Newbies

Re: Thoughts on Objectivism and Rand

Anarcho-libertarian — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 22:18:29 GMT

PhilipK:

@Anarcho-libertarian

"We always give the public their hero's, we give the hero's to every faction and than people once they hear this person say all the right things, we give releases to them because he or she speaks for me that's how we rationalize it and we sit back and re-guide it again, we say go here go do that and they do it, we give our power to the authorized hero's"

-Albert Pike

I don't understand that big run-on sentance. I will be campaigning for Ron Paul to the end of my days because he is in my view the best Gateway Drug out of the false left vs right paradigm and toward anarcho-capitalism. His winning or losing of a government office is irrelevant to his intellectual revolution that he ignited. He introduces people to libertarianism, and lets Rothbard, Spooner, Woods and Rockwell do the rest.

As far as the video of him wussing out on the 9/11 issue while on the debate stage, that is unfortunate. I never said he was a perfect man. Still support him though. And just because he wussed out on national TV on that issue doesn't mean that he is part of some NWO/Mason/Jewish conspiracy.

Re: Thoughts on Objectivism and Rand

Anarcho-libertarian — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 21:50:39 GMT

Andrew Cain:

Taxation is theft - Abstract

Excise tax is necessary for government funding but is less evil - Concrete.

Do you see the cognitive dissonance here?

I don't because there isn't. It's taking a general principle (taxation is theft) and then using that principle to guide you when choosing concrete alternatives (less theft in the form of excise/user fees is better than more theft in the form of the income tax, with no taxation of course being the ultimate goal).

Andrew Cain:

Saying something is less evil then something else does not bar you for supporting the less evil thing. So far you have just said that "Hey at least he does not support income taxation." Yea I get that. He still supports excise and user taxation. Period.

Not period. He supports excise and user taxes over the income tax, and he supports no taxes at all over excise and user taxes (because repealing the whole government would require no taxation). I do as well.

Andrew Cain:

"It's not strange as long as the funding and ownership are being reduced and headed in the right anarchist direction."

Legitimizing the concept that government can own property is moving toward the belief that government is coercive, arbitrary and invasive therefore we ought to get rid of it?

Absolutely. I, as fellow AnCap Tom Woods explained in his podcast with Lew Rockwell, use the Constitution (a document which legitimizes government) all the time as a bludgeon against the state. The books that Tom writes like Nullification and Who Killed the Constitution probably have you scratching your head ("How could an anarchist support state's rights?!?!") To me it makes perfect sense, as it does with Ron Paul.

Andrew Cain:

Repeal does not automatically infer removal. It can infer change from the current status quo.

Bill Clinton couldn't have spun it better:

(Please visit the site to view this media)

Taking your reading into it, that means that when Ron Paul said he wants to repeal ObamaCare, what he meant was he just wants to "reform" the ObamaCare status quo and not remove it. That is obviously wrong and I hope you don't make me have to start researching quotes of Ron Paul saying that he wants to completely repeal, remove, dismantle, abolish, annihilate, destroy, torpedo, abort, and extinguish ObamaCare.

Andrew Cain:

If he believes in the elimination of government, then why is he still advocating for the balance of power between the three houses? Why not say "just get rid of government"?

Even if he did say that, "getting rid of" does not automatically infer removal. It can infer change from the current status quo. Lol.

Andrew Cain:

He is not going to be elected president. He is not running again for congress. Why not say what is really on his mind if such a thing is on his mind?

Is Tom Woods running for office? Why does he write these Constitution books? But actually, he does have the brass balls to say what is really on his mind occasionally ("I want to repeal the whole government!").

Andrew Cain:

Talking about (publicizing) liberty and making advancements are two different things. Just because you talk about something does not infer that people automatically agree with your cause.

Lol! He has pushed back the frontiers of ignorance with so many people, including myself and most of my friends and family (some of whom are now AnCaps thanks to the Ron Paul Gateway Drug), that it isn't even debatable. Yeah, people don't automatically agree, but I never said they did.

Andrew Cain:

Napolitano uses the Constitution to show that government does not follow its own rules. Ron Paul uses it as an example of HOW government should function. Napolitano shows the reality of how it is a document that is failing, Ron Paul believes that the Constitution is something to be aspired for.

Better watch that first Graham video again (or for the first time). Ron Paul in End the Fed:

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

And what does Ron Paul want to limit government power to? Nothing, because "I don't like the use of force, I like Voluntarism. That's what a free society is supposed to be all about.":

(Please visit the site to view this media)

*Let me guess. You're going to say "He didn't say Voluntarism. He said volunteerism! He wants everyone to be a volunteer for charitable causes in their community!"*

Re: Thoughts on Objectivism and Rand

PhilipK — Sun, 01 Jul 2012 18:43:17 GMT

(Please visit the site to view this media)

Re: Thoughts on Objectivism and Rand

PhilipK — Sun, 01 Jul 2012 18:32:27 GMT

@Anarcho-libertarian

"We always give the public their hero's, we give the hero's to every faction and than people once they hear this person say all the right things, we give releases to them because he or she speaks for me that's how we rationalize it and we sit back and re-guide it again, we say go here go do that and they do it, we give our power to the authorized hero's"

-Albert Pike

Re: Thoughts on Objectivism and Rand

PhilipK — Sun, 01 Jul 2012 18:29:43 GMT

@John_Donohue you say "proper government had already failed in the secenario of that book"... many here would argue 'proper government', if such a thing exists, has already failed.

Cyber Pirates are even more robin hoodish because we are not only deisseminating wealth but knowledge itself.

Re: Thoughts on Objectivism and Rand

Andrew Cain — Sun, 01 Jul 2012 17:22:56 GMT

"I went further. He believes that taxation is theft, and therefore less taxation is better than more taxation, and that excise and user fees are less evil than the income tax."

Taxation is theft - Abstract

Excise tax is necessary for government funding but is less evil - Concrete.

Do you see the cognitive dissonance here?

"False. He supports them because "less taxation is better than more taxation, and excise and user fees are less evil than the income tax."

Saying something is less evil then something else does not bar you for supporting the less evil thing. So far you have just said that "Hey at least he does not support income taxation." Yea I get that. He still supports excise and user taxation. Period.

"It's not strange as long as the funding and ownership are being reduced and headed in the right anarchist direction."

Legitimizing the concept that government can own property is moving toward the belief that government is coercive, arbitrary and invasive therefore we ought to get rid of it?

"They're talking about repealing a mandate or repealing Obamacare. I want to repeal the whole government!"

Repeal does not automatically infer removal. It can infer change from the current status quo. That is what Ron Paul has been trying to do. Change the philosophy of individuals to no longer accept the notion that government should take care of us from cradle to grave. He is not saying let's get rid of government and have a poly-centric legal order, or let's get rid of the Constitution. He is talking about how Congress SHOULD be taking back its powers delegated in the Constitution. How executive mandates should stop and be eliminated by congressional legislation. If he believes in the elimination of government, then why is he still advocating for the balance of power between the three houses? Why not say "just get rid of government"? He is not going to be elected president. He is not running again for congress. Why not say what is really on his mind if such a thing is on his mind?

"Cognitive dissonance."

Talking about (publicizing) liberty and making advancements are two different things. Just because you talk about something does not infer that people automatically agree with your cause.

"Nope, I was just demonstrating how Napolitano, Paul, and I use the Constitution in our quest to not only repeal Obamacare, but repeal the whole government. Thank you and goodnight."

Napolitano uses the Constitution to show that government does not follow its own rules. Ron Paul uses it as an example of HOW government should function. Napolitano shows the reality of how it is a document that is failing, Ron Paul believes that the Constitution is something to be aspired for.

Re: Thoughts on Objectivism and Rand

Anarcho-libertarian — Sun, 01 Jul 2012 08:21:38 GMT

Andrew Cain:

Your point was that Ron Paul believes taxation is theft.

I went further. He believes that taxation is theft, and therefore less taxation is better than more taxation, and that excise and user fees are less evil than the income tax.

Andrew Cain:

I have just stated that he supports excise taxes. Now you are agreeing with me.

Only if you agree with the further points I just made above.

Andrew Cain:

There are taxes that Ron Paul does support and he supports them because he believes they will be used to fund the government.

False. He supports them because "less taxation is better than more taxation, and excise and user fees are less evil than the income tax."

Andrew Cain:

It is a strange example of an "anarchist," this individual who supports the funding of government programs and believes that states can actually own property in the first place.

It's not strange as long as the funding and ownership are being reduced and headed in the right anarchist direction.

Andrew Cain:

Your perceptions of Ron Paul and the limitation of your cognitive dissonance does not infer that you are following the same intellectual path as Ron Paul. You, like every other video, are reading too much into Ron Paul's words. The man is a politician, different from others but still a politician.

It's your cognitive dissonance that won't allow you to see how a politician can be an anarchist and work toward anarchy in steps rather than one fell swoop. I'm really glad that you brought this topic up and got me to debate with you, because it caused me to look into the subject a little more. In doing so, I found this clip of Ron Paul being interviewed on Cavuto. At 7:55 Ron Paul says: "They're talking about repealing a mandate or repealing Obamacare. I want to repeal the whole government!"

http://www.newshounds.us/2011/01/06/ron_paul_wants_to_repeal_the_whole_government_no_biggie_to_neil_cavuto.php

I'd like to see you spin that quote. Even the statists in the link agree that I'm not reading too much into it, saying "That was crazy enough but Neil Cavuto didn’t pause for a moment, but just moved on. OK, Congressman. Repeal the government you ask? How about you and your son resigning effective immediately, without taking any government benefits (Social Security, Medicare, pensions), don't have any relatives working for public schools, police, and fire. Also, don’t drive on any roads because they're public."

I've got to share this with Conza and Graham.

Andrew Cain:

If you support what he supports but go further then he does, he is not going to say "Woha, don't give me your money or your support."

I don't go further than repealing the whole government.

Andrew Cain:

"Has he done a lot to publicize liberty? Sure."

"he is not 'pushing back the frontiers of ignorance."

Cognitive dissonance.

Andrew Cain:

Anyways, Napolitano was never the question in this discussion. You are sidetracking the issue. It has been about Ron Paul and what he is trying to achieve.

Nope, I was just demonstrating how Napolitano, Paul, and I use the Constitution in our quest to not only repeal Obamacare, but repeal the whole government. Thank you and goodnight.

Re: Thoughts on Objectivism and Rand

Andrew Cain — Sun, 01 Jul 2012 06:28:40 GMT

"As Ron Paul stated in an interview with Glenn Beck when asked what kinds of taxation he thought was OK, "ANYTHING is better than the income tax." So just like a smaller government is more just than a larger government, so are user and excise taxes more just than an income tax (within reason). For example, Ron Paul has explained that he supports user fees on visiting the national parks out west because if only 5% of the population visits the parks, why should 95% of the population be forced to pay for the 5%? Sound logic. And a good step in the anarchist direction."

Your point was that Ron Paul believes taxation is theft. I have just stated that he supports excise taxes. Now you are agreeing with me. There are taxes that Ron Paul does support and he supports them because he believes they will be used to fund the government. It is a strange example of an "anarchist," this individual who supporting the funding of government programs and believes that states can actually own property in the first place.

" Ron Paul starts the logic train in people's minds and leaves the writing on the wall unspoken. He leaves it unspoken so that he isn't considered too extreme and unelectable, which would take away the bully pulpit he has as a politician which enables him to push back the frontiers of ignorance. This is exactly what I would do if I were in his position."

Your perceptions of Ron Paul and the limitation of your cognitive dissonance does not infer that you are following the same intellectual path as Ron Paul. You, like every other video, are reading too much into Ron Paul's words. The man is a politician, different from others but still a politician. He survives on baby kisses, handshakes and money. If you support what he supports but go further then he does, he is not going to say "Woha, don't give me your money or your support." Has he done a lot to publicize liberty? Sure. I would never deny that but honestly, with his movement in shambles, and yes it is in shambles, two failed attempts at the presidency and a lot of supporters scratching their heads wondering what comes next, he is not "pushing back the frontiers of ignorance."

"Judge Andrew Napolitano does the same thing. He is also an anarchist but on "Freedom Watch" he, like Ron Paul, constantly touted following the non-anarchist Constitution because it is a step in the right direction. A participant at the 2010 Mises University said, “I think you’re an anarchist and you don’t know it yet” and he reponded, “Do you hear me denying anything?”:"

Yea I was at that Mises U and I was at that talk of his. I think I acting asked a question during his talk at the end. It would be funny to hear it again. Anyways, Napolitano was never the question in this discussion. You are sidetracking the issue. It has been about Ron Paul and what he is trying to achieve.

Re: Thoughts on Objectivism and Rand

vive la insurrection — Sun, 01 Jul 2012 06:18:17 GMT

how many times does this topic need to be brought up?

At least a little less, if you would not signal it out looking for fights in threads that have nothing to do with that topic

Re: Thoughts on Objectivism and Rand

Anarcho-libertarian — Sun, 01 Jul 2012 05:46:03 GMT

Andrew Cain:

Yes he does say personal income taxation is theft but he is fine with slapping excise and user taxes on corporations for funding the government.

As Ron Paul stated in an interview with Glenn Beck when asked what kinds of taxation he thought was OK, "ANYTHING is better than the income tax." So just like a smaller government is more just than a larger government, so are user and excise taxes more just than an income tax (within reason). For example, Ron Paul has explained that he supports user fees on visiting the national parks out west because if only 5% of the population visits the parks, why should 95% of the population be forced to pay for the 5%? Sound logic. And a good step in the anarchist direction.

Andrew Cain:

And supporting seccession does not make you an anarchist. You can be a secessionist and not a anarchist. Just because you support the joining or leaving of a state from a group of states does not infer that you are against the state.

If you support secession at a state level, then there is no logical barrier to allowing for a county to secede from a state, a neighborhood to secede from a county, and finally an individual from a neighborhood. Ron Paul starts the logic train in people's minds and leaves the writing on the wall unspoken. He leaves it unspoken so that he isn't considered too extreme and unelectable, which would take away the bully pulpit he has as a politician which enables him to push back the frontiers of ignorance. This is exactly what I would do if I were in his position.

Judge Andrew Napolitano does the same thing. He is also an anarchist but on "Freedom Watch" he, like Ron Paul, constantly touted following the non-anarchist Constitution because it is a step in the right direction. A participant at the 2010 Mises University said, “I think you’re an anarchist and you don’t know it yet” and he reponded, “Do you hear me denying anything?”:

(Please visit the site to view this media)

Re: Thoughts on Objectivism and Rand

vive la insurrection — Sun, 01 Jul 2012 05:24:41 GMT

She works in the same sense as the Marquis de Sade , ghetto rap, or reality TV works...

Showing how "second rate" and popular literature / art subverts, is more marketable, and social than what left wing / intellectual class flakes tend to like no matter how much they try to take over media outlets be it the internet, tv, the printing press, or the alphabet. Screw esotericism, give me dime store pulp novels and second rate, but entrtaining philosophizing...it is still more correct and literaly more valuble than the subsidized esoteric nonsense of bohemian academia.

Actually it would be kind of funny, and perhaps in a sense an unassailably strong position if we held up; Ayn Rand, de Sade, Jersey Shore, and Lil John as the high water artistic "symbols" for the market mentality.

If the bohemians/artists/intellectuals, a subset of our class (the bourgoise class), wants to get cutesy with nonsense fashionable language and play épater le bourgeois, let's have a bit of our own fun at our class brethren's expens and play épater la bohème. If nothing else it's fun to fuck around with their very own Platonic / conservative values.

Re: Thoughts on Objectivism and Rand

John Donohue — Sun, 01 Jul 2012 04:55:01 GMT

a) the Danneskjöld sequence is not a contradiction; proper government had already failed in the secenario of that book, Danneskjöld confiscated the gold of predators. And Rand put that sequence, a reverse Robing Hood, in for ironic effect. Rand is completely consistent on the scope. natuire and need for one, objective ultimate arbiter for the rectification of violations of rights.

b) no, pirates such as the OP and piratebay won't be stopped by literally the hand of Ayn Rand. Her ideas, and those of thinkers that share them about government, are the ones who can. These do not include anarchists.

Re: Thoughts on Objectivism and Rand

Anarcho-libertarian — Sun, 01 Jul 2012 04:45:21 GMT

PhilipK:

Ron Paul may in theory be an Anarchist but if his actions do not line up with his words then how much does that really matter.

His actions line up perfectly with his words. As an anarchist I want no state. And if I had to choose between a big state or a small state, I would choose a small state. Anything I do to work toward a small state is perfectly in line with those principles. "But you're advocating for a small state then!!!!" No, ultimately I'm not. Nor is Ron Paul.

PhilipK:

Would John Galt seek to change the nation through playing the games set up by parasites of society?

So you disagree with the tactic that Ron Paul is taking to abolish the State. Fine. Maybe your tactic is a better one to use on the battlefield in the arena of ideas. But just because Ron Paul uses a worthless tactic in your eyes doesn't mean he is on the other team.

Re: Thoughts on Objectivism and Rand

Andrew Cain — Sun, 01 Jul 2012 01:12:02 GMT

"Well it wouldn't be paid for with taxation since Dr. Paul said point blank on CNN that taxation is theft. Therefore it would only be supported with voluntary donations if it were to exist. And he supports secession so put those two points together and you have anarchy. I'm for a small, constitutionally limited government along with Ron Paul when compared with the behemoth we have today. We would go much further when we got there, but Ron Paul and I will cross that bridge when we get to it"

Yes he does say personal income taxation is theft but he is fine with slapping excise and user taxes on corporations for funding the government. And supporting seccession does not make you an anarchist. You can be a secessionist and not a anarchist. Just because you support the joining or leaving of a state from a group of states does not infer that you are against the state. I have seen all the videos saying Ron Paul is a voluntarist or an anarchist. They take sentence quotes from his works and try to infer more meaning out of them then is truly there. He is for a republic, he is for a constitutionally limited government that respects the rights of people but he will never go further then that. He will not call for the end of the state, just an limiting. So stop the nonsense.

Re: Thoughts on Objectivism and Rand

PhilipK — Sat, 30 Jun 2012 18:56:39 GMT

@Anarcho-libertarian Ron Paul may in theory be an Anarchist but if his actions do not line up with his words then how much does that really matter.

Would John Galt seek to change the nation through playing the games set up by parasites of society?

Even if Ayn Rand isn't a complete Anarcho-Capitalist her character John Galt's plan is certainly more Anarcho-Capitalist then Ron Paul's. Ron Paul's solution is collectivist by nature and uses a collectivist system to implement it. Individuals have much higher chances of finding and creating freedom in their own lives then achieving some golden age of freedom created by over taking the voting system.

For example the small town where a cop sees people breaking an arbituary law but looks away in order to maintain freedom in the city. Two people who engage in barter or under the table exchanges of good and services. These examples create small bubbles of freedom for individuals and things like this are happening all the time around the world.

When you put effort into an election you don't create these small bubbles, rather you put all your eggs into one basket of having someone get elected.

"It's not the people who vote that count. It's the people who count the votes." (Josef Stalin)