Minarchy and Anarcho-Capitalism are compatible ideologies

[Xenophage]

The infighting between anarcho-capitalists and minarchists has been one of the primary reasons the liberty movement has failed to congeal. The truth is, they are not at odds with one another. In fact, any minarchist and any anarcho-capitalist tend to have the same ultimate goal in mind: the least amount of government possible that is consistent with individual freedom. Where we differ is in what we consider "consistent with individual freedom." Minarchists take the government to what they consider a bare-minimum to preserve individual freedom, and anarcho-capitalists take the government away from the equation entirely as an unnecessary evil.

In practical terms we are more closely related ideologically than the human genome is to that of the chimpanzee. In reality, the ideal society envisioned by either anarcho-capitalism or minarchy becomes essentially the same: a society of maximal individual liberty, completely unfettered capitalism, and ultimate progress for the human species.

Minarchists are not statists and anarcho-capitalists are not collectivists. We all know this, but we throw these derogatory terms around like a kindergartner would throw around the word 'poopface,' because we all agree they are evil ideologies! Simply further reason we are all actually friends.

So, let's get the F along and quit insulting each other.

[susano]

Intellectual masturbation

Read the founders

[Kraig]

I don't think it is a primary reason for failure, but you are right, we are on the same side and should get along. Friendly discussion to flesh out differing views isn't a bad thing though, we should all do our best to keep it friendly.

[Xenophage]

When I see threads like "anarcho-capitalists cause tyranny" and "objectivists like to rape small children" and "old-right conservatives like to conserve the teeth of their mass murder victims" it makes me wonder how friendly we're being.

[Kraig]

When I see threads like "anarcho-capitalists cause tyranny" and "objectivists like to rape small children" and "old-right conservatives like to conserve the teeth of their mass murder victims" it makes me wonder how friendly we're being.

Well I noticed the OP of that thread today got banned, I wonder if that was why lol

[Truth Warrior]

For clarification purposes, how little is "min"? Or what is the "min" maximum? Who gets to decide?

[Xenophage]

Wouldn't that depend on who you asked?

Are you asking me personally?

You know my position already. :P

I'd rather not debate that issue in this thread.

[Truth Warrior]

Wouldn't that depend on who you asked?

Are you asking me personally?

You know my position already. :P

I'd rather not debate that issue in this thread. Yes, you personally. :rolleyes: Quantity, numeric, number? You know, HOW MUCH is "min"?

[Xenophage]

Yes, you personally. :rolleyes: Quantity, numeric, number? You know HOW MUCH is "min"?

In mathematics, the minimum is the smallest value that a given function produces across its entire domain or within any given range.

A function has a local minimum point at x(to the n), if f(x(to the n)) ≤ f(x) when |x − x(to the n)| < ε. The value of the function at this point is called minimum of the function.

On a graph of a function, its local minima will look like the bottoms of valleys.

[susano]

The Philosophy of Liberty is such a beautifully done piece because it's clear, concise, and free of any intellecual wranglings that obscure the main point. My freedom to swing extends just short of your nose, and vise versa, and don't steal my shit. Ron Paul says, "Freedom is popular". It is also a simple thing, like all spiritual truths.

[LibertyEagle]

Well I noticed the OP of that thread today got banned, I wonder if that was why lol

No, because if we did that, there are a whole lot of others that would also have to go.

He was only banned for 1 day.

[Truth Warrior]

In mathematics, the minimum is the smallest value that a given function produces across its entire domain or within any given range.

A function has a local minimum point at x(to the n), if f(x(to the n)) ≤ f(x) when |x − x(to the n)| < ε. The value of the function at this point is called minimum of the function.

On a graph of a function, its local minima will look like the bottoms of valleys. Correct! So, THE ANSWER for EVERYONE is WHAT? :rolleyes: 0 .................................................. ... googolplex?

[Xenophage]

Correct! So, THE ANSWER for EVERYONE is WHAT? :rolleyes: 0 .................................................. ... googolplex?

You are ignoring the function. If the function includes all real numbers, you are correct. Specifically the function we are talking about would look something more like this:

Government = f(x)
Liberty = f(y)

min(f(x)) = max(f(y))

At some point the two functions would intersect, theoretically. Whether or not they intersect at zero is debatable.

[Truth Warrior]

You are ignoring the function. If the function includes all real numbers, you are correct. Specifically the function we are talking about would look something more like this:

Government = f(x)
Liberty = f(y)

min(f(x)) = max(f(y))

At some point the two functions would intersect, theoretically. Whether or not they intersect at zero is debatable.

Thanks! :) HOW MUCH "ARCHY" IS "MINARCHY"? ( I'm kinda beginning to think that YOU JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. :( ;) )

http://www.reference.com/search?q=Minarchy (http://www.reference.com/search?q=Minarchy)

[Kraig]

No, because if we did that, there are a whole lot of others that would also have to go.

He was only banned for 1 day.

Well I'm glad it's not a lifelong ban or something equally ridiculous.

[heavenlyboy34]

The infighting between anarcho-capitalists and minarchists has been one of the primary reasons the liberty movement has failed to congeal. The truth is, they are not at odds with one another. In fact, any minarchist and any anarcho-capitalist tend to have the same ultimate goal in mind: the least amount of government possible that is consistent with individual freedom. Where we differ is in what we consider "consistent with individual freedom." Minarchists take the government to what they consider a bare-minimum to preserve individual freedom, and anarcho-capitalists take the government away from the equation entirely as an unnecessary evil.

In practical terms we are more closely related ideologically than the human genome is to that of the chimpanzee. In reality, the ideal society envisioned by either anarcho-capitalism or minarchy becomes essentially the same: a society of maximal individual liberty, completely unfettered capitalism, and ultimate progress for the human species.

Minarchists are not statists and anarcho-capitalists are not collectivists. We all know this, but we throw these derogatory terms around like a kindergartner would throw around the word 'poopface,' because we all agree they are evil ideologies! Simply further reason we are all actually friends.

So, let's get the F along and quit insulting each other.

To the extent that you don't show aggression towards me, I'm willing to get along with ya. Let's hug and make up. :):cool: ~hugs~

[sailor]

All anarchists would prefer a minarchy to the status quo.

The problem is that many minarchists on the other hand would seemingly prefer the status quo to anarcho-capitalism.

[Truth Warrior]

All anarchists would prefer a minarchy to the status quo.

The problem is that many minarchists on the other hand prefer status quo to anarcho-capitalism.

How much "archy" is "minarchy"? Isn't "min" short for "minimum"? How much slavery is minslavery? How much cancer is mincancer? How much debt is mindebt? How much violence is minviolence? ETC.

[Kraig]

How much "archy" is "minarchy"? Isn't "min" short for "minimum"? How much slavery is minslavery? How much cancer is mincancer? ETC.

haha

[sailor]

How much "archy" is "minarchy"? Isn't "min" short for "minimum"?

Technically you`re correct. We should really be using the term nighwatchman state rather than minarchy.

[danberkeley]

If we can have a free market in pizza, why cant we have a free market in defense?

[Truth Warrior]

Technically you`re correct. We should really be using the term nighwatchman state rather than minarchy. Screw technically, I'm asking about REALITY. :rolleyes: How much good is mingood? How much evil is minevil?

[sailor]

If we can have a free market in pizza, why cant we have a free market in defense?

Because the defense is more important so we must make sure it is done inefficiently. :D

[Kraig]

Because the defense is more important so we must make sure it is done inefficiently. :D

You made me "lol"

[Xenophage]

Thanks! :) HOW MUCH "ARCHY" IS "MINARCHY"? ( I'm kinda beginning to think that YOU JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. :( ;) )

http://www.reference.com/search?q=Minarchy (http://www.reference.com/search?q=Minarchy)

No. YOU don't know what you're talking about.

You're trying to get me to say MINarchy is NO government. You're fucking wrong.

MINIMUM implies criteria. You started out asking what it meant mathematically, jackass, so I answered you. You could ask, "what's the minimum POSSIBLE," or "What's the minimum considering X random criteria." As a MINarchist, The MINIMUM government that allows MAXIMUM individual liberty does not mean NO government. I believe that when you get to NO government, individual liberty is compromised.

I don't give a shit if you agree, I don't want to debate it AGAIN. Its irrelevant to my post. Thanks for derailing.

[Truth Warrior]

No. YOU don't know what you're talking about.

You're trying to get me to say MINarchy is NO government. You're fucking wrong.

MINIMUM implies criteria. You started out asking what it meant mathematically, jackass, so I answered you. You could ask, "what's the minimum POSSIBLE," or "What's the minimum considering X random criteria." As a MINarchist, The MINIMUM government that allows MAXIMUM individual liberty does not mean NO government. I believe that when you get to NO government, individual liberty is compromised.

I don't give a shit if you agree, I don't want to debate it AGAIN. Its irrelevant to my post. Thanks for derailing. That's just screwy, OBJECTIVELY. :rolleyes:

ROCKET SCIENCE 101: Minarchy: The government is ~20 times too big.<IMHO> DUH!!!

A real toughy wasn't it? :rolleyes:

[Conza88]

Again, the minarchists / objectivists fail.

It has nothing to do with anarcho-capitalism vs minarchism, at least for me. When you brain dead fck's realise this, even though I've said it a thousand times, then that'd be great...


I have an amazing amount of respect for the past Minarchists / limited government folk. They TRULY hated the State, and saw it for what it was - a pack of thieves.

Do You Hate the State? by Murray N. Rothbard (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard75.html)

It's not about minarchism (limited govt) vs anarcho capitalism. It's about radicalism vs conservatism. It's about gradualism vs abolition.

I'd take a Frederic Bastiat over a utilitarian David Friedman (ancap) ANY day.


Furthermore, in contrast to what seems to be true nowadays, you don’t have to be an anarchist to be radical in our sense, just as you can be an anarchist while missing the radical spark. I can think of hardly a single limited governmentalist of the present day who is radical – a truly amazing phenomenon, when we think of our classical liberal forbears who were genuinely radical, who hated statism and the States of their day with a beautifully integrated passion: the Levellers, Patrick Henry, Tom Paine, Joseph Priestley, the Jacksonians, Richard Cobden, and on and on, a veritable roll call of the greats of the past. Tom Paine’s radical hatred of the State and statism was and is far more important to the cause of liberty than the fact that he never crossed the divide between laissez-faire and anarchism.

And closer to our own day, such early influences on me as Albert Jay Nock, H. L. Mencken, and Frank Chodorov were magnificently and superbly radical. Hatred of "Our Enemy, the State" (Nock’s title) and all of its works shone through all of their writings like a beacon star. So what if they never quite made it all the way to explicit anarchism? Far better one Albert Nock than a hundred anarcho-capitalists who are all too comfortable with the existing status quo.

Tell me this... you're in the Liberty movement & you DESPISE the State, they are a band of criminals writ large. They are destroying the world as we know. You believe they are war criminals and should be brought to justice....

And then, someone else from the Liberty movement - comes to their defence... You are defending the scum of the earth. And you call yourself Liberty lovers? :confused: It's indirect, but it's still a defense and an attempt to justify their existence.

I never see any hatred towards the State from most minarchists, just people trying to defend it. How about those people stfu? That might help? :)

[Truth Warrior]

Again, the minarchists / objectivists fail.

It has nothing to do with anarcho-capitalism vs minarchism, at least for me. When you brain dead fck's realise this, even though I've said it a thousand times, then that'd be great...



Tell me this... you're in the Liberty movement & you DESPISE the State, they are a band of criminals writ large. They are destroying the world as we know. You believe they are war criminals and should be brought to justice....

And then, someone else from the Liberty movement - comes to their defence... You are defending the scum of the earth. And you call yourself Liberty lovers? :confused: It's indirect, but it's still a defense and an attempt to justify their existence.

I never see any hatred towards the State from most minarchists, just people trying to defend it. How about those people stfu? That might help? :)

I think the "minarchists" ( so called ) are just not prepared to take the heat for the position of ABOLISHING the evil frickin' barbaric government. As such, it's just another lame ( pragmatic :rolleyes: ) cowards cop-out position.<IMHO> Oh yeah, we're in favor of "limited government". :p


"It's very hard to fight an enemy that maintains an outpost in your mind."

[Conza88]

I can't help but think, if these people came after Rothbard, or Rothbard with all his knowledge was around then... that all those mentioned; probably would have been / become anarcho-capitalists.


When we think of our classical liberal forbears who were genuinely radical, who hated statism and the States of their day with a beautifully integrated passion: the Levellers, Patrick Henry, Tom Paine, Joseph Priestley, the Jacksonians, Richard Cobden, and on and on, a veritable roll call of the greats of the past. Tom Paine’s radical hatred of the State and statism was and is far more important to the cause of liberty than the fact that he never crossed the divide between laissez-faire and anarchism.

And closer to our own day, such early influences on me as Albert Jay Nock, H. L. Mencken, and Frank Chodorov were magnificently and superbly radical. Hatred of "Our Enemy, the State" (Nock’s title) and all of its works shone through all of their writings like a beacon star. So what if they never quite made it all the way to explicit anarchism? Far better one Albert Nock than a hundred anarcho-capitalists who are all too comfortable with the existing status quo.

[danberkeley]

If we can have a free market in ball-point pens, why cant we have a free market in courts?

[Conza88]

If they have a monopoly on money and that's working so well with the FED and all... why can't they also have a monopoly on violence and justice?

Wait... ohhh :eek:! They do!

[Xenophage]

That's just screwy, OBJECTIVELY. :rolleyes:

ROCKET SCIENCE 101: Minarchy: The government is ~20 times too big.<IMHO> DUH!!!

A real toughy wasn't it? :rolleyes:

LOL! 20 times? REALLY?

20 times what? Don't be an idiot.

[Xenophage]

Are you anarchists just stuck in permanent, "let's antagonize people" mode? IS that the only way you can operate?

You're calling minarchists, and me by extension, morally cowardly. You consistently mock me whenever I post on this topic, even when I extend a hand of friendship. I never felt any hatred or disrespect toward you until you started in with your childish bullshit.

The whole point of the post was to stop bickering about this shit. But frankly, fuck you.

[Truth Warrior]

LOL! 20 times? REALLY?

20 times what? Don't be an idiot. I'm not the one that asked "Really?" and 20 times what. DUH!!!

[Xenophage]

I'm not the one that asked "Really?" and 20 times what. DUH!!!

You asked for a quantitative measurement of how big the government is and provided no criteria or units of measure. Doesn't get more idiotic than that.

[Truth Warrior]

You asked for a quantitative measurement of how big the government is and provided no criteria or units of measure. Doesn't get more idiotic than that. The question was how "min" is "min"? And apparently you do. :(

[Xenophage]

The question was how "min" is "min"? And apparently you do. :(

Onoz! I do!?

You inability to comprehend this conversation confounds me.

[danberkeley]

Can a private security company exist is a minarchy?

[Young Paleocon]

Can a private security company exist is a minarchy?

Hell they exist in maxarchy.....Blackwater

[Truth Warrior]

Hell they exist in maxarchy.....Blackwater Check your "Yellow Pages" under "Security". ;)

[danberkeley]

Hell they exist in maxarchy.....Blackwater

With that said, what's the point of having the military or the police, if peeple will be able to have private security?

[heavenlyboy34]

Are you anarchists just stuck in permanent, "let's antagonize people" mode? IS that the only way you can operate?

You're calling minarchists, and me by extension, morally cowardly. You consistently mock me whenever I post on this topic, even when I extend a hand of friendship. I never felt any hatred or disrespect toward you until you started in with your childish bullshit.

The whole point of the post was to stop bickering about this shit. But frankly, fuck you.

No, but "archists" are in permanent "let's antagonize non-archists" mode by virtue of their policies. ;) I am trying to defend myself from the statists/archists and THEIR "childish bullshit". :cool:

[Xenophage]

No, but "archists" are in permanent "let's antagonize non-archists" mode by virtue of their policies. ;) I am trying to defend myself from the statists/archists and THEIR "childish bullshit". :cool:

What policy? I rarely vote, and if I do, its to vote against government. Tell me how I've done anything to ever antagonize you or force my will upon you.

Oh, you consider voting against government just as bad as voting for government... right? Because I'm like... trying to force you... to not be forced by anyone... to do anything...

riiiiight....

Damn my policies and their coercion.

[danberkeley]

What's funny is that it was the "micnarchists" that antagonized the "anarachists" and grouped the "anarcho-capitalists" with the "anachists". Find me a thread started by an "anarcho-capitalist" that antagonizes the "minarchists".

[Truth Warrior]

Onoz! I do!?

You inability to comprehend this conversation confounds me. And obviously a whole bunch of other stuff TOO. :D

[ChaosControl]

No wonder third parties never make it anywhere...

[Xenophage]

No wonder third parties never make it anywhere...

Exactly.

[Xenophage]

What's funny is that it was the "micnarchists" that antagonized the "anarachists" and grouped the "anarcho-capitalists" with the "anachists". Find me a thread started by an "anarcho-capitalist" that antagonizes the "minarchists".

Did you even read my post?

[Truth Warrior]

No wonder third parties never make it anywhere... They aren't SUPPOSED to, by intentional system design.<IMHO> ;) The "fix" is in. :p

[danberkeley]

Did you even read my post?

Have you answered any of mine? Do you even care about having a debate about minarchism/anarcho-capitalism or do you simply want to argue with TW or anyone that calls you out?

[Xenophage]

They aren't SUPPOSED to, by intentional system design.<IMHO> ;) The "fix" is in. :p


TW is a covert operative, sent by some secretive government cabal, to infiltrate and derail any attempts made to mend the anarchy/minarchy divide within the freedom movement.

I have this on good authority.

From Alex Jones.

[danberkeley]

TW is a covert operative, sent by some secretive government cabal, to infiltrate and derail any attempts made to mend the anarchy/minarchy divide within the freedom movement.

I have this on good authority.

From Alex Jones.

That would be L.E. DeRailer, who, coincidentally, doesn't get along with TW or most people she encounters on RPF.

[ChaosControl]

I don't see why there is fighting? Why not all work to achieve a common goal, less government. Once we've arrived at that point we can work out the kinks.

Say you have 10 million people who want less government.
All 10 million of them want less than there is but to varying amounts. So all 10 of them work towards a goal. The first goal is reached, success! Now maybe 2 million are happy and drop out. 8 million can work for even less, maybe it will be tougher to achieve with less in number but at least since all 10 worked together that some decline has occurred. Next goal is reached eventually, another 4 million drop out with only 4 million remaining. Now it'll be really tough to achieve more success and maybe the remaining 4 are not fully satisfied, but by working with the original other 6, they achieved a large degree of minimizing government. Basically repeat this idea. Eventually you probably wont be able to gain more success as the numbers will be too few, but regardless the final outcome, we'd achieve less government than we have now and isn't that what we all want?

[tci08]

The infighting between anarcho-capitalists and minarchists has been one of the primary reasons the liberty movement has failed to congeal. The truth is, they are not at odds with one another. In fact, any minarchist and any anarcho-capitalist tend to have the same ultimate goal in mind: the least amount of government possible that is consistent with individual freedom. Where we differ is in what we consider "consistent with individual freedom." Minarchists take the government to what they consider a bare-minimum to preserve individual freedom, and anarcho-capitalists take the government away from the equation entirely as an unnecessary evil.

In practical terms we are more closely related ideologically than the human genome is to that of the chimpanzee. In reality, the ideal society envisioned by either anarcho-capitalism or minarchy becomes essentially the same: a society of maximal individual liberty, completely unfettered capitalism, and ultimate progress for the human species.

Minarchists are not statists and anarcho-capitalists are not collectivists. We all know this, but we throw these derogatory terms around like a kindergartner would throw around the word 'poopface,' because we all agree they are evil ideologies! Simply further reason we are all actually friends.

So, let's get the F along and quit insulting each other.Wow, you completely have 0 understanding, as I have usually read from you about what you "believe."( i.e. Anarcho capitalism, by your own admission in previous arguments)

Minarchism is a ridiculous, counter-pragmatic notion with a belief that a government (this minarchist ayn rand minimal one) could survive on private donations and the establishment of trust funds?!?!?!? This very government which is going to be responsible for protecting everyone? No avenue for corruption there huh? ROFL!

Conservatism is the only answer to minimal government and the pragmatic pursuit of Liberty via the rule of law.

Minarchism and Anarcho Capitalism are the sorts of theoretical ideas which give rise to tyranny. Constitutional Republic equals functional. The musings of right wing marxists equals like Rothbard and Rockwell equals fantasy. By the way, got any examples of minarchist societies or societies with anarcho capitalism that I can reference? Maybe I can be persuaded...LOL. Yes Virginia there is no example.

http://dogsounds.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/retard.jpg

[Xenophage]

I don't see why there is fighting? Why not all work to achieve a common goal, less government. Once we've arrived at that point we can work out the kinks.

Say you have 10 million people who want less government.
All 10 million of them want less than there is but to varying amounts. So all 10 of them work towards a goal. The first goal is reached, success! Now maybe 2 million are happy and drop out. 8 million can work for even less, maybe it will be tougher to achieve with less in number but at least since all 10 worked together that some decline has occurred. Next goal is reached eventually, another 4 million drop out with only 4 million remaining. Now it'll be really tough to achieve more success and maybe the remaining 4 are not fully satisfied, but by working with the original other 6, they achieved a large degree of minimizing government. Basically repeat this idea. Eventually you probably wont be able to gain more success as the numbers will be too few, but regardless the final outcome, we'd achieve less government than we have now and isn't that what we all want?

Only to a logical person!

[Xenophage]

Wow, you completely have 0 understanding, as I have usually read from you about what you speak. Anarcho capitalism, by your own admission in previous arguments.
Minarchism is a ridiculous, counter-pragmatic notion with a belief that a government (this minarchist ayn rand minimal one) could survive on private donations and the establishment of trust funds?!?!?!? This very government which is going to be responsible for protecting everyone? No avenue for corruption there huh? ROFL!

Conservatism is the only answer to minimal government and the pragmatic pursuit of Liberty via the rule of law.

Minarchism and Anarcho Capitalism are the sorts of theoretical ideas which give rise to tyranny. Constitutional Republic equals functional. The musings of right wing marxists equals like Rothbard and Rockwell equals fantasy. By the way, got any examples of minarchist societies or societies with anarcho capitalism that I can reference? Maybe I can be persuaded...LOL. Yes Virginia there is no example.



Minarchist society: United States, circa 1800.

[Dreamofunity]

I think the problem of anarchists vs minarchists is that an anarchist views the state or any organization/individual that violates the NAP as something that is not morally apprehensible.

While minarchists may view anarchists as naive and illinformed, an anarchist views anyone advocating a state, even a minimal one, as immoral.

Within real world application, we're working towards the same thing at the moment, and I consider any minarchists or objectivist as an ally. If we ever were to even remotely succeed in our goals, we will part ways, because to the anarchist, any state is still immoral.

[Xenophage]

I think the problem of anarchists vs minarchists is that an anarchist views the state or any organization/individual that violates the NAP as something that is not morally apprehensible.

While minarchists may view anarchists as naive and illinformed, an anarchist views anyone advocating a state, even a minimal one, as immoral.

Within real world application, we're working towards the same thing at the moment, and I consider any minarchists or objectivist as an ally. If we ever were to even remotely succeed in our goals, we will part ways, because to the anarchist, any state is still immoral.

You're wrong. An Objectivist does not believe that their position on minimum government in any way violates the NAP.

And thank you for refraining from asinine insults.

[danberkeley]

You're wrong. An Objectivist does not believe that their position on minimum government in any way violates the NAP.

And thank you for refraining from asinine insults.

Objectivists also believe that they cant be wrong. :rolleyes:



Minarchism and Anarcho Capitalism are the sorts of theoretical ideas which give rise to tyranny. Constitutional Republic equals functional. The musings of right wing marxists equals like Rothbard and Rockwell equals fantasy. By the way, got any examples of minarchist societies or societies with anarcho capitalism that I can reference? Maybe I can be persuaded...LOL. Yes Virginia there is no example.


Therefore, we need the state? :rolleyes:

http://dogsounds.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/retard.jpg

[Dreamofunity]

You're wrong. An Objectivist does not believe that their position on minimum government in any way violates the NAP.

And thank you for refraining from asinine insults.

But the anarchist still believes it does, which is why there is infighting. Even if it doesn't, and even if the anarchists beliefs are illfounded, it's still the main cause of fighting.

Until that point though, they should work together.

I don't like to insult among liberty minded people.

[Xenophage]

Objectivists also believe that they cant be wrong. :rolleyes:



Your opinion of Objectivists is skewed by Rothbard. You've probably also never read Ayn Rand, or if you did, then you didn't really grok it.

Truth is, I'm wrong a lot. When I recognize it, I fess up to it. I know I've done that more than once even on this message board.

[LibertyEagle]

The musings of right wing marxists equals like Rothbard and Rockwell equals fantasy.

Uh, excuse me, but have you lost your frickin' mind? :eek: There are some things that I don't agree with Rothbard and Rockwell on, but they most certainly are not Marxists. I can't even believe you said that.

By the way, I'm a traditional conservative.

[Xenophage]

But the anarchist still believes it does, which is why there is infighting. Even if it doesn't, and even if the anarchists beliefs are illfounded, it's still the main cause of fighting.

Until that point though, they should work together.

I don't like to insult among liberty minded people.

Pure truth in this post.

Thank fucking god someone gets it.

[danberkeley]

In a minarchy, if the military is suppose to protect it's citizens from foreign invaders, can a non-military citizen protect himself from foreign invaders?

[Xenophage]

Uh, excuse me, but have you lost your frickin' mind? :eek: There are some things that I don't agree with Rothbard and Rockwell on, but they most certainly are not Marxists. I can't even believe you said that.

By the way, I'm a traditional conservative.

I don't even know how to respond to those sorts of assertions. "Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard are like Karl Marx and Gene Simmons except less naked..." wha..?

[danberkeley]

Your opinion of Objectivists is skewed by Rothbard. You've probably also never read Ayn Rand, or if you did, then you didn't really grok it.

Truth is, I'm wrong a lot. When I recognize it, I fess up to it. I know I've done that more than once even on this message board.

Your opinion of anarcho-capitalists is skewed by Rand. We can play this game for however long you wish.

[LibertyEagle]

The infighting between anarcho-capitalists and minarchists has been one of the primary reasons the liberty movement has failed to congeal. The truth is, they are not at odds with one another. In fact, any minarchist and any anarcho-capitalist tend to have the same ultimate goal in mind: the least amount of government possible that is consistent with individual freedom. Where we differ is in what we consider "consistent with individual freedom." Minarchists take the government to what they consider a bare-minimum to preserve individual freedom, and anarcho-capitalists take the government away from the equation entirely as an unnecessary evil.

In practical terms we are more closely related ideologically than the human genome is to that of the chimpanzee. In reality, the ideal society envisioned by either anarcho-capitalism or minarchy becomes essentially the same: a society of maximal individual liberty, completely unfettered capitalism, and ultimate progress for the human species.

Minarchists are not statists and anarcho-capitalists are not collectivists. We all know this, but we throw these derogatory terms around like a kindergartner would throw around the word 'poopface,' because we all agree they are evil ideologies! Simply further reason we are all actually friends.

So, let's get the F along and quit insulting each other.

Hear, hear. But, you see, some apparently WANT to keep the infighting going. Each person might want to ask yourself WHY that is so. What do they have to gain?

[Xenophage]

In a minarchy, if the military is suppose to protect it's citizens from foreign invaders, can a non-military citizen protect himself from foreign invaders?

Don't you know that's against the rules of nuke-em-duke-em robot?

This is such an inane question.

[Xenophage]

Your opinion of anarcho-capitalists is skewed by Rand. We can play this game for however long you wish.

Don't think so. What did I say that was skewed?

I never insulted anarcho-capitalists.

Just TW.

[LibertyEagle]

In a minarchy, if the military is suppose to protect it's citizens from foreign invaders, can a non-military citizen protect himself from foreign invaders?

Well, I want a Constitutional Republic, and so, hell yes, you can defend your private property. I don't think any of us here, regardless of label, would disagree on this.

[Truth Warrior]

TW is a covert operative, sent by some secretive government cabal, to infiltrate and derail any attempts made to mend the anarchy/minarchy divide within the freedom movement.

I have this on good authority.

From Alex Jones. Nope, just done my homework over decades. BTW, what's the MOOT POINT frickin' difference? :rolleyes:

[LibertyEagle]

No, but "archists" are in permanent "let's antagonize non-archists" mode by virtue of their policies. ;) I am trying to defend myself from the statists/archists and THEIR "childish bullshit". :cool:

I must have missed those posts, because what I have largely seen you do is to mock, condescend to and flat out insult anyone and everyone who is not an Anarchist, like yourself.

[danberkeley]

Don't you know that's against the rules of nuke-em-duke-em robot?

This is such an inane question.

Typical objectivists attitude. :D


Don't think so. What did I say that was skewed?

I never insulted anarcho-capitalists.

Just TW.

What did I say that was skewed that WASNT sarcasm? :rolleyes:


Well, I want a Constitutional Republic, and so, hell yes, you can defend your private property. I don't think any of us here, regardless of label, would disagree on this.

So what's the point of having a military AS a necessary evil.

I got's to go ya'll. Be back later.

[Dreamofunity]

Well, I want a Constitutional Republic, and so, hell yes, you can defend your private property. I don't think any of us here, regardless of label, would disagree on this.

If people in charge within your constitutional republic were the ones violating your property rights would it be legitimate for you to protect against it?

[Xenophage]

Nope, just done my homework over decades.

Have you ever read:

"How to Make Enemies and Alienate People"?

"10 Ways to Introduce Bad Feelings and Break Alliances Within Political Movements?"

[sailor]

Again, the minarchists / objectivists fail.

It has nothing to do with anarcho-capitalism vs minarchism, at least for me. When you brain dead fck's realise this, even though I've said it a thousand times, then that'd be great...



Tell me this... you're in the Liberty movement & you DESPISE the State, they are a band of criminals writ large. They are destroying the world as we know. You believe they are war criminals and should be brought to justice....

And then, someone else from the Liberty movement - comes to their defence... You are defending the scum of the earth. And you call yourself Liberty lovers? :confused: It's indirect, but it's still a defense and an attempt to justify their existence.

I never see any hatred towards the State from most minarchists, just people trying to defend it. How about those people stfu? That might help? :)

Yeah, LOL. They`re such radical anti-statists they spend three quarters of the time defending the state. What the hell is that about?? If it in their opinion state is a necesarry evil why they concentrate so much on neccesary and so little on evil??

A bunch of them has a bigger problem with anarcho-capitalists than with George Bush. I don`t think in negative terms about a minarchy or a constitutional republic. But I expect the same courtesy be expected to me. You can not disparge my own anti-statist vision and be buddies with me.

[acptulsa]

I don't see why there is fighting? Why not all work to achieve a common goal, less government. Once we've arrived at that point we can work out the kinks.

Say you have 10 million people who want less government.
All 10 million of them want less than there is but to varying amounts. So all 10 of them work towards a goal. The first goal is reached, success! Now maybe 2 million are happy and drop out. 8 million can work for even less, maybe it will be tougher to achieve with less in number but at least since all 10 worked together that some decline has occurred. Next goal is reached eventually, another 4 million drop out with only 4 million remaining. Now it'll be really tough to achieve more success and maybe the remaining 4 are not fully satisfied, but by working with the original other 6, they achieved a large degree of minimizing government. Basically repeat this idea. Eventually you probably wont be able to gain more success as the numbers will be too few, but regardless the final outcome, we'd achieve less government than we have now and isn't that what we all want?

I don't want a dog in this fight. I just feel this needs to be quoted on every page of this thread.

What is important is, and what ain't important ain't.

[Xenophage]

What did I say that was skewed that WASNT sarcasm? :rolleyes:



Sorry, it wasn't apparent. "Objectivists never think they're wrong" is a very common criticism of Objectivism. Typically, I say I'm an Objectivist, and someone thinks, "arrogant son of a bitch who thinks he's always right," which is only half true :P

[Truth Warrior]

Have you ever read:

"How to Make Enemies and Alienate People"?

"10 Ways to Introduce Bad Feelings and Break Alliances Within Political Movements?" I like to raise hackles. It tends to let the real person show through, lurking right beneath that thin veneer of ( coff, coff ) "civilization" ( so called ).

Phonies are just about a penny a truckload. ;) :p

[LibertyEagle]

Yeah, LOL. They`re such anti-statists they spend three quarters of the time defending the state. What the hell is that about??

A bunch of them has a bigger problem with anarcho-capitalists than with George Bush.

Let me ask you something. Why if Anarchists are so anti-state, do they spend so much of their time in a liberty-minded forum attacking people who see our government as the source of the problem? Instead of spending their time talking to people who advocate big government; or actively working to supplant that big government through activism?

I'll tell you guys something and it might be something you will want to keep in mind when talking to people out in the field --- if you insult the hell out of people, instead of listening to what you have to say, they will go in defensive mode. Here on this board, when you attack some of our beliefs in the Constitution, our respect for our Founders, or our belief in a limited Constitutional government, or even Ron Paul's principles, you will get an argument back.

Which leads me once again to ask why people are instigating these things, over and over again. It's usually the very same players. They must know by now, what the outcome will be. They will keep us all infighting and not focused on the overreaching and intrusive government that we all believe is the problem. So, I ask you, are these people instigating, just ignorant, or are they dividing us on purpose?

[Xenophage]

Yeah, LOL. They`re such radical anti-statists they spend three quarters of the time defending the state. What the hell is that about?? If it in their opinion state is a necesarry evil why they concentrate so much on neccesary and so little on evil??

A bunch of them has a bigger problem with anarcho-capitalists than with George Bush. I don`t think in negative terms about a minarchy or a constitutional republic. But I expect the same courtesy be expected to me. You can not disparge my own anti-statist vision and be buddies with me.

No, I don't think very many of us actually have problems with anarcho-capitalists. We all have big problems with antagonistic attacks on our moral integrity. And I don't think a state is a necessary evil... Nor do I know a single Objectivist or otherwise "minarchist" who thinks that way. I think its necessary, and CAN be evil, or CAN be good. I have absolutely no moral confusion on the issue.

[LibertyEagle]

If people in charge within your constitutional republic were the ones violating your property rights would it be legitimate for you to protect against it?

Yes.

[Auntie Republicrat]

..AGAIN, UNFORTUNATELY, THE HUMAN CONDITION MAKES 'GOVERNMENT' (organized force/coercion) INEVITABLE..

..WHETHER IT'S 'GOVERNMENT' BY THE STINKING REPUBLICRATS, THE "LIBERTARIANS," etc. ad nauseam..

...OR, YES, "GOVERNMENT" BY THE ANARCHISTS!!..(i'm assuming even 'anarchists' will employ some form of 'government' were they to find some Republicrats breaking and entering their refrigerator..)--for one of MANY examples!-- ;)

(apparently, some folks operate in the world of THEORY..themselves apparently not aware of the REALITIES of mankind..) ;)

[Xenophage]

..AGAIN, UNFORTUNATELY, THE HUMAN CONDITION MAKES 'GOVERNMENT' (organized force/coercion) INEVITABLE..

..WHETHER IT'S 'GOVERNMENT' BY THE STINKING REPUBLICRATS, THE "LIBERTARIANS," etc. ad nauseam..

...OR, YES, "GOVERNMENT" BY THE ANARCHISTS!!..(i'm assuming even 'anarchists' will employ some form of 'government' were they to find some Republicrats breaking and entering their refrigerator..)--for one of MANY examples!-- ;)

(apparently, some folks operate in the world of THEORY..themselves apparently not aware of the REALITIES of mankind..) ;)

A proper theory is one that describes reality. If a theory is in conflict with reality, then the theory has inherited one or more logical fallacies somewhere along the way.

Frankly, I admire the principled position - and my position is just as principled. Principle and practicality should not conflict, however. If they do, either your assumptions about what is practical are wrong, or your principles are irrational.

[Xenophage]

If we can have a free market in pizza, why cant we have a free market in defense?

danberkeley, I apologize for ignoring you.

I believe in a free market for defense, and even possibly in a free market for courts. I've gone over this before in other threads.

What I believe a government needs to exist for is: an objective and uniformly recognized law protecting life, liberty and property, in addition to standards of fairness to be conducted at trials.

Next question?

[Truth Warrior]

A proper theory is one that describes reality. If a theory is in conflict with reality, then the theory has inherited one or more logical fallacies somewhere along the way.

Frankly, I admire the principled position - and my position is just as principled. Principle and practicality should not conflict, however. If they do, either your assumptions about what is practical are wrong, or your principles are irrational. Could I get an example of an irrational principle? :D

[acptulsa]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1622821&postcount=90

While I was looking for that one, I came across another one that feels apropos:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1622821&postcount=59

[Xenophage]

Could I get an example of an irrational principle? :D


"Value is determined by the amount of work that went into creating a product."

[Truth Warrior]

"Value is determined by the amount of work that went into creating a product." Nah, that's just flat out wrong. :p Isn't value subjective?

[acptulsa]

Not irrational, just flat out wrong.

Um...

[Xenophage]

Nah, that's just flat out wrong. :p Isn't value subjective?

Totally.

Ok, in morality, the principle, "Individual sacrifice fulfills the greatest good."

Replace "sacrifice" with "achievement" and I would agree.

[Truth Warrior]

Totally.

Ok, in morality, the principle, "Individual sacrifice fulfills the greatest good."

Replace "sacrifice" with "achievement" and I would agree. Self sacrifice is impossible.<IMHO> ;)

[Dreamofunity]

Totally.

Ok, in morality, the principle, "Individual sacrifice fulfills the greatest good."

Replace "sacrifice" with "achievement" and I would agree.

What about an irrational principle within anarcho-capitalism?

I'm assuming you agree with NAP and property rights.

[Brian4Liberty]

The Liberty Movement would work so much better if everyone agreed with me 100%... :D

[acptulsa]

The Liberty Movement would work so much better if everyone agreed with me 100%... :D

Nah--then we wouldn't even need liberty.

[Xenophage]

What about an irrational principle within anarcho-capitalism?

I'm assuming you agree with NAP and property rights.

I don't believe there are any irrational principles espoused by Rothbardian anarcho-capitalists. In fact, I agree almost entirely with the moral philosophy.

Where I differ is in the interpretation of the NAP. I believe that it is possible for a government to exist without violating the NAP.

[Truth Warrior]

I don't believe there are any irrational principles espoused by Rothbardian anarcho-capitalists. In fact, I agree almost entirely with the moral philosophy.

Where I differ is in the interpretation of the NAP. I believe that it is possible for a government to exist without violating the NAP. Until someone disagrees with it. :D

[Dreamofunity]

I don't believe there are any irrational principles espoused by Rothbardian anarcho-capitalists. In fact, I agree almost entirely with the moral philosophy.

Where I differ is in the interpretation of the NAP. I believe that it is possible for a government to exist without violating the NAP.

Understood. Both groups have the same overall principles, with the same general end results and goals, with adherence to true capitalism and human liberty, infighting seems pointless at this point in time.

Also, I replied to the other thread to one of your responses if you have time and want to answer some more questions.

[sailor]

Let me ask you something. Why if Anarchists are so anti-state, do they spend so much of their time in a liberty-minded forum attacking people who see our government as the source of the problem? Instead of spending their time talking to people who advocate big government; or actively working to supplant that big government through activism?

I'll tell you guys something and it might be something you will want to keep in mind when talking to people out in the field --- if you insult the hell out of people, instead of listening to what you have to say, they will go in defensive mode. Here on this board, when you attack some of our beliefs in the Constitution, our respect for our Founders, or our belief in a limited Constitutional government, or even Ron Paul's principles, you will get an argument back.

Which leads me once again to ask why people are instigating these things, over and over again. It's usually the very same players. They must know by now, what the outcome will be. They will keep us all infighting and not focused on the overreaching and intrusive government that we all believe is the problem. So, I ask you, are these people instigating, just ignorant, or are they dividing us on purpose?

Nonsense.

I`ve never said a word against minarchy or a constitutional republic as a concept. Never. I don`t threaten people`s beliefs like that.

I`ve only spoken crap to to constitutionalists and minarchists as induviduals who previously spoke crap about anarchy as a concept.

Anarchists can`t be accussed of attacking small government people. Our ideological predecesors were small government and we have nothing but respect for them.

Infact there are a bunch of small government people we have a lot more respect than you do. Von Mises, Bastiat, Comte and Dunoyer... names that don`t mean anything to conservatives, but who we respect the hell out.

[LibertyEagle]

Sailor, I wasn't talking about YOU.

I don't know about the others that you mention, but I was raised on von Mises and Bastiat's writings. Like I said before, traditional conservatives and libertarians share a great deal in common. It's just that the neocons gave the name "conservative" such a bad rep; much like what was done to the term "liberal", long ago.

[sailor]

I don't know about the others that you mention, but I was raised on von Mises and Bastiat's writings.

The other two are fairly obscure to be honest, but their contribution was really immense. They came up with what is now generally called "libertarian class theory". (Which is older than the Marxist class theory, but much less widely known.)

They saw society as divided into classes. But according to them theese classes were not the rich and the poor, or the lower and the upper class. No, according to them the classes were the producers and the exploiters.

The producers being the peasants and the manual labourers, but also the rich buisinessmen and the merchants. And the exploiters being the robbers and the pickpockets, but also the buerocrats and the politicians.

[Nate]

Sailor, I wasn't talking about YOU.

I don't know about the others that you mention, but I was raised on von Mises and Bastiat's writings. Like I said before, traditional conservatives and libertarians share a great deal in common. It's just that the neocons gave the name "conservative" such a bad rep; much like what was done to the term "liberal", long ago.

Yeah the neo-cons detroyed the word conservative. That is why I think it is an uphill battle to reclaim the label. The label has, like it or not, become synonymous with corporatism here in America. I especially avoid the label conservative because I live in Chicago and people shut you out the minute the "C" word enters into the conversation in any positive light what so ever. Maybe where you live the word can still be used in a positive way to explain what this liberty movement is all about.

Traditional conservativism of the Taft-Goldwater variety would definitely be a step in the right direction for this anarcho-capitalist. Untill we get to the point where the size of this government is small enough for the paleo-cons we will be allies and compatriots weather some people on both sides of this debate like it or not. After we get to that point we can argue and debate each other as the opposition. I do however think that we are decades away from even getting this country to return to the paleo-con vision of a constitutional republic.

[Conza88]

Let me ask you something. Why if Anarchists are so anti-state, do they spend so much of their time in a liberty-minded forum attacking people who see our government as the source of the problem? Instead of spending their time talking to people who advocate big government; or actively working to supplant that big government through activism?

The only reason I'm here is because I'm 12,000 miles away. I've done what I can to wake people up through the net, with youtube vid's etc. Online activism, because its all I can do.

Now I'm workin on a rEVOLution down under. When the site's up, I'll probably be out of your hair then. Happy?


I'll tell you guys something and it might be something you will want to keep in mind when talking to people out in the field --- if you insult the hell out of people, instead of listening to what you have to say, they will go in defensive mode. Here on this board, when you attack some of our beliefs in the Constitution, our respect for our Founders, or our belief in a limited Constitutional government, or even Ron Paul's principles, you will get an argument back.

It's a non sequitur to assume if someone is confrontational online, they also act the exact same way offline. Kind of like;

The great non sequitur committed by defenders of the State, is to leap from the necessity of society to the necessity of the State. – Murray N. Rothbard (1926-1995), American Economist, Historian, Political Theorist, and Author

;)


Which leads me once again to ask why people are instigating these things, over and over again. It's usually the very same players. They must know by now, what the outcome will be. They will keep us all infighting and not focused on the overreaching and intrusive government that we all believe is the problem. So, I ask you, are these people instigating, just ignorant, or are they dividing us on purpose?

Drop the paranoia. It's your inability to be intellectually honest with yourself and others. I keep raising the point, your JBS paradigm is flawed, irrational and a joke, which merely rejumbles the left / right paradigm.

Which is something I believe needs to be smashed before we'll ever get real Liberty.

Yet, you continue to run away - and ignore it. I resposted it again for you, and still no response. Do you want to go for a 3rd time? I hear it's lucky. As I said previously, I'm fine with your ignoring it, if you don't go and then post a fallacious video which further keeps people in the paradigm.

[heavenlyboy34]

Good luck in sparking a r3volution down under, Conza. :D:cool:;):)


The only reason I'm here is because I'm 12,000 miles away. I've done what I can to wake people up through the net, with youtube vid's etc. Online activism, because its all I can do.

Now I'm workin on a rEVOLution down under. When the site's up, I'll probably be out of your hair then. Happy?



It's a non sequitur to assume if someone is confrontational online, they also act the exact same way offline. Kind of like;

The great non sequitur committed by defenders of the State, is to leap from the necessity of society to the necessity of the State. – Murray N. Rothbard (1926-1995), American Economist, Historian, Political Theorist, and Author

;)



Drop the paranoia. It's your inability to be intellectually honest with yourself and others. I keep raising the point, your JBS paradigm is flawed, irrational and a joke, which merely rejumbles the left / right paradigm.

Which is something I believe needs to be smashed before we'll ever get real Liberty.

Yet, you continue to run away - and ignore it. I resposted it again for you, and still no response. Do you want to go for a 3rd time? I hear it's lucky. As I said previously, I'm fine with your ignoring it, if you don't go and then post a fallacious video which further keeps people in the paradigm.

[danberkeley]

Good luck in sparking a r3volution down under, Conza. :D:cool:;):)

Conza will be the thunder from downunder. lol

[LibertyEagle]

Drop the paranoia. It's your inability to be intellectually honest with yourself and others.
Straw man. I raised a question. It wasn't directed at you, but feel free to answer it, if you wish.


I keep raising the point, your JBS paradigm is flawed, irrational and a joke, which merely rejumbles the left / right paradigm.
Yeah, you say that, but I haven't seen any of your so-called proof.

Be sure and tell Ron Paul that too, since he's always been very supportive of the JBS. ;)


Which is something I believe needs to be smashed before we'll ever get real Liberty.
:rolleyes:

You want Anarchy. I do not. Neither does Ron. Deal with it.

Now, we could remember we share a lot of common principles and work together; or not. Your choice.


Yet, you continue to run away - and ignore it. I resposted it again for you, and still no response. Do you want to go for a 3rd time? I hear it's lucky. As I said previously, I'm fine with your ignoring it, if you don't go and then post a fallacious video which further keeps people in the paradigm.
I'm not running anywhere. You keep saying you posted it, but I haven't ONCE seen it. Why don't you PM a link to where you posted it.

You know, Conza, I find it very curious that you have your boxers in such a twist over the JBS. Do you realize they sell at least one of Rothbard's books in their bookstore. They are very pro Mises, yet you want to deem their your enemy. Perhaps you should focus on a group that is fighting against Ron and his principles, instead of one of his biggest advocates.

[idiom]

Main Entry: aggression
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: Hostile behavior.
Synonyms: aggressiveness, belligerence, belligerency, combativeness, contentiousness, hostility, militance, militancy


So much for the so called passivity principle.

[Conza88]

Straw man. I raised a question. It wasn't directed at you, but feel free to answer it, if you wish.

Lol, I didn't erect any false argument & try knock it down. Just a statement of fact. And I did answer it.


Yeah, you say that, but I haven't seen any of your so-called proof.

Be sure and tell Ron Paul that too, since he's always been very supportive of the JBS. ;)

OH FFS... re-post AGAIN:


I despise anarchists, so I have no idea what you're talking about? :confused:

As far as my arguments go: which, btw, you've never addressed.



BTW, if you have a state: new insight by Hans-Herman Hoppe. Monarchy > Republic.

Democracy: The God That Failed (http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe4.html)
Interview with Lew Rockwell (http://www.lewrockwell.com/podcast/?p=episode&name=2008-08-07_015_democracy_the_god_that_failed.mp3)
Democracy: The God that Failed Lecture. (http://mises.org/MultiMedia/mp3/20thCentury/12_20th_Hoppe.mp3)

But REALLY, basically this (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1993582&postcount=53) whole post.

I am supportive of the John Birch Society and everything they do - besides their bullshit fallacious analysis and re jumbling of the False left / right paradigm.


:rolleyes:

You want Anarchy. I do not. Neither does Ron. Deal with it.

Now, we could remember we share a lot of common principles and work together; or not. Your choice.

No, I want non-archy. I want Liberty. I can work with anyone who wants to reduce the state by the most effective and efficient means. Conceding in argument to people who irrationally defend the state isn't one of them. Sorry.

I don't compromise when it comes to Liberty. And it's a real shame you do.

I suggest you re-read my signature. That might give you a better clue of where I am coming from.

Your position is irrational, and I will keep telling it like it is, BECAUSE the TRUTH is also violated by SILENCE. Don't attack anarcho-capitalism, then I won't need to defend anarcho-capitalism. Seems pretty simple, right?

The choice is yours; become a RADICAL like Ron Paul, or again - sit down & stfu and stop complaining that I'm defending Liberty.

Because let's make that clear, that is exactly what is being defended. You can have your irrational cognitive dissonance, but while you're at it - could you send some venom towards the real enemy some time? :confused:


I'm not running anywhere. You keep saying you posted it, but I haven't ONCE seen it. Why don't you PM a link to where you posted it.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2032538&postcount=79
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2032699&postcount=98
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2033940&postcount=191

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1993582&postcount=53!!!


You know, Conza, I find it very curious that you have your boxers in such a twist over the JBS. Do you realize they sell at least one of Rothbard's books in their bookstore. They are very pro Mises, yet you want to deem their your enemy. Perhaps you should focus on a group that is fighting against Ron and his principles, instead of one of his biggest advocates.

Geezus chris, what is suspicious about it! Wtf is with the innuendo that I'm some kind of agent, are you delusional? It's not over JBS as an organization, there you go with the non sequiturs again! It's with the paradigm they promote in their video I have a issue with. I'm a fan of the organization. Larry McDonald was a mad dude.

I'm getting my "knickers in a knot" over what they are contrasting as the proper paradigm which is = BS, things that are not the truth, stuff that is fallacious and WRONG. As I ALWAYS have.

I am struggling to fathom how idiotic you are acting. Your sheer inability to comprehend what I am saying is outstanding.

JBS combines Monarchy and Dictatorship, says Monarchy is the worst.

For the 5th fcken time, do I have to link to the Interview with LEW ROCKWELL AND HANS HERMANN HOPPE, DISCUSSING HOPPE'S BOOK: called Democracy: The God that Failed? (http://www.lewrockwell.com/podcast/?p=episode&name=2008-08-07_015_democracy_the_god_that_failed.mp3)

Do I have to re-link you to the Lecture given by Hoppe? (http://mises.org/MultiMedia/mp3/20thCentury/12_20th_Hoppe.mp3)Do I have to buy you a fcken god damn book and send it to you, before you are willing to accept his findings?

Idiocy pisses me off, especially when someone should know better. Now I'm going to simplify this real quick, in the hopes you actually listen to the 15min podcast above.

Monarchy - an individual / family owns a country, it is their PRIVATE PROPERTY. It is different from a dictatorship. Is the Queen and Royal Family, the Duchess of Denmark etc, different to Hitler and Stalin? JBS says no. JBS SAYS NO. :rolleyes: That's their paradigm. Anyway, I digress.

If you own a country, if it is your property, are you going to fight endless, unnecessary, pointless wars? Spend trillions on the military industrial complex? Are you going to risk a depression caused by a Central Bank, or raise taxes - or do ANYTHING that may threaten a REVOLUTION.

See the benefit is that people aren't under the delusion they are "free", like they are in "Democracy" or a "Constitutional Republic"... here in American, ANYONE can become President, hell you can be "Black" and stuff, or like even a "women" (Hillary)... *COUGH*

In reality though, you need to be given the go ahead by the Trilateral Commission, CFR and Bilderberg group.

DO you think it would be easier to fight for Liberty, if they people weren't deluded into thinking that THEY are ALSO the GOVERNMENT?

Come on LE, think, or at least listen to the god damn interview and stop spreading the bullshit that, that JBS paradigm video is.

Hoppe utterly shatters JBS paradigm... but thats ok, because that video was probably made 30 years ago. And Hoppe's recent analysis is new.

Time to get with the times.

[Conza88]

bump for LE. :)

[BeFranklin]

Intellectual masturbation

Read the founders

Agreed.

[LibertyEagle]

Lol, I didn't erect any false argument & try knock it down. Just a statement of fact. And I did answer it.



OH FFS... re-post AGAIN:





But REALLY, basically this (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1993582&postcount=53) whole post.

I am supportive of the John Birch Society and everything they do - besides their bullshit fallacious analysis and re jumbling of the False left / right paradigm.
Turn off Alex Jones and join reality. The false left/right paradigm is when TPTB are implying that there is a hair of difference between the parties. It's false, because their policies are essentially the same.

That is quite a different subject than what the JBS' video is about, as it covers the various FORMS of government and where they lie on the political spectrum.


No, I want non-archy. I want Liberty. I can work with anyone who wants to reduce the state by the most effective and efficient means. Conceding in argument to people who irrationally defend the state isn't one of them. Sorry.
You want 0 government. Some call that anarcho-capitalist and others call it anarchy. I've seen both terms used here on the forums.


I don't compromise when it comes to Liberty. And it's a real shame you do.
Stick it in your pompous ear, Conza. I've been in this movement before you were an itch in your Daddy's pants.


I suggest you re-read my signature. That might give you a better clue of where I am coming from.
Quite frankly, your rude pompous behavior doesn't entice me to look at much of anything you suggest.


Your position is irrational, and I will keep telling it like it is, BECAUSE the TRUTH is also violated by SILENCE. Don't attack anarcho-capitalism, then I won't need to defend anarcho-capitalism. Seems pretty simple, right?
I'm not attacking anarcho-capitalism. I don't agree that this is the best thing, taken all the way to the end, but we certainly can work together for quite a long time.


The choice is yours; become a RADICAL like Ron Paul, or again - sit down & stfu and stop complaining that I'm defending Liberty.

RON PAUL IS NOT AN ANARCHIST. HE IS A CONSTITUTIONALIST.

If you haven't figured that out by now, you haven't been paying attention.

Ron Paul wants to reinstate the Constitution. Not tear it up. He believes in a limited constitutional republic. So, it's your business entirely if you don't see eye-to-eye with Ron Paul on this and instead want to dissolve the federal government altogether, but don't for one minute sit there and act like you are backing what Dr. Paul wants.


Because let's make that clear, that is exactly what is being defended. You can have your irrational cognitive dissonance, but while you're at it - could you send some venom towards the real enemy some time? :confused:

Right back at ya, Conza.


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpos...8&postcount=79
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpos...9&postcount=98
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpos...&postcount=191

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpos...2&postcount=53!!!

Quote:
You know, Conza, I find it very curious that you have your boxers in such a twist over the JBS. Do you realize they sell at least one of Rothbard's books in their bookstore. They are very pro Mises, yet you want to deem their your enemy. Perhaps you should focus on a group that is fighting against Ron and his principles, instead of one of his biggest advocates.
Geezus chris, what is suspicious about it! Wtf is with the innuendo that I'm some kind of agent, are you delusional? It's not over JBS as an organization, there you go with the non sequiturs again! It's with the paradigm they promote in their video I have a issue with. I'm a fan of the organization. Larry McDonald was a mad dude.

I'm getting my "knickers in a knot" over what they are contrasting as the proper paradigm which is = BS, things that are not the truth, stuff that is fallacious and WRONG. As I ALWAYS have.

I am struggling to fathom how idiotic you are acting. Your sheer inability to comprehend what I am saying is outstanding.

JBS combines Monarchy and Dictatorship, says Monarchy is the worst.

For the 5th fcken time, do I have to link to the Interview with LEW ROCKWELL AND HANS HERMANN HOPPE, DISCUSSING HOPPE'S BOOK: called Democracy: The God that Failed?

Do I have to re-link you to the Lecture given by Hoppe? Do I have to buy you a fcken god damn book and send it to you, before you are willing to accept his findings?

Idiocy pisses me off, especially when someone should know better. Now I'm going to simplify this real quick, in the hopes you actually listen to the 15min podcast above.

Monarchy - an individual / family owns a country, it is their PRIVATE PROPERTY. It is different from a dictatorship. Is the Queen and Royal Family, the Duchess of Denmark etc, different to Hitler and Stalin? JBS says no. JBS SAYS NO. That's their paradigm. Anyway, I digress.

If you own a country, if it is your property, are you going to fight endless, unnecessary, pointless wars? Spend trillions on the military industrial complex? Are you going to risk a depression caused by a Central Bank, or raise taxes - or do ANYTHING that may threaten a REVOLUTION.

See the benefit is that people aren't under the delusion they are "free", like they are in "Democracy" or a "Constitutional Republic"... here in American, ANYONE can become President, hell you can be "Black" and stuff, or like even a "women" (Hillary)... *COUGH*

In reality though, you need to be given the go ahead by the Trilateral Commission, CFR and Bilderberg group.
The JBS has been talking about these groups for years and years. You act like this is new news or something.


DO you think it would be easier to fight for Liberty, if they people weren't deluded into thinking that THEY are ALSO the GOVERNMENT?

Come on LE, think, or at least listen to the god damn interview and stop spreading the bullshit that, that JBS paradigm video is.

Hoppe utterly shatters JBS paradigm... but thats ok, because that video was probably made 30 years ago. And Hoppe's recent analysis is new.

Time to get with the times.
Wrong. The video isn't old at all. :)

Conza, face it, we disagree on some things. I doubt that is ever going to change. Something you should know though, is that the more you attempt to browbeat people, the less they are willing to entertain anything you have to say. You have just about reached that point with me.

[Conza88]

Turn off Alex Jones and join reality. The false left/right paradigm is when TPTB are implying that there is a hair of difference between the parties. It's false, because their policies are essentially the same.

That is quite a different subject than what the JBS' video is about, as it covers the various FORMS of government and where they lie on the political spectrum.

I haven't turned on Alex Jones for about 4 months. Reality is where I'm always at. If only you could say the same for you. Yes, the false / right right paradigm is used to imply there is a difference, and there isn't.

Yet you go and replace the false left / right paradigm with your own false left / right paradigm.

Hardly progress aye? Monarchy is the best form of government whilst the State exists. You haven't addressed this and you will continue to ignore it, because it shatters your whole paradigm.


You want 0 government. Some call that anarcho-capitalist and others call it anarchy. I've seen both terms used here on the forums.

I want to end the Institution that has overseen the deaths of 200million people in the last centurry. You want to keep it around. I want to end the Institution that uses coercion and theft, a gang of thieves writ large. I'm not a traditional socialist (anarchy), non-archist is more correct. Strategically, fools associate themselves with anarchy. If they want to make it harder for themselves to sell Liberty, then they are idiots. I'm hoping they think critically about what they call themselves, and the labels they associate with. I want to see Liberty in my life time, and that means adopting the right, strategies.


Stick it in your pompous ear, Conza. I've been in this movement before you were an itch in your Daddy's pants.

All the more reason to be ashamed you haven't progressed, and fail to recognise the real enemy.


Quite frankly, your rude pompous behavior doesn't entice me to look at much of anything you suggest.

My "pompous" behavior is a result of you not looking at anything I suggest. That's the cause. Your inability to continue a discussion, to turn your back when your don't like where it's leading.


I'm not attacking anarcho-capitalism. I don't agree that this is the best thing, taken all the way to the end, but we certainly can work together for quite a long time.

And you don't agree it is the best thing, from a position of ignorance. You haven't read anything on the subject.


RON PAUL IS NOT AN ANARCHIST. HE IS A CONSTITUTIONALIST.

Of course he's not an anarchist. Because he's not a traditional socialist. But it is plausible he is in the ancap closet. And even if he is, I wouldn't recommend he come out. But this is irrelevant, you have misconstrued "radical".


If you haven't figured that out by now, you haven't been paying attention.

Ron Paul wants to reinstate the Constitution. Not tear it up. He believes in a limited constitutional republic. So, it's your business entirely if you don't see eye-to-eye with Ron Paul on this and instead want to dissolve the federal government altogether, but don't for one minute sit there and act like you are backing what Dr. Paul wants.


Complete strawman.

http://www.fallibleblogma.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/straw-man.jpg

You've misinterpreted the word radical. This is what was meant, as I have consistently outlined, but you seemed apt at forgetting.



When we think of our classical liberal forbears who were genuinely radical, who hated statism and the States of their day with a beautifully integrated passion: the Levellers, Patrick Henry, Tom Paine, Joseph Priestley, the Jacksonians, Richard Cobden, and on and on, a veritable roll call of the greats of the past. Tom Paine’s radical hatred of the State and statism was and is far more important to the cause of liberty than the fact that he never crossed the divide between laissez-faire and anarchism.

And closer to our own day, such early influences on me as Albert Jay Nock, H. L. Mencken, and Frank Chodorov were magnificently and superbly radical. Hatred of "Our Enemy, the State" (Nock’s title) and all of its works shone through all of their writings like a beacon star. So what if they never quite made it all the way to explicit anarchism? Far better one Albert Nock than a hundred anarcho-capitalists who are all too comfortable with the existing status quo.


Right back at ya, Conza.

I do it all the time. You're going to have to try better than that.


The JBS has been talking about these groups for years and years. You act like this is new news or something.

Omg... omg.. This is the more irrelevant non answer I think I've ever seen. The whole section you quoted has NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING to do with what you just responded with.

It was about how the JBS political spectrum is flawed; Monarchy > (Any other form of govt with the state). WHAT do you know, you IGNORED IT AGAIN! Haha :rolleyes:




BTW, if you have a state: new insight by Hans-Herman Hoppe. Monarchy > Republic.

Democracy: The God That Failed (http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe4.html)
Interview with Lew Rockwell (http://www.lewrockwell.com/podcast/?p=episode&name=2008-08-07_015_democracy_the_god_that_failed.mp3)
Democracy: The God that Failed Lecture. (http://mises.org/MultiMedia/mp3/20thCentury/12_20th_Hoppe.mp3)

...


Wrong. The video isn't old at all. :)

Wrong isn't an argument. Are you going to try refute that Monarchy > democracy and all other systems for Liberty whilst the State exists?

Or are you going to keep doing what you do? Run away? ... yeah, I thought so.


Conza, face it, we disagree on some things. I doubt that is ever going to change. Something you should know though, is that the more you attempt to browbeat people, the less they are willing to entertain anything you have to say. You have just about reached that point with me.

It's not my fault you have a closed mind, you disengage discussions when you feel uncomfortable as to where they are heading... you ignore my posts consistently that trash your arguments..

This situation is only going to change if you open your mind to other possibilities... not stuck in a 30 year vacuum. Or refusing to acknowledge the truth due to your perception of my being arrogant.

[Andrew-Austin]

Conza its no wonder you can't convince anyone of anything, even those who agree with you a lot of the time think you act like a douche bag.

[heavenlyboy34]

Conza its no wonder you can't convince anyone of anything, even those who agree with you a lot of the time think you act like a douche bag.

+1...I agree with Conza in principle (as a fellow autarchist), but IMHO he's been less than persuasive in this thread to someone who may disagree. :( If you see this, Conza, try reading "How To Win Friends and Influence People" by Dale Carnegie.

[Conza88]

Conza its no wonder you can't convince anyone of anything, even those who agree with you a lot of the time think you act like a douche bag.

Don't put the cart before the horse.

It's not because I'm a 'douchebag' that I can't convince anyone, it's because the person isn't intellectually honest, that I can't convince them. I then get frustrated and vent towards them, gauging them to respond.

How can you convince someone who isn't intellectually honest? Please let me know, I'm all ears. How do you make someone become intellectually honest?

The respect level I give the other viewpoint tends to decrease with the level of absurdity / irrationality and the level of dodging / dishonesty the person displays.

If they are genuinely asking questions and they want to actually learn it becomes very self-evident and since they have an open mind, why would I risk offending them - whereby they then close it? I lose a potential convert.

But it is when the person you are trying to convert won't even admit / nor answer the most basic of responses, when you ask - have you read anything on this subject? When they are clearly from a position of ignorance, when they ignore your questions, and where they will not admit it - when they continue to act from a position of ignorance and consider it authority, it pisses me off endlessly. When they fail to use logic, I lose hope - how can this person be in the Liberty movement when they can't even reason properly? And if this person who supposably loves Liberty, won't even engage in a civil discussion about the State or any other matter, how can I possibly hope to convert the layman or socialists?

And it's not just from one thread, it carries over. Ignoring me, isn't going to make me go away, nor the arguments I presented.

[Andrew-Austin]

Don't put the cart before the horse.

It's not because I'm a 'douchebag' that I can't convince anyone, it's because the person isn't intellectually honest, that I can't convince them. I then get frustrated and vent towards them, gauging them to respond.

How can you convince someone who isn't intellectually honest? Please let me know, I'm all ears. How do you make someone become intellectually honest?

The respect level I give the other viewpoint tends to decrease with the level of absurdity / irrationality and the level of dodging / dishonesty the person displays.

If they are genuinely asking questions and they want to actually learn it becomes very self-evident and since they have an open mind, why would I risk offending them - whereby they then close it? I lose a potential convert.

But it is when the person you are trying to convert won't even admit / nor answer the most basic of responses, when you ask - have you read anything on this subject? When they are clearly from a position of ignorance, when they ignore your questions, and where they will not admit it - when they continue to act from a position of ignorance and consider it authority, it pisses me off endlessly. When they fail to use logic, I lose hope - how can this person be in the Liberty movement when they can't even reason properly? And if this person who supposably loves Liberty, won't even engage in a civil discussion about the State or any other matter, how can I possibly hope to convert the layman or socialists?

And it's not just from one thread, it carries over. Ignoring me, isn't going to make me go away, nor the arguments I presented.

Sorry I didn't reply sooner.

Even if it is a matter of them being intellectually dishonest or whatever, the worst possible way to break through this barrier is coming off as aggressive/accusatory. You have to acknowledge certain psychological triats common amongst us all, when someone presents themselves as an enemy fighting a battle, the "opponent" will cease being receptive and lock himself up in a sort of mental shell. People identify with their ideology, when you blatantly and arrogantly challenge/dismiss their ideology, they will go in to self defense mode and cease to be open minded. And the minarchists whom you debate with, you give as much contempt as you would give a liberty hating socialist. These people are basically our ideological bedfellows Conza, they hate the state and love liberty. They speak our language, they share the same concerns, and often even the most persistent minarchist considers and sympathizes with our ideas. What you should do is continue speaking their anti-government language, and sprinkle anarchist ideas here and there. You can't convert people in one strong blow, but you can wear them down over time with the right approach. Like you I didn't always consider myself an anarchist, for a long while I remained a skeptical minarchist. But the ideas were exposed to me here and there until I became a very coy anarchist, and eventually I just couldn't avoid the points I was exposed to. Its a big jump in to freezing water, you can't try and push people in.

You should not only treat these people as ideological bedfellows, you should treat them as a businessman would treat his customers. Conza, we are basically salesmen. When we have philosophical discussions we're pitching ideas like a businessmen pitches his product. Don't just think of the humble manner in which Ron Paul might debate, but borrow the perspective of a businessmen. Does a businessmen come off as condescending, accusatory, etc to his customers? Hell no, the consumer is always right. Annoying the customer and getting in his face will scare him away. Now you obviously engage in such debates for the self satisfaction that comes with the sport, nothing else can explain your manner, why you post those .gifs and everything. And I'm not faulting you with this, there is nothing wrong with debating for one's own enjoyment. Indeed we all pretty much do this, some of us just don't make it blatantly obvious, lest we come off as impractical mental masturbators only seeking interweb victories. But as we both know the businessman can seek his own ends and at the same time please the customer. In addition to seeking the joy of debate, we also seek to convert people too. You can still get a kick out of debate by framing your pitches more delicately and with the customer in mind, and thus kill two birds with one stone by gradually wearing him down. Get inside the customer's head, and realize his concerns. Once knowing the customer, you will know some marketing points to touch on. Amassing shot gun blasts of an-cap literature in one post amounts to a loud and annoying commercial insisting people to buy buy BUY! In the world of advertisement/business pitches people have trained themselves to resist this approach, it doesn't work. lol I forgot what else I was going to say so I'll stop here.

[Conza88]

Even if it is a matter of them being intellectually dishonest or whatever, the worst possible way to break through this barrier is coming off as aggressive/accusatory. You have to acknowledge certain psychological triats common amongst us all, when someone presents themselves as an enemy fighting a battle, the "opponent" will cease being receptive and lock himself up in a sort of mental shell. People identify with their ideology, when you blatantly and arrogantly challenge/dismiss their ideology, they will go in to self defense mode and cease to be open minded. And the minarchists whom you debate with, you give as much contempt as you would give a liberty hating socialist. These people are basically our ideological bedfellows Conza, they hate the state and love liberty. They speak our language, they share the same concerns, and often even the most persistent minarchist considers and sympathizes with our ideas. What you should do is continue speaking their anti-government language, and sprinkle anarchist ideas here and there. You can't convert people in one strong blow, but you can wear them down over time with the right approach. Like you I didn't always consider myself an anarchist, for a long while I remained a skeptical minarchist. But the ideas were exposed to me here and there until I became a very coy anarchist, and eventually I just couldn't avoid the points I was exposed to. Its a big jump in to freezing water, you can't try and push people in.

You should not only treat these people as ideological bedfellows, you should treat them as a businessman would treat his customers. Conza, we are basically salesmen. When we have philosophical discussions we're pitching ideas like a businessmen pitches his product. Don't just think of the humble manner in which Ron Paul might debate, but borrow the perspective of a businessmen. Does a businessmen come off as condescending, accusatory, etc to his customers? Hell no, the consumer is always right. Annoying the customer and getting in his face will scare him away. Now you obviously engage in such debates for the self satisfaction that comes with the sport, nothing else can explain your manner, why you post those .gifs and everything. And I'm not faulting you with this, there is nothing wrong with debating for one's own enjoyment. Indeed we all pretty much do this, some of us just don't make it blatantly obvious, lest we come off as impractical mental masturbators only seeking interweb victories. But as we both know the businessman can seek his own ends and at the same time please the customer. In addition to seeking the joy of debate, we also seek to convert people too. You can still get a kick out of debate by framing your pitches more delicately and with the customer in mind, and thus kill two birds with one stone by gradually wearing him down. Get inside the customer's head, and realize his concerns. Once knowing the customer, you will know some marketing points to touch on. Amassing shot gun blasts of an-cap literature in one post amounts to a loud and annoying commercial insisting people to buy buy BUY! In the world of advertisement/business pitches people have trained themselves to resist this approach, it doesn't work. lol I forgot what else I was going to say so I'll stop here.

Fair enough. The only issue I have is with: "And the minarchists whom you debate with, you give as much contempt as you would give a liberty hating socialist."

Nope. It is only with those who attack non-archy / anarcho-capitalism. I don't bring anarcho-capitalism up, outside of threads that have been started by others or posts where others have attacked it. "Anarchy won't work" "It is utopian" etc. Although I do have a few articles I bump every now to give others a different perspective.

I seek to defend the truth. BUT the point is, as it always is: it DOES NOT MATTER IF THEY HAVE MADE THE LEAP TO ANARCHY / NON-ARCHY / ANARCHO-CAPITALISM. If they don't attack it, that's fine by me. Just don't attack the truth and then I won't have to defend it.


It has everything to do with non-radicalism.

It'll make more sense if you read this: Do You Hate the State? (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard75.html)

I have an amazing amount of respect for the past Minarchists / limited government folk. They TRULY hated the State and saw it for what it was - a gang of thieves.

Do You Hate the State? by Murray N. Rothbard (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard75.html)


It's not about minarchism (limited govt) vs anarcho capitalism. It's about radicalism vs conservatism. It's about gradualism vs abolition.

I'd take a Frederic Bastiat, Thomas Paine etc. over a utilitarian David Friedman (ancap) ANY day.


Furthermore, in contrast to what seems to be true nowadays, you don’t have to be an anarchist to be radical in our sense, just as you can be an anarchist while missing the radical spark. I can think of hardly a single limited governmentalist of the present day who is radical – a truly amazing phenomenon, when we think of our classical liberal forbears who were genuinely radical, who hated statism and the States of their day with a beautifully integrated passion: the Levellers, Patrick Henry, Tom Paine, Joseph Priestley, the Jacksonians, Richard Cobden, and on and on, a veritable roll call of the greats of the past. Tom Paine’s radical hatred of the State and statism was and is far more important to the cause of liberty than the fact that he never crossed the divide between laissez-faire and anarchism.

And closer to our own day, such early influences on me as Albert Jay Nock, H. L. Mencken, and Frank Chodorov were magnificently and superbly radical. Hatred of "Our Enemy, the State" (Nock’s title) and all of its works shone through all of their writings like a beacon star. So what if they never quite made it all the way to explicit anarchism? Far better one Albert Nock than a hundred anarcho-capitalists who are all too comfortable with the existing status quo.

But there is also the point of lurkers. I may not be able to convince this intellectually dishonest person, but they essentially become the protagonist that allow for the best arguments to be shown. Although ignored and scorned. Hopefully those reading and not being insulted, take the points in and understand them.

[Imperial]

Tom Paine’s radical hatred of the State and statism was and is far more important to the cause of liberty than the fact that he never crossed the divide between laissez-faire and anarchism.

I once posted the article you quoted this from from Rothbard on another forum
(http://www.40konline.com/community/index.php?topic=175794.msg2153289#msg2153289) and I was told that in The Rights of Man Pain argues for an elaborate system of State Welfare.


How can you convince someone who isn't intellectually honest? Please let me know, I'm all ears. How do you make someone become intellectually honest?

If you perceive intellectual dishonesty, the best way (and often the most frustrating) is to act like it doesn't exist. There are two paths this strategy will take. First, the person will be too ignorant (I don't mean this in a negative way, but in the literal sense) to perceive the argument you are making. Second, they may begin to change their position after a time. You have to break into human pride to do this though, so it takes patient grinding away. (Note, I am guilty of breaking this biggest thing I am talking about at times. And whenever I break the code of keeping my cool, the argument tends to turn against me because it is perceived as a rant.)


But when you argue on an internet forum like this, the true fact is that you aren't necessarily arguing against your opponent. You and your adversary are not the only ones reading it. So, sounding calm and in control of the situation is good for people who happen to be reading it and don't have the bias your opponent has toward your argument. They may be honestly influenced by rational discourse. And I know this has worked in the past for me, making an angry opponent look a fool while getting private messages saying they liked what I had to say.

[Conza88]

I once posted the article you quoted this from from Rothbard on another forum
(http://www.40konline.com/community/index.php?topic=175794.msg2153289#msg2153289) and I was told that in The Rights of Man Pain argues for an elaborate system of State Welfare.

Ayn Rand wasn't a Libertarian. She hated them. She was an objectivist with her own closed system. I'm not sure how you could consider her ideas as it's foundation. She stole a line from Ludwig von Mises - Human Action and used it as the premise for her book. (I don't consider it stealing, but she would with her advocation of IP using the LTV (labor theory of value), created by Adam Smith and later adopted as a massive premise for the Marxist system. But she has no doubt brought many people into the Libertarian movement, and is great by using emotion within her novels for conversion.

Robert Nozick and his immaculate conception of the state fails miserably. He was converted by Rothbard, he then petered off and removed himself from Libertarianism COMPLETELY. He never gave any justification as to why. He thought logical reasoning was "coercion", I kid you not.

Paine probably does. I have Common Sense, the Rights of Man and other essential writings by Paine on my shelf. I haven't read it yet, as I am reading other books. My question would be; yes, and.... so what?

I fail to see how that would change anything that was stated. He was amazingly radical AGAINST the status quo. Those ancaps in comparision (David Friedman) are not. That's the whole point.


If you perceive intellectual dishonesty, the best way (and often the most frustrating) is to act like it doesn't exist. There are two paths this strategy will take. First, the person will be too ignorant (I don't mean this in a negative way, but in the literal sense) to perceive the argument you are making. Second, they may begin to change their position after a time. You have to break into human pride to do this though, so it takes patient grinding away. (Note, I am guilty of breaking this biggest thing I am talking about at times. And whenever I break the code of keeping my cool, the argument tends to turn against me because it is perceived as a rant.)

But when you argue on an internet forum like this, the true fact is that you aren't necessarily arguing against your opponent. You and your adversary are not the only ones reading it. So, sounding calm and in control of the situation is good for people who happen to be reading it and don't have the bias your opponent has toward your argument. They may be honestly influenced by rational discourse. And I know this has worked in the past for me, making an angry opponent look a fool while getting private messages saying they liked what I had to say.

Fair points. :)

[Imperial]

Robert Nozick and his immaculate conception of the state fails miserably. He was converted by Rothbard, he then petered off and removed himself from Libertarianism COMPLETELY. He never gave any justification as to why. He thought logical reasoning was "coercion", I kid you not.

I haven't looked up enough about Nozick yet to have a full opinion on him. He was good for making libertarianism more academically mainstream though. (He is one of the few to actually fully critique Ayn Rand's books from a philosophical viewpoint rather than outright refusal and derision.)


Paine probably does. I have Common Sense, the Rights of Man and other essential writings by Paine on my shelf. I haven't read it yet, as I am reading other books. My question would be; yes, and.... so what?

I fail to see how that would change anything that was stated. He was amazingly radical AGAINST the status quo.

Oh no I would agree. I was just pointing out it appears he was more statist than what most people in America perceive him to be. But I would rather have a mindful dissenter than a thoughtless supporter. But it doesn't really change anything. I would probably be more statist like Paine, but I still despise the state for what it implies.

[Conza88]

I haven't looked up enough about Nozick yet to have a full opinion on him. He was good for making libertarianism more academically mainstream though. (He is one of the few to actually fully critique Ayn Rand's books from a philosophical viewpoint rather than outright refusal and derision.)

There is a reason why the academic mainstream made him the "premiere" Libertarian philosopher. Here is Hans Hermann-Hoppe's introduction to Ethics of Liberty (http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics.pdf). (pdf) (pg 18-23)


Naturally, Rothbard's anarchism appeared threatening to all statists, and his right-wing-that is, private-property-anarchism in particular could not but offend socialists of all stripes. However, his anarchistic conclusions were not sufficient to explain the neglect of The Ethics of Liberty by academia. Rothbard's first handicap was compounded by an even weightier one. Not only had he come to unorthodox conclusions, worse, he had reached them by pre-modern intellectual means. Instead of suggesting, hypothesizing, pondering, or puzzling, Rothbard had offered axiomatic- deductive arguments and proofs. In the age of democratic egalitarianism and ethical relativism, this constituted the ultimate academic sin: intellectual absolutism, extremism, and intolerance.

The importance of this second methodological factor can be illustrated by contrasting the reception accorded to Rothbard's The Ethics of Liberty on the one hand and Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopid2 on the other. Nozick's book appeared in 1974, three years after the publication of Rawls's A Theory of Justice. Almost overnight Nozick was internationally famous, and to this day, in the field of political philosophy Anarchy, State, and Utopia ranks probably second only to Rawls's book in terms of academic recognition. Yet, while Rawls was a socialist, Nozick was a libertarian. In fact, Nozick was heavily influenced by Rothbard.

He had read Rothbard's earlier Man, Economy, and State, Power and Market, and For A New Liberty,13 and in the acknowledgments to his book he noted that "it was a long conversation about six years ago with Murray Rothbard that stimulated my interest in individualist anarchist theory." To be sure, the conclusions arrived at by Nozick were less radical than those proposed by Rothbard. Rather than reaching anarchistic conclusions, Nozick's
main conclusions about the state are that the minimal state, limited to the narrow functions of protection against force, theft, fraud, enforcement of contracts, and so on, is justified; that any more extensive state will violate persons' rights not to be forced to do certain things, and is unjustified; and that the minimal state is inspiring as well as right.14

Nonetheless, in claiming "that the state may not use its coercive apparatus for the purpose of getting some citizens to aid others, or in order to prohibit activities to people for their own good or protection,"15 even Nozick's conclusions placed him far outside the political-philosophical mainstream. Why, then, in distinct contrast to the long-lasting neglect of Rothbard's libertarian The Ethics of Liberty, the stupendous academic success of Nozick's libertarian Anarchy, State, and Utopia? The answer is method and style.

Rothbard was above all a systematic thinker. He set out from the most elementary human situation and problem-Crusoe-ethics-and then proceeded painstakingly, justifying and proving each step and argument along the way to increasingly more complex and complicated situations and problems. Moreover, his prose was characterized by unrivaled clarity. In distinct contrast, Nozick was a modern unsystematic, associationist, or even impressionistic thinker, and his prose was difficult and unclear. Nozick was explicit about his own method. His writing, he stated,
was in the mode of much contemporary philosophical work in epistemology and metaphysics: there are elaborate arguments, claims rebutted by unlikely counterexamples, surprising theses, puzzles, abstract structural conditions, challenges to find another theory which fits a specified range of cases, startling conclusions, and so on. . . . One view about how to write a philosophy book holds that an author should think through all of the details of the view he presents, and its problems, polishing and refining his view to present to the world a finished, complete, and elegant whole. This is not my view. At
any rate, I believe that there also is a place and a function in our ongoing intellectual life for a less complete work, containing unfinished presentations, conjectures, open questions and problems, leads, side connections, as well as a main line of argument. There is room for words on subjects other than last words.16

Methodologically then, Nozick and Rothbard were poles apart. But why would Nozick's unsystematic ethical "explorations" find so much more resonance in academia than Rothbard's systematic ethical treatise, especially when their conclusions appeared to be largely congruent? Nozick touched upon the answer when he expressed the hope that his method "makes for intellectual interest and excitement."'But this was at best half of the answer, for Rothbard's 'The Ethics of Liberty', was an eminently interesting and exciting book, full of examples, cases, and scenarios from the full range of everyday experiences to extreme life-
boat-situations, spiced with many surprising conclusions, and above
all solutions instead of merely suggestions to problems and puzzles.

Nozick's method rather made for interest and excitement of a particular kind. Rothbard's The Ethics of Liberty consisted essentially of one successively and systematically drawn out and elaborated argument, and thus required the long sustained attention of its reader. However, a reader of Rothbard's book could possibly get so excited that he would not want to put it down until he had finished it. The excitement caused by Anarchy, State, and Utopia was of a very different kind. The book was a series of dozens of disparate or loosely jointed arguments, conjectures, puzzles, counterexamples, experiments, paradoxes, surprising turns, startling twists, intellectual flashes, and philosophical razzle-dazzle, and thus required only short and intermittent attention of its reader. At the same time, few if any readers of Nozick's book likely will have felt the urge to read it straight through. Instead, reading Nozick was characteristically done unsystematically and intermittently, in bits and pieces. The excitement stirred by Nozick was intense, short, and fleeting; and the success of Anarchy, State, and Utopia was due to the fact that at all times, and especially under democratic conditions, there are far more high time-preference intellectuals-intellectual thrill seekers-than patient and disciplined thinkers.18

Despite his politically incorrect conclusions, Nozick's libertarianism was deemed respectable by the academic masses and elicited countless comments and replies, because it was methodologically non-committal; that is, Nozick did not claim that his libertarian conclusions proved anything. Even though one would think that ethics is-and must be-an eminently practical intellectual subject, Nozick did not claim that his ethical "explorations" had any practical implications. They were meant to be nothing more than fascinating, entertaining, or suggestive intellectual play.

As such, libertarianism posed no threat to the predominantly social-democratic intellectual class. On account of his unsystematic method-his philosophical pluralism-Nozick was "tolerant" vis-d-vis the intellectual establishment (his anti-establishment conclusions notwithstanding). He did not insist that his libertarian conclusions were correct and, for instance, socialist conclusions were false and accordingly demand their instant practical implementation (that is, the immediate abolition of the socialdemocratic welfare state, including all of public tax-funded education and research). Rather, Nozick's libertarianism was, and claimed to be, no more than just an interesting thought. He did not mean to do any real harm to the ideas of his socialist opponents. He only wanted to throw an interesting idea into the democratic open-ended intellectual debate, while everything real, tangible, and physical could remain unchanged and everyone could go on with his life and thoughts as before.

Following the publication of Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Nozick took even further steps to establish his reputation as "tolerant." He never replied to the countless comments and criticisms of his book, including Rothbard's, which forms chapter 29 of this book. This confirmed that he took his non-committal method seriously. for why indeed, should anyone reply to his critics, if he were not committed to the correctness of his own views in the first place? Moreover, in his subsequent book, Philosophical Explanations, Nozick removed all remaining doubts as to his supposed non-extremist tolerance. He went further than merely restating his commitment to the methodological non-committal:
So don't look here for a knockdown argument that there is something wrong with knockdown arguments, for the knockdown argument to end all knockdown arguing. It will not do to argue you into the conclusion, even in order to reduce the total amount of presentation of argument. Nor may I hint that I possess the knockdown argument yet will not present it.19

Further, in a truly startling twist, Nozick went on to say that the use of knockdown arguments even constituted coercion and was hence morally offensive:
The terminology of philosophical art is coercive: arguments are powerful and best when they are knockdown, arguments force you to a conclusion, if you believe the premises you have to or must believe the conclusion, some arguments do not carry much punch, and so forth. A philosophical argument is an attempt to get someone to believe something, whether he wants to believe it or not. A successful philosophical argument, a strong argument, forces someone to a belief. . . . Why are philosophers intent on forcing others to believe things? Is that a nice way to behave toward someone? I think we cannot improve people that way. . . . Philosophical argument, trying to get someone to believe something whether he wants to believe it or not, is not, I have held, a nice way to behave toward someone; also, it does not fit the original motivation for studying or entering philosophy. That motivation is puzzlement, curiosity, a desire to understand, not a desire to produce uniformity of belief. Most people do not want to become thought-police. The philosophical goal of explanation rather than proof not only is morally better, it is more in accord with one's philosophical motivation. Also it changes how one proceeds philosophically; at the macro-level . . . it leads away from constructing the philosophical tower; at the micro-level, it alters which philosophical "moves" are legitimate at various points.20

With this surprising redefinition of systematic axiomatic-deductive reasoning as "coercion," Nozick had pulled the last tooth from his libertarianism. If even the attempt of proving (or demonstrating) the ethical impermissibility and injustice of democratic socialism constituted "bad" behavior, libertarianism had been essentially disarmed and the existing order and its academic bodyguards rendered intellectually invincible. How could one not be nice to someone as nice as Nozick? It is no wonder that the anti-libertarian intellectual establishment took kindly to a libertarianism as gentle and kind as his, and elevated Nozick to the rank of the premier philosopher of libertarianism.

18. In his subsequent book, Philosophical Explanations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981), Nozick further confirmed this judgment. There he wrote, I, too, seek an unreadable book: urgent thoughts to grapple with in agitation and excitement, revelations to be transformed by or to transform, a book incapable of being read straight through, a book, even, to bring reading to stop. I have not found that book, or attempted it. Still, I wrote and thought in awareness of it, in the hope that this book would bask in its light. . . . At no point is [the reader] forced to accept anything. He moves along gently, exploring his own and the author's thoughts. He explores together with the author, moving only where he is ready to; then he stops. Perhaps, at a later time mulling it over or in a second reading, he will move further. . . . I place no extreme obligation of attentiveness on my readers; I hope instead for those who read as I do, seeking what they can learn from, make use of, transform for their own purposes. . . . This book puts forward its explanations in a very tentative spirit; not only do I not ask you to believe they are correct, I do not think it important for me to believe them correct, either. Still, I do believe, and hope you will find it so, that these proposed explanations are illuminating and worth considering, that they are worth surpassing; also, that the process of seeking and elaborating explanations, being open to new possibilities, the new wanderings and wanderings, the free exploration, is itself a delight. Can any pleasure compare to that of a new idea, a new question? There is sexual experience, of course, not dissimilar, with its own playfulness and possibilities, its focused freedom, its depth, its sharp pleasures and its gentle ones, its ecstacies. What is the mind's excitement and sensuality? What is orgasm? Whatever, it unfortunately will frighten and offend the puritans of the mind (do the two puritanisms share a common root?) even as it expands others and brings them joy" (pp. 1,7,8,24).

21. In accordance with this non-methodical mindset, Nozick's philosophical interests continued to drift from one subject to another. Already in his Philosophical Explanations, he had confessed "I have found (and not only in sequence) many different philosophies alluring and appealing, cogent and impressive, tempting and wonderful." (p.20) Libertarianism-ethics-carried no particular or even unique weight within Nozick's philosophy. It was one exciting subject among innumerous others, to be taken up for "exploration" or dropped as one's curiosity demanded. It was not entirely surprising then when, only a few years after the publication of the very book that had made him famous, it became increasingly obvious that Nozick had all but abandoned even his kind and gentle libertarianism. And when he at last acknowledged openly (in The Examined Life, a book of neo-Buddhist musings on the meaning of life) that he was no longer a libertarian and had converted to communitarian social democracy, he still felt under no obligation to give reasons for his change of mind and explain why his previous ethical views had been false. Interestingly this development seems to have had little effect on the status of Anarchy, State, and Utopia as prime libertarian philosophizing.


Oh no I would agree. I was just pointing out it appears he was more statist than what most people in America perceive him to be. But I would rather have a mindful dissenter than a thoughtless supporter. But it doesn't really change anything. I would probably be more statist like Paine, but I still despise the state for what it implies.

Well good, radical language and rhetoric about the government and State is what is needed. Focusing primarily on what the State needs to stop doing, and not the "other" (Paine? Welfare?) factors. Which I will have to see for myself, should get the guy to quote from Rights of Man. And as long as you don't attack / denouce non-archy / anarcho-capitalism for being too radical, we should get along just fine. :D

[heavenlyboy34]

You're awesome, Conza! :cool::D