Ron Paul, Tom Woods, Judge Nap at the Mises Summit

[green73]

No youtube yet of Paul's speech but here's the MP3
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwell-show/2012/10/31/318-teaching-freedom/


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCs8SiiAqds&feature=youtu.be&a

Reflections on the Loss of Liberty | Andrew P. Napolitano

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiXup3fWX7w

How Murray Rothbard Changed my Mind on War | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBCiMxuX9_g

[sailingaway]

Yeah, I posted Ron's podcast, I didn't have the others, though.

[green73]

Yeah, I posted Ron's podcast, I didn't have the others, though.

Sorry about that, Sailing.

[sailingaway]

LOL! No problem. as I said, you have more here.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Man does Cato suck.

[ClydeCoulter]

All I can say guys is, don't let this become an industry. Let's get 'er done and then just keep it steady. Don't let this become like "curing cancer" and there be more money in not curing it than really curing it.

[seyferjm]

Judge Napolitano's speech was my personal favorite of the first day, although all of the speakers there were amazing.

[ClydeCoulter]

Judge Napolitano's speech was my personal favorite of the first day, although all of the speakers there were amazing.

Yea, I thought the judge did great.

[sailingaway]

I added Ron's youtube to the OP.

[sailingaway]

Here is a picture of some random person off the internet with Ron and Carol at the Mises Institute.

Really, Ron, a ribbon tie? Other than Clark Gable and the Kentucky Fried Chicken Colonel, I'm not sure I've seen those....

http://karendecoster.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/KDC-and-Ron-Paul1.jpg

http://karendecoster.com/photo-with-ron-paul.html

[NoOneButPaul]

Damn... Woods is so awesome.

I got hardcore chills at the end of that.

[NewRightLibertarian]

Man does Cato suck.

No, keep kissing their asses and supporting them. They promote 'liberty' and we need to unify the movement.


All I can say guys is, don't let this become an industry. Let's get 'er done and then just keep it steady. Don't let this become like "curing cancer" and there be more money in not curing it than really curing it.

We need to aggressively fight the people who would have the liberty movement become an industry to satisfy their own selfish desires. It should have become abundantly clear by now who the persons who are trying to co-opt the liberty movement in this way are by now.

[green73]

Here is a picture of some random person off the internet with Ron and Carol at the Mises Institute.

That's Karen De Coster!

[sailingaway]

That's Karen De Coster!

um.....

....o.......kay........?

She actually did look slightly familiar but I can't place her. I could have cheated and googled, given your shock, but maybe you can just enlighten me.....

[green73]

um.....

....o.......kay........?

She actually did look slightly familiar but I can't place her. I could have cheated and googled, given your shock, but maybe you can just enlighten me.....

She's a very regular contributor to LRC (the first thing Ron Paul reads every day ;P) and Mises. I wasn't trying to convey shock so much.

[Feeding the Abscess]

I guess I'll reveal my anarchistic bonafides by saying that I agree with Lysander Spooner. As the country had the right to secede from Great Britain, we have the right to secede from the government. It is clear that the Constitution is unable to enforce itself ... the federal government has written any law, regulated any behavior, taxed any event it wanted, and the courts have engaged in sophistry and verbal trickery in order to justify it.

Boom. Headshot.

[July]

Thanks for posting these.

These are all great speeches.

[seyferjm]

DiLorenzo's speech:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZ3TK3oO7aY&feature=g-u-u

I got to have dinner with him the first night there

[jkr]

Here is a picture of some random person off the internet with Ron and Carol at the Mises Institute.

Really, Ron, a ribbon tie? Other than Clark Gable and the Kentucky Fried Chicken Colonel, I'm not sure I've seen those....

http://karendecoster.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/KDC-and-Ron-Paul1.jpg

http://karendecoster.com/photo-with-ron-paul.html


SUPPA
BOSS

[NoOneButPaul]

Can I ask how none of these have been put on the frontpage yet? Instead we've got a 3 year old video of Ron... why? We should keep current.

I thought Ron's speech was incredible... so optimistic and enlightening.

[sailingaway]

Can I ask how none of these have been put on the frontpage yet? Instead we've got a 3 year old video of Ron... why? We should keep current.

I thought Ron's speech was incredible... so optimistic and enlightening.

I was hoping for one with the video, last time the video one turned up.... no one has it?

[sailingaway]

OK, I put it up, Ron shows and the fact that there are links to Judge Nap and Tom Woods also shows

[Carson]

Here is a picture of some random person off the internet with Ron and Carol at the Mises Institute.

Really, Ron, a ribbon tie? Other than Clark Gable and the Kentucky Fried Chicken Colonel, I'm not sure I've seen those....

http://karendecoster.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/KDC-and-Ron-Paul1.jpg

http://karendecoster.com/photo-with-ron-paul.html


The ribbon tie looks great. Kind of old fashioned. I see them in my TV westerns. Sort of a Texas thing I imagine. Mr. and Mrs. Dr. Paul both look like they are having a great time. Karen De Coster does too.

[Carson]

I watched, "Reflections on the Loss of Liberty | Andrew P. Napolitano".

He is a good speaker. He will make a good Vice President if elected.

Could you imagine having both a President AND a Vice President that made sense when they spoke AND would try and lead us in a sensible direction?


One can wish upon a couple of stars.

Ron Paul / Andrew Napolitano

2012

[green73]

DiLorenzo's speech:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZ3TK3oO7aY&feature=g-u-u

I got to have dinner with him the first night there

He's always great. This is another amazing talk:

War: Revisionism, Fascism, and the CIA | John V. Denson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzHs6DvYVGc

[heavenlyboy34]

Thanks for sharing. Hope this puts an end to the anti-MI/Lew hate I sometimes see around here.

[green73]

Thanks for sharing. Hope this puts an end to the anti-MI/Lew hate I sometimes see around here.

Me too. It's very discouraging to see people in the liberty movement who've let their buttons be pushed by the lying Establishment.

[Carson]

Watched the, "How Murray Rothbard Changed my Mind on War | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.".

The guy made some important points of where we're at. They came at a good time for me. Some things I needed to hear.

[Travlyr]

Me too. It's very discouraging to see people in the liberty movement who've let their buttons be pushed by the lying Establishment.

What is even more discouraging is to see so many people in the liberty movement come away from the Mises Institute with an anti-state attitude when Mises himself was a pro-state advocate.


"It is impossible to grasp the meaning of the idea of sound money if one does not realize that it was devised as an instrument for the protection of civil liberties against despotic inroads on the part of governments. Ideologically it belongs in the same class with political constitutions and bills of right." - Ludwig von Mises

[NewRightLibertarian]

What is even more discouraging is to see so many people in the liberty movement come away from the Mises Institute with an anti-state attitude when Mises himself was a pro-state advocate.

It is well-known that the Mises Institute is an anarchy front. Ron Paul doesn't seem to have a problem with it, why do you?

[Travlyr]

It is well-known that the Mises Institute is an anarchy front. Ron Paul doesn't seem to have a problem with it, why do you?

Because I am a landowner who understands liberty. I understand Ludwig von Mises's message of classical liberalism which Mises himself stated,

We call the social apparatus of compulsion and coercion that induces people to abide by the rules of life in society, the state; the rules according to which the state proceeds, law; and the organs charged with the responsibility of administering the apparatus of compulsion, government.
I don't drink anarchist "Koolaid."

Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints.

Liberalism is not anarchism, nor has it anything whatsoever to do with anarchism. The liberal understands quite clearly that without resort to compulsion, the existence of society would be endangered and that behind the rules of conduct whose observance is necessary to assure peaceful human cooperation must stand the threat of force if the whole edifice of society is not to be continually at the mercy of any one of its members. One must be in a position to compel the person who will not respect the lives, health, personal freedom, or private property of others to acquiesce in the rules of life in society. This is the function that the liberal doctrine assigns to the state: the protection of property, liberty, and peace." - Ludwig von Mises

I view all home owning anarchists as hypocrites. None of them walk the talk. Mises and Paul walk the talk.

[Travlyr]

It is well-known that the Mises Institute is an anarchy front. Ron Paul doesn't seem to have a problem with it, why do you?

Hegelian Dialect (http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/05/dialectic.htm)

[ronpaulfollower999]

Many of the people associated with the LvMI are ancaps, but I don't think Mises was an anarchist himself. Based on what I read, it seems like Mises supported a state monopoly on security.

[noneedtoaggress]

Many of the people associated with the LvMI are ancaps, but I don't think Mises was an anarchist himself. Based on what I read, it seems like Mises supported a state monopoly on security.

In case you hadn't seen it and might find it interesting:

http://mises.org/daily/6226/Mises-on-Secession

[Travlyr]

In case you hadn't seen it and might find it interesting:

http://mises.org/daily/6226/Mises-on-Secession

Indeed. That is what classical liberalism is.

[Wesker1982]

This subject is never going to go away. This forum should get with the times and embrace the dialogue and debate. Especially since the Ron Paul campaign is over, and Ron himself says the Mises Institute and ideas are more important than political action. Like it or not, along with the Mises Institute comes the promotion of a peaceful and productive society without taxation. It just looks so silly to see the Ron Paul forum scared of a message that Ron himself has no problem associating with. You don't all have to agree with the message, but censoring ideas that Ron Paul promotes is odd for a forum named after him.

If the only point of this forum is for organizing political action, rename it to something more appropriate. Naming it after a man who promotes ideas as much more important than political action doesn't make sense if discussing ideas (especially ones he supports) is prohibited.

[ronpaulfollower999]

Are Libertarians 'Anarchists'? (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard167.html)




We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical.

[Travlyr]

This subject is never going to go away. This forum should get with the times and embrace the dialogue and debate. Especially since the Ron Paul campaign is over, and Ron himself says the Mises Institute and ideas are more important than political action. Like it or not, along with the Mises Institute comes the promotion of a peaceful and productive society without taxation. It just looks so silly to see the Ron Paul forum scared of a message that Ron himself has no problem associating with. You don't all have to agree with the message, but censoring ideas that Ron Paul promotes is odd for a forum named after him.

If the only point of this forum is for organizing political action, rename it to something more appropriate. Naming it after a man who promotes ideas as much more important than political action doesn't make sense if discussing ideas (especially ones he supports) is prohibited.

The Mises Institute... not the Rothbard Institute.


"The program of liberalism, therefore, if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property, that is, private ownership of the means of production... All the other demands of liberalism result from his fundamental demand." - Ludwig von Mises
The private ownership of the means of production... not the private ownership of everything. The state has a purpose. Mises describes it thusly,


"This is the function that the liberal doctrine assigns to the state: the protection of property, liberty, and peace." - Ludwig von Mises

Give the man some credit. He is the man the LVMI is named after... after all.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Are Libertarians 'Anarchists'? (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard167.html)


That has to be taken in context with the article (which was written under the pseudonym "Aubrey Herbert" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auberon_Herbert).


"If you grant that it is legitimate for people to band together and allow the State to coerce individuals to pay taxes for a certain service – "defense" – why is it not equally moral and legitimate for people to join in a similar way and allow the State the right to provide other services – such as post offices, "welfare," steel, power, etc.? If a State supported by a majority can morally do one, why not morally do the others?" I confess that I see no answer to this question. If it is proper and legitimate to coerce an unwilling Henry Thoreau into paying taxes for his own "protection" to a coercive state monopoly, I see no reason why it should not be equally proper to force him to pay the State for any other services, whether they be groceries, charity, newspapers, or steel. We are left to conclude that the pure libertarian must advocate a society where an individual may voluntarily support none or any police or judicial agency that he deems to be efficient and worthy of his custom.

Other portions of the article detail the frequent socialist leanings of many of the more popular anarchist groups up to that time.

Also, that was written in the 1950s. Rothbard wrote thousands upon thousands of pages openly, rather than somewhat coyingly, supporting anarcho-capitalism over the next 40 years of his life.

[Travlyr]

Are Libertarians 'Anarchists'? (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard167.html)



"Well, then, what governmental measures do you favor? What type of taxes do you wish to impose?" The statist has irretrievably gained the offensive, and, having no answer to the first question, the libertarian finds himself surrendering his case.

Locke answered the first question quite succinctly.

"The aim of such a legitimate government is to preserve, so far as possible, the rights to life, liberty, health and property of its citizens, and to prosecute and punish those of its citizens who violate the rights of others and to pursue the public good even where this may conflict with the rights of individuals. In doing this it provides something unavailable in the state of nature, an impartial judge to determine the severity of the crime, and to set a punishment proportionate to the crime. This is one of the main reasons why civil society is an improvement on the state of nature. An illegitimate government will fail to protect the rights to life, liberty, health and property of its subjects, and in the worst cases, such an illegitimate government will claim to be able to violate the rights of its subjects, that is it will claim to have despotic power over its subjects."

Taxes to pay for a Sheriff's department, an elected District Attorney, County & State Judges, County Clerk & Recorder, Road Commissioner, Park Commissioner, County Commissioners, State Senator, State Representative, Federal Senator, Federal Representative, President, and Judges. Minimal taxation for a Minimal State ... Minimal Governance.

[sailingaway]

This subject is never going to go away. This forum should get with the times and embrace the dialogue and debate. Especially since the Ron Paul campaign is over, and Ron himself says the Mises Institute and ideas are more important than political action. Like it or not, along with the Mises Institute comes the promotion of a peaceful and productive society without taxation. It just looks so silly to see the Ron Paul forum scared of a message that Ron himself has no problem associating with. You don't all have to agree with the message, but censoring ideas that Ron Paul promotes is odd for a forum named after him.

If the only point of this forum is for organizing political action, rename it to something more appropriate. Naming it after a man who promotes ideas as much more important than political action doesn't make sense if discussing ideas (especially ones he supports) is prohibited.

the philosophy subforum is specifically for that, but I want the podcasts here where people can see them. I haven't been tracking your conversation, to be honest.

[gte811i]

The Mises Institute... not the Rothbard Institute.


The private ownership of the means of production... not the private ownership of everything. The state has a purpose. Mises describes it thusly,



Give the man some credit. He is the man the LVMI is named after... after all.

I will chime in here. LvMI does an absolutely fantastic job. I became libertarian through reading their resources (all the free online pdfs). And while the Mises Institute is named after LvM, it is dedicated to the principles of liberty, the advancement of liberty, and the research about liberty. While LvM is awesome, libertarian thought isn't static it advances as other disciplines of LvM take what they learned and expound on it.

It's not named the Rothbard Institute b/c Rothbard was one of the founders! Rothbard was a disciple of Mises. The libertarian triumvirate of Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell and Rothbard basically formed the LvMI. Somewhere there is a very good article on the internal political squabbles that occurred with the Cato Institute, Rockwell and Rothbard. Cato in many ways sold it's soul for access, not all of it's soul just some of it.

[sailingaway]

Cato in many ways sold it's soul for access, not all of it's soul just some of it.

...so...... how does a split soul work out in the afterlife? Kind of a timeshare arrangement?

[gte811i]

Locke answered the first question quite succinctly.


Taxes to pay for a Sheriff's department, an elected District Attorney, County & State Judges, County Clerk & Recorder, Road Commissioner, Park Commissioner, County Commissioners, State Senator, State Representative, Federal Senator, Federal Representative, President, and Judges. Minimal taxation for a Minimal State ... Minimal Governance.

Great in thought, but unfortunately when has government not grown from these "minimal" services to other things? While this is "minimal" for one, it may not be "minimal" for another. Look at health care, many people believe health care is a "minimal" service.

I personally can't quite get to the anarco-cap thought from here, I can see it somewhat philosophically, but not in practice. So I advocate instead of a continually growing government, a continually shrinking government with less and less responsibility. Continually shrinking and worry about what government "should" do later.

[Travlyr]

Great in thought, but unfortunately when has government not grown from these "minimal" services to other things? While this is "minimal" for one, it may not be "minimal" for another. Look at health care, many people believe health care is a "minimal" service.

I personally can't quite get to the anarco-cap thought from here, I can see it somewhat philosophically, but not in practice. So I advocate instead of a continually growing government, a continually shrinking government with less and less responsibility. Continually shrinking and worry about what government "should" do later.

The proper role of government is simple. The role of government is the protection of property, liberty, and peace. Government has no further role. If it fails in that role, then it fails as a legitimate government. A legitimate government consists of static standards, law, and justice. Standards are well defined and static, law is based on the NAP, and justice is based on "an impartial judge to determine the severity of the crime, and to set a punishment proportionate to the crime."


John Locke
The aim of such a legitimate government is to preserve, so far as possible, the rights to life, liberty, health and property of its citizens, and to prosecute and punish those of its citizens who violate the rights of others and to pursue the public good even where this may conflict with the rights of individuals. In doing this it provides something unavailable in the state of nature, an impartial judge to determine the severity of the crime, and to set a punishment proportionate to the crime. This is one of the main reasons why civil society is an improvement on the state of nature.

[Wesker1982]

The Mises Institute... not the Rothbard Institute.

They could call it the Travlyr Institute and it would not change the fact that they are dedicated to spreading the ideas of Voluntaryism.

[Travlyr]

They could call it the Travlyr Institute and it would not change the fact that they are dedicated to spreading the ideas of Voluntaryism.

Mises > Rothbard

I am in favor of Voluntaryism. Constitutionalism = Voluntaryism.

Ludwig von Mises:
"It is impossible to grasp the meaning of the idea of sound money if one does not realize that it was devised as an instrument for the protection of civil liberties against despotic inroads on the part of governments. Ideologically it belongs in the same class with political constitutions and bills of right." - Ludwig von Mises

BTW: Sound Money "Rings" when dropped on a hard surface. That is how people KNOW it is "sound" money.

[heavenlyboy34]

Mises > Rothbard
Mises called Murray "The Great System Builder". Your hatred for his work is totally irrational.


I am in favor of Voluntaryism. Constitutionalism = Voluntaryism.
There is nothing "voluntary" about the Constitution. That is why the system is immoral. (well, one of the reasons)


Ludwig von Mises:

BTW: Sound Money "Rings" when dropped on a hard surface. That is how people KNOW it is "sound" money.

I like Mises too.
"
If one rejects laissez faire on account of mans fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.
"

"Most of the tyrants, despots, and dictators are sincerely convinced that their rule is beneficial for the people, that theirs is government for the people."

"
The governments alone are responsible for the spread of the superstitious awe with which the common man looks upon every bit of paper upon which the treasury or agencies which it controls have printed the magical words legal tender.
"
"
Most cartels and trusts would never have been set up had not the governments created the necessary conditions by protectionist measures.
"
"
All this passionate praise of the supereminence of government action is but a poor disguise for the individual interventionists self-deification. The great god State is a great god only because it is expected to do exclusively what the individual advocate of interventionism wants to see achieved.
"
"
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning. Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
"

"The worship of the state is the worship of force. There is no more dangerous menace to civilization than a government of incompetent, corrupt, or vile men. The worst evils which mankind ever had to endure were inflicted by bad governments."
"

The state is a human institution, not a superhuman being. He who says state means coercion and compulsion. He who says: There should be a law concerning this matter, means: The armed men of the government should force people to do what they do not want to do, or not to do what they like. He who says: This law should be better enforced, means: the police should force people to obey this law. He who says: The state is God, deifies arms and prisons.

"
"Liberalism knows no conquests, no annexations; just as it is indifferent towards the state itself, so the problem of the size of the state is unimportant to it. It forces no one against his will into the structure of the state. Whoever wants to emigrate is not held back. When a part of the people of the state wants to drop out of the union, liberalism does not hinder it from doing so. Colonies that want to become independent need only do so. The nation as an organic entity can be neither increased nor reduced by changes in states; the world as a whole can neither win nor lose from them. (Nation, State, and Economy (http://mises.org/document/1085/Nation-State-and-Economy), pp. 39–40)

The size of a states territory therefore does not matter. (Nation, State, and Economy (http://mises.org/document/1085/Nation-State-and-Economy), p. 82)
"The right of self-determination in regard to the question of membership in a state thus means: whenever the inhabitants of a particular territory, whether it be a single village, a whole district, or a series of adjacent districts, make it known, by a freely conducted plebiscite, that they no longer wish to remain united to the state to which they belong at the time, but wish either to form an independent state or to attach themselves to some other state, their wishes are to be respected and complied with. This is the only feasible and effective way of preventing revolutions and civil and international wars." (Liberalism (http://mises.org/document/1086/Liberalism-In-the-Classical-Tradition), p. 109)

[NewRightLibertarian]

I am in favor of Voluntaryism. Constitutionalism = Voluntaryism.

What good is a Constitution when the government will just toss it aside and not abide by it?

[heavenlyboy34]

What good is a Constitution when the government will just toss it aside and not abide by it? It's all your fault for not holding them accountable!!11!!! ;)

[Carson]

What good is a Constitution when the government will just toss it aside and not abide by it?


It's all your fault for not holding them accountable!!11!!! ;)


We have no one to blame but ourselves sgt150.:p

[noneedtoaggress]

I like Mises too.
"
If one rejects laissez faire on account of mans fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.
"

"Most of the tyrants, despots, and dictators are sincerely convinced that their rule is beneficial for the people, that theirs is government for the people."

"
The governments alone are responsible for the spread of the superstitious awe with which the common man looks upon every bit of paper upon which the treasury or agencies which it controls have printed the magical words legal tender.
"
"
Most cartels and trusts would never have been set up had not the governments created the necessary conditions by protectionist measures.
"
"
All this passionate praise of the supereminence of government action is but a poor disguise for the individual interventionists self-deification. The great god State is a great god only because it is expected to do exclusively what the individual advocate of interventionism wants to see achieved.
"
"
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning. Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
"

"The worship of the state is the worship of force. There is no more dangerous menace to civilization than a government of incompetent, corrupt, or vile men. The worst evils which mankind ever had to endure were inflicted by bad governments."
"

The state is a human institution, not a superhuman being. He who says state means coercion and compulsion. He who says: There should be a law concerning this matter, means: The armed men of the government should force people to do what they do not want to do, or not to do what they like. He who says: This law should be better enforced, means: the police should force people to obey this law. He who says: The state is God, deifies arms and prisons.

"
"Liberalism knows no conquests, no annexations; just as it is indifferent towards the state itself, so the problem of the size of the state is unimportant to it. It forces no one against his will into the structure of the state. Whoever wants to emigrate is not held back. When a part of the people of the state wants to drop out of the union, liberalism does not hinder it from doing so. Colonies that want to become independent need only do so. The nation as an organic entity can be neither increased nor reduced by changes in states; the world as a whole can neither win nor lose from them. (Nation, State, and Economy (http://mises.org/document/1085/Nation-State-and-Economy), pp. 39–40)

The size of a states territory therefore does not matter. (Nation, State, and Economy (http://mises.org/document/1085/Nation-State-and-Economy), p. 82)
"The right of self-determination in regard to the question of membership in a state thus means: whenever the inhabitants of a particular territory, whether it be a single village, a whole district, or a series of adjacent districts, make it known, by a freely conducted plebiscite, that they no longer wish to remain united to the state to which they belong at the time, but wish either to form an independent state or to attach themselves to some other state, their wishes are to be respected and complied with. This is the only feasible and effective way of preventing revolutions and civil and international wars." (Liberalism (http://mises.org/document/1086/Liberalism-In-the-Classical-Tradition), p. 109)


Deserves a repost on the new page.

[Travlyr]

What good is a Constitution when the government will just toss it aside and not abide by it?

Just like the Magna Carta, the Constitution was written for the people. Illegitimate governments do not need a Constitution and would not obey it if they had one. The choice of no government is not available here on Earth. The choices are: Legitimate government (rule by law) or Illegitimate government (rule by weapon). If the people do not understand how to self-govern and force the rulers to rule by due process of law, then the rulers will claim the right to counterfeit money so that they have unlimited money and power, and they will buy a military industrial complex, a police force, and plenty of weapons and they will rule by weapon and exempt themselves from the law. Your choice.

[Travlyr]

Mises called Murray "The Great System Builder". Your hatred for his work is totally irrational.


There is nothing "voluntary" about the Constitution. That is why the system is immoral. (well, one of the reasons)

Your reading skills are poor. I do not have any hatred for Rothbard. I claim that the LvMI institute was named after Ludwig von Mises not Rothbard. That does not mean that I hate Rothbard. As a matter of fact, Rothbard influenced my understanding of liberty, peace, and prosperity quite heavily. Just because I don't buy into everything he wrote does not mean that I do not admire him.

I admire Mises more because he understood classical liberalism and rejected anarchy. As a homeowner, anarchy has nothing to offer me. Classical liberalism has plenty to offer. The best it has to offer is separation of the state from the means of production. The state has no business being in business. The role of the state is to distribute land and resources to individuals on a colorblind basis, and protect the individual's right to property, liberty, and peace with standards, law, and a justice system.

[gte811i]

Your reading skills are poor. I do not have any hatred for Rothbard. I claim that the LvMI institute was named after Ludwig von Mises not Rothbard. That does not mean that I hate Rothbard. As a matter of fact, Rothbard influenced my understanding of liberty, peace, and prosperity quite heavily. Just because I don't buy into everything he wrote does not mean that I do not admire him.

I admire Mises more because he understood classical liberalism and rejected anarchy. As a homeowner, anarchy has nothing to offer me. Classical liberalism has plenty to offer. The best it has to offer is separation of the state from the means of production. The state has no business being in business. The role of the state is to distribute land and resources to individuals on a colorblind basis, and protect the individual's right to property, liberty, and peace with standards, law, and a justice system.

As a homeowner, the power and extortion by the state offer nothing for me. I am extorted every year to pay property taxes. What happens if I don't pay my property taxes? Oh yeah, that's right the county takes my home. Guess that means I'm not truly a homeowner, I pay rent to the government for the privilege of claiming that I "own" my home.

[Travlyr]

As a homeowner, the power and extortion by the state offer nothing for me. I am extorted every year to pay property taxes. What happens if I don't pay my property taxes? Oh yeah, that's right the county takes my home. Guess that means I'm not truly a homeowner, I pay rent to the government for the privilege of claiming that I "own" my home.

Then you should consider involving yourself in your own governance and put a stop to that extortion because if you don't force them to obey the rule of law, then they might just claim the right to put you on a kill list and take away all your rights.


"Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you." - Pericles, 430 B.C.

[gte811i]

I subscribe along Judge Napolitano's line of thinking. Just as a state has the right to secede, so should counties and individuals. Some people would like the protection of the state, that's fine and well. But it is wrong to force everyone to accept it at the point of violence.

Counties would have to pay a lot more attention to homeowners if they could just say, hey this year you have done an absolute horrible job managing services, I refuse to pay your property taxes. You might say, ah well that's what voting is for. Well a lot of good voting does for you when more than 50% of the people voting are either non-property owners or individuals who mooch of everyone else. You say, well you can move, oh great I have the choice of moving from place A which exerts [ ] this much government control to a place B which exerts [ ] this much government control. I still have no choice but to be a part of the system, if at any point I wish to not pay property taxes, my property is taken from me and possibly my liberty as well.

[gte811i]

Then you should consider involving yourself in your own governance and put a stop to that extortion because if you don't force them to obey the rule of law, then they might just claim the right to put you on a kill list and take away all your rights.

See below (or see above:-)), without the power to secede from the system, it will always devolve into extortion. As soon as 51% of those voting believe that that the remaining 49% have something that the 51% wants, it turns into extortion. Without the power of the 49% to secede from the law of the 51% and protect their rights by defense, it will always devolve into less and less freedom. Especially if a small 10% minority who want power and legalized plunder convince 51% to plunder the 49%.

[Travlyr]

I subscribe along Judge Napolitano's line of thinking. Just as a state has the right to secede, so should counties and individuals. Some people would like the protection of the state, that's fine and well. But it is wrong to force everyone to accept it at the point of violence.

Counties would have to pay a lot more attention to homeowners if they could just say, hey this year you have done an absolute horrible job managing services, I refuse to pay your property taxes. You might say, ah well that's what voting is for. Well a lot of good voting does for you when more than 50% of the people voting are either non-property owners or individuals who mooch of everyone else. You say, well you can move, oh great I have the choice of moving from place A which exerts [ ] this much government control to a place B which exerts [ ] this much government control. I still have no choice but to be a part of the system, if at any point I wish to not pay property taxes, my property is taken from me and possibly my liberty as well.

The protection of the state is the governing documents of standards and law. A pound is a pound the world around. If someone sells you a pound of rice, then, since the pound is a static standard, when you get home and weigh your pound of rice, it will equal 16 ounces. The state provides the protection of law as well. If someone breaks into your home, then by law, you can force them to leave and the law will back you up. That is the protection offered by the state. The state does not offer police protection. That is not what police are for.

[Travlyr]

See below (or see above:-)), without the power to secede from the system, it will always devolve into extortion. As soon as 51% of those voting believe that that the remaining 49% have something that the 51% wants, it turns into extortion. Without the power of the 49% to secede from the law of the 51% and protect their rights by defense, it will always devolve into less and less freedom. Especially if a small 10% minority who want power and legalized plunder convince 51% to plunder the 49%.

The states are required to be republics not democracies.

[gte811i]

Then you should consider involving yourself in your own governance and put a stop to that extortion because if you don't force them to obey the rule of law, then they might just claim the right to put you on a kill list and take away all your rights.

And what is the "rule of law"? It is simply what politicians have passed and what judges say it is. And what do politicians pass? Whatever laws the 51% have given authorization for by electing said politicians. What I am trying to say is that the "rule of law" is a farce. When laws are unjust and violate the natural rights of man, men still obey them. Why do men obey laws that they know are unjust? Because we have been taught that the "rule of law" is above all else, "we are a nation of laws". No there is something higher than the "rule of law", which just gives the power of men to make unjust laws. It is natural law.

[gte811i]

The states are required to be republics not democracies.

And how's that worked out for ya? The United States is required to be a republic, not a democracy . . . that worked out real well now didn't it.

And in effect it doesn't matter, 51% of the voting public, 51% of the lawmaking body it is still the same. As soon as 51% of whichever body sees they can plunder the 49% and get away with it through legalized plundered (i.e. laws) with no consequences then the system will devolve.

Just take a look on such a small scale as the State Conventions in the Republican primary. That is a republican system . . . yet still at some point in order for laws to be passed 51% of the voting body must accept it. As soon as 51% of the corrupt establishment realized they could get away with plundering the other 49% at the State Conventions, they slammed things through.

[fr33]

These speeches were great.

Ron Paul talked about such a variety of things. It's like he was spilling his guts on what's going on and what we should do. Even while acknowledging large obstacles he seems optimistic.

[Travlyr]

And what is the "rule of law"? It is simply what politicians have passed and what judges say it is. And what do politicians pass? Whatever laws the 51% have given authorization for by electing said politicians. What I am trying to say is that the "rule of law" is a farce. When laws are unjust and violate the natural rights of man, men still obey them. Why do men obey laws that they know are unjust? Because we have been taught that the "rule of law" is above all else, "we are a nation of laws". No there is something higher than the "rule of law", which just gives the power of men to make unjust laws. It is natural law.

The rule of law is due process of law. If someone breaks into your home and tries to harm you, then you have the law backing you up if you must use force to stop the intruder. You'll face investigation, perhaps charges, perhaps a jury... but it is through the due process of law that you can protect yourself from intruders.

I subscribe to John Locke's philosophy,

The aim of such a legitimate government is to preserve, so far as possible, the rights to life, liberty, health and property of its citizens, and to prosecute and punish those of its citizens who violate the rights of others and to pursue the public good even where this may conflict with the rights of individuals. In doing this it provides something unavailable in the state of nature, an impartial judge to determine the severity of the crime, and to set a punishment proportionate to the crime. This is one of the main reasons why civil society is an improvement on the state of nature. An illegitimate government will fail to protect the rights to life, liberty, health and property of its subjects, and in the worst cases, such an illegitimate government will claim to be able to violate the rights of its subjects, that is it will claim to have despotic power over its subjects.

America has not had legitimate constitutional governance for 100 years, so if you are comparing what we endure today to legitimate governance, then study what Mises wrote in Liberalism. Many people lived free lives in near classical liberal societies in days gone bye.

[gte811i]

The protection of the state is the governing documents of standards and law. A pound is a pound the world around. If someone sells you a pound of rice, then, since the pound is a static standard, when you get home and weigh your pound of rice, it will equal 16 ounces. The state provides the protection of law as well. If someone breaks into your home, then by law, you can force them to leave and the law will back you up. That is the protection offered by the state. The state does not offer police protection. That is not what police are for.

I might be quibbling over words, but there is no "protection of the law" there is enforcement of the law. Ultimately, law is enforced through violence.

If someone breaks in your home, you have the right to protect what is yours, not because the law gives you the right to do so, but because it is inherit to you being you, to being an individual a human. The state may or may not back you up, depending on where you live. In many places and times in the world, the "state" did not back individuals protecting their inalienably rights.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

[Travlyr]

I might be quibbling over words, but there is no "protection of the law" there is enforcement of the law. Ultimately, law is enforced through violence.

If someone breaks in your home, you have the right to protect what is yours, not because the law gives you the right to do so, but because it is inherit to you being you, to being an individual a human. The state may or may not back you up, depending on where you live. In many places and times in the world, the "state" did not back individuals protecting their inalienably rights.

Counterfeiters are in charge of your government. Counterfeiters must use violence to keep their monopoly on money because if everybody was allowed to counterfeit money, then nobody's money would be worth anything. So counterfeiters seek out their competition and destroy them. That is the source of violence in the modern world.

[gte811i]

The rule of law is due process of law. If someone breaks into your home and tries to harm you, then you have the law backing you up if you must use force to stop the intruder. You'll face investigation, perhaps charges, perhaps a jury... but it is through the due process of law that you can protect yourself from intruders.

I subscribe to John Locke's philosophy,


America has not had legitimate constitutional governance for 100 years, so if you are comparing what we endure today to legitimate governance, then study what Mises wrote in Liberalism. Many people lived free lives in near classical liberal societies in days gone bye.

What I am arguing is that they only way to actually restrain government to a legitimate constitutional governance is through the threat of succession, without that the 51% will always feel empowered to pass whatever laws to plunder the 49% because they can with very little repercussions. It's been more than 100 years, more like over 150 years (Civil War). I have not and do not argue for anarchy, just that states, counties and individuals have the right to secede. The Revolutionary War was a war of succession.

I agree with due process of the law, but I'm not sure many people think of the rule of law as due process of law (but I could be wrong).

[gte811i]

Counterfeiters are in charge of your government. Counterfeiters must use violence to keep their monopoly on money because if everybody was allowed to counterfeit money, then nobody's money would be worth anything. So counterfeiters seek out their competition and destroy them. That is the source of violence in the modern world.

It's not counterfeiters . . . those who want to take from others are in control. The source of violence is a desire for power over others.

[Travlyr]

It's not counterfeiters . . . those who want to take from others are in control. The source of violence is a desire for power over others.

Along with the Counterfeiting Act of 1913 came the War economy, FBI, IRS, CIA, State Police, Prohibition, 17th amendment, and on and on. Prior to that many people were free. End the Fed and end the police state.

[sailingaway]

These speeches were great.

Ron Paul talked about such a variety of things. It's like he was spilling his guts on what's going on and what we should do. Even while acknowledging large obstacles he seems optimistic.

that was my take away, as well.

[Wesker1982]

the philosophy subforum is specifically for that

The *hidden* philosophy forum.


I want the podcasts here where people can see them

Yeah, people have a hard time seeing the promotion of *certain* ideas because the threads are only readable by members. If hiding the posts from lurkers is not censoring, then what is it?

What I meant by my post is that, yes I understand there is a (hidden) subforum for these ideas, but banishing any thread that includes discussion about ideas Ron Paul himself has no problem promoting and associating with doesn't make sense. This ideas are at least to some extent suppressed, and I say considering this is the Ron Paul Forum, ideas he promotes should not be suppressed at all. If the owners of this site are ashamed or afraid of what Ron Paul promotes, then the forum is misnamed.

[sailingaway]

The *hidden* philosophy forum.



Yeah, people have a hard time seeing the promotion of *certain* ideas because the threads are only readable by members. If hiding the posts from lurkers is not censoring, then what is it?

What I meant by my post is that, yes I understand there is a (hidden) subforum for these ideas, but banishing any thread that includes discussion about ideas Ron Paul himself has no problem promoting and associating with doesn't make sense. This ideas are at least to some extent suppressed, and I say considering this is the Ron Paul Forum, ideas he promotes should not be suppressed at all. If the owners of this site are ashamed or afraid of what Ron Paul promotes, then the forum is misnamed.

I don't know what to say, the forum was there before I got here.

I think it is because like the religion forum, people get into heated fights that are unattractive and attacking and few mods really want to spend enough time in them to weed them all out. NEITHER topic necessarily needs to be hidden, imho, but I think they like hot topics drew a certain combatativeness amongst some who feel very strongly about their positions.

In any event, this one is still here, as you may have noticed.

[Wesker1982]

I think it is because like the religion forum, people get into heated fights that are unattractive and attacking and few mods really want to spend enough time in them to weed them all out. NEITHER topic necessarily needs to be hidden, imho, but I think they like hot topics drew a certain combatativeness amongst some who feel very strongly about their positions.

I understand what you are saying here. But I think the forum is missing an opportunity. There are only two places I know of that get decent traffic that have open discussion, reddit and the mises.org forum. When I said:


This subject is never going to go away. This forum should get with the times and embrace the dialogue and debate.

I could have explained better. I am not sure how much the owners of this forum are paying attention, but these ideas are becoming very popular, and like when Ron Paul converted people to minarchism, once you *get it* you won't be changing your mind anytime soon. There is rapid growth (thanks to Ron Paul and the LvMI) that is not slowing down. The mises.org forum software SUCKS and for whatever reason they refuse to update it. Reddit is alright but is not in a traditional forum format.

There is a big demand for a libertarian forum where *all* ideas are openly discussed. Considering that:

1. RPF is already popular
2. The ideas I am talking about are ideas that Ron himself promotes
3. This might be the *fastest growing political philosophy ever* (no science behind this lol, it just seems very rapid to me)
4. There is demand for a popular libertarian forum with good software
5. There is no forum satisfying this demand

Then I think it makes sense for the Ron Paul Forums to adapt and evolve into a place where all ideas can be discussed (just like Ron would want!). I think it would grow tremendously if the discussion were more accepted. Right now it seems like instead of attracting the mises.org forum or the redditors, RPF is worried about pleasing the old timers around here who are afraid of change. It reminds me of this show "Bar Rescue" when bars are so worried about keeping a small group of regulars happy, that they end up missing the huge market of new customers that would make their business soar.

[sailingaway]

I understand what you are saying here. But I think the forum is missing an opportunity. There are only two places I know of that get decent traffic that have open discussion, reddit and the mises.org forum. When I said:



I could have explained better. I am not sure how much the owners of this forum are paying attention, but these ideas are becoming very popular, and like when Ron Paul converted people to minarchism, once you *get it* you won't be changing your mind anytime soon. There is rapid growth (thanks to Ron Paul and the LvMI) that is not slowing down. The mises.org forum software SUCKS and for whatever reason they refuse to update it. Reddit is alright but is not in a traditional forum format.

There is a big demand for a libertarian forum where *all* ideas are openly discussed. Considering that:

1. RPF is already popular
2. The ideas I am talking about are ideas that Ron himself promotes
3. This might be the *fastest growing political philosophy ever* (no science behind this lol, it just seems very rapid to me)
4. There is demand for a popular libertarian forum with good software
5. There is no forum satisfying this demand

Then I think it makes sense for the Ron Paul Forums to adapt and evolve into a place where all ideas can be discussed (just like Ron would want!). I think it would grow tremendously if the discussion were more accepted. Right now it seems like instead of attracting the mises.org forum or the redditors, RPF is worried about pleasing the old timers around here who are afraid of change. It reminds me of this show "Bar Rescue" when bars are so worried about keeping a small group of regulars happy, that they end up missing the huge market of new customers that would make their business soar.

I think we evolve in different ways here, and have already shifted somewhat. But I dont think we are ever going to want to have people attacking eachother on the front page. I don't really think civility is too much to ask.

[Wesker1982]

But I dont think we are ever going to want to have people attacking eachother on the front page. I don't really think civility is too much to ask.

Yeah this is definitely really important. But I don't think the solution is to prohibit the discussion, but instead be more strict with the rules. Along with the influx of new members means there would be more people to help moderate. Even right now I don't understand why there are so few mods on this forum. I understand that you guys don't want to have to be policing 24/7 and babysitting, but I don't think it would be difficult if there were more mods who were also active.

Make the rules clear and enforce them. Mods should moderate without bias. This really isn't hard imo. Have a strict set of rules for mods, and have the admin enforce them. The only reason I can think of as to why there are not more active mods here is because the admin doesn't trust enough people? I don't know, but I don't think keeping them in line would be tough if the mod conduct were strictly enforced.

[sailingaway]

Yeah this is definitely really important. But I don't think the solution is to prohibit the discussion, but instead be more strict with the rules. Along with the influx of new members means there would be more people to help moderate. Even right now I don't understand why there are so few mods on this forum. I understand that you guys don't want to have to be policing 24/7 and babysitting, but I don't think it would be difficult if there were more mods who were also active.

Make the rules clear and enforce them. Mods should moderate without bias. This really isn't hard imo. Have a strict set of rules for mods, and have the admin enforce them. The only reason I can think of as to why there are not more active mods here is because the admin doesn't trust enough people? I don't know, but I don't think keeping them in line would be tough if the mod conduct were strictly enforced.

The problem is that those interested in what you want to discuss tend to be anarchist tending, and would they really police the civility rules?

But why don't you post your idea in forum feedback? Josh has a new job and is going to be under for a week or so, he said, but that is where he looks. He may well not read every thread when he gets back, he will have missed quite a lot by then.

The thing is the mods moderate by interest, or by reporting. Reporting has draw backs because you don't necessarily see 'who started it' five pages back. But not many mods track through all those threads. They get very heated, and with no disrespect they really do seem to those not immersed in those topics like the religion ones where people have a philosophical stake in how many angels are on the head of a pin.

[Wesker1982]

The problem is that those interested in what you want to discuss tend to be anarchist tending, and would they really police the civility rules?

I can only speak for myself, but I understand that it would be good for the cause if they were held to high standards. I think most of them understand this as well. So I don't think it would be a problem. There should be very strict rules against name calling or any personal attacks, and the posts that break these rules should be mod edited regardless of the political leanings of the poster or mods.


But why don't you post your idea in forum feedback?

Never thought of this. Maybe I will.


The thing is the mods moderate by interest, or by reporting.

I noticed, specifically the lack of moderation in the philosophy subforum. But I think if there were more mods then more area would be covered.

[sailingaway]

I can only speak for myself, but I understand that it would be good for the cause if they were held to high standards. I think most of them understand this as well. So I don't think it would be a problem. There should be very strict rules against name calling or any personal attacks, and the posts that break these rules should be mod edited regardless of the political leanings of the poster or mods.


Never thought of this. Maybe I will.

I noticed, specifically the lack of moderation in the philosophy subforum. But I think if there were more mods then more area would be covered.

I think we'd need a mod for that subforum who has a temperament not to take advantage but also is interested enough to get to know what's going on there, regularly.