Are you a statist or anarcho-capitalist?

[Conza88]

:D

[nullvalu]

I chose something else, I'm a monarchist.. Long live the King!! :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[asimplegirl]

OH MY GOD, I don't know...

all these technical names...

What do they mean?

[Conza88]

I chose something else, I'm a monarchist.. Long live the King!! :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

It's actually better than democracy! :D In all seriousness, it is. :eek:


OH MY GOD, I don't know...

all these technical names...

What do they mean?

Haha.. no pressure, its not a test. :)

[asimplegirl]

Well, what are they?

[M House]

Seriously, I love these choices anarcho-capitalist=what anarachy plus capitalism? It's like political spliced economical to confuse anyone what the cause means exactly. Statist you mean like government that's pretty damn vague.

[heavenlyboy34]

I like anarcho capitalists, but don't know enough about it to call myself one yet. :eek:

[ARealConservative]

I'm a statist.

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm a statist.

:p:( You'll get better eventually. ;)

[JeNNiF00F00]

I believe I am a minarchist.

[wizardwatson]

OH MY GOD, I don't know...

all these technical names...

What do they mean?

Well labels are used to make it more clear who you are supposed to argue and have conflict with.

No one really calls themselves a statist, it's more of a derogatory term used by libertarians to refer to those who give justification for the State (government) using coercive force. So the person (1 at the time of this writing) that chose "Statist" is probably being facetious.

Anarcho-Capitalists just means a person who only believes in voluntary forms of government, but does believe in a universal law system based on property rights.

[Fox McCloud]

I think "limited government Constitutionalist" fits me pretty well.

[Imperial]

I generally trend toward minarchist, but the few notable exceptions I make makes it to the point that I can't call myself a total minarchist. So I voted statism.

All government is force is something that must be made aware to all. The question then becomes is force justified?

[Feenix566]

I'm a capitalist, but not an anarcho-capitalist. The government has a role to play in enforcing property rights. To the extent to which the government enforces property rights, society flourishes. To the extent to which they ignore them, society fails.

A lot of people look at situations where the state has been willfully ignorant of property rights, such as the Soviet Union, communist China, or the Democratic party platform. In these situations, the state's actions deteriorate the economy of the society. From this, people draw the conclusion that state action causes economic deterioration. The truth is that state action only does this when it ignores property rights. There's good state action and bad state action. State action to preserve property rights is a necessary and good aspect of a prosperous society.

[ARealConservative]

:p:( You'll get better eventually. ;)

one day you might drop the charade and stop pretending to be better then others.

[Kludge]

one day you might drop the charade and stop pretending to be better then others.

:D

(I wasn't aware there was anything between "statist" and "anarcho-capitalist" for ancaps)

[heavenlyboy34]

one day you might drop the charade and stop pretending to be better then others.

Who's pretending? :D Surely not I! Most people are better than others at SOMETHING or another...I just happen to enjoy flaunting all the things I'm better at. ;):)

[ARealConservative]

Who's pretending? :D Surely not I! Most people are better than others at SOMETHING or another...I just happen to enjoy flaunting all the things I'm better at. ;):)

That's fine. I'm better at recognizing workable ideology.

Government doesn't create freedoms, and it certainly won't protect freedoms either if people don't have a government they wish to protect and preserve.

So damn right I'm a statist. Communities can create laws that you might not like. If you don't like it, leave it or work to change it.

Libertarianism is nice to think about, but it is not an enforceable ideology, which is why people like me and Ron Paul are constitutionalists (and statists)

[Andrew Ryan]

Libertarian

[danberkeley]

Like OMG!!! WTF!!! LOL!!! Anarcho-capitalist!! LOL!! WTF!!! :D

[ARealConservative]

Libertarian

A political party is statist by nature....welcome to the club

[mediahasyou]

voluntaryist: http://voluntaryist.com/

[Andrew-Austin]

I'm a "get the government out of my life and economy" -ist.

[krazy kaju]

Apparently there are a lot of anarcho-syndicalists, because apparently only two people believe in the existence of the state...

[jack555]

That's fine. I'm better at recognizing workable ideology.

Government doesn't create freedoms, and it certainly won't protect freedoms either if people don't have a government they wish to protect and preserve.

So damn right I'm a statist. Communities can create laws that you might not like. If you don't like it, leave it or work to change it.

Libertarianism is nice to think about, but it is not an enforceable ideology, which is why people like me and Ron Paul are constitutionalists (and statists)


LOL I think you are confusing libertarianism with anarcho-capitalism. Ron Paul pretty much is a libertarian noob cake (just not by name).

[jack555]

A political party is statist by nature....welcome to the club


not according to wikipedia.

Wikipedia states that a statist wants a large central government. Thats like the opposite of libertarian.

[heavenlyboy34]

LOL I think you are confusing libertarianism with anarcho-capitalism. Ron Paul pretty much is a libertarian noob cake (just not by name).

I don't think he said that...:confused: He now calls himself "conservative", but he's a lifetime member of the LP. Sneaky guy, that RP! ;)

[Andrew-Austin]

Can you guys stop being so obsessed with terminology, its kinda weird.

[jack555]

I don't think he said that...:confused: He now calls himself "conservative", but he's a lifetime member of the LP. Sneaky guy, that RP! ;)

He's obviously extremely confused about what libertarianism is though perhaps you are right and he was not confusingit with anarcho-capitalism (though thats the feeling I got from his post).

[Conza88]

lmao... didn't think this would get as many comments.

Basically, it was a demonstration how terminology can somewhat affect peoples choices. (F U FRANK!) The choice was largely the exact same as:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=175363

And was more of a piss take than anything... :)

[mediahasyou]

lmao... didn't think this would get as many comments.

Basically, it was a demonstration how terminology can somewhat affect peoples choices. (F U FRANK!) The choice was largely the exact same as:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=175363

And was more of a piss take than anything... :)

People like to give their opinions. :)

[heavenlyboy34]

Can you guys stop being so obsessed with terminology, its kinda weird.

Nope! I luv linguistics...can ya tell? :D;)

[ARealConservative]

not according to wikipedia.

Wikipedia states that a statist wants a large central government. Thats like the opposite of libertarian.

statist has taken on a life of its own. It's overuse by born again libertarians with a superiority complex has made it the quickest way to get people to tune out anything being said by them.

[heavenlyboy34]

statist has taken on a life of its own. It's overuse by born again libertarians with a superiority complex has made it the quickest way to get people to tune out anything being said by them.

sad, but probably true. :(

[nickcoons]

That's fine. I'm better at recognizing workable ideology.

The only workable ideology is the one we have right now. Any other ideology that we institute legislatively (communism, constitutionalism, libertarianisn, etc) will not work. Government is a reflection of people:


The average family has massive credit card debt. The federal government has massive debt.
The average person tries to shift responsibility to others. The federal government does not accept responsibility for its actions.


I could probably go on.

The form of government will change when we change the minds of the governed. That being the case, any ideology is "workable" in the sense that it can be implemented peacefully (some ideologies, like communism and socialism, are not sustainable though). Since libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism is the only ideology based on voluntary interactions between individuals, it is the ideal and most just system. Implementing it and making it sustainable is a matter of convincing enough people that it is, and the form of government will take shape around it.

[wizardwatson]

The only workable ideology is the one we have right now. Any other ideology that we institute legislatively (communism, constitutionalism, libertarianisn, etc) will not work. Government is a reflection of people:


The average family has massive credit card debt. The federal government has massive debt.
The average person tries to shift responsibility to others. The federal government does not accept responsibility for its actions.


I could probably go on.

The form of government will change when we change the minds of the governed. That being the case, any ideology is "workable" in the sense that it can be implemented peacefully (some ideologies, like communism and socialism, are not sustainable though). Since libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism is the only ideology based on voluntary interactions between individuals, it is the ideal and most just system. Implementing it and making it sustainable is a matter of convincing enough people that it is, and the form of government will take shape around it.

I believe this to an extent, but I don't believe it's the "peoples minds" that are forming the government. I think the economic system is the primary determinant factor. As long as we have the unsolved problems we have in economics and monetary theory, I don't think we'll see radical change on the political landscape.

People's politics is mostly an outgrowth of their economic condition. Politics is local because economics is local. Changing the way we interact economically is the primary method of affecting other areas of the political economy.

And sadly, there are no individualist micro-economic theories. All the good theories are negative theories about what collective entities should not do. There are good theories concerning ethics from the perspective of the individual as to what you should or should not do, but not concerning economics.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

:D

I am self-evidently and unalienably an American.

[ARealConservative]

The only workable ideology is the one we have right now. Any other ideology that we institute legislatively (communism, constitutionalism, libertarianisn, etc) will not work. Government is a reflection of people:


The average family has massive credit card debt. The federal government has massive debt.
The average person tries to shift responsibility to others. The federal government does not accept responsibility for its actions.


I could probably go on.

The form of government will change when we change the minds of the governed. That being the case, any ideology is "workable" in the sense that it can be implemented peacefully (some ideologies, like communism and socialism, are not sustainable though). Since libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism is the only ideology based on voluntary interactions between individuals, it is the ideal and most just system. Implementing it and making it sustainable is a matter of convincing enough people that it is, and the form of government will take shape around it.



Good post and I agree with the intent, but we will most defiitely disagree on the application.

Let's use a real world example. The libertarian view of taxation is it is theft and wrong. This is a position that would be considered extreme at any point in our nations history. We once took steps to guard against the abuse of direct taxation, but never made the concept taboo outright.

Today the more workable idealogy is that minority rights need protection from government and thus, a direct taxation applied at higher rates for minorities is wrong. This universal concept by people has allowed us to bring the top tax rates down from a high of 94% to under 35% today, but we are nowhere closer to convincing people that tax is theft and is always wrong. It simply isn't a workable concept for humanity and goals based on that end game are destined to fail.

[heavenlyboy34]

Good post and I agree with the intent, but we will most defiitely disagree on the application.

Let's use a real world example. The libertarian view of taxation is it is theft and wrong. This is a position that would be considered extreme at any point in our nations history. We once took steps to guard against the abuse of direct taxation, but never made the concept taboo outright.

Today the more workable idealogy is that minority rights need protection from government and thus, a direct taxation applied at higher rates for minorities is wrong. This universal concept by people has allowed us to bring the top tax rates down from a high of 94% to under 35% today, but we are nowhere closer to convincing people that tax is theft and is always wrong. It simply isn't a workable concept for humanity and goals based on that end game are destined to fail.

I don't see how this is more workable than the libertarian ideal. Like all central planning, it will eventually cause resentment and strife among individuals. :p (note how so many are quick to blame "the rich" or "the poor" during "economic downturns")

[Austin]

I like anarcho capitalists, but don't know enough about it to call myself one yet. :eek:

this

[priest_of_syrinx]

Apparently there are a lot of anarcho-syndicalists, because apparently only two people believe in the existence of the state...

No kidding. I voted statist because I still believe there should be government to protect the rights to life, liberty, and property of the people.

[ARealConservative]

I don't see how this is more workable than the libertarian ideal. Like all central planning, it will eventually cause resentment and strife among individuals. :p (note how so many are quick to blame "the rich" or "the poor" during "economic downturns")

less then 1/10th of 1% of the population has agreed at any point in our nations history on the libertarian view of taxation. (a made up stat to demonstrate how outside the box we are on this poisition)

It's an area that I do agree with libertarianism, but our position is viewed as so extreme that the pursuit of that position is futile.

[constituent]

:D

TW bait?

[heavenlyboy34]

less then 1/10th of 1% of the population has agreed at any point in our nations history on the libertarian view of taxation. (a made up stat to demonstrate how outside the box we are on this poisition)

It's an area that I do agree with libertarianism, but our position is viewed as so extreme that the pursuit of that position is futile.

Are you familiar with the Boston Tea Party? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party Extreme times call for extreme measures. ;)

[Kludge]

Extreme times call for extreme measures.

Fighting tyranny with tyranny only creates more tyranny.

[heavenlyboy34]

Fighting tyranny with tyranny only creates more tyranny.

Who said anything about using tyranny to fight tyranny? Or is that just another one of your favorite fallacies for trolling threads? :confused::eek:

[Kludge]

Who said anything about using tyranny to fight tyranny? Or is that just another one of your favorite fallacies for trolling threads? :confused::eek:

The dumping of tea was an arrogant and unjustifiable violation of property rights. Two wrongs don't make a right, and I'm not a fan of Machiavelli.

[ARealConservative]

Are you familiar with the Boston Tea Party? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party Extreme times call for extreme measures. ;)

Yes I am.

Are you aware that the issue was not taxation , but that a far off government that we had no voice in was the entity levying the tax?

[mediahasyou]

Yes I am.

Are you aware that the issue was not taxation , but that a far off government that we had no voice in was the entity levying the tax?

The issue was taxation. That is why this country did not have any direct taxation for much of its early history. The people wouldn't stand for it.

[ARealConservative]

The issue was taxation. That is why this country did not have any direct taxation for much of its early history. The people wouldn't stand for it.

States had direct taxation long before the constitution was amended to allow the federal government to levy direct taxes. The big difference is people were free to leave one state and take up citizenship in another state which created a check against abuse of direct taxation.

To further show the folly of this example though, expenditure taxes such as tax on tea is not an example of direct taxation anyway.

[heavenlyboy34]

Yes I am.

Are you aware that the issue was not taxation , but that a far off government that we had no voice in was the entity levying the tax?

yes I was. :)

[ARealConservative]

yes I was. :)

good, then you understand why your use of the Boston Tea Party really had nothing to do with my position. We still don't like foreign entities placing a tax on us today.

[nodope0695]

I am a Conservative, with libertarian leanings. I see no distinction in the parties as they exist today. The "leaders" of the GOP, and the Democrats are cut of the same clothe. They may label themselves "conservative" or "liberal", but they are no different when it comes to how they want this country to operate. They are in it for themselves, for power, for money. To them, we are worms. We mean nothing to them. Just take the bailout for example. The greatest theft in the history of the world done right under our noses - even after we protested it - and yet we do nothing!

Anarchy is fundamentally wrong, even capitalistic anarchy. The rights of the individual must be protected. In anarchy, nothing is protected. People are innately sheep. They want a leader. Out of the lawless masses would arise a leader, and bet your bottom dollar he'd not be ambivalent, and concerned with individual rights. It would be more like what we see in Africa today. Lawless groups led by warlords with the sole purpose of gaining power for power's sake.

There must be rule of law (not of man). For that to happen there must be some body mandated to secure and enforce that law. Our form of government as created by the founders is a work of art when its followed per the constitution. In a representative republic, the individual and his property are protected. The law of the land is respected and enforced to the betterment of all.

Sadly, this is not done....from the very beginning, our freedom came under attack by men seeking power and money. We the people have let it come to this. We elected out representatives and our leaders - effectively delegating our authority to them - and we bear the responsibility for what has come of our nation. Who has the real power? We do! Unfortunately, we as a people, have ceded our authority to men and women who are essentially scum, thieves, and evil. But its our fault.

Oh, as a note: Nothing in the Constitution affords protection to corporations, businesses, or any group besides the individual. Even the the guarantee to the states of a republican form of government is a protection ultimately for the individual.

[Conza88]

No kidding. I voted statist because I still believe there should be government to protect the rights to life, liberty, and property of the people.

How's that going for you? :)

"In TEOL Rothbard points out that the minimal government advocates have yet to come up with a cogent theory of taxation."

Care to start?

Since your government would violate property (Taxation = theft) to exist, would it not?

:)

[The_Orlonater]

How's that going for you? :)

"In TEOL Rothbard points out that the minimal government advocates have yet to come up with a cogent theory of taxation."

Care to start?

Since your government would violate property (Taxation = theft) to exist, would it not?

:)

Most people I know wouldn't consider a really small tax for roads and courts wouldn't consider it a violation.

Just adding an idea. I can't choose between anarchism or really small minarchism.

[AggieforPaul]

I consider myself a Constitutional Minarchist.

[nickcoons]

I believe this to an extent, but I don't believe it's the "peoples minds" that are forming the government.

I wasn't implying that government was created by the collective telepathic abilities of the country :).


Good post and I agree with the intent, but we will most defiitely disagree on the application.

Let's use a real world example. The libertarian view of taxation is it is theft and wrong. This is a position that would be considered extreme at any point in our nations history. We once took steps to guard against the abuse of direct taxation, but never made the concept taboo outright.

Today the more workable idealogy is that minority rights need protection from government and thus, a direct taxation applied at higher rates for minorities is wrong. This universal concept by people has allowed us to bring the top tax rates down from a high of 94% to under 35% today, but we are nowhere closer to convincing people that tax is theft and is always wrong. It simply isn't a workable concept for humanity and goals based on that end game are destined to fail.

For most of our nation's history, and for most of the history of civilization for that matter, we accepted the concept of slavery, that one person could own another. A mere 150 years ago, we turned from that and today we reject it outright. To suggest that our views on taxation will never change would be ignoring this massive historical event (as much as I've simplified it).

Of course, we've tried the conservative constitutional approach, and that didn't work. So if your claim is that libertarianism can't work theoretically, it should carry some weight that constitutionalism was tried and didn't sustain. I don't agree with this line of reasoning however, just pointing out that you shouldn't put too much weight on your current premises because I don't think they're correct.


I don't see how this is more workable than the libertarian ideal. Like all central planning, it will eventually cause resentment and strife among individuals. :p (note how so many are quick to blame "the rich" or "the poor" during "economic downturns")

It's "workable" in the sense that it can and does exist, but I don't mean to say that it's sustainable. Legislation itself is not the cause, it is the effect. The cause is the collective mixed sentiment of the governed. Not a libertarian nor a socialist government will come by legislation as the cause, it will come by legislation as the effect.

I'm frequently criticized for running for Congress, especially as a Libertarian, because I'm often told that I can't win. But even if by some event I was elected as the first Libertarian to Congress, I won't change the country by drafting legislation. The reason I'm running is because it gives me a soapbox to stand on so I can educate people, the way Ron Paul did (but probably more limited to my district) when he ran for President and didn't win, but converted many in the process.

[BuddyRey]

I'm an Anarcho-Capitalist.

I used to be a Minarchist, but then I ran out of excuses.

[ARealConservative]

For most of our nation's history, and for most of the history of civilization for that matter, we accepted the concept of slavery, that one person could own another.

When 94% of your wages are taken by the state, just how far have we gone in the rejection of slavery? It is a bit closer to servitude, but the principle is very much the same.

[nickcoons]

When 94% of your wages are taken by the state, just how far have we gone in the rejection of slavery? It is a bit closer to servitude, but the principle is very much the same.

Who gives up 94% of their wages to the state? But that aside...

In practical terms, the principle is the same. But people's beliefs about one person outright owning another has changed drastically in 150 years. It is strong evidence that the mindset of much of the world can change, and it must change in order to implement "better" government, or a sustainable society with no government.

[ARealConservative]

Who gives up 94% of their wages to the state? But that aside...

In practical terms, the principle is the same. But people's beliefs about one person outright owning another has changed drastically in 150 years. It is strong evidence that the mindset of much of the world can change, and it must change in order to implement "better" government, or a sustainable society with no government.

that was the top marginal rate for quite a while. It was lowered because they figured out you can increase revenue to the state with a lower rate (laffer curve), not because that level of servitude is wrong.

[nickcoons]

that was the top marginal rate for quite a while.

Yes, it was. I thought we were talking about today :).


It was lowered because they figured out you can increase revenue to the state with a lower rate (laffer curve), not because that level of servitude is wrong.

Taxation is theft, not slavery. It's equally wrong, but not the same thing.

[Kludge]

Taxation is theft, not slavery. It's equally wrong, but not the same thing.

If they claim ownership over that which you already earned and will earn with your labor, aren't they essentially claiming ownership over you?

(Ownership of property implies ownership of labor implies ownership of person)

[nickcoons]

If they claim ownership over that which you already earned and will earn with your labor, aren't they essentially claiming ownership over you?

(Ownership of property implies ownership of labor implies ownership of person)

The distinction between theft, slavery, and murder are not differences in principle, but in tense. Theft is the taking of someone's past, slavery is the taking of someone's present, and murder is the taking of someone's future.

The acceptance that slavery-proper is wrong is a relatively new idea, and one that takes us in the right direction.