Are there two sides to the Ron Paul campaign?

 The best time period was when the colonies were essentially seperate countries. Split the U.S. into 50 countries. The smaller the government, the less oppresion. Of course, no oppression would mean no government, among other things.

 

 I would say several booms and busts have occured in the general welfare over time, but it depends on who you are where you are at and at what time you are considering what men may be doing.

" We may give advice but we can not give conduct. However, remember this, they that con not be counselled, can not be helped." ~ Poor Richard

 In nature, some animals, such as wolves or geese, practice collectivism. Some species practice the natural law of strength in numbers. So, it may be we are all born into practicing social contracts, since such contracts of action do not need to be inscribed. 

Men as opposed to animals are born into praxeology. We reason action. Property rights exist without enumeration, for we all know that we may control ourselves, slaves have the ability to revolt. And I agree with Leferve, the american revolution is the only true revolution, it is unlike all others, for the rest have merely been one power succeeding that of another.  "For the people of the people and by the people."

Our due process is supposed to be practiced for all peoples, within it's borders or territories.

 

 Maybe their is a strong leaning towards solitudinarianism here?

From Theory and History, page 58.

     Utilitarianism does not teach that people should strive after sensuous pleasure ( though it recognizes most or at least many people may behave in that way). Niether does it indulge in judgments of value. By it's recognition that social cooperation is for the immense majority a means for attaining all their ends, it dispels the notion that society, the state, the nation, or any other social entity is an ultimate end, and that individual men are slaves of that entity. It rejects the pholosophies of universalism, collectivism, and totallitarianism. In this sense it is meaningful to call utilitarianism a philosophy of individualism.~Mises

 I was inspired to smile more, and try to act more friendly by this.

http://www.mises.org/books/paulmises.pdf 

 

 

Are you or are you not for liberty? If you are for each person being soveriegn some government is necissary. if not then you are not subjected to the tyranny of elected state officials, but to the biggest guy on the block. Under the state, we have problems. and it isn't perfect. but Anarchy is no solution. even if our current situation is a bit oppressive, we still have the most basic protections, to not be harmed, murdered, raped, robbed. and if some one does any of these things, the weak have access to justice. If there were Anarchy. what could we do? Nothing if the offender is stronger than us. And how about property? under anarchy how would anyone maintain ownership over anything? This isn't really anything that needs to be addressed with a post. just thought about for 10 minutes. maybe I can give a starting point. I think most on here are capitalists anyway. and will understand the division of labor when it comes to producing physical good. take the same idea and apply it to the production of Liberty. when each person creates a widget from start to finish it is ineffecient and costly, but when each person specializes in one step of production it is cheaper and more effecient. The same is true with Liberty!

okay, so let me be the government then. then i will have liberty, and give you liberty also. liberty to do what i tell you to. what does the word "govern" mean? to govern someone is to make them your slave. the whites governed the black slaves. the official mafia, aka government, governs each person. and if you believe in jesus, surely you do not believe in using force against people, which is what government always does. "love your enemies". i suppose he amended that to "use force against those who persecute you".

 

So you are proposing that there be no sort of structured system for dealing with criminals, or protecting rights. you say you are for liberty, but what happens when a man bigger than you hears you say something he doesn't like, or a group of people, and they persecute you for it. but I guess we should all just take it.  OR if they see something we have, let them take it.

 

Whether in an anarchic society there would be any more liberty.. I don't think, not really. but I do know life would not be as good. you would have to be on constant guard, people would be more occupied guarding their wealth than working to create new wealth. So while under a limited federalist, republican democracy, we are prevented from doing things we don't want to do (steal, kill, rape, etc.) In an anarchic society we would be free to do those things that we dont want to do, but prevented from doing what we do what to do. 

 

I am not for the government standing outside your house and watching you, or taping your phone lines or any number of other things that might coerce or prevent you from commiting a crime. What I am for is the protection of the innocent, and for being left alone, and that includes being left alone by the state and criminals alike. and even still can there not be an economic evalutation made? if you really want to think about it. you can still do whatever you want. but each act will cost a different amount.?

 

 

  

 

Attackdonkey:

 

In an anarchic society we would be free to do those things that we dont want to do, but prevented from doing what we do what to do. 

 

Not true. Read Rothbrad. 

Under Anarchy there would still be courts and police, they just would not be funded with stolen wealth(taxation) and they would not have a monoply. This would neccesity that they concern themselves with preventing  and responding to crime, rather than invading property.

The biggest guy on the block would have to be damn big to overpower the entire population of the world on his own. The few can only rule over the many with their consent, and that is what government is. Governments rely primarily on idealogy and secondarily on violence. The idea that "Liberty can only be achieved when we are slaves to the State" is a lie used to justify everything other than liberty.

 Perhaps. The only anarchists I have ever known were druggie little teenagers who didn't own anything nor possesed any talents or skills nevermind intellegence to gain property. I suppose my error is in thinking of anarchy as social disorder and lawlessnes. of course even with private police there would still be coercion, maybe.

I've often thought of how government could be further limited. one idea might be a donation only policy. Thats how churches operate after all, and many churches have chandalers larger than my living room and money to do all sorts of things. If we made the government dependant upon donations.. and if the government didn't get the donations or ran out of money through the year. it would simply shut down. and then. wouldn't the people pay? these are just ideas...

 

I need to know. what is the main gripe with government? Am I right to think that the largest chunck of it is taxes? In principal anyway? the size and expanse of our government today, meddeling in all sorts of private affairs has me very unhappy.

 

and... what of Rothbard should I read? 

I think I may have mis characturized your ideas. The only anarchists I have ever known were little punks in highschool who didn't own anything, and didn't have any sort of talent, education, or any other means of producing wealth. To be clear. Anachry is not social disorder. but only the absense of government? We both agree that government is evil, but you are argueing it is not a necissary evil? I think thats a discussion worht having.

 

I have more questions concerning the justice systems of an anachal society. A benifit of government doing it is that the defendant has a say in government (in a represenative gov't of course) before he is ever arrested. the general public has demanded things like a jury, and a perponderance of evidence before charges can be brought. if I were falsly accused by my neighbor, and Pinkerton Police and prosecution inc. picked me up, what discourse would be avalible to me? since I am with another company? and wouldn't there be a bias? after all the first person paid Pinkerton, but I haven't. It sounds kinda like the fugitive slave days where a judge was paid $10 if he returned a slave to his master but only $5 if he was set free.

 

And the second problem, or question is does it really need to go that far? really? I am very much for a limited government and I daily spread the word about liberty and encourage people not to vote to make an act illegal simply because they don't like it. In reality it seems that we want the same thing. as much personal liberty as can be afforded to us. I just think we could do more by perswading people to be liberty minded, rather than overthrowing the gov't.

 

 

Attackdonkey - I fell into probably a similar trap when I first engaged the anarcho-capitalists (how could you hold a public meeting of anarchists without everyone jumping up at the same time and demanding to speak their piece?) , but they patiently explained to me that that would be a violation of property rights. So  everything seems to works with them based on this "non-violating the property rights of others" regime, and it sounds sound. But I am a Minarchist I suppose, believing in the necessary government only to comply with Constitutional requirements, but not excluding extraordinary aid in times of crisis (floods, continent splitting in two, etc) much like Hayek proposed. So I, as I suspect you, don't want to trash the consititution and go to a better "Articles" because the public in America won't buy it, and there is in a financial, or rather collectivist, crisis looming, and we don't have years and years to convert people. Ron Paul is 90% of what I want, and 100% on just speaking out and hitting the really key issues. To not vote for him in lieu of some unknown Libertarian, or refuse to vote as complying with some Leviathan state, seems like when the Communists voted for George Wallace to bring down the system faster.

 So maybe Minarchy is for you in the short term, but Rothbard makes anarcho- alternatives seem very logical.

Anonymous Coward:

Without 100% support of the citizenry they would be legally bound to hear all cases in opposition to their plans and would be just as legally bound to judge them from within the guidelines of the current system. If they chose to ignore the opposition because they had the support of the 'moral majority' they would lose their powers to rule and would in effect be consenting to be removed by force of violence.

Says who?  If we look at the dictatorship....um Presidency of FDR we see that he used coercion and force to push he edicts through even with the opposition of segments of the population.  Thank God for Henry Ford and the Supreme Court.  If it wasn't for the point blank refusal of Ford to sign the Blue Eagle Agreement and those "nine old men" who declared it Unconstitutional, we would have been subjected to some of the worst ideas of Communism.  The problem is that we've created a monster.  The Presidency is imbued with so much power anymore that it would take a person of extrodinary will to dismantle it.  Regan would have tried, I believe, but he became seduced with ending Communism as a threat.  Consequently he embraced the same powers that the presidents have used since the time of FDR.

Paul Grad:

The unconstitutionality of the death penalty is not "quite absurd" but obvious.  If one accepts the principles enunciated in the Declaration as being axiomatic and inherent in the specific clauses of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, then it's quite clear.  If we accept your assertion (which I don't) that those who attended the Constitutional Convention didn't object to the death penalty because they didn't speak out against it, and thus its constitutional, I would reply that what they thought was immaterial to what they wrote into law.  The Declaration states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, they they are endowed by their Creator with unalienable Rights, among these are Life.......That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."  Therefore, since all men have a Creator-endowed unalienable Right to Life, the State cannot alienate that Right by killing them.

Yet the death penalty is used in cases where one person has violated the inalienable rights of another.  In cases of murder and rape.  It is not only that State that infringes on the rights of individuals but also individuals who infringe on the rights of other individuals.  That is why we have instituted trial by jury.  It was meant to take the State out of the equation and allow the people to render judgement.  Unfortunately that's another of the freedoms we've lost over the years.  Judges and lawyers now decide what a jury hears and what is permissable, as if people are not intelligent enought to seperate the wheat from the chaff.  Given the state of things today, however, they may have a point.

Attackdonkey:

I have more questions concerning the justice systems of an anachal society. A benifit of government doing it is that the defendant has a say in government (in a represenative gov't of course) before he is ever arrested. the general public has demanded things like a jury, and a perponderance of evidence before charges can be brought. if I were falsly accused by my neighbor, and Pinkerton Police and prosecution inc. picked me up, what discourse would be avalible to me? since I am with another company? and wouldn't there be a bias? after all the first person paid Pinkerton, but I haven't. It sounds kinda like the fugitive slave days where a judge was paid $10 if he returned a slave to his master but only $5 if he was set free.

The protection is trial by jury.  For the most part Federal Judges don't care how you come before them, just that you do come before them.  The jury is supposed to be the garantor of fairness and justice in the realm of law.  However since the beginning of the 20th century, they juries have not been able to pass judgment on people very effectively.  First they lost the right to hear all testemonly.  Now the judges and lawyers control the flow of information and tell the jury to accept or disregard testamony based on arcane rules and precedents, not reason.  Second they lost the right to pronounce guilt and determine sentencing.  Now a judge instucts the jury how and why a person should be found guilty and exptects them to return a verdict in accordance with those reasons.  In addition the judge may change the verdict and/or the punnishment if he or she does not aggree with either.  Furthermore an apellate court or the Supreme Court can reverse the findings of the jury (bad) or the judge (possibly good).  In any case the current legal system is as broken as it can get without causing a revolt.  Look at how many people have been exonerated by DNA evidence and tell me that the system we have punnishes the guilty.