PDA

View Full Version : Tancredo blasted for poll test idea




bobbyw24
02-09-2010, 02:51 PM
Former congressman Tom Tancredo took heat Friday for remarks at the national Tea Party convention that critics viewed as calling for a return to Jim Crow laws.
But Tancredo said he wasn't targeting a specific group when he suggested in Nashville there should be a "civics-literacy" test before someone could vote.

"People who could not even spell the word 'vote' or say it in English put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House," Tancredo said in his opening-day speech Thursday.

"His name is Barack Hussein Obama."

Tests were used to prevent blacks from voting during segregation and were banned by the Voting Rights Act in 1964.

Tancredo said Friday that his call for a civics-literacy test
dates to 2007, when he was a Republican presidential candidate and was impressed with how much an immigrant he met on the trail knew about America.
Told his remarks were creating an uproar particularly among liberal bloggers Tancredo laughed and joked that they were "quoting me accurately again." He then bemoaned what he called "the left's obsession with race."


Read more: http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_14345675#ixzz0f4ezHrxK

lester1/2jr
02-09-2010, 02:55 PM
I'm sympathetic to some paleo concerns but two things have caused me to rethink my lumping myself into their general catagory

1. when takimag had comments all the racist/ nazi assholes ho used to come through there. I'm not saying it was the writers (okay it WAS SOME of the writers) but MAINLY their fans.

2. it just seems more people are open to messages of freedom than hate.

I think paleos imagine this sea of people or silent majority that will rise up with them but in reality I think it's mainly just them.


example: I love Pat Buchanan but do a twitter search for pat buchanan and you get "buchanan is a racist, blah blah blah, msnbc should fire him) do one for ron paul, you get ten times as many responses and most of them positive

The Patriot
02-09-2010, 03:13 PM
There is no constitutional right to vote. Constitutionally speaking, there is nothing wrong with individual states setting up a literacy exam, as long as it is applied to all people equally under the law.

AuH20
02-09-2010, 03:18 PM
Clearly, it's the liberals' dirty secret. Their educational system is piss poor, and now they're suddenly offended when someone calls them on the carpet for it? Moreover, they love maintaining Hotel America, so their shackled foreigners never participate in the American experiment and never expose themselves to something besides collectivist propaganda. Good for Tancredo.

AuH20
02-09-2010, 03:23 PM
I'm sympathetic to some paleo concerns but two things have caused me to rethink my lumping myself into their general catagory

1. when takimag had comments all the racist/ nazi assholes ho used to come through there. I'm not saying it was the writers (okay it WAS SOME of the writers) but MAINLY their fans.

2. it just seems more people are open to messages of freedom than hate.

I think paleos imagine this sea of people or silent majority that will rise up with them but in reality I think it's mainly just them.


example: I love Pat Buchanan but do a twitter search for pat buchanan and you get "buchanan is a racist, blah blah blah, msnbc should fire him) do one for ron paul, you get ten times as many responses and most of them positive

I think you're conflating paleocons with white supremacists. Some paleocons are proponents of western civilization as opposed to being advocates for racial domination. I personally would have no problem with being a caucasian minority in this country, if today's minorities reclaimed the wisdom of past and turned the rudder in the direction of our constitutional roots.

RM918
02-09-2010, 03:41 PM
I think you're conflating paleocons with white supremacists. Some paleocons are proponents of western civilization as opposed to being advocates for racial domination. I personally would have no problem with being a caucasian minority in this country, if today's minorities reclaimed the wisdom of past and turned the rudder in the direction of our constitutional roots.

These days, whenever someone asserts someone else as 'racist' I tend to be extremely skeptical, as the term is both watered down and rarely applied correctly.

The Patriot
02-09-2010, 03:50 PM
I think you're conflating paleocons with white supremacists. Some paleocons are proponents of western civilization as opposed to being advocates for racial domination. I personally would have no problem with being a caucasian minority in this country, if today's minorities reclaimed the wisdom of past and turned the rudder in the direction of our constitutional roots.

Personally, I don't see floods of Latinos pushing for a return to a Constitutional Republic. They generally lean heavily democratic(minus Cubans and some El Salvadorans who were anti communists, though I wouldn't consider Cubans latinos, most of them are Spanish).

I think America will fracture anyways, the economic model isn't sustainable, the country will break up. High deficit spending and the Inflationary Monetary policy of the FED will result in higher taxes, higher debts, unemployment, and rampant inflation. Hopefully we can have some prosperous sovereign Republics that will heed to the ideas of the founders. Unless we get Liberty oriented candidates into power in the next 10-15 years I see this happening.

BlackTerrel
02-09-2010, 06:47 PM
example: I love Pat Buchanan but do a twitter search for pat buchanan and you get "buchanan is a racist, blah blah blah, msnbc should fire him) do one for ron paul, you get ten times as many responses and most of them positive

Nobody really hates Ron Paul. They either like him or indifferent - but he's too nice and reasonable to really hate.

Buchanan is the opposite. He's a bitter old dude that feels he's losing the country and doesn't get that people under 60 think he's a loon. I'm sure he has his demo - but given that Twitter is mainly people under 45 I doubt he'd get much support there.

jmdrake
02-09-2010, 07:58 PM
There is no constitutional right to vote. Constitutionally speaking, there is nothing wrong with individual states setting up a literacy exam, as long as it is applied to all people equally under the law.

Well last time it wasn't applied equally to all people. Also do you think most of the people who voted for McCain would pass a "civics test"? Really, all of this "blame the voters" crap belies the fact that the GOP put up a sucky candidate. (I know that you know that. I'm not sure Tancredo does though.) McCain lost because he deserved to lose. And he deserved to lose because he embraced the Bush / Obama bailout. When McCain "suspended his campaign" and called for a "joint statement on the economy" with Barack Obama he gave up any right to be called the republican nominee. Whether Tancredo was being "racist" or not, he was certainly not being very bright.

Koz
02-09-2010, 08:04 PM
Maybe we should go back to what the founders wanted. You could only vote if you owned property.

Not becaus they wanted only the rich to vote, but the didn't want those who don't own property to vote to take property from those who had it.

I'm not sure a civics test is needed, but clearly people are voting for more welfare at this point. That's partially how Obama got elected.

torchbearer
02-09-2010, 08:12 PM
the main opposition to the testing idea was that after the civil war, it was used to keep former slaves from voting.
the idea is good in principle, but when it comes down to the details- it can get messy.
might as well just pick our reps via lottery. less fuss.

nate895
02-09-2010, 08:18 PM
the main opposition to the testing idea was that after the civil war, it was used to keep former slaves from voting.
the idea is good in principle, but when it comes down to the details- it can get messy.
might as well just pick our reps via lottery. less fuss.

What about the fact that if we picked our reps by lottery, even if libertarian capitalists were the majority, that we could wind up with a communist legislature?

Stary Hickory
02-09-2010, 08:19 PM
Considering that the US government acknowledges no limits on it's power, that is it breaks the law. And this fact puts us at the mercy of our fellow voters as to how this unlimited and tyrannical power will affect us.....YES he is justified in stating that ignorant morons should not be able to vote and take away the rights of other people.

I don't want morons limiting my rights, stealing my things, and telling me how to live. So yes what he says has merit if you consider the ridiculous situation we find ourselves in with an out of control government,

jmdrake
02-09-2010, 08:24 PM
Considering that the US government acknowledges no limits on it's power, that is it breaks the law. And this fact puts us at the mercy of our fellow voters as to how this unlimited and tyrannical power will affect us.....YES he is justified in stating that ignorant morons should not be able to vote and take away the rights of other people.

I don't want morons limiting my rights, stealing my things, and telling me how to live. So yes what he says has merit if you consider the ridiculous situation we find ourselves in with an out of control government,

The problem is that he (Tancredo) seems perfectly fine with a John McCain limiting your rights, stealing your things, and telling you how to live. The problem isn't that Obama won. The problem is that "McBama" was the only choice.

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0808/jarack-mcbama-mccain-obama-god-help-us-demotivational-poster-1219697076.jpg

BenIsForRon
02-09-2010, 08:26 PM
I really can't believe the crap I hear people say on this forum.

Every adult should be allowed to vote. No tests, no property ownership... just just need to be an adult American citizen.

torchbearer
02-09-2010, 08:27 PM
What about the fact that if we picked our reps by lottery, even if libertarian capitalists were the majority, that we could wind up with a communist legislature?

that would be different from now in what way?

torchbearer
02-09-2010, 08:28 PM
I really can't believe the crap I hear people say on this forum.

Every adult should be allowed to vote. No tests, no property ownership... just just need to be an adult American citizen.

if all people were voting for was someone in charge of protecting people's rights- there would be no problem. but since we no longer have protection for the individual against the will of the majority, what you get are a gang of wolves and a single sheep voting on what they are having for dinner.
sounds like an issue to me.

Stary Hickory
02-09-2010, 08:32 PM
if all people were voting for was someone in charge of protecting people's rights- there would be no problem. but since we no longer have protection for the individual against the will of the majority, what you get are a gang of wolves and a single sheep voting on what they are having for dinner.
sounds like an issue to me.

Exactly, when these morons can affect your life in an unlimited capacity by directing government force against you I do think it's valid to demand that they at least understand what the hell they are doing.

However the problem is that we don't have limited government.

torchbearer
02-09-2010, 08:33 PM
here is a good way to do voting-
do it the same way the corps do it. make taxes voluntary- you buy shares into the government. your vote is weighed by how much you put in-
thus the person who pays the most taxes has the most say. it is mostly their money anyway.
who would squander their own money?
they wouldn't raise "taxes" as that would raise the amount of stock held by others.

jmdrake
02-09-2010, 08:44 PM
So should Tom Tancredo be allowed to vote? I mean really, if he thinks McCain is part of the "solution" as opposed to part of the problem isn't his (Tancredo's) judgment suspect as much as the people who voted for Obama?

Austrian Econ Disciple
02-09-2010, 08:47 PM
Exactly, when these morons can affect your life in an unlimited capacity by directing government force against you I do think it's valid to demand that they at least understand what the hell they are doing.

However the problem is that we don't have limited government.

This always happen in any system that has voting and a State. The solution? Stateless society. :p

Stary Hickory
02-09-2010, 08:48 PM
So should Tom Tancredo be allowed to vote? I mean really, if he thinks McCain is part of the "solution" as opposed to part of the problem isn't his (Tancredo's) judgment suspect as much as the people who voted for Obama?

Well he should have to pass a basic civics test to show he is not a total moron. I think this should be the case regardless of political affiliation. The problem is that the government is out of control, if it could not screw with me I could care less how stupid another voter is. However when stupid voters can now screw up my life their stupidity becomes an issue for me.

The problem is that government is not obeying the constitution. If it were obeying the law these issues would hardly be that bad.

Austrian Econ Disciple
02-09-2010, 08:48 PM
here is a good way to do voting-
do it the same way the corps do it. make taxes voluntary- you buy shares into the government. your vote is weighed by how much you put in-
thus the person who pays the most taxes has the most say. it is mostly their money anyway.
who would squander their own money?
they wouldn't raise "taxes" as that would raise the amount of stock held by others.

Why not abolish the State and have a Voluntary-Stateless society?

torchbearer
02-09-2010, 08:50 PM
This always happen in any system that has voting and a State. The solution? Stateless society. :p

removing the state governments do not remove the retards.
corps are like governments to themselves, those retards will still come together to take from their neighbor.
you can't change the people by removing their government, they will just make another one.
you have to lead the retards are be eaten by them.

just because you don't show up for the game doesn't mean it won't be played.
the only difference it makes is whether you have a fighting chance to stop it or if you will be sacrificed to it. your lack of participating doesn't excempt you from the theft and murder that will come from it.

Stary Hickory
02-09-2010, 08:51 PM
This always happen in any system that has voting and a State. The solution? Stateless society. :p

Well you are saying when idiots band together this always happens. In a stateless society morons can still band together to rob and pillage. This stuff always sounds nice, but the same bad elements that violate the constitution and morality will do it in a stateless society as well.

How to deal with these types of people is something that will always have to be considered. When you say stateless society you are implying the absence of these bad elements. I wish it were that simple.

BenIsForRon
02-09-2010, 08:53 PM
here is a good way to do voting-
do it the same way the corps do it. make taxes voluntary- you buy shares into the government. your vote is weighed by how much you put in-
thus the person who pays the most taxes has the most say. it is mostly their money anyway.
who would squander their own money?
they wouldn't raise "taxes" as that would raise the amount of stock held by others.

You've got to be kidding me. Exxon, Monsanto, and Goldman Sachs would own the country to an even greater degree!

torchbearer
02-09-2010, 08:54 PM
You've got to be kidding me. Exxon, Monsanto, and Goldman Sachs would own the country to an even greater degree!

but they would be doing it with their money. not mine.

Austrian Econ Disciple
02-09-2010, 08:54 PM
removing the state governments do not remove the retards.
corps are like governments to themselves, those retards will still come together to take from their neighbor.
you can't change the people by removing their government, they will just make another one.
you have to lead the retards are be eaten by them.

just because you don't show up for the game doesn't mean it won't be played.
the only difference it makes is whether you have a fighting chance to stop it or if you will be sacrificed to it. your lack of participating doesn't excempt you from the theft and murder that will come from it.

You don't realize that subsidizing bad behavior, negligence, indigence, and other negative influences results in an increase of those behaviors. By taking away the subsidization of those behaviors, that behavior is therefore reduced and limited. This is axiomatic. We tend to call this the Moral Hazard. A State is one large Moral Hazard. Remove the Moral Hazard.

It seems you believe in benevolent dictatorship, or enlightened despotism. No one needs to be led. No one needs someone above them to tell them how to live. Of course you have to show up in a society where you are pitted against each other to see who controls public property, and who gets to steal from who. In a Stateless Market society this would not occur. The incentive and institutionalized violence and theft would not be there. Hence, the presumed legality, morality, and legitimacy of these activities would be diminished. Of course this isn't going to happen over night, but it is the Keynes types who only look short-run.

Stary Hickory
02-09-2010, 08:55 PM
You've got to be kidding me. Exxon, Monsanto, and Goldman Sachs would own the country to an even greater degree!

Yeah but if the services offered by government were voluntary rather than mandatory who cares? Let those who want to participate and support these programs do just that.

Government is a giant monopoly already. We have to purchase whatever the hell they are selling regardless of quality or desirability. If we don't purchase their garbage they kill us. What Torchbearer suggested is an improvement.

Austrian Econ Disciple
02-09-2010, 08:56 PM
Well you are saying when idiots band together this always happens. In a stateless society morons can still band together to rob and pillage. This stuff always sounds nice, but the same bad elements that violate the constitution and morality will do it in a stateless society as well.

How to deal with these types of people is something that will always have to be considered. When you say stateless society you are implying the absence of these bad elements. I wish it were that simple.

Read my post below.


You don't realize that subsidizing bad behavior, negligence, indigence, and other negative influences results in an increase of those behaviors. By taking away the subsidization of those behaviors, that behavior is therefore reduced and limited. This is axiomatic. We tend to call this the Moral Hazard. A State is one large Moral Hazard. Remove the Moral Hazard.

It seems you believe in benevolent dictatorship, or enlightened despotism. No one needs to be led. No one needs someone above them to tell them how to live. Of course you have to show up in a society where you are pitted against each other to see who controls public property, and who gets to steal from who. In a Stateless Market society this would not occur. The incentive and institutionalized violence and theft would not be there. Hence, the presumed legality, morality, and legitimacy of these activities would be diminished. Of course this isn't going to happen over night, but it is the Keynes types who only look short-run.

torchbearer
02-09-2010, 08:57 PM
You don't realize that subsidizing bad behavior, negligence, indigence, and other negative influences results in an increase of those behaviors. By taking away the subsidization of those behaviors, that behavior is therefore reduced and limited. This is axiomatic. We tend to call this the Moral Hazard. A State is one large Moral Hazard. Remove the Moral Hazard.

It seems you believe in benevolent dictatorship, or enlightened despotism. No one needs to be led. No one needs someone above them to tell them how to live. Of course you have to show up in a society where you are pitted against each other to see who controls public property, and who gets to steal from who. In a Stateless Market society this would not occur. The incentive and institutionalized violence and theft would not be there. Hence, the presumed legality, morality, and legitimacy of these activities would be diminished. Of course this isn't going to happen over night, but it is the Keynes types who only look short-run.

here is your problem-
i'm not looking for someone to lead me. i do just fine on my own.
i'm looking to hire someone to oversee the court system for mediation of disputes and the removal of violent criminals from society. protection of rights.
that isn't looking for a LEADER, it is looking for someone to manage the protection of rights against the mobs and to prevent the endless cycle of self-judges that leads to vigilantism and tribal fueds.

Austrian Econ Disciple
02-09-2010, 09:02 PM
here is your problem-
i'm not looking for someone to lead me. i do just fine on my own.
i'm looking to hire someone to oversee the court system for mediation of disputes and the removal of violent criminals from society. protection of rights.
that isn't looking for a LEADER, it is looking for someone to manage the protection of rights against the mobs and to prevent the endless cycle of self-judges that leads to vigilantism and tribal fueds.

And there are countless cases of this occuring through voluntary co-operation and the marketplace. We also even have third party private arbitors in our current State society. What you are trying to advocate is some weird amalgam of partial voluntary action with a monopolized institution. It is a contradiction. If the services of this "Government" were voluntary and taxation was voluntary, then if they did not provide a service that was wanted, or of a quality that was desired in a price desired then what happens? If no one can compete what happens? Since it all ready owns the monopolization of violence, they will take. You haven't thought through your idea too well. If you want a voluntary system of private law, then you should read the following:

Market for Liberty - Mr. and Mrs. Tannehill
For a New Liberty - Murray Rothbard
Private Law - Bob Murphy
YT Clip of HHH Private Law Society
Myth of National Defense - HH Hoppe
Production of Security - Gustave de Molinari

Stary Hickory
02-09-2010, 09:02 PM
You don't realize that subsidizing bad behavior, negligence, indigence, and other negative influences results in an increase of those behaviors. By taking away the subsidization of those behaviors, that behavior is therefore reduced and limited. This is axiomatic. We tend to call this the Moral Hazard. A State is one large Moral Hazard. Remove the Moral Hazard.

It seems you believe in benevolent dictatorship, or enlightened despotism. No one needs to be led. No one needs someone above them to tell them how to live. Of course you have to show up in a society where you are pitted against each other to see who controls public property, and who gets to steal from who. In a Stateless Market society this would not occur. The incentive and institutionalized violence and theft would not be there. Hence, the presumed legality, morality, and legitimacy of these activities would be diminished. Of course this isn't going to happen over night, but it is the Keynes types who only look short-run.


This always sounds good. Yet humans again and again organize themselves into warring clans, nations, and sects. If we could get rid of this tendency and keep people from pillaging their neighbors then yes what you describe would be nice.

But keep in mind even religion has it's roots in combating this. Most religions teach the basics of civilization building. Don't kill or steal. It's obvious that the early adapters to religion were able to assimilate others who could not develop because of the lack of morality(that which is moral is beneficial for mankind). So this battle you so nonchalantly brush off has been raging for thousands and thousands of years.

I like utopias too, I hope we ge there one day. I am more than willing to give it a try, but I acknowledge that the Aholes and bad elements we are fighting against right now will still be there. They will need to be dealt with. Our only option is to hope people come around and to fight for pockets of freedom. Whether that be states or what have you. A stateless society implies the absence of ignorance, greed, and immorality....this is not simply brushed off. It's the battle of the ages. Even Jesus(if you are religious) lost the good fight in the end when they crucified him.

torchbearer
02-09-2010, 09:04 PM
And there are countless cases of this occuring through voluntary co-operation and the marketplace. We also even have third party private arbitors in our current State society. What you are trying to advocate is some weird amalgam of partial voluntary action with a monopolized institution. It is a contradiction. If the services of this "Government" were voluntary and taxation was voluntary, then if they did not provide a service that was wanted, or of a quality that was desired in a price desired then what happens? If no one can compete what happens? Since it all ready owns the monopolization of violence, they will take. You haven't thought through your idea too well. If you want a voluntary system of private law, then you should read the following:

Market for Liberty - Mr. and Mrs. Tannehill
For a New Liberty - Murray Rothbard
Private Law - Bob Murphy
YT Clip of HHH Private Law Society
Myth of National Defense - HH Hoppe
Production of Security - Gustave de Molinari



statist call me an anarchist.
anarchist call me a statist.
perhaps Thomas Jefferson wasn't a complete idiot when he believed that a network of local government with weak central government would be the best solution. its called minarchy. you should look it up sometimes when you get done jerking off to stefan's youtubes.

Austrian Econ Disciple
02-09-2010, 09:09 PM
This always sounds good. Yet humans again and again organize themselves into warring clans, nations, and sects. If we could get rid of this tendency and keep people from pillaging their neighbors then yes what you describe would be nice.

But keep in mind even religion has it's roots in combating this. Most religions teach the basics of civilization building. Don't kill or steal. It's obvious that the early adapters to religion were able to assimilate others who could not develop because of the lack of morality(that which is moral is beneficial for mankind). So this battle you so nonchalantly brush off has been raging for thousands and thousands of years.

I like utopias too, I hope we ge there one day. I am more than willing to give it a try, but I acknowledge that the Aholes and bad elements we are fighting against right now will still be there. They will need to be dealt with. Our only option is to hope people come around and to fight for pockets of freedom. Whether that be states or what have you. A stateless society implies the absence of ignorance, greed, and immorality....this is not simply brushed off. It's the battle of the ages. Even Jesus(if you are religious) lost the good fight in the end when they crucified him.

What I have described has all ready happened and succeded! From the Old West to Celtic Ireland to Medieval Iceland to Colonial Pennsylvania!

Secondly, this is not utopian. Of course there will be miscreants and criminals in every society. We as humans have free will and are imperfect, and hence, there will always be people out there to do harm. This is not disputed, and we take this into account. The problem is getting people to see that institutionalized violence, theft, and murder only creates more of those things. The State does not protect you. It subjugates you! A Stateless society does not imply an absence of ignorance. Indeed, it observes this and acknowledges it. Hence why Voluntaryism promotes Free-Markets, because we understand that humans do not have perfect knowledge.

I don't know why you are trying to put arguements and words into my mouth, and into the philosophy that are not there. We are 100% Laissez-Faire Free-Market Anarchists! Do you believe that someone who believes in the Free-Market believes that this only works with an absence of greed? Do you honestly believe that? Greed is apart of human nature! Without fear, greed destroys. This is what you get with States! The public-private Moral hazard dilemmas. I seek to eliminate that. I seek a voluntary market society, where you can choose what system is best for you.

Austrian Econ Disciple
02-09-2010, 09:11 PM
statist call me an anarchist.
anarchist call me a statist.
perhaps Thomas Jefferson wasn't a complete idiot when he believed that a network of local government with weak central government would be the best solution. its called minarchy. you should look it up sometimes when you get done jerking off to stefan's youtubes.

How's that working out for you?

Here is a great article:

The Obviousness of Anarchy - John Hasnas Assc. Professor of Business and Law Georgetown University

https://mises.org/journals/scholar/hasnas.pdf

jmdrake
02-09-2010, 09:19 PM
but they would be doing it with their money. not mine.

You sure about that? They could simply pass the "taxes" they'd have to pay for influence off to you the consumer. That's what they do anyway with their lobbying fees. And you wouldn't be saved from direct taxes either. They wouldn't mind the little bit of "stock" you'd get out of the deal.

BenIsForRon
02-09-2010, 09:20 PM
its called minarchy. You should look it up sometimes when you get done jerking off to stefan's youtubes.

BUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRnNNNNN!!!

jmdrake
02-09-2010, 09:21 PM
Here's something that most people seem to be missing. Once you control for minority voters, the most educated voters are democrats. And you have to go really high up the education food chain to find people who support things like bailouts. Most everyone that I've met that supported TARP was a college professor. Do you really want only the most educated voting?

Austrian Econ Disciple
02-09-2010, 09:22 PM
Here's something that most people seem to be missing. Once you control for minority voters, the most educated voters are democrats. And you have to go really high up the education food chain to find people who support things like bailouts. Most everyone that I've met that supported TARP was a college professor. Do you really want only the most educated voting?

I thought the most educated voters were libertarians? :confused:

Stary Hickory
02-09-2010, 09:26 PM
What I have described has all ready happened and succeded! From the Old West to Celtic Ireland to Medieval Iceland to Colonial Pennsylvania!

Secondly, this is not utopian. Of course there will be miscreants and criminals in every society. We as humans have free will and are imperfect, and hence, there will always be people out there to do harm. This is not disputed, and we take this into account. The problem is getting people to see that institutionalized violence, theft, and murder only creates more of those things. The State does not protect you. It subjugates you! A Stateless society does not imply an absence of ignorance. Indeed, it observes this and acknowledges it. Hence why Voluntaryism promotes Free-Markets, because we understand that humans do not have perfect knowledge.

I don't know why you are trying to put arguements and words into my mouth, and into the philosophy that are not there. We are 100% Laissez-Faire Free-Market Anarchists! Do you believe that someone who believes in the Free-Market believes that this only works with an absence of greed? Do you honestly believe that? Greed is apart of human nature! Without fear, greed destroys. This is what you get with States! The public-private Moral hazard dilemmas. I seek to eliminate that. I seek a voluntary market society, where you can choose what system is best for you.


What you are proposing is the end game...it is a utopia of sorts. It assumes understanding and morality on a LARGE scale. This has been and always will be the main challenge to that sort of civilization. You are saying if people were not the way that they are we could do A or B. This is fine and dandy, but getting people to not behave in this manner has been something that never has been solved.

Even in America, it was not solved. Institutionalized violence was merely reset or neutralized temporarily by environmental factors. We had a large spanse between us and institutionalized violence. But even under these favorable conditions, what happened? These bad elements organized themselves and subjugated the populace. You are not offering a solution so much as describing a utopia of sorts. Our problem has always been with the overwhelming amount of ignorance out there. You assume it is gone, or at least to a very significant degree when you describe the stateless society. This ignores the enormous task in front of us. I don't think many here would argue that if people were better informed and more moral that the world would be a better place. However we are concerned with getting there.

A bit of realism does help. I sometimes wonder if mankind will ever be able to overcome these violent and ignorant tendencies. If it does happen maybe it will take thousands of more years. In the meanwhile we have to concern ourselves with the betterment of out current situation. For me secession or the weakening/elimination of the central government would be very nice. It would be like a giant reset switch on institutionalized violence, but of course these elements will reorganize and stage another attack. Until this tendency changes your stateless society is likely to remain a lofty goal or dream

Austrian Econ Disciple
02-09-2010, 09:29 PM
What you are proposing is the end game...it is a utopia of sorts. It assumes understanding and morality on a LARGE scale. This has been and always will be the main challenge to that sort of civilization. You are saying if people were not the way that they are we could do A or B. This is fine and dandy, but getting people to not behave in this manner has been something that never has been solved.

Even in America, it was not solved. Institutionalized violence was merely reset or neutralized temporarily by environmental factors. We had a large spanse between us and institutionalized violence. But even under these favorable conditions, what happened? These bad elements organized themselves and subjugated the populace. You are not offering a solution so much as describing a utopia of sorts. Our problem has always been with the overwhelming amount of ignorance out there. You assume it is gone, or at least to a very significant degree when you describe the stateless society. This ignores the enormous task in front of us. I don't think many here would argue that if people were better informed and more moral that the world would be a better place. However we are concerned with getting there.

A bit of realism does help. I sometimes wonder if mankind will ever be able to overcome these violent and ignorant tendencies. If it does happen maybe it will take thousands of more years. In the meanwhile we have to concern ourselves with the betterment of out current situation. For me secession or the weakening/elimination of the central government would be very nice. It would be like a giant reset switch on institutionalized violence, but of course these elements will reorganize and stage another attack. Until this tendency changes your stateless society is likely to remain a lofty goal or dream

How then did Celtic Ireland a Stateless society last for 1,000 years? If you are correct, this would be impossible. The State is one large Moral Hazard! Of course more people will be criminal when criminal activity is legitimized and subsidized. /facepalm

BenIsForRon
02-09-2010, 09:29 PM
I thought the most educated voters were libertarians? :confused:

Yeah dude, you're totally right. Kind of like how all white people like Kenny G and all black people eat watermelon.

White Knight
02-09-2010, 09:33 PM
Nobody really hates Ron Paul. They either like him or indifferent - but he's too nice and reasonable to really hate.

Buchanan is the opposite. He's a bitter old dude that feels he's losing the country and doesn't get that people under 60 think he's a loon. I'm sure he has his demo - but given that Twitter is mainly people under 45 I doubt he'd get much support there.

I did a massive amount of campaign work for him in 1996 - as a 23 year old.

Stary Hickory
02-09-2010, 09:37 PM
How then did Celtic Ireland a Stateless society last for 1,000 years? If you are correct, this would be impossible. The State is one large Moral Hazard! Of course more people will be criminal when criminal activity is legitimized and subsidized. /facepalm

You are really using Celtic Ireland as an example? /facepalm This is kind of ludicrous. Then I will ask the obvious question. If Celtic Ireland had it right why did they choose to institutionalize violence there? I mean you make no sense. Anyways, knowing something about history, there probably were warring clans like everywhere else. The Celts were known for their skill in battle. Probably not a coincidence.

BTW American Indians for that matter lived in a stateless society. They still fought and killed each other over many things. your arguments are full of fail.

Austrian Econ Disciple
02-09-2010, 09:40 PM
You are really using Celtic Ireland as an example? /facepalm This is kind of ludicrous. Then I will ask the obvious question. If Celtic Ireland had it right why did they choose to institutionalize violence there? I mean you make no sense. Anyways, knowing something about history, there probably were warring clans like everywhere else. The Celts were known for their skill in battle. Probably not a coincidence.

Yes, the Americans were also well known for their Rifleman. Therefore Americans were warring with each other everywhere. Secondly, what institutionalized violence occured within the Tuaths?

jmdrake
02-09-2010, 09:50 PM
I thought the most educated voters were libertarians? :confused:

I was specifically talking about the two major parties. The libertarian vote (as a party) is too small to shift things one way or the other. (Don't know how many libertarians there are hold their nose and that vote for the GOP).

Stary Hickory
02-09-2010, 10:12 PM
Yes, the Americans were also well known for their Rifleman. Therefore Americans were warring with each other everywhere. Secondly, what institutionalized violence occured within the Tuaths?

At this point you are not arguing your point anymore so much as deflecting to avoid discussion. Bringing up some obscure reference to Tuath is not adding to the conversation. It is being used as a crutch, and preventing rational discussion. And by continually bringing them up you make my own point that much more concrete. They do not exist anymore, in the place of their tribes and clans are bastions of institutionalized violence and big government.

And I give you a great deal of wiggle room, here because frankly we are talking about sparse populations and a tribal situation. You have presented them in a very suspicious manner, as though they were peace loving anarchists. They were more than likely like every other tribal society in competition with rival clans. And that is not to even mention the power structure within the Celtic tribes.

yes Americans had rifles, and we used them to subjugate the American Indian population. We fought many wars and battles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States

Frankly you have presented a very weak case for what you are preaching while simultaneously ignoring what I have said. This is no longer a discussion. I expect you yet again to prsent an obscure reference to some other embellished culture that was long ago subjugated by statism. If These Tuath were doing things correctly, if they had reached your "zentih" then they would have continued as such and not given into the consolidation of power and creation of statism.