll get this already on very low level in societies. What is so funny about getting this on higher levels as well?
Whether one has a n object labelled "the state" or whether this is a group of "insurance and protection companies" that is dominant in a "anarcho-capitalist" is actually quite irrelevant. Power is power. Doesn't matter how it's justified, managed or attributed.
Torsten: Why call it "conspiracy"? Most of this is just interest groups that are working towards common goal of an political, economical or ideological nature. You'll get this already on very low level in societies. What is so funny about getting this on higher levels as well? Whether one has a n object labelled "the state" or whether this is a group of "insurance and protection companies" that is dominant in a "anarcho-capitalist" is actually quite irrelevant. Power is power. Doesn't matter how it's justified, managed or attributed.
Let me answer that. People call them conspiracies still because we didn't know that these groups existed before. So many, as, I think another user put it- cried wolf, kind of really hoping they existed. No one believed these people. I don't know what we should presently call them right now. The reason they're called conspiracies is not because of the fact that they're weird groups and that they exist... but... because they were at first theorized about, and, only read about, by people who didn't know about them- but only theorized about them because they were a group of global elites meeting together that was talked about. Now thanks to the internet we know more about these groups, but, I feel that we like to call them conspiracy theories still. Just because these are conspiracies- doesn't mean they're not true though. The main reason though why people call them conspiracies is because of what I pointed out, already, which is that they were at first conspiracy theories long before they ever went mainstream, and got publicity from the press.
AJ: ...is based on the statist fallacy. It is statists who clinge to the notion of some kind of great transparency or accountability in the government monopoly on force, to some kind of notion of the state's legitimacy. When I was still a minarchist, I thought CFR, Bilderberg, etc. were a big deal. Once I stopped, I realized that they are part and parcel with the state monopoly. Yes, evil stuff is happening, but No, conspirators are not the problem - the state monopoly is. All power-seekers go the state, because it is the monopoly. It's the elephant in the room; the conspiracies are just the tumors on that elephant. "New world order" - the conspiracy theory to end them all - just means an even bigger state. There's nothing new about it, it's just a bunch of (international) oligopolists trying to become monopolists. It's tumors vying to take over a herd of unacknowledge elephants, and merge them into one giant one.
Exactly, or, as I have said: the state is the disease, and what are usually referred to as conspiracies [i.e the usual suspects] are just symptoms of the disease.
Once you have the disease, [i.e. the state] , the symptoms are inevitable and can not be eradicated/suppressed, which is why, for example, trying to get rid of the fed is a waste of time.
As a symptom of the state, if it were possible to get rid of the Fed, something else equally as bad- or worse- would inevitably replace it.
911 Media Fakery
At the same time however, the level of hysteria [much of it from "moderators"], directed at my initial post /thread in these forums; a post which happened to mention my unswerving belief , based on pure science, that no planes struck either WTC 1 or 2 on Sept 11th 2001, and that all the evidence, when closely examined, points to massive fakery on the part of the government and the media, was something to behold,if not downright laughable, given the claimed "anarchistic , never believe anything the state tells you" posturing of many posters in these forums.
So although I agree with your observation in principle, unfortunately many here will use/take that position as nothing more than a convenient argument to try to shut down any threads which raise subjects [such as conspiracy theories] that they, in their infinite wisdom, deem are not up for discussion [" I don't like it therefor its irrelevant"].
Would that include yourself?
P.S. I know of only one other anarchist 911 "no-planer" like myself. However interestingly enough, although as you observed, conspiracy theorists are almost to a man statist in their ideology, they seem, for whatever reason, a little more likely to at least consider the idea of media/government video fakery on 911, whereas your average self-proclaimed "anarchist" on these boards appears to have swallowed the official story hook line and sinker.
On conspiracy message boards, I get incredulity or stunned silence if I point out that if you have a government in the first place then this[ conspiracies via special interests inside and outside governments] , is what you inevitably get, whereas here, on the other hand, and on other so-called "anarchist/libertarian" type forums I generally encounter iboth ncredulity and downright hostility for merely suggesting that a close, unbiased look at all photographic evidence in the light of basic high school physics must lead to a conclusion of gigantic media video fakery on 911, so as far as I am concerned "anarchist/libertarian" types are in general no better, or worse, than the average "conspiracy nut".
Both have massive blind spots, one with regard to the actual nature of government, and the other with regard to the level to which governments will go to wage wars.
For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "onebornfree"].
The conspiracy theorists are nothing but apologetic Statists. Unable to conceive of a State-less society, they desperately cling to absurd ideas about how the "government of the people" is hijacked by a bunch of special interest indviduals. For the socialists, it’s wall-street Capitalists/Central bankers, etc…. For the mini-archists, it’s a bunch of Socialists/Central bankers, etc. By the way, shame on "Campaign For Liberty"! They seem to be formally propagating conspiracy type theories. If anybody receives their letters in the mail asking for donations, they keep referring to "banksters" or government bureaucrats and "banksters". This is the perfect example of how, although I truly admire Ron Paul, his movement is also playing the pathetic “apologetic for the government” card .
The conspiracy theorists are nothing but apologetic Statists. Unable to conceive of a State-less society, they desperately cling to absurd ideas about how the "government of the people" is hijacked by a bunch of special interest indviduals. For the socialists, it’s wall-street Capitalists/Central bankers, etc…. For the mini-archists, it’s a bunch of Socialists/Central bankers, etc.
By the way, shame on "Campaign For Liberty"! They seem to be formally propagating conspiracy type theories. If anybody receives their letters in the mail asking for donations, they keep referring to "banksters" or government bureaucrats and "banksters". This is the perfect example of how, although I truly admire Ron Paul, his movement is also playing the pathetic “apologetic for the government” card
.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
DD5:If anybody receives their letters in the mail asking for donations, they keep referring to "banksters" or government bureaucrats and "banksters".
In a state monopoly, everyone connected with the monopoly becomes a de facto part of it - to the extent to which they are connected with it.
The "banksters" may indeed be the most powerful part of the monopoly, so I can see the reasoning. But yes, the CFL is intending that the "banksters" are THE bad guys. I just say they are the most powerful, or among the most powerful, of them. The bankers would be nothing without legal tender laws and the monopoly on enforcement of them, but they have the influence to keep those laws enforced, so they stay.
When there is enforced monopoly, all connected with it become it - to the extent to which they are connected with it.
Juan:So, there's no such thing as lobbying. There's no privileged banking 'industry'. There are no subsidies or bailouts. There are no tariffs to protect the politically connected. There re no regulations promoted by big players to stifle competition, etc, etc, etc.Those things exist only in the heads of nutty conspiracy theorists...I get it.
It's not that there aren't any special interests behind all of this. It's that the conspiracy theorists imply that those special interests are the cause, thus, the government is hijacked. The government is obviously not hijacked. The sole purpose of the government is exactly that, to provide a legalized channel for theft, and empowering all those who are in the government or close to it. It is its inherent nature no matter who is put in charge.
AJ: [The "banksters" may indeed be the most powerful part of the monopoly, so I can see the reasoning. But yes, the CFL is intending that the "banksters" are THE bad guys.
[The "banksters" may indeed be the most powerful part of the monopoly, so I can see the reasoning. But yes, the CFL is intending that the "banksters" are THE bad guys.
What else is the meaning of "The Fed has no accountability" nonsense!?
Actually, yes it does! Congress can destroy it as quickly as it created it. Since when is micro-management by it's alleged "consumers" a criterion for having accountability? By this logic, the entrepreneurs in a free market have no accountability either since we obviously do not have a direct say in their business and managerial decisions. Or for that matter, since government bureaucrats are not overseeing every one of their decision. Obviously, this is absurd, we all (most of us) know very well that the profit & loss system is what makes the entrepreneur accountable to the consumer. But by playing the game of "the Fed has no accountability" so we need HR1207 they are falling right into the hands of the socialists! There can never be accountability without profit & loss. For Ron Paul to suggest that we can have oversight by a bureaucratic process is, I think, a terrible educational lesson. Since when are politicians and bureaucrats accountable?
All this HR1207 is doing is sending the wrong message about how the problem stems from lack of political oversight. I also don't buy the lame excuse about how if the Fed is audited, it will lead to its destruction. Since when does a failure of a government agency (or licensed monopoly) lead to its abolishment ? Most likely, the Fed will simply be restructured and expanded at our expense.
I agree with all that. If congress the State wanted the Fed that part of itself gone, it would have it gone. But of course it doesn't want it gone since it's the ATM machine, and it will just use the audit as an excuse to expand - under the pretense of reform (as you said).
We really need to tell them this! It's a crystal-clear way to see the situation, so it'd bring in a lot of new people I am sure. As I say, the conspiracy crowd is scared and confused so they are ripe for the plucking. We'll get them in here and show them the rational way, and get them to make AnCap go viral (there I go again...)
AJ: I agree with all that. If congress the State wanted the Fed that part of itself gone, it would have it gone. But of course it doesn't want it gone since it's the ATM machine, and it will just use the audit as an excuse to expand - under the pretense of reform (as you said). We really need to tell them this! It's a crystal-clear way to see the situation, so it'd bring in a lot of new people I am sure. As I say, the conspiracy crowd is scared and confused so they are ripe for the plucking. We'll get them in here and show them the rational way, and get them to make AnCap go viral (there I go again...)
For crying out loud, The Huffington Post is sponsoring this HR1207 bill. Is this not a writing on the wall?
double post, didn't see that this got posted
If I may add to this thread- I believe that conspiracy theorists don't want complete elimination of government. They don't want for the government to rule over everyone or for corporations to rule over everyone. They want a limited government. Conspiracy theorists are patriots. They try to attack what they see are the problems of the state. There are many times when they're not quite right- and- they're willing to accept when they're wrong. I would say that it's like me- I'm an anarchist- a truth-seeker. I know that we have a government now and we should hold them accountable. I, like them, search for the truth. I can really relate to a lot of the ideas that conspiracy theorists have and I rationalize them. They don't want any one group to have complete and total power. They also aren't quite ready to do away with government completely. They're not people like you see in movies like V for Vandetta. And what not. So... conspiracy theorists care little about theories- well they do care a lot- when they're wrong... I'm talking about political theories which they don't care much about. They rather are against corruption. They find things out long before the mainstream press do. They don't like it when the mainstream press brainwashes the masses. Etc. Etc. They're not statist apologists. They just don't like the corruption and the lies.
SilentXtarian: They're not statist apologists. They just don't like the corruption and the lies.
They're not statist apologists. They just don't like the corruption and the lies.
which are an inherent feature of a Government. So that makes them statist apologists. I never said they were big government apologists. If you like, they are small government apologists.
Don't forget that you do also have the Big government apologists with their Global Private Bankers theories who want to nationalize the Fed and have a "democratic money" system, or a democratic printing press.
DD5: SilentXtarian: They're not statist apologists. They just don't like the corruption and the lies. which are an inherent feature of a Government. So that makes them statist apologists. I never said they were big government apologists. If you like, they are small government apologists. Don't forget that you do also have the Big government apologists with their Global Private Bankers theories who want to nationalize the Fed and have a "democratic money" system, or a democratic printing press.
I would counter that and say that most of the conspiracy theorists are just really representative government apologists. They want a government that can be representative of the people. You have your different types of people in there in the conspiracy theory movements... but... all they really want is a representative government.
SilentXtarian:all they really want is a representative government.
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
nirgrahamUK: SilentXtarian:all they really want is a representative government. so you are telling me they are my ideological enemies....
No. Not at all. Conspiracy theorists want a representative and limited government. They want a perfect government theory- one where the government didn't control everything- did what it's supposed to in theory- and one- where it could be held accountable. They don't want the government to extend their power all over our lives. But most of the people who are "conspiracy theorists" who I've spoken to on the internet are tired of criminals running government. I think most conspiracy theorists see the government as a necessary evil. If you had to put an ideological label on most conspiracy theorists- I would say that most of them are minarchists. They're outside the left and right spectrum. They just want to live their lives, and, don't want government to rule over every aspect of their lives.
SilentXtarian: I would counter that and say that most of the conspiracy theorists are just really representative government apologists. They want a government that can be representative of the people. You have your different types of people in there in the conspiracy theory movements... but... all they really want is a representative government.
Is a representative government (Democracy) not a statist in nature? Some of the biggest advocates of a representative government are the socialists and interventionists, i.e., the social democrats of Europe. In fact, the big governmetn people worship the idea of representative government. I already acknowledged that some of the conspiracy theorists that are for a small government are indeed statists but to a smaller degree. I realize that they do seek freedom, yet they are still apoligizing for the State.
Let me clarify my point. Take Mises for example who would be considered today a mini-archist. I don't recall any of his writings that put blame on "bankers" or any other special interest. He knew these groups existed, but he put the blame where it belonged: The government and the anti-capitalistic mentality.
SilentXtarian: But most of the people who are "conspiracy theorists" who I've spoken to on the internet are tired of criminals running government.
But most of the people who are "conspiracy theorists" who I've spoken to on the internet are tired of criminals running government.
So they are apolgizing for the State. How is this not an apology for the State is beyond me.
Sounds like a variant of "If you arent with us, you're against us".
And some of us wonder why libertarianism goes nowhere when some try to maintain a total intellectual purity like a bunch of Marxists.
SilentXtarian:No. Not at all.
sicsempertyrannis:And some of us wonder why libertarianism goes nowhere when some try to maintain a total intellectual purity like a bunch of Marxists.
oh! an Argumentum ad metum fallacy with Guilt By Association thrown in for good measure. two fallacies in one !
The problem for me isn't the mere speculation on conspiracies, but rather the true believer syndrome that often hijacks the honest discussions regarding behind the scenes activity (nefarious or not). But this is often true of any speculation that is prefaced on contrary premises (that a conspiracy can magically remain secret, but at the same time enough people know about it as to talk about it...), so it's not surprising kooks will take over the discussion of things as to the possible private origins of the Federal Reserve Act. Or that of the ICC and etc.
So, when considering conspiracies ask yourself this: what is the main thesis of the given claimed conspiracy, and what does it mean in terms of the impact of its revelation in terms of yourself and others involved in the speculation (what can you do about it, what can you learn from it as to prevent future similar acts?).
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
nirgrahamUK: sicsempertyrannis:And some of us wonder why libertarianism goes nowhere when some try to maintain a total intellectual purity like a bunch of Marxists. oh! an Argumentum ad metum fallacy with Guilt By Association thrown in for good measure. two fallacies in one !
I call false on the latter charge.
So, how is the principled libertarian circle jerk going?
are you encouraging me to not have principles?, to not be principled?, to have different principles?, or perhaps you are just poor at discussion and debate.?
and i would say mentioning marx and saying we should avoid doing what people who are marxist do is classic guilt by association fallacy. marxists eat food to live, yet, i'm not going to avoid eating food.
nirgrahamUK: are you encouraging me to not have principles?, to not be principled?, to have different principles?, or perhaps you are just poor at discussion and debate.? and i would say mentioning marx and saying we should avoid doing what people who are marxist do is classic guilt by association fallacy. marxists eat food to live, yet, i'm not going to avoid eating food.
No, but I think reaching out on certain issues where we have common ground is the best option. Do many of these minarchists hate the fed? Yes, and some have a variety of goals in regard to it. Speaking from personal experience, most want a private, precious metal currency to replace it. So they might believe in representative government, but who cares? On this issue most of them have the same end goal. The ones that want it to be simply accountable (Huffington Post) ought to be totally rejected, of course.
I should probably do a separate thread at some point on the perfect intellectual purity some libertarians want to maintain.
well now, we can be reconciled.
I might make common cause with my ideological enemies, they can be my practical allies, even whilst they are my ideological enemies.
sicsempertyrannis:I should probably do a separate thread at some point on the perfect intellectual purity some libertarians want to maintain.
DD5:It's not that there aren't any special interests behind all of this. It's that the conspiracy theorists imply that those special interests are the cause, thus, the government is hijacked. The government is obviously not hijacked. The sole purpose of the government is exactly that, to provide a legalized channel for theft, and empowering all those who are in the government or close to it. It is its inherent nature no matter who is put in charge.
So let me guess this straight, some of you have angst against the "Conspiracy theorists" although they undermine the legitimacy of the State, regardless of whether they believe it has been hi-jacked or not? You are denouncing folks like Alex Jones - calling folks like Kissinger a war criminal, and the Bush Administration a gang of criminals? Making films like the Obama Deception, which is a massive attack against the state / msm propaganda? Anyone still wish they would shut up? 9/11 was an inside job? Who knows for sure, but more to the point - am I going to denounce and ridicule the folks who are calling out the status quo as mass murders? No, because that would be stupid.
The Conspiracy Theory of History Revisited by Murray N. Rothbard (excepts)
"It is no wonder that usually these realistic analyses are spelled out by various "extremists" who are outside the Establishment consensus. For it is vital to the continued rule of the State apparatus that it have legitimacy and even sanctity in the eyes of the public, and it is vital to that sanctity that our politicians and bureaucrats be deemed to be disembodied spirits solely devoted to the "public good." Once let the cat out of the bag that these spirits are all too often grounded in the solid earth of advancing a set of economic interests through use of the State, and the basic mystique of government begins to collapse."
...
"Far from being a paranoid or a determinist, the conspiracy analyst is a praxeologist; that is, he believes that people act purposively, that they make conscious choices to employ means in order to arrive at goals. Hence, if a steel tariff is passed, he assumes that the steel industry lobbied for it; if a public works project is created, he hypothesizes that it was promoted by an alliance of construction firms and unions who enjoyed public works contracts, and bureaucrats who expanded their jobs and incomes. It is the opponents of "conspiracy" analysis who profess to believe that all events – at least in government – are random and unplanned, and that therefore people do not engage in purposive choice and planning."
"These reflections are prompted by the almost blatant fact – so blatant as to be remarked on by the major newsweeklies – that virtually the entire top leadership of the new Carter administration, from Carter and Mondale on down, are members of the small, semisecret Trilateral Commission, founded by David Rockefeller in 1973 to propose policies for the United States, Western Europe, and Japan, and/or members of the board of the Rockefeller Foundation. The rest are tied in with Atlanta corporate interests, and especially the Coca-Cola Company, Georgia's major corporation."
Cont....
Conza88: So let me guess this straight, some of you have angst against the "Conspiracy theorists" although they undermine the legitimacy of the State, regardless of whether they believe it has been hi-jacked or not?
So let me guess this straight, some of you have angst against the "Conspiracy theorists" although they undermine the legitimacy of the State, regardless of whether they believe it has been hi-jacked or not?
Well not everyone. True, much conspiracy mongering may be a little wrongheaded, but the so called 'debunkers' and 'skeptics' end up acting as state apologists. They would have us believe that every government investigation that has ever happened over a crime, etc has been infallible and not a cover up/hack job.
This is why I am sympathetic to Rothbard's 'Lone Nut' theory.
Conza88:So let me guess this straight, some of you have angst against the "Conspiracy theorists" although they undermine the legitimacy of the State
I personally have nothing against conspiracy theories per se (I'm sure many of them are true), and I think it's overall good because it gets people questioning things. I am not 100% sure it's good, though, because there are positives and negatives to weigh.
Positive: Gets people questioning the media
Negative: Gives people a false solution - still statism, or still fiat money for instance.
Still, I'd rather try to convert a conspiracy theorist to AnCap than a neocon or a democrat soccer mom.
Conspiracy Theory, Philosophical Inconsistencies - Anarchists vs Statists Fact 1 : 99.99% of conspiracy theorists are statist through and through, and therefor unable to see that the state is the ultimate culprit in all of their conspiracy theories.Fact 2 : based on an understanding of elementary, high school level laws of physics [i.e. using basic simple, laws of elementary physics] , it is scientifically provable that no planes hit either WTC1, WTC2, or the Pentagon, on September 11th 2001. Such a conspiracy theory is commonly called "no plane theory" [NPT], although in my own case, NPT stands for "no plane truth".Fact 3: NPT is by far and away the most consistently anti-state, "outside the matrix" of all 911 conspiracy theories, being as how it obviously involves the acceptance of massive media complicity in the [mostly fictional] "events" of that day in order for the theory , to be viable and to have been pulled off in the real world.Fact 4: most 911 conspiracy theorists automatically reject NPT out of hand [and given their pro state belief systems, they have a very good excuse - obviously such behavior is perfectly reasonable, understandable and consistent with their belief system.]Fact 5: Most self described anarcho -capitalists [i.e "an caps" ] and "libertarians" here and elsewhere, just like their statist conspiracy theorist ideological "enemies" , also automatically reject NPT out of hand , and won't even consider a serious, unbiased investigation of the main proposition involved [i.e media fakery of plane crashes into buildings] , let alone acceptance of any/all of the final NPT conclusions as briefly outlined in fact 2 , above].Consistent or Hypocritical Behavior?Given their fundamental belief systems, in completely rejecting/denying any serious consideration of 9/11 NPT, exactly who exhibits the most philosophically consistent behavior here - those terrible, pro- state, conspiracy theorists [eg Alex Jones ,the "Loose Change" crowd etc.] , or the so called self-described "ancaps" and "libertarans" etc. inhabiting both these forums and locations elsewhere?
Lesson?
[Maybe] that looking for any type of philosophical consistency in others, "an-cap" or otherwise, is a mistake?
onebornfree:Fact 2 : based on an understanding of elementary, high school level laws of physics [i.e. using basic simple, laws of elementary physics] , it is scientifically provable that no planes hit either WTC1, WTC2, or the Pentagon, on September 11th 2001. Such a conspiracy theory is commonly called "no plane theory" [NPT], although in my own case, NPT stands for "no plane truth".
How many engineers have to display the fact that the events of September 11th follow the laws of physics before conspiriacy theorists believe them?
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
we should probably conduct a survey of high school physics teachers, neh?
laminustacitus: onebornfree:Fact 2 : based on an understanding of elementary, high school level laws of physics [i.e. using basic simple, laws of elementary physics] , it is scientifically provable that no planes hit either WTC1, WTC2, or the Pentagon, on September 11th 2001. Such a conspiracy theory is commonly called "no plane theory" [NPT], although in my own case, NPT stands for "no plane truth". How many engineers have to display the fact that the events of September 11th follow the laws of physics before conspiriacy theorists believe them?
Or, to put it another way, how many state- employed "engineers" , state media pundits and other state sycophants who directly benefit from spouting the official "scientific truth", have to insist that the events depicted in this video follow the laws of physics, before most self-described "anarcho -capitalists" believe them?
Answer: very few, apparently :-)
how many no-planers does it take to screw in a lightbulb?