If you aren't for liberty in all places, you aren't a libertarian

[green73]

From reddit (http://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/1l06a7/just_a_friendly_reminder_this_is_a_libertarian/):


Libertarians are against war. War is the second most evil human institution next to slavery. Organized murder is disgusting. War is a racket.

Libertarians are against nationalism. Liberty is about the basic right of all humans to be free from aggression. It doesn't matter what tax farm you were born in. You have that right. Stop pretending that people are our enemies because they live in China or Iraq. All governments are the enemy, and all people victimized by those governments are our allies.

Libertarians believe people should be free to associate with whom they want and do anything with consenting adults they want. We don't support the idea of any group of individuals, even if they call themselves a government, restricting that basic human freedom. TL;DR there are no State's rights. Only humans have rights.

Libertarians do not worship the constitution. The constitution was an abomination at inception, twisted by the politics of rich landowners. Any document that says a human being is worth 3/5ths of another is grotesque. A piece of paper does not justify the immoral actions of individuals. An appeal to the constitution today is like an appeal to the constitution in 1800. It presupposes that because it's on a piece of paper, it trumps all individual rights. Remember, the bill of rights didn't even grant rights - it merely affirmed and encoded ones that we all innately have.

Libertarianism is not about getting control of the government. It is about getting rid of the government's control. Compromising values in the name of politics is just statism re-branded. It doesn't matter if some politician wins, because if they're compromising our freedoms in the name of political victory, we haven't won anything.

[kcchiefs6465]

Great post.

Day by day I am reading and learning more.

From a year ago to now my philosophy has evolved ten fold.

This is the new enlightenment. The new intellectual revolution. Time is on our side.

Gives hope in a hopeless system.

[Christian Liberty]

Do you believe Ron Paul is not a libertarian?

The point of State's Rights is simply to state that the Federal government cannot intervene to stop the state from doing the thing in question. It doesn't mean they have a "right" to do that thing in the moral sense.

[FrankRep]

The "all or nothing" view of libertarianism is silly.

[green73]

Great post.

Day by day I am reading and learning more.

From a year ago to now my philosophy has evolved ten fold.

This is the new enlightenment. The new intellectual revolution. Time is on our side.

Gives hope in a hopeless system.

I couldn't agree more.

[JCDenton0451]

From reddit (http://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/1l06a7/just_a_friendly_reminder_this_is_a_libertarian/):

If you can, ask them a question about Israel/Palestine. I bet they support Israel's "right to exist".

[Origanalist]

Do you believe Ron Paul is not a libertarian?

The point of State's Rights is simply to state that the Federal government cannot intervene to stop the state from doing the thing in question. It doesn't mean they have a "right" to do that thing in the moral sense.

Well, it needs to be said. I used to be worried about scaring people away with radical concepts, but if they aren't introduced the ball stays on the wrong side of the court. The conversation needs a new starting point.

[Origanalist]

If you can, ask them a question about Israel/Palestine. I bet they support Israel's "right to exist".

Sure, fuck up the whole thing.

[kcchiefs6465]

Do you believe Ron Paul is not a libertarian?

The point of State's Rights is simply to state that the Federal government cannot intervene to stop the state from doing the thing in question. It doesn't mean they have a "right" to do that thing in the moral sense.
States' 'rights' are supposed to be a check against the federal government. If the federal government oversteps its bounds the states can nullify the laws or secede.

Individual rights trump all. Ron Paul recognizes this. He has spoken on it in many of his books and numerous speeches. Ron Paul is a libertarian.

BTW, did you watch his speech, "The End of Dollar Hegemony"? If you haven't seen it I encourage you to. Doesn't have much to do with this discussion but definitely sheds light on how our foreign policy has became what it is.

[Origanalist]

The "all or nothing" view of libertarianism is silly.

The all or nothing view of state is the bane of liberty.

[green73]

If you can, ask them a question about Israel/Palestine. I bet they support Israel's "right to exist".

They?

[Brett85]

That's why I would still prefer to call myself a conservative rather than a libertarian, because conservatism is much more of a big tent ideology. Libertarianism is such a strict, small tent ideology that even groups like the Cato Institute and Reason are labeled as being statist organizations.

[kcchiefs6465]

They?
Must spread some rep around.

[Origanalist]

Must spread some rep around.

Same here.

[green73]

That's why I would still prefer to call myself a conservative rather than a libertarian, because conservatism is much more of a big tent ideology. Libertarianism is such a strict, small tent ideology that even groups like the Cato Institute and Reason are labeled as being statist organizations.

It's just logically and morally consistent. Sorry if that's too much for you to embrace.

[JCDenton0451]

From reddit (http://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/1l06a7/just_a_friendly_reminder_this_is_a_libertarian/):Libertarians do not worship the constitution. The constitution was an abomination at inception, twisted by the politics of rich landowners. Any document that says a human being is worth 3/5ths of another is grotesque. A piece of paper does not justify the immoral actions of individuals. An appeal to the constitution today is like an appeal to the constitution in 1800. It presupposes that because it's on a piece of paper, it trumps all individual rights. Remember, the bill of rights didn't even grant rights - it merely affirmed and encoded ones that we all innately have.
Constitution is the best protection we have against more government intrusion. Any libertarian with half a brain should understand that. Also, I find this statement extremely short-sighted and dangerous:

A piece of paper does not justify the immoral actions of individuals. That's the kind of argument social conservatives would make to prohibit the sodomy, and progressives would use the same argument to prohibit "hate speech" against gays. Because morality is relative, subjective, depends on the individual and evolves over time. The idiot talks as if libertarian morality is the only kind of morality out there. The notion that humans have innate rights itself is a point of view. "Morality" is a pretty shaky ground on which to build libertarian politics.

What do you do in a situation when there is a clash between the people with two different and incompatible moral worldviews? Should the majority just try to force its point of view on a minority - a decidedly unlibertarian outcome. Or maybe they could use a framework that would allow them to work out their differences in some fashion. A framework that both enables organised society to function and protects the minority rights (opinion, worldview) from the abuse of power by the majority. This is how I see the Constitution - a framework.

[Origanalist]

Constitution is the best protection we have against more government intrusion. Any libertarian with half a brain should understand that.

Really? It doesn't seem to be doing much good (in case you haven't noticed).

[kcchiefs6465]

Really? It doesn't seem to be doing much good (in case you haven't noticed).

But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist. - Lysander Spooner
..

[green73]

Constitution is the best protection we have against more government intrusion. Any libertarian with half a brain should understand that. Also, I find this statement extremely short-sighted and dangerous:
That's the kind of argument social conservatives would make to prohibit the sodomy, and progressives would use the same argument to prohibit "hate speech" against gays. Because morality is relative, subjective, depends on the individual and evolves over time. The idiot talks as if libertarian morality is the only kind of morality out there. The notion that humans have innate rights itself is a point of view. "Morality" is a pretty shaky ground on which to build libertarian politics.

What do you do in a situation when there is a clash between the people with two different and incompatible moral worldviews? Should the majority just try to force its point of view on a minority - a decidedly unlibertarian outcome. Or maybe they could use a framework that would allow them to work out their differences in some fashion. A framework that both enables organised society to function and protects the minority rights (opinion, worldview) from the abuse of power by the majority. This is how I see the Constitution - a framework.

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”

― Lysander Spooner

[green73]

..

lol

[kcchiefs6465]

Hahaha.

Great minds think alike?

Or truth reigns free?

[Origanalist]

..But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist. - Lysander Spooner

And how long ago did he say that?

[heavenlyboy34]

Constitution is the best protection we have against more government intrusion.
Got proof of this (historically inaccurate) positive claim?:confused: Saying it is one thing-proving it is another.

[PatriotOne]

Do you believe Ron Paul is not a libertarian?



Ron is an Independent not a Libertarian.

[heavenlyboy34]

Ron is an Independent not a Libertarian.
He has called himself libertarian numerous times in recent years. (and is a lifetime member of the LP) Is he a liar?

[JCDenton0451]

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”

Let me say it again. The notion that the individuals have certain "innate rights" is a libertarian point of view, and we should be thankful that our point of view is affirmed in the Constitution of the United States. Without it there is literally nothing to stop powerful groups of people from trumping our rights into the ground. If you want to know what a country with no insitutional framework to protect the individual liberty looks like, look no futher than Zimbabwe.

The person who wrote that reddit post is an idiot and possibly an anarchist with no understanding of human nature, history and the world outside the US.

[JCDenton0451]

Hahaha.

Great minds think alike?

Or truth reigns free?

No stupidity reigns free. You guys would give the statists the rope, they will use to hang you.

[Origanalist]

Let me say it again. The notion that the individuals have certain "innate rights" is a libertarian point of view, and we should be thankful that our point of view is affirmed in the Constitution of the United States. Without it there is literally nothing to stop powerful groups of people from trumping our rights into the ground. If you want to know what a country with no insitutional framework to protect the individual liberty looks like, look no futher than Zimbabwe.

The person who wrote that reddit post is an idiot and possibly an anarchist with no understanding of human nature, history and the world outside the US.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQkRoHSLSVHKRYeXKnoVq9j--J867kCwzbrfmWvowmSu-Hik8zsX36_F44X

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSWe2DdFxZvLus6f-lDsyCNOfYycOqDRTKL5OtE8c9tldWn074K8ZiKEv8

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ4NQaxSlQMPBVS3ebtS_t9AvW1SAQy1 6tLmOcVn-ohccLLXynplzngkBV2

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR_yzpkB8g2xIalKJrJUwvZS9Pw6FtFP oXWFmoKPVkrw1lKAaE4dOlZYIQ

[bolil]

As qualifiers go, that is a pretty low one.

A negative quality that anyone can claim to have. I am for opulent wealth in all places too, it is easy to be for something. To act, however, is a different thing altogether. I think that our estimation of the individual human is our truly unique quality.

[JCDenton0451]

Got proof of this (historically inaccurate) positive claim?:confused: Saying it is one thing-proving it is another.

Without the Constitution there would be laws against "hate speech" by now, like in most Western countries. Progressive community wants them, gay community wants them, Jewish community wants them. No politician would go on record defending the Holocaust denial...Frankly, first amendment is the only reason we don't have the laws against "hate speech" yet.

[heavenlyboy34]

Without the Constitution there would be laws against "hate speech" by now, like in most Western countries. Progressive community wants them, gay community wants them, Jewish community wants them. No politician would go on record defending the Holocaust denial...Frankly, first amendment is the only reason we don't have the laws against "hate speech" yet.
This is not proof, good sir-it is another (unsubstantiated) positive claim.

[JCDenton0451]

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQkRoHSLSVHKRYeXKnoVq9j--J867kCwzbrfmWvowmSu-Hik8zsX36_F44Xhttp://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSWe2DdFxZvLus6f-lDsyCNOfYycOqDRTKL5OtE8c9tldWn074K8ZiKEv8http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ4NQaxSlQMPBVS3ebtS_t9AvW1SAQy1 6tLmOcVn-ohccLLXynplzngkBV2http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR_yzpkB8g2xIalKJrJUwvZS9Pw6FtFP oXWFmoKPVkrw1lKAaE4dOlZYIQ Most Americans are comfortable with this. You belong to a minority that believes this violates your rights. You can appeal to the authority of the Constitution to get the government to respect your views. Without the Contitution, they could simply dismiss you as an opinionated and possibly dangerous kook.

[heavenlyboy34]

Most Americans are comfortable with this. You belong to a minority that believes this violates your rights. You can appeal to the authority of the Constitution to get the government to respect your views. Without the Contitution, they could simply dismiss you as an opinionated and possibly dangerous kook.
You can, but as long as the majority doesn't care, you won't get respect. FYI, people are already thrown in rape cages for saying and doing things police and politicians simply disagree with. Review AF's post history. Free country, eh? :rolleyes:

[JCDenton0451]

This is not proof, good sir-it is another (unsubstantiated) positive claim.What is stopping US government from regulating "hate speech" then? When so many powerful groups want it. C'mon, you're simply refusing to use your brain.

[Origanalist]

Without the Contitution, they could simply dismiss you as an opinionated and possibly dangerous kook.

OK, you're either trolling or not really paying attention.

[Ender]

Let me say it again. The notion that the individuals have certain "innate rights" is a libertarian point of view, and we should be thankful that our point of view is affirmed in the Constitution of the United States. Without it there is literally nothing to stop powerful groups of people from trumping our rights into the ground. If you want to know what a country with no insitutional framework to protect the individual liberty looks like, look no futher than Zimbabwe.

The person who wrote that reddit post is an idiot and possibly an anarchist with no understanding of human nature, history and the world outside the US.

"Scuse me? Read much? Public school indoctrination got you by the cajones?

The most important document in the history of the US says:

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 was written by that short-sighted libertarian, Thomas Jefferson.

The Constitution was written to put in a strong central government and to gain control of the separate states. The Articles of Confederation were actually much more freedom based.

BTW- the Amendments were demanded by states that feared the Constitution and wanted a guarantee of preserved freedom. Even with the Amendments, the Constitution has not been able to stand as a freedom protecting document.

[PatriotOne]

He has called himself libertarian numerous times in recent years. (and is a lifetime member of the LP) Is he a liar?

Are you a paid member of the Ron Paul Channel? If so, it was on his Aug 15th show he spoke about being an Indy.

[heavenlyboy34]

What is stopping US government from regulating "hate speech" then? When so many powerful groups want it. C'mon, you're simply refusing to use your brain.
They already can. They can deem anything they want "slander". Now back up your positive claim or admit you're wrong.

[heavenlyboy34]

Are you a paid member of the Ron Paul Channel? If so, it was on his Aug 15th show he spoke about being an Indy.
No. But I'd need context to know exactly what he means by that. I'm technically an "Indy" because I don't believe in political parties. But if I had to pick a label, it would be libertarian or agorist or voluntaryist or something along those lines.

[JCDenton0451]

You can, but as long as the majority doesn't care, you won't get respect. FYI, people are already thrown in rape cages for saying and doing things police and politicians simply disagree with. Review AF's post history. Free country, eh? :rolleyes:

You get a degree of respect. And that's something. Gotta learn to appreciate the little things you have. The government (and any organised group of people for that matter) is inherently unlibertarian entity. You can't realistically expect that everyone will embrace your doctrinate libertarian/anarchist view and the Constitution wasn't designed for that purpose.

Progressives HATE the Constitution for reason. It's a major obstacle in their path.

[JCDenton0451]

They already can. They can deem anything they want "slander". Now back up your positive claim or admit you're wrong.
No, they can't. They can't deem Holocaust denial as a "slander" and prosecute people, at least nobody has ever done this successfully.

[PatriotOne]

No. But I'd need context to know exactly what he means by that. I'm technically an "Indy" because I don't believe in political parties. But if I had to pick a label, it would be libertarian or agorist or voluntaryist or something along those lines.

For 10 bucks you can hear the context. http://www.ronpaulchannel.com/

[Antischism]

http://jim.com/treason.htm


The constitution not only binds nobody now, but it never did bind anybody. It never bound anybody, because it was never agreed to by anybody in such a manner as to make it, on general principles of law and reason, binding upon him.


Where would be the end of fraud and litigation, if one party could bring into court a written instrument, without any signature, and claim to have it enforced, upon the ground that it was written for another man to sign? that this other man had promised to sign it? that he ought to have signed it? that he had had the opportunity to sign it, if he would? but that he had refused or neglected to do so? Yet that is the most that could ever be said of the Constitution. The very judges, who profess to derive all their authority from the Constitution – from an instrument that nobody ever signed – would spurn any other instrument, not signed, that should be brought before them for adjudication.

Moreover, a written instrument must, in law and reason, not only be signed, but must also be delivered to the party (or to some one for him), in whose favor it is made, before it can bind the party making it. The signing is of no effect, unless the instrument be also delivered. And a party is at perfect liberty to refuse to deliver a written instrument, after he has signed it. The Constitution was not only never signed by anybody, but it was never delivered by anybody, or to anybody’s agent or attorney. It can therefore be of no more validity as a contract, then can any other instrument that was never signed or delivered.


It is no exaggeration, but a literal truth, to say that, by the Constitution – not as i interpret it, but as it is interpreted by those who pretend to administer it – the properties, liberties, and lives of the entire people of the United States are surrendered unreservedly into the hands of men who, it is provided by the Constitution itself, shall never be “questioned” as to any disposal they make of them.


If any considerable number of the people believe the Constitution to be good, why do they not sign it themselves, and make laws for, and administer them upon, each other; leaving all other persons (who do not interfere with them) in peace? Until they have tried the experiment for themselves, how can they have the face to impose the Constitution upon, or even to recommend it to, others? Plainly the reason for absurd and inconsistent conduct is that they want the Constitution, not solely for any honest or legitimate use it can be of to themselves or others, but for the dishonest and illegitimate power it gives them over the persons and properties of others. But for this latter reason, all their eulogiums on the Constitution, all their exhortations, and all their expenditures of money and blood to sustain it, would be wanting.

[kcchiefs6465]

No stupidity reigns free. You guys would give the statists the rope, they will use to hang you.
What? Can you expand on that? (I'm not speaking on whether you can say you hate juice or **** or whatever your argument is based on)

Or should I find examples of every Amendment in the Bill of Rights being violated flagrantly?

What is incorrect of Spooner's statement?

The people care not about the Constitution and I'd give a figure that 90% of the country couldn't tell me the 16th Amendment in a library. I'm all for stressing the good points of the Constitution but let's be realistic- Either it has allowed the system we have today, or the paper has been unable to save us from it.

This is a piece of paper only reaffirming Natural Rights. It's a shame people need it to be spelled out for them. To say we'd be more tyrannical is a hard case to make. They ignore what they find irrelevant so what difference does it make?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Most Americans are comfortable with this. You belong to a minority that believes this violates your rights. You can appeal to the authority of the Constitution to get the government to respect your views. Without the Contitution, they could simply dismiss you as an opinionated and possibly dangerous kook.

You got your chicken and the egg thing mixed up. The 'Constitution' didn't come before the War, or the people who died for their liberties. Indeed, one can succinctly argue that the Constitution was a coup on our rights and liberties, and it certainly turned out that way. A piece of paper is not going to stop the Government - only our resistance to it, will.

[Cabal]

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

[Origanalist]

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

It never was, and it has shown itself progressively less so as time goes on.

[Weston White]

My take:

A constitution is itself in effect meaningless; more aptly however, are those fixed maxims and tenets provided therein which possess a great and guarded purpose.

Our U.S. Constitution was not written on paper, but vellum.

Its Framers wanted abolition at the time of its crafting, but were intellectually wise enough to acknowledge that even so much as hinting such an intent would have resulted in causing great turbulence during a sensitive period in an already divisive confederacy.

States do not have “rights”, only stipulated powers—propagandist philosophy aside.

Libertarianism is not about displacing the government, anarchism prescribes to that utter fallacy, it is about retaining humane prudence in individualism and nothing more.

Our present system of government is completely broken and not for its constitution, yet for the absolute greed and gluttony of those manipulating it to their own private interests; if our government were to be described as a fifty-gallon barrel it would now be incapable of holding so much as a single ounce of fluid.

[JCDenton0451]

What? Can you expand on that? (I'm not speaking on whether you can say you hate juice or **** or whatever your argument is based on)

Or should I find examples of every Amendment in the Bill of Rights being violated flagrantly?

What is incorrect of Spooner's statement?

The people care not about the Constitution and I'd give a figure that 90% of the country couldn't tell me the 16th Amendment in a library. I'm all for stressing the good points of the Constitution but let's be realistic- Either it has allowed the system we have today, or the paper has been unable to save us from it.

This is a piece of paper only reaffirming Natural Rights. It's a shame people need it to be spelled out for them. To say we'd be more tyrannical is a hard case to make. They ignore what they find irrelevant so what difference does it make?

Again, "Natural Rights" is concept in philosophy. It has no authority or legitimacy on its own. Constitution is the supreme law in the United States. That doesn't mean that everyone always follows the law, but what is undeniable is that Constitution has authority. The fact that natural rights are affirmed in the Constitution is what grants legitimacy to the idea of "natural rights". Natural rights don't come from the God or anything like that. God is a mythological entity and doesn't exist.

If we fail to protect the Constitution, there is nothing to stop powerful people from trumping all over our "natural rights". In Austria you go to prison for denying the Holocaust. In Canada you pay a fine for saying homosexuality is a sin. Although the first amendment isn't always respected in the US, it still provides a certain degree of protection for free speech. Even progressives are forced to pay lip service to the first amendment.

[kcchiefs6465]

Judge Napolitano has spoken on its shortcomings as well and how it would have been more strictly worded had he written it.

Years can erode any meaning of words. A People's will is what protects against tyranny. They may pay homage to "an outdated" (musket vs. 'high capacity', for example) piece of history but it should be recognized and understood the erosion of the words are constant and continuous.

This is not to insult the framers. They understood much of the problem as we are faced with. The ignorant and apathetic populous we are faced with is probably something they couldn't even imagine. At the least the severity of it, I think.

[heavenlyboy34]

Again, "Natural Rights" is concept in philosophy. It has no authority or legitimacy on its own. Constitution is the supreme law in the United States. That doesn't mean that everyone always follows the law, but what is undeniable is that Constitution has authority. The fact that natural rights are affirmed in the Constitution is what grants legitimacy to the idea of "natural rights". Natural rights don't come from the God or anything like that. God is a mythological entity and doesn't exist.

If we fail to protect the Constitution, there is nothing to stop powerful people from trumping all over our "natural rights". In Austria you go to prison for denying the Holocaust. In Canada you pay a fine for saying homosexuality is a sin. Although the first amendment isn't always respected in the US, it still provides a certain degree of protection for free speech. Even progressives are forced to pay lip service to the first amendment.
Natural rights are "legitimate" with or without a written constitution. They exist independently of any law written by man. This is affirmed in the Declaration of Independence.

[FrankRep]

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

The American people failed to protect their rights, don't blame the Constitution.

[kcchiefs6465]

Again, "Natural Rights" is concept in philosophy. It has no authority or legitimacy on its own. Constitution is the supreme law in the United States. That doesn't mean that everyone always follows the law, but what is undeniable is that Constitution has authority. The fact that natural rights are affirmed in the Constitution is what grants legitimacy to the idea of "natural rights". Natural rights don't come from the God or anything like that. God is a mythological entity and doesn't exist.

If we fail to protect the Constitution, there is nothing to stop powerful people from trumping all over our "natural rights". In Austria you go to prison for denying the Holocaust. In Canada you pay a fine for saying homosexuality is a sin. Although the first amendment isn't always respected in the US, it still provides a certain degree of protection for free speech. Even progressives are forced to pay lip service to the first amendment.
Whether or not God created us in His image does not matter. We are the top of the top on this Earth. We have the ability of understanding. It does not matter what reasoning you come from to accept we have certain unalienable rights - we do. That is, whether we are created in God's image or whether Nature has granted us a supreme understanding of the world - We are endowed rights.

It will always be a struggle. Define something strictly and surely those who are slick tongued will begin to chip at the foundation of the original intent. The First Amendment is very important. The Constitution or Bill of Rights does not Grant us a First Amendment or a right to speak unobstructed. It recognizes that "Congress shall make no law abridging The freedom of speech." "The" recognizes that they aren't granting us this right, but that the right it naturally endowed in us simply by being. The First Amendment has been steadily being chipped away. It isn't necessarily the shortcomings of the document as much as it is the willpower of the manipulators.

Those discussing or mentioning the shortcomings of the Constitution surely know the benefits of the document. A piece of paper isn't sufficient in preventing a swift tongue. Words are manipulated to mean what they weren't intended. No amount of words would dissuade their intention.

[kcchiefs6465]

The American people failed to protect their rights, don't blame the Constitution.
A very valid point, as well.

[Cabal]

The American people failed to protect their rights, don't blame the Constitution.

That's like saying the rape victim failed to not get raped. It's not the victim's fault that the criminal decided to commit a crime against them.

Blaming the Constitution for anything is silly--it's an inanimate, insignificant piece of material that cannot act. It's just an old piece of paper. That being said I still tend to regard it with disdain for a number of what should be fairly obvious reasons, not the least of which is how many people continue associating it with some kind of superstitious, mystical, righteous power, as if it will be our savior, thereby continuing to ultimately have faith in statism.

Time to grow up folks. Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Constitution. All fantasies.

[Dogsoldier]

"The American people failed to protect their rights, don't blame the Constitution."


A very valid point, as well.


Well...Yes...But all you need is a few lawyers who are experts at manipulating the words and you can do anything. Most regular joes have no idea what their rights are and are not educated enough to do anything about it....So if a group of lawyers write the laws then the regulars will fall in line everytime....

A constitution should have simple common sense wording that a 6th grader can understand....There should only be a very small number of laws that even a child could memorize them....This is not how the constitution was written.

It is kind of small but there is a lot in that little book that makes it easy for an educated lawyer to manipulate. That's the problem.

The constitution may have had good intentions but it has been a horrible failure...

[heavenlyboy34]

The American people failed to protect their rights, don't blame the Constitution.
As I've told you before, this is blaming the victim. Your argument only works if "The People" actually read and signed an agreement WRT the Constitution. They didn't.


A very valid point, as well.
No it's not.

[kcchiefs6465]

The Constitution was written in fairly simple language. People today can't understand a newspaper and the original intent of the Constitution is never discussed in public schooling.

Indeed they don't mention Natural Law and do not explain much of the circumstances behind the wording of the Constitution. It is undoubtedly a flawed document. The people are to blame too. Laziness and a relaxed attitude; Tyranny is never more than a generation away.

[bolil]

The Constitution was written in fairly simple language. People today can't understand a newspaper and the original intent of the Constitution is never discussed in public schooling.

Indeed they don't mention Natural Law and do not explain much of the circumstances behind the wording of the Constitution. It is undoubtedly a flawed document. The people are to blame too. Laziness and a relaxed attitude; Tyranny is never more than a generation away.

Absolutely.

[jtstellar]

i think i am

but i'm ok with people calling me not.. lol. the label is worth about this much to me. i think i am "libertarian" on all issues except the part where i think a growing baby is a baby. oh ya, and the part where the feds shouldn't force me to carry around a marriage license just to make gay people happy and to make polygamists angry

[Cutlerzzz]

Without the Constitution there would be laws against "hate speech" by now, like in most Western countries. Progressive community wants them, gay community wants them, Jewish community wants them. No politician would go on record defending the Holocaust denial...Frankly, first amendment is the only reason we don't have the laws against "hate speech" yet.

Not all Progressives support it, and most Americans do not. When the government wants to ban free speech, they ban it. See the Sedition Act, Civil War, World Wars, Media Shield Laws, and the Fairness Doctrine. If they want to ban it, they will ban it.

[A Son of Liberty]

Let me say it again. The notion that the individuals have certain "innate rights" is a libertarian point of view,

No it is not. Individual sovereignty is an objective fact, and is discernible, and observable, naturally. That some people cannot or refuse to recognize individual sovereignty does not obviate it, but merely brings conflict and violence into the world.

Those who recognize the truth of individual sovereignty simply accept the truth of human existence, just as those who recognize the truth that the planets orbit the sun simply accept the truth of the solar system. The Church executing those people did not obviate that truth, it merely brought conflict and violence into the world.


and we should be thankful that our point of view is affirmed in the Constitution of the United States. Without it there is literally nothing to stop powerful groups of people from trumping our rights into the ground.

I'm hopeful that someday you will recognize the stunning irony in this statement. There is, right now and since the inception of the constitution, a powerful group of people "trumping our rights into the ground", and those people do so under the "legitimacy" that the constitution gives them.

People who cannot/refuse to accept that individuals are sovereign will ALWAYS seek power over other people. The establishment of government under the auspices of the constitution simply gives those people social sanction in the wielding of that power.

The constitution may or may not establish a more palatable form of that social sanction, but it does not change the fact that it is an abuse of individual sovereignty, and thus should be rejected because it still AUTHORIZES a group of people to yield power over others.


The person who wrote that reddit post is an idiot and possibly an anarchist with no understanding of human nature, history and the world outside the US.

Pro tip: It does you no good to refer to that person as an idiot, and by implication those of us who share his views. I think it has been well demonstrated that we are not idiots, and are in fact rather well clued in with regards to human nature and world history. You may disagree with us (tho' if you are going to disagree, you really should provide a logical framework for your opinion), but calling us idiots seems suspiciously to be a device for you to use to avoid responding logically.

[asurfaholic]

The "all or nothing" view of libertarianism is silly.

I agree, mostly because it opens the door for disagreements in philosophy to be the bridge that burns and keeps people from joining or wanting to join.

For example, a lot of libertarians are pro- "choice" and this is not an acceptable liberty position for me, and many others. Because life is sacred, and the liberty of both the baby and mother should be protected. Ask a libertarian, and the answer is likely to be that since the baby can't sign his name yet, he doesn't deserve the protection from death from his own mother. Or worse yet, they start this crap about property rights, and evicting a trespasser or some sick twisted shit. If I was to state this position, it could be said that i am not for liberty, since I want to use laws and possibly force to protect the unborn.

So, the all or nothing argument fails because it slams the door for reasonable debate and distracts from the better goal of working together to break the one party system.

[eduardo89]

The "all or nothing" view of libertarianism is silly.

I agree. No wonder no one takes libertarianism seriously.

[A Son of Liberty]

Natural rights are "legitimate" with or without a written constitution. They exist independently of any law written by man. This is affirmed in the Declaration of Independence.

Indeed; and here is the danger of quote-unquote enshrining those rights in a political document which grants people authority to exercise power over others: implicit is the assumption that those rights are negotiable, and somehow subject to interpretation. The mere existence of the constitution, therefore, undermines those rights from the very start.

[Anti Federalist]

You got your chicken and the egg thing mixed up. The 'Constitution' didn't come before the War, or the people who died for their liberties. Indeed, one can succinctly argue that the Constitution was a coup on our rights and liberties, and it certainly turned out that way. A piece of paper is not going to stop the Government - only our resistance to it, will.

And the warning was sounded, at the time.

It was ignored, just like it is now.

[Anti Federalist]

The American people failed to protect their rights, don't blame the Constitution.

I do.

Certain political associations wanted the constitution for their own selfish reasons.

The best part of the constitution, the bill of rights, was an afterthought, grudgingly accepted and half heartedly complied with to this day.

It could have been written to take into account people's natural sloth, laziness and willingness to accept tyranny.

It's not like the concept was unknown, that what Jefferson had written about.

[69360]

This reddit post is stupid.

I'm against wars of aggression, not defense. There is nothing wrong with defending your country.

I'm a nationalist. I'm proud of my country and not ashamed to be. Doesn't mean I hate other countries.

Living in a state in this country is a free association, nobody forces you to live there.

I don't care if I pass your liberterian purity tests.

[Snew]

Awesome post.

[Cap]

Green73, thanks so much for posting this, it made my day.

[LibertyEagle]

I do.

Certain political associations wanted the constitution for their own selfish reasons.

The best part of the constitution, the bill of rights, was an afterthought, grudgingly accepted and half heartedly complied with to this day.

It could have been written to take into account people's natural sloth, laziness and willingness to accept tyranny.

It's not like the concept was unknown, that what Jefferson had written about.

Ok, but AF, it's still the best founding document that any country has ever seen and you must know if our government was actually abiding by it, that life would be pretty damned great. Certainly much better than it is now by leaps and bounds.

I guess I don't understand why we all (me included) are wasting time in these stupid debates about what nirvana would look like, instead of doing what we can to swing the pendulum back the other way before we are all in a gulag.

Where are the projects? Where are the discussions of what each of us are doing in our local communities? Does everyone know if Agenda 21 is being implemented in the city that you live in? What is everyone trying to do about it? Anything? There are so many things that could be being done, but here we sit.

[LibertyEagle]

This reddit post is stupid.

I'm against wars of aggression, not defense. There is nothing wrong with defending your country.

I'm a nationalist. I'm proud of my country and not ashamed to be. Doesn't mean I hate other countries.

Living in a state in this country is a free association, nobody forces you to live there.

I don't care if I pass your liberterian purity tests.

+1. With the caveat that I love my country, but I am not at all proud of what the people occupying my government are doing.

[Philhelm]

The greatest asset of the U.S. Constitution is the Bill of Rights. Of course, President Bush was absolutely correct when he claimed that the Constitution is "just a piece of paper." However, the value of the Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights, is that it can serve as a rallying flag for our cause. To be utterly dismissive of the document and how it can be used for the cause of liberty through influencing others is the wrong answer.

[Barrex]

I had perfect snap-back answer for this but then:

http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/files/2012/01/35oi6l.jpg

[RockEnds]

I agree with the OP. And I would like to see the Constitution restored.

I don't even see the conflict. It was my understanding from the beginning of Ron Paul's campaign that his long term goal was liberty, but that his immediate goal was restoring the Constitution because that would at least be a step toward liberty. I don't think that was a bad idea. As LE just said, do what we can to swing the pendulum back before we're all in a gulag. And I've never seen the Constitution as synonymous with liberty. In fact, it is a transfer of power from the individual to the state.

The Constitution is not a perfect document. It is definitely deserving of criticism, and the OP does a good job of that. The Constitution is not something to be worshiped, and it should not be an end goal. But if it's repealed right now, it won't be replaced with something better. If this country was at a point where the limits of the Constitution were actually in place, we might be able to move toward something more libertarian. Certainly, it's important to remind each other as well as the general public what libertarianism really means. But when individuals inside the government snub their nose at the Constitution, it is not because they have something more libertarian in mind. Nuh uh. Nope, restoring the Constitution is just one little battle in a struggle without end.

[familydog]

The "all or nothing" view of libertarianism is silly.

This is like saying that the "all or nothing" view against murder, rape, and theft is silly.

No, basic moral principles are universal to all human beings. The world will continue to spiral into a craphole of oppression until people understand and accept this.

[Nirvikalpa]

I agree wholeheartedly with the OP. Thanks for posting.

[Anti Federalist]

Ok, but AF, it's still the best founding document that any country has ever seen and you must know if our government was actually abiding by it, that life would be pretty damned great. Certainly much better than it is now by leaps and bounds.

Very well aware of that.

This conversation is nothing more than a rhetorical Dutch Rudder and I think we all know that.

But, when the time comes to reset the clock to zero and start again, let's learn a valuable lesson, so that these issues are addressed.


I guess I don't understand why we all (me included) are wasting time in these stupid debates about what nirvana would look like, instead of doing what we can to swing the pendulum back the other way before we are all in a gulag.

You won't get an argument out of me there.

But I'm sure you see my point as well.

Why would we, seriously and no fooling, be concerned about being thrown in a gulag, if the constitution was in fact functioning properly?


Where are the projects? Where are the discussions of what each of us are doing in our local communities? Does everyone know if Agenda 21 is being implemented in the city that you live in? What is everyone trying to do about it? Anything? There are so many things that could be being done, but here we sit.

Doing what I can.

You know I like the direct advertising route, I've been throwing a bunch of money at OathKeepers to continue to run their Snowden ads around DC.

Right now in NH, we're at a standstill, mostly, due to Obama coattails in 2012.

Hopefully we'll shake things up in 2014 to get the liberty ball rolling again.

[LibertyEagle]

Very well aware of that.

This conversation is nothing more than a rhetorical Dutch Rudder and I think we all know that.

But, when the time comes to reset the clock to zero and start again, let's learn a valuable lesson, so that these issues are addressed.

ARE YOU Fing kidding me, AF?? There is NEVER going to be a time that we are allowed to reset the clock to zero and start again!! When this country falls to the extent that the people have lost all hope, we are going to be full scale ushered into world government. GAME Fing OVER!!!

So, if the plan is just to sit on our asses believing that there will be some miraculous point that we can rise from the ashes, THINK AGAIN! You'd better get in the game right now. Because before long, there will be no chance whatsoever.




You won't get an argument out of me there.

But I'm sure you see my point as well.

No, because you have no point. You are waiting for something that will NEVER come.


Why would we, seriously and no fooling, be concerned about being thrown in a gulag, if the constitution was in fact functioning properly?
It is a set of guiding principles that have no weight unless the people demand that they are followed. We haven't.



Doing what I can.

You know I like the direct advertising route, I've been throwing a bunch of money at OathKeepers to continue to run their Snowden ads around DC.

Right now in NH, we're at a standstill, mostly, due to Obama coattails in 2012.

Hopefully we'll shake things up in 2014 to get the liberty ball rolling again.

So, we just wait until then twiddling our thumbs and then start bitching about the voting machines and the like? When now, if we gave one damn, we could likely get most of them thrown out in our counties and states? What about our local and state governments? I'm betting most don't even know who their mayor is, much less their state reps.

[Tod]

LE has it right....ANY....EVERY.....form of government will become a monster if the people are complacent and allow it to grow beyond the original intent.

We have been complacent and the government has become a monster. If we slay it, another will fill its shoes and will be every bit as bad, or worse, if we don't stop being complacent.

[Czolgosz]

*places the phrase "dutch rudder" in his backpocket for future use. :D

[Contumacious]

If you aren't for liberty in all places, you aren't a libertarian

Yes , indeed. You da' man.

.

[bolil]

LE has it right....ANY....EVERY.....form of government will become a monster if the people are complacent and allow it to grow beyond the original intent.

We have been complacent and the government has become a monster. If we slay it, another will fill its shoes and will be every bit as bad, or worse, if we don't stop being complacent.

Anarchy, or a lack of rulers, would be just as capable to spawn monsters IF the people are complacent. The much maligned Jefferson quote about the tree of liberty pays homage to this fact.

[A Son of Liberty]

LE has it right....ANY....EVERY.....form of government will become a monster if the people are complacent and allow it to grow beyond the original intent.

We have been complacent and the government has become a monster. If we slay it, another will fill its shoes and will be every bit as bad, or worse, if we don't stop being complacent.

Ugh. Who is this "the people"? As far as I can tell, these "the people" have exactly the government "they" want. YOUR problem is that you aren't counted amongst those who are "the people". And that is precisely the problem when you seek to initiate government force amongst men.

NOBODY has been complacent. The stupid are in charge.

Dammit! When will you people finally realize!? The state changes NOTHING. It only gives sanction to that which you supposedly abhor. And yet you run around demanding that we preserve and "restore" it... FFS

[A Son of Liberty]

Anarchy, or a lack of rulers, would be just as capable to spawn monsters IF the people are complacent. The much maligned Jefferson quote about the tree of liberty pays homage to this fact.

The principle difference, of course, would be that those monsters wouldn't enjoy the social sanction that "government" enjoys today...

[mad cow]

I'm happy to see the Libertarians step up and define themselves even smaller.
Phew,they were coming pretty close to losing that 0.5% patch on their colors.
Gotta keep the riffraff out.

[A Son of Liberty]

I'm happy to see the Libertarians step up and define themselves even smaller.
Phew,they were coming pretty close to losing that 0.5% patch on their colors.
Gotta keep the riffraff out.

All we're doing is expressing the truth. Do with it what you will.

[kcchiefs6465]

I'm happy to see the Libertarians step up and define themselves even smaller.
Phew,they were coming pretty close to losing that 0.5% patch on their colors.
Gotta keep the riffraff out.
*libertarians

And the philosophy is growing.

Statism is the past or humanity will be a thing of the past.

[Contumacious]

I'm happy to see the Libertarians step up and define themselves even smaller.
Phew,they were coming pretty close to losing that 0.5% patch on their colors.
Gotta keep the riffraff out.

Well , so be it.

If you are a compromiser go to the demopublicans website.

.

[mad cow]

Well , so be it.

If you are a compromiser go to the demopublicans website.

.

Mission Statement
Inspired by US Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, this site is dedicated to facilitating grassroots initiatives that aim to restore a sovereign limited constitutional Republic based on the rule of law, states' rights and individual rights. We seek to enshrine the original intent of our Founders to foster respect for private property, seek justice, provide opportunity, and to secure individual liberty for ourselves and our posterity.


That's the mission statement of this place!
That's why I joined!

[AuH20]

Is the person who wrote this on this planet? This is a wishlist not a political philosophy. LOL I don't see much difference between this declaration and utopianism.

[A Son of Liberty]

Is the person who wrote this on this planet? This is a wishlist not a political philosophy. LOL I don't see much difference between this declaration and utopianism.

LOL have you read any of the logically composed posts in this thread, or did you just come in here to display your ignorance? LOL

[AuH20]

LOL have you read any of the logically composed posts in this thread, or did you just come in here to display your ignorance? LOL

I'm here to challenge the ridiculous notion that 100% purified libertarianism can operate outside a vacuum or controlled environment. Take for instance, the creed that nationalism must be destroyed. See, there are little problems called regionalism, tribalism and culturalism that have defined the human experience throughout the millennium. Voluntarism is not going to thwart these magnetic attractions. It's very much a pack driven world and the libertarian refuses to admit as much, denying human nature in the process. Yes, it's a noble goal in some respects, but it's ultimately flawed.

[Contumacious]

Mission Statement
Inspired by US Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, this site is dedicated to facilitating grassroots initiatives that aim to restore a sovereign limited constitutional Republic based on the rule of law, states' rights and individual rights. We seek to enshrine the original intent of our Founders to foster respect for private property, seek justice, provide opportunity, and to secure individual liberty for ourselves and our posterity.


That's the mission statement of this place!
That's why I joined!

Well, welcome aboard , we shall discourse , but please understand that we are close " to losing that 0.5% patch on our colors."

But we are not going for the other 99.5% by agreeing to invade Syria or Iran. Nor are we going to support Obama Hellcare.

.

[cajuncocoa]

GREAT OP, thanks for posting....made my day. :)

[FSP-Rebel]

I've known for years that the only "real" libertarians are ancaps but that doesn't stop me from working with anyone that is willing to take a more pro-liberty position on an issue. But if you start to change the conversation with iconoclasm you'll likely lose the target person/audience forever, just keep that in mind. Don't let your moral high ground superiority complex get in the way of helping someone along the way to an advanced pro-liberty mindset on something.

[noneedtoaggress]

ARE YOU Fing kidding me, AF?? There is NEVER going to be a time that we are allowed to reset the clock to zero and start again!! When this country falls to the extent that the people have lost all hope, we are going to be full scale ushered into world government. GAME Fing OVER!!!

So, if the plan is just to sit on our asses believing that there will be some miraculous point that we can rise from the ashes, THINK AGAIN! You'd better get in the game right now. Because before long, there will be no chance whatsoever.

I don't find it feasible that an authoritarian mega-state with highly concentrated power will ever control the globe, but even if it got to the point where that was established...

Central planning doesn't work, a world government in the sense you're describing couldn't possible last. There is not going to be a single state that controls the world for eternity.

The current US hegemony is likely about as close as you're going to get to seeing a real "One World Government" with concentrated influence over the globe for an extended period of time.


No, because you have no point. You are waiting for something that will NEVER come.

I don't see how his perspective about prospects for the future are any less legitimate than yours.

[erowe1]

Constitution is the best protection we have against more government intrusion.


What a depressing thought.

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm here to challenge the ridiculous notion that 100% purified libertarianism can operate outside a vacuum or controlled environment. Take for instance, the creed that nationalism must be destroyed. See, there are little problems called regionalism, tribalism and culturalism that have defined the human experience throughout the millennium. Voluntarism is not going to thwart these magnetic attractions. It's very much a pack driven world and the libertarian refuses to admit as much, denying human nature in the process. Yes, it's a noble goal in some respects, but it's extremely flawed.
Same applies to Constitutionalism, minarchism, socialism, and most (pretty much all) other -isms. Hence the virtue of voluntary action. This allows man to secede from people/establishments he dislikes and associate with those he favors. This makes libertiarianism the most practical solution (this presupposes that the goal is to maximize well-being and minimize unwell-being, of course).

[Southron]

Whew. I guess that article settles it then. I'm not a libertarian.

[nobody's_hero]

The American people failed to protect their rights, don't blame the Constitution.

This.

Let's suppose that the Constitution didn't exist at all. Do you think we'd be in any better condition now? Before written constitutions, kings had no trouble rising to power and committing people to a life of serfdom. Great Britain, for example, has no written constitution. I'd say they've managed to do just fine establishing a deeply-rooted form of tyranny throughout the ages. The only difference between a libertarian in Britain and a libertarian in the U.S., is that the libertarian in Britain has no contract to point to and say, "Oh, you folks in gov't aren't even supposed to be doing this. Article X section Y says . . . "

Even the people who formed the Constitution had no delusions about it being some self-enforcing mechanism.

"Though written constitutions may be violated in moments of passion or delusion, yet they furnish a text to which those who are watchful may again rally and recall the people. They fix, too, for the people the principles of their political creed." - T. Jefferson

The responsibility for maintaining a free society always comes back to the people.

[noneedtoaggress]

The American people failed to protect their rights, don't blame the Constitution.

I understand where this is coming from, but to a certain extent it doesn't really mean much.


The Russian people failed to live up to the socialist ideal, don't blame Communism.



Perhaps the reason why the American people failed to uphold the Constitution was because it centralized power (since the Articles of Confederation) and the cards were stacked against them.

[CCTelander]

That's like saying the rape victim failed to not get raped. It's not the victim's fault that the criminal decided to commit a crime against them.

Blaming the Constitution for anything is silly--it's an inanimate, insignificant piece of material that cannot act. It's just an old piece of paper. That being said I still tend to regard it with disdain for a number of what should be fairly obvious reasons, not the least of which is how many people continue associating it with some kind of superstitious, mystical, righteous power, as if it will be our savior, thereby continuing to ultimately have faith in statism.

Time to grow up folks. Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Constitution. All fantasies.


"You must spread some reputation around..."

[A Son of Liberty]

The responsibility for maintaining a free society always comes back to the people.

Again, who the hell is this, "the people"?? Are these the same people who tell the government to keep their damned hands off their medicare? Are these the same people who ushered in and gave us Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, three programs which are by and large wholly to blame for the price inflation in heathcare delivery, and which have precipitated Obamacare, against which half of these people rail, and half cheer?

Who the hell is this mythical, "the people", and why do they continually, inexorably erode my natural, God-given liberty via the socially approved entity to which a surprising number of people here seem illogically wedded?

Am I to rely upon this "the people" to keep the US government from pilfering from me, and using their booty to bomb, murder and maim innocent women and children in dump holes thousands of miles away?

Are you people serious? Wake up. There is no "the people". Stop freaking giving power to "the people". The people are murdering and killing you, and you EXPLICITLY APPROVE.

[goRPaul]

When Ron Paul was asked whether he's a Republican or a Libertarian, he responded,

"If you're for Liberty, then you are a Libertarian."

That used to be my signature on this forum.

[A Son of Liberty]

Same applies to Constitutionalism, minarchism, socialism, and most (pretty much all) other -isms. Hence the virtue of voluntary action. This allows man to secede from people/establishments he dislikes and associate with those he favors. This makes libertiarianism the most practical solution (this presupposes that the goal is to maximize well-being and minimize unwell-being, of course).

The only thing that libertarianism does is acknowledge the true nature of human existence. Every other philosophy of human interaction presupposes that there is some or another hierarchy amongst human beings. We KNOW, thru logical deduction and mere observation, that this is true. To embrace the state is to embrace that which literally flies in the face of human nature. It would be like embracing a philosophy premised upon the "fact" that some humans can fly, and some can't.

The state changes nothing. Some humans will always ignore the fact of individual sovereignty. The only thing the state does is give those people legitimacy. That's it. Human beings will always rob one another. Without the state, a man robs you and you and everyone agrees that you have been robbed. WITH the state, some men rob you and you've been robbed, while other men rob you and you've been taxed.

[mad cow]

Hey, as long as we are all working towards a sovereign limited constitutional Republic based on the rule of law, states' rights and individual rights and We seek to enshrine the original intent of our Founders ,we are all on the same team.

The bolded above is of course from the mission statement of this very website.

Mission Statement
Inspired by US Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, this site is dedicated to facilitating grassroots initiatives that aim to restore a sovereign limited constitutional Republic based on the rule of law, states' rights and individual rights. We seek to enshrine the original intent of our Founders to foster respect for private property, seek justice, provide opportunity, and to secure individual liberty for ourselves and our posterity.

If the Mission of this website has changed,I would appreciate it if the powers that be around here stepped in and clarified the situation,meanwhile i am sticking to the original Mission Statement and shooting to restore a Limited Constitutional Republic enshrining the original intent of our Founders.

[Dogsoldier]

"I agree. No wonder no one takes libertarianism seriously."

You may have the wrong website being that Ron Paul is a libertarian who used the R name to his advantage....LOL

BTW...There are just as many pro life libertarians Ron Paul being 1 of them. I'm at the opinion that when someone comes up with a good idea on how to handle the whole abortion issue I'll get behind them. So far neither pro life or pro choice side have any ideas that will deal with it. If we go with the pro lifers then we will have to round up milllions of women and prosecute them for murder and abortions will still be happening on the black market. If we take the pro choice side then its legal to kill babies and its still happening...Both=still happening.

With all that going on abortion should be way down on our list of priorities...."I know not the course others may take but as for me, give me liberty or "Wish I had been aborted!!!".

[nobody's_hero]

Again, who the hell is this, "the people"?? Are these the same people who tell the government to keep their damned hands off their medicare? Are these the same people who ushered in and gave us Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, three programs which are by and large wholly to blame for the price inflation in heathcare delivery, and which have precipitated Obamacare, against which half of these people rail, and half cheer?

Who the hell is this mythical, "the people", and why do they continually, inexorably erode my natural, God-given liberty via the socially approved entity to which a surprising number of people here seem illogically wedded?

Am I to rely upon this "the people" to keep the US government from pilfering from me, and using their booty to bomb, murder and maim innocent women and children in dump holes thousands of miles away?

Are you people serious? Wake up. There is no "the people". Stop freaking giving power to "the people". The people are murdering and killing you, and you EXPLICITLY APPROVE.

As opposed to what? Going up against the machine yourself?

Some libertarians here are so steadfastly opposed to anything that involves getting any group of people together for fear of being seen as collectivist. So, one by one, are we supposed to march up to the machine and dig in for a nice philosophical debate about the origin of natural rights? I'll assume that didn't work when I see your remains on the tank treads.

[Contumacious]

As opposed to what? Going up against the machine yourself?

Some libertarians here are so steadfastly opposed to anything that involves getting any group of people together for fear of being seen as collectivist. So, one by one, are we supposed to march up to the machine and dig in for a nice philosophical debate about the origin of natural rights? I'll assume that didn't work when I see your remains on the tank treads.

I have participated in some orgies. I have demanded the follow the rules , though. I must be the only guy. After the first encounter I told myself "I love the smell of collectivism in the morning.

.

.

[liveandletlive]

I'm glad Rand isn't a libertarian either. I actually think he has a small chance to win the nomination or at least be on the ticket.

[A Son of Liberty]

As opposed to what? Going up against the machine yourself?

Some libertarians here are so steadfastly opposed to anything that involves getting any group of people together for fear of being seen as collectivist. So, one by one, are we supposed to march up to the machine and dig in for a nice philosophical debate about the origin of natural rights? I'll assume that didn't work when I see your remains on the tank treads.

Yours will be right behind mine.

I never said we shouldn't work together against the state. I'm saying that you'd do well to disabuse yourself of the fantasy that the state is a controllable entity. It's not. It has no moral legitimacy.

I'm all for working with you minarchists. But the second you get what you want - a limited state - we'll become enemies. Because I do not submit to your rule, however "limited" it may be.

[bolil]

Apparently Libertarianism is a convenient wedge to be driven through the ranks of liberty.

And they say propaganda doesn't work... WAKE THE FUCK UP AND STOP BICKERING OVER A DEFINITION THAT NONE OF YOU OWN,

scuze me, my drunk was showing there. Seriously, though, this kind of argument isn't going anywhere and all its does is fracture the larger mass.

[bolil]

The principle difference, of course, would be that those monsters wouldn't enjoy the social sanction that "government" enjoys today...


As though that is the only sanction to be given, as though that sanction has only one name. With all the nut flexing going on here it is little surprise our common ground suffers.

Here is a novel idea, let us concentrate on what we have IN COMMON, and leave definitions to the future.

We all agree that interventionism is wrong, be it in foriegn countries or in the market. Lets slay that beast before we turn our hostilities towards eachother.

[erowe1]

Apparently Libertarianism is a convenient wedge to be driven through the ranks of liberty.

And they say propaganda doesn't work... WAKE THE FUCK UP AND STOP BICKERING OVER A DEFINITION THAT NONE OF YOU OWN,

scuze me, my drunk was showing there. Seriously, though, this kind of argument isn't going anywhere and all its does is fracture the larger mass.

+rep

The oft-repeated "well then you're not really a libertarian" argument is and always has been stupid.

We should just agree on the definition of "libertarian" as anyone who supports laws forcing people to run around naked and stoned, admit that none of us except Danke are one, and be done with it.

[bolil]

+rep

The oft-repeated "well then you're not really a libertarian" argument is and always has been stupid.

We should just agree on the definition of "libertarian" as anyone who supports laws forcing people to run around naked and stoned, admit that none of us except Danke are one, and be done with it.

Who here would argue that I do not own me?

Crickets? Let us proceed from that tenant and worry about the minutia of our disagreements later.

[erowe1]

Who here would argue that I do not own me?

I would. I don't buy the self-ownership axiom. I also don't buy strict adherence to the non-aggression principle.

[bolil]

I would. I don't buy the self-ownership axiom. I also don't buy strict adherence to the non-aggression principle.
Interesting. If I do not own myself, exclusively, how come it is that only I can raise my left hand and wiggle my pinky? The NAP is one of the most restrictive, as regards enterprise, philosophies than can exist because it considers the poor and equal footing with the rich.

[erowe1]

Interesting. If I do not own myself, exclusively, how come it is that only I can raise my left hand and wiggle my pinky? The NAP is one of the most restrictive, as regards enterprise, philosophies than can exist because it considers the poor and equal footing with the rich.

Ownership doesn't just entail ability, it also entails obligations. I own property in myself, but not exclusively. My wife and kids own property in me as well. They have positive rights that impinge on my liberty. I am obligated to serve them and have no right not to. Along these lines, especially when it comes to rearing my kids, this sometimes entails someone violating the NAP.

[Cabal]

As though that is the only sanction to be given, as though that sanction has only one name. With all the nut flexing going on here it is little surprise our common ground suffers.

Here is a novel idea, let us concentrate on what we have IN COMMON, and leave definitions to the future.

We all agree that interventionism is wrong, be it in foriegn countries or in the market. Lets slay that beast before we turn our hostilities towards eachother.

Because when one definition includes statism and another does not, what we have in common becomes rather irrelevant. This is a fundamental and significant difference. And those of us who [accurately] view statism as the single greatest threat to liberty and justice find it difficult to not 'bicker' about that fact, as a matter of principle and conviction.

Now, anyone can patronize that all they'd like, but it's not going to change the way people feel about it. And quite frankly, the disrespect this principled position gets from within its own circles just adds fuel to the fire, and ends up furthering that divide.

You say we should work together to slay the beast, but how can that be the solution when one side recognizes the so-called beast is the State itself--the institution of organized, centralized, and monopolized violence--and the other side does not? The more accurate picture is one side wants to tear out the beast's heart while the other side simply wants to clip its talons, regardless of their tendency to regrow both larger, and sharper than before.

[erowe1]

Because when one definition includes statism and another does not, what we have in common becomes rather irrelevant. This is a fundamental and significant difference. And those of us who [accurately] view statism as the single greatest threat to liberty and justice find it difficult to not 'bicker' about that fact, as a matter of principle and conviction.

I view statism as a great threat to liberty and justice. But I don't see why that should mean that I can't cooperate with statists on things.

[Cabal]

I view statism as a great threat to liberty and justice. But I don't see why that should mean that I can't cooperate with statists on things.

I never said cooperation was out of the question.

But to statists, in general and in my experience, cooperation tends to exclusively mean "vote this way" or "give this candidate/politician of the month your time/money", and "if you don't you're just a utopian fool who is doing nothing but helping the enemy win!" I suppose it shouldn't be much of a surprise though--statism is as statism does. And for the anti-statist, in general, this is a rather laughable excuse for a solution to the problem of statism, but then again statists don't view statism as the problem, so therein lies the divide. You see?

[bolil]

Because when one definition includes statism and another does not, what we have in common becomes rather irrelevant. This is a fundamental and significant difference. And those of us who [accurately] view statism as the single greatest threat to liberty and justice find it difficult to not 'bicker' about that fact, as a matter of principle and conviction.

Now, anyone can patronize that all they'd like, but it's not going to change the way people feel about it. And quite frankly, the disrespect this principled position gets from within its own circles just adds fuel to the fire, and ends up furthering that divide.

You say we should work together to slay the beast, but how can that be the solution when one side recognizes the so-called beast is the State itself--the institution of organized, centralized, and monopolized violence--and the other side does not? The more accurate picture is one side wants to tear out the beast's heart while the other side simply wants to clip its talons, regardless of their tendency to regrow both larger, and sharper than before.

You answered your own question. Either side would see the beast that is the state rendered less harmful.

[Cabal]

You answered your own question. Either side would see the beast that is the state rendered less harmful.

I don't think you're getting it.

[green73]

I agree wholeheartedly with the OP. Thanks for posting.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGo--yeN6c0

[green73]

Ugh. Who is this "the people"? As far as I can tell, these "the people" have exactly the government "they" want. YOUR problem is that you aren't counted amongst those who are "the people". And that is precisely the problem when you seek to initiate government force amongst men.

NOBODY has been complacent. The stupid are in charge.

Dammit! When will you people finally realize!? The state changes NOTHING. It only gives sanction to that which you supposedly abhor. And yet you run around demanding that we preserve and "restore" it... FFS


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELoUppY1esw

[bolil]

Ownership doesn't just entail ability, it also entails obligations. I own property in myself, but not exclusively. My wife and kids own property in me as well. They have positive rights that impinge on my liberty. I am obligated to serve them and have no right not to. Along these lines, especially when it comes to rearing my kids, this sometimes entails someone violating the NAP.

True, you should be responsible for the results of your sovereign actions. The only obligation a human, when looked at as a single unit, has is to itself and not against others.

[bolil]

I don't think you're getting it.

Likewise.

[Dogsoldier]

"I own property in myself, but not exclusively. My wife and kids own property in me as well. They have positive rights that impinge on my liberty. I am obligated to serve them and have no right not to. Along these lines, especially when it comes to rearing my kids, this sometimes entails someone violating the NAP. "

So you own yourself but willingly give your time and energy to them. You can walk away anytime you want. Its not slavery unless you are made to do it against your will and in that case you would be a slave. But your not a slave because you own yourself and choose to live this way.

[noneedtoaggress]

Ownership doesn't just entail ability, it also entails obligations. I own property in myself, but not exclusively. My wife and kids own property in me as well. They have positive rights that impinge on my liberty. I am obligated to serve them and have no right not to. Along these lines, especially when it comes to rearing my kids, this sometimes entails someone violating the NAP.

Feeling you have moral obligations to support your family and having a sense of responsibility for them isn't the same thing as your family having ownership rights over you.

I know you didn't mean it this way, but your post insinuates that your in an involuntary relationship and a slave to your family members.

[Anti Federalist]

*libertarians

And the philosophy is growing.

Statism is the past or humanity will be a thing of the past.

This.

For all my doom and gloom, it has been a pretty amazing journey toward "no rulers".

Hopefully, one day not too far off, "the state" and all its trappings will be as socially repugnant as child molesting.

But the stakes sure are high.

A 1000 year dark age vs. free humanity, indeed the very survival of the species (only the state could concoct an idea so foul as race specific bioweapons, for example) hangs in the balance.

[erowe1]

Feeling you have moral obligations to support your family and having a sense of responsibility for them isn't the same thing as your family having ownership rights over you.


I'm not saying that I just feel like I have obligations, I'm saying I actually do have obligations. To say that I and only I own property in myself would entail that no one else has a right to my labors, which would mean that I had no obligations to them.

[erowe1]

"I own property in myself, but not exclusively. My wife and kids own property in me as well. They have positive rights that impinge on my liberty. I am obligated to serve them and have no right not to. Along these lines, especially when it comes to rearing my kids, this sometimes entails someone violating the NAP. "

So you own yourself but willingly give your time and energy to them. You can walk away anytime you want. Its not slavery unless you are made to do it against your will and in that case you would be a slave. But your not a slave because you own yourself and choose to live this way.

I may or may not willingly give my time and energy to them. But if I choose not to, then I do wrong, because I am obligated to give them my time and energy. And if I give my time and energy to them, then I only give them what is there's and what I would have no right to withhold.

[A Son of Liberty]

I never said cooperation was out of the question.

But to statists, in general and in my experience, cooperation tends to exclusively mean "vote this way" or "give this candidate/politician of the month your time/money", and "if you don't you're just a utopian fool who is doing nothing but helping the enemy win!" I suppose it shouldn't be much of a surprise though--statism is as statism does. And for the anti-statist, in general, this is a rather laughable excuse for a solution to the problem of statism, but then again statists don't view statism as the problem, so therein lies the divide. You see?


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Cabal again.

//

[libertariantexas]

The "all or nothing" view of libertarianism is silly.

I agree. It's just as silly as the litmus tests the hard corps conservatives or liberals/progressives use.

I think the term "libertarian" refers to a person's general outlook toward politics, it doesn't mean he has to be 100% ideologically pure on every issue all the time.

Frankly, people who are 100% ideologically pure (whether libertarian, conservative, or liberal) tend to be a bit nutty.

[Dogsoldier]

"And if I give my time and energy to them, then I only give them what is there's and what I would have no right to withhold."

And you entered into this by your own free will. Now you are obligated but you still could walk away (cause no one owns you-you own yourself) but of course that would be wrong because you made a commitment to them. Your commitments and promises are yours to make or break. BECAUSE you own yourself. There is no better man who can make commitments and promises and keep them. And also very brave,generous. Call it duty or what have you. Not slavery. You own yourself and the decisions you have made. A man who states "I own my self" and chooses to do the right thing is a better man then a he who says "I don't own myself and I have no choice BUT to do the right thing".

[erowe1]

And you entered into this by your own free will.

You know more about me than I thought. You happen to be right. But if I hadn't entered into this by my own free will, that wouldn't change anything. If I didn't want kids or a wife, that wouldn't relieve me of my obligations to the ones God gave me.

And viewed from the other way this is even more obvious. Just as my kids own property in me, I also own property in them, and they certainly didn't enter into this arrangement by their free will.

[mad cow]

I have asked many times on this site what Anarchist society ever existed in the course of human history without getting an answer.

Do y'all think that if society collapsed tomorrow,that The United States of Rothbardia would be declared?

It is far more likely that you would be ruled by the Crips,Bloods,Hells Angels,82nd Airborne or even the Vigilantes who summarily hanged suspected looters from lampposts after the San Francisco Earthquake without any of the Bill of Rights niceties you enjoy today,watered down as they might be.

Y'all talk about The Evil State,do you see no difference between Grover Cleveland's USA and Pol Pot's Cambodia or are they all just equally evil because they are the State?

Force is always going to be used to enforce justice,someone is always going to decide what is just.
I don't care if it is Stalin's USSR or Rothbardian competing Justice systems,somebody is going to be sticking a gun in your face and taking your wealth,throwing you in a rapecage or killing you if you violate the rules and regulations of the society that surrounds you.

[erowe1]

I have asked many times on this site what Anarchist society ever existed in the course of human history without getting an answer.


I'm sure some people will give you examples that they see as answers to that. But to me, I don't see why the question matters. If I told you I was against armed robbery, would you think it relevant to ask, "What society has ever existed without any armed robbery?"

[Cabal]

This.

For all my doom and gloom, it has been a pretty amazing journey toward "no rulers".

Hopefully, one day not too far off, "the state" and all its trappings will be as socially repugnant as child molesting.

But the stakes sure are high.

A 1000 year dark age vs. free humanity, indeed the very survival of the species (only the state could concoct an idea so foul as race specific bioweapons, for example) hangs in the balance.

I've said before and continue to sincerely believe that future societies will look back on our society and consider our form of government just as barbaric and primitive as we consider the god-king societies of the past.

The road away from statism is an evolutionary, generational one. And it will almost certainly emerge from a widespread rejection, in my estimation.

[mad cow]

I'm sure some people will give you examples that they see as answers to that. But to me, I don't see why the question matters. If I told you I was against armed robbery, would you think it relevant to ask, "What society has ever existed without any armed robbery?"

Grover Cleveland's America existed,it was real,as opposed to some Anarchist society that has never ever,ever existed in the course of human history.

Dreaming of a society where nobody is rude,armed robbery never happens and peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars is fun,this I can't deny,but come on,let's throw in free sex,drugs and rock and roll while we're at it.

[Dogsoldier]

erow

" A man who states "I own my self" and chooses to do the right thing is a better man then a he who says "I don't own myself and I have no choice BUT to do the right thing".

[Cabal]

I have asked many times on this site what Anarchist society ever existed in the course of human history without getting an answer.

Do y'all think that if society collapsed tomorrow,that The United States of Rothbardia would be declared?

It is far more likely that you would be ruled by the Crips,Bloods,Hells Angels,82nd Airborne or even the Vigilantes who summarily hanged suspected looters from lampposts after the San Francisco Earthquake without any of the Bill of Rights niceties you enjoy today,watered down as they might be.

Y'all talk about The Evil State,do you see no difference between Grover Cleveland's USA and Pol Pot's Cambodia or are they all just equally evil because they are the State?

Force is always going to be used to enforce justice,someone is always going to decide what is just.
I don't care if it is Stalin's USSR or Rothbardian competing Justice systems,somebody is going to be sticking a gun in your face and taking your wealth,throwing you in a rapecage or killing you if you violate the rules and regulations of the society that surrounds you.

Before the rejection of slavery, what society existed without slavery?

[Dogsoldier]

"I have asked many times on this site what Anarchist society ever existed in the course of human history without getting an answer."

Well...All the others have failed time and again....Lets try it!!!

A better question is "What society has lasted ANY other way?"

Evolution. Maybe we are evolving. Libertarian or anarchist is the next step.

[mad cow]

Before the rejection of slavery, what society existed without slavery?

Do you equate Grover Cleveland's USA with Pol Pot's Cambodia?After all,they are both The State and you want to end The State.

[Cabal]

Do you equate Grover Cleveland's USA with Pol Pot's Cambodia?After all,they are both The State and you want to end The State.

False dichotomy?

Relative to murder, theft is more preferable. That doesn't mean my goal is to be the victim of theft.

If you want to settle for being the victim of theft, that's your prerogative, I guess. In any case, I'll keep aiming higher.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Grover Cleveland's America existed,it was real,as opposed to some Anarchist society that has never ever,ever existed in the course of human history.

Dreaming of a society where nobody is rude,armed robbery never happens and peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars is fun,this I can't deny,but come on,let's throw in free sex,drugs and rock and roll while we're at it.

What does Grover Cleveland have anything to do with this topic?

[Origanalist]

As though that is the only sanction to be given, as though that sanction has only one name. With all the nut flexing going on here it is little surprise our common ground suffers.

Here is a novel idea, let us concentrate on what we have IN COMMON, and leave definitions to the future.

We all agree that interventionism is wrong, be it in foriegn countries or in the market. Lets slay that beast before we turn our hostilities towards eachother.

Outta rep my friend.

[erowe1]

erow

" A man who states "I own my self" and chooses to do the right thing is a better man then a he who says "I don't own myself and I have no choice BUT to do the right thing".

That may be. But sometimes doing the right thing means doing something for someone else. And if that really is true, it if really is right to do something for someone and wrong not to do it, then the premise that he owns himself is at least partly false.

[erowe1]

Grover Cleveland's America existed,it was real,as opposed to some Anarchist society that has never ever,ever existed in the course of human history.

If you were alive in Grover Cleveland's America, would you believe it was perfect? Or would you think it could be improved upon?

If it could be improved upon, then what ideal would determine the changes that could be made to improve it?

For me, that ideal would be statelessness. No matter how much theft is going on, I can always say that less would be better. I don't need to point to a historical example of a world without theft to hold out this ideal and use it to measure any given state of things.

[mad cow]

What does Grover Cleveland have anything to do with this topic?

Mission Statement
Inspired by US Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, this site is dedicated to facilitating grassroots initiatives that aim to restore a sovereign limited constitutional Republic based on the rule of law, states' rights and individual rights. We seek to enshrine the original intent of our Founders to foster respect for private property, seek justice, provide opportunity, and to secure individual liberty for ourselves and our posterity.


For the third time,I will post the Mission Statement of this website.

That Mission Statement is Exactly and Precisely why I am a member here.I am not an Anarchist,I am not a member of the Libertarian Party,although I was one for 20 years dating back to several years before Ron Paul was a member.

Given that extremely clear and concise Mission Statement,I think it is much more appropriate to ask-What are you Anarchist doing here?

[Theocrat]

From reddit (http://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/1l06a7/just_a_friendly_reminder_this_is_a_libertarian/):

Define "liberty."

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Mission Statement
Inspired by US Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, this site is dedicated to facilitating grassroots initiatives that aim to restore a sovereign limited constitutional Republic based on the rule of law, states' rights and individual rights. We seek to enshrine the original intent of our Founders to foster respect for private property, seek justice, provide opportunity, and to secure individual liberty for ourselves and our posterity.


For the third time,I will post the Mission Statement of this website.

That Mission Statement is Exactly and Precisely why I am a member here.I am not an Anarchist,I am not a member of the Libertarian Party,although I was one for 20 years dating back to several years before Ron Paul was a member.

Given that extremely clear and concise Mission Statement,I think it is much more appropriate to ask-What are you Anarchist doing here?

And for the second time, what does Grover Cleveland have to do with this topic?


If you want to go around touting the "mission statement", what is the constitution doing (or what has it ever done, for that matter) to "respect private property, seek justice, provide opportunity, and secure individual liberty"?

[Christian Liberty]

Well, it needs to be said. I used to be worried about scaring people away with radical concepts, but if they aren't introduced the ball stays on the wrong side of the court. The conversation needs a new starting point.

You can introduce anarcho-capitalist concepts without throwing everybody who isn't an ancap out of the movement.


That's why I would still prefer to call myself a conservative rather than a libertarian, because conservatism is much more of a big tent ideology. Libertarianism is such a strict, small tent ideology that even groups like the Cato Institute and Reason are labeled as being statist organizations.

Not sure exactly what CATO and Reason hold to, but libertarianism isn't quite as small tent an ideology as some here are saying it is.

It's just logically and morally consistent. Sorry if that's too much for you to embrace.

He's not our enemy. The radical tyrants are our enemies. People who are more libertarian than Rand Paul, and significantly at that, are not the enemy here.


Ron is an Independent not a Libertarian.

Small l.


Define "liberty."

You're talking to an ancap, there's no real need to do so.

[mad cow]

If you were alive in Grover Cleveland's America, would you believe it was perfect? Or would you think it could be improved upon?

If it could be improved upon, then what ideal would determine the changes that could be made to improve it?

For me, that ideal would be statelessness. No matter how much theft is going on, I can always say that less would be better. I don't need to point to a historical example of a world without theft to hold out this ideal and use it to measure any given state of things.

Given the recorded history of mankind,I would state with some confidence that a world without theft or a world without murder for that matter,is a pipe dream.

I have even given up on a world with free sex,drugs and rock and roll. :(

Whatever epoch I happened to be living in,I would strive to make it better,as I see better.
That's why I'm a member here.

[Theocrat]

You're talking to an ancap, there's no real need to do so.

That is especially why I need to know his definition of "liberty." Ancaps have various meanings of "liberty," some of which actually are libertine in nature.

[noneedtoaggress]

That may be. But sometimes doing the right thing means doing something for someone else. And if that really is true, it if really is right to do something for someone and wrong not to do it, then the premise that he owns himself is at least partly false.

Ownership is about the right to control a resource. It's a claim of legitimacy. It's not about moral obligations. If you have ownership over something you have just as much a right to neglect or destroy it.

The obligations to support your family are a different issue. Claiming people are other people's property is nothing short of slavery and the concept that "society" (and yes your family is a social unit. If it were just your family on an island you would be the entire "island society") owns the individual because he has obligations towards it is the foundation of socialism. It's also been used to justify the murder of untold numbers of people.

[erowe1]

Given the recorded history of mankind,I would confidentially state that a world without theft or a world without murder for that matter,is a pipe dream.


That's not the term I would use. I would call that world an ideal. Whether it's possible or not is irrelevant. It's still what I use to measure the world. There's not some point where I would say, "Ok, stop decreasing the amount of theft. This amount right here is just right, and any less would be too little."

[Christian Liberty]

That is especially why I need to know his definition of "liberty." Ancaps have various meanings of "liberty," some of which actually are libertine in nature.

That could be true at a personal level, but at a legal level ancaps and most other libertarians define "liberty" in purely negative, and thus rational terms. By contrast, nearly all liberals and most conservatives define "liberty" using Orwellian doublespeak.

[erowe1]

Ownership is about the right to control a resource. It's a claim of legitimacy. It's not about moral obligations. If you have ownership over something you have just as much a right to neglect or destroy it.

Legitimacy and moral obligation are the same thing.



The obligations to support your family are a different issue. Claiming people are other people's property is nothing short of slavery and the concept that "society" (and yes your family is a social unit. If it were just your family on an island you would be the entire "island society") owns the individual because he has obligations towards it is the foundation of socialism. It's also been used to justify murdering millions of people.
That doesn't explain how obligations to support my family are a different issue. They aren't. To have obligations to support someone else is the same thing as that person owning property in you. If it were just my family on an island, those obligations wouldn't disappear. I wouldn't have recourse to the excuse, "Well kids, now our family is a whole society, and since bad things happen when you say that you have an obligation to provide positive rights to the rest of society, I must now repudiate any obligation I have to provide positive rights to you."

[noneedtoaggress]

Legitimacy and moral obligation are the same thing.

By "legitimacy" I mean that property was obtained through economic means (voluntarily) instead of the political means (coercion).

You don't have an obligation to wax your car just because you buy it, and you can knock .50 caliber rounds into a brand new exotic car you bought if you so choose.


That doesn't explain how obligations to support my family are a different issue. They aren't. To have obligations to support someone else is the same thing as that person owning property in you. If it were just my family on an island, those obligations wouldn't disappear. I wouldn't have recourse to the excuse, "Well kids, now our family is a whole society, and since bad things happen when you say that you have an obligation to provide positive rights to the rest of society, I must now repudiate any obligation I have to provide positive rights to you."

But it's not. When you enter into a contract with an employer, you may have an obligation to fulfill the contract but that doesn't mean that the employer owns you as his property.

[mad cow]

That's not the term I would use. I would call that world an ideal. Whether it's possible or not is irrelevant. It's still what I use to measure the world. There's not some point where I would say, "Ok, stop decreasing the amount of theft. This amount right here is just right, and any less would be too little."

Oh,I agree.Wouldn't a world with no hunger or pain or evil or sorrow be just wonderful.
Meanwhile,back on Earth,please name 10 successful Anarchist societies.Five?One?

I am a selfish man,I am 62 years old.I am more worried about the next 30 years than what may be possible in 3000.

[erowe1]

By "legitimacy" I mean that property was obtained through economic means (voluntarily) instead of the political means (coercion).

The reason you call that "legitimate" is because you judge those things according to some moral principle.



You don't have an obligation to wax your car just because you buy it, and you can knock .50 caliber rounds into a brand new exotic car you bought if you so choose.
Right. But I do have an obligation to take care of my kids.



But it's not. When you enter into a contract with an employer, you may have an obligation to fulfill the contract but that doesn't mean that the employer owns you as his property.
My positive obligations to my family aren't based on entering a contract, and they don't go away in the absence of a contract. They are natural obligations just like the obligation not to steal from someone.

[heavenlyboy34]

Oh,I agree.Wouldn't a world with no hunger or pain or evil or sorrow be just wonderful.
Meanwhile,back on Earth,please name 10 successful Anarchist societies.Five?One?

I am a selfish man,I am 62 years old.I am more worried about the next 30 years than what may be possible in 3000.
Any assembly of people operating without the control of a State or some non-voluntary central authority is an anarchist society. There are millions of these in the continental US alone.

[erowe1]

Oh,I agree.Wouldn't a world with no hunger or pain or evil or sorrow be just wonderful.
Meanwhile,back on Earth,please name 10 successful Anarchist societies.Five?One?

I am a selfish man,I am 62 years old.I am more worried about the next 30 years than what may be possible in 3000.

I guess I just don't see why you get so worried about some imaginary utopia. Who cares if there was ever a successful anarchist society? What does that question have to do with anything?

And if you do care about what is possible, then why do you care about that at all anyway, unless there's such a thing as right and wrong? To me, being able to tell the difference between right and wrong has very real, present-day, practical impact.

[noneedtoaggress]

The reason you call that "legitimate" is because you judge those things according to some moral principle.


Right. But I do have an obligation to take care of my kids.

If you do, then they aren't your property, because if it was your property then you would have the right to neglect it or destroy it.



My positive obligations to my family aren't based on entering a contract, and they don't go away in the absence of a contract. They are natural obligations just like the obligation not to steal from someone.

The point was that obligations don't necessarily translate to property rights.

You may have obligations to your employer but that doesn't mean that your employer owns you.

Your obligation not to steal from someone coincides with property rights, because you're obligated to respect property rights, but that doesn't mean that property rights and obligations are the same thing.

Some obligations have to do with property rights, some don't. That was exactly my point.

[mad cow]

And for the second time, what does Grover Cleveland have to do with this topic?


If you want to go around touting the "mission statement", what is the constitution doing (or what has it ever done, for that matter) to "respect private property, seek justice, provide opportunity, and secure individual liberty"?

Grover Cleveland's America existed,unlike Anarchy,it is an achievable goal.

Please name ONE anarchist society throughout recorded history that has done more than the Constitution to "respect private property, seek justice, provide opportunity, and secure individual liberty"?

I can say that in the Republic of Madcowistan,things would be so much better than the USA under Grover Cleveland but I just bet some of y'all would demand that I prove it.And not just with theories but with examples.

[erowe1]

If you do, then they aren't your property, because if it was your property then you would have the right to neglect it or destroy it.


They aren't completely my property, only partly. And I'm not completely their property, only partly.


The point was that obligations don't necessarily translate to property rights.

That's an interesting view. I think usually when I see libertarians making a big deal out of self-ownership, they go on to make it the basis for all other rights and obligations, so that obligations that come from a contract derive from the rights one has due to self-ownership.

But what I'm talking about are not negative rights that can be derived from self-ownership, but positive rights that exist naturally apart from any contract.

[erowe1]

Grover Cleveland's America existed,unlike Anarchy,it is an achievable goal.


If you think Grover Cleveland's America is achievable, then I'll have some of whatever you're drinking.

Talk about not being on planet earth.

[Cabal]

Grover Cleveland's America existed,unlike Anarchy,it is an achievable goal.

Please name ONE anarchist society throughout recorded history that has done more than the Constitution to "respect private property, seek justice, provide opportunity, and secure individual liberty"?


Please name one society that was without slavery before societies began to reject slavery. Put yourself back in that time, before societies began to reject slavery, and now use your same argument. Someone is arguing that slavery shouldn't exist because slavery is wrong. "But there are no places on earth where slavery doesn't exist," you say. So, by your 'logic', we should accept slavery since non-slavery has never been done before; and we should never seek to reject and abolish slavery going forward.

[mad cow]

Any assembly of people operating without the control of a State or some non-voluntary central authority is an anarchist society. There are millions of these in the continental US alone.

If they are living in the USA,They are most certainly under the control of the U.S. Government,hence the State.May these millions of assemblies open a drug store without handicap access and sell heroin in five pound bags?They could under Grover Cleveland.

They are certainly better off here than they would be under the control of the Zimbabwe or Myanmar Governments, or Pol Pot or Mao.They would be even better off under the U.S. Government under Grover Cleveland.

[noneedtoaggress]

Grover Cleveland's America existed,unlike Anarchy,it is an achievable goal.

Please name ONE anarchist society throughout recorded history that has done more than the Constitution to "respect private property, seek justice, provide opportunity, and secure individual liberty"?

I can say that in the Republic of Madcowistan,things would be so much better than the USA under Grover Cleveland but I just bet some of y'all would demand that I prove it.And not just with theories but with examples.

Limited Government?! Have you ever heard of such a thing? Tell me one "Limited Government" that's ever existed! King George should tar and feather these traitorous jesters!!!!

Please name ONE industrial economy that's existed without the slavery. What has done more to achieve prosperity than the modern economy with a backbone of slave workers! These abolitionists are fools!

:p

[mad cow]

Please name one society that was without slavery before societies began to reject slavery. Put yourself back in that time, before societies began to reject slavery, and now use your same argument. Someone is arguing that slavery shouldn't exist because slavery is wrong. "But there are no places on earth where slavery doesn't exist," you say. So, by your 'logic', we should accept slavery since non-slavery has never been done before; and we should never seek to reject and abolish slavery going forward.

Nope,I would be trying to end slavery back then,not end government.

Y'all say that government always gets worse,I think it got better many times throughout history.
And how can you say Anarchy won't get worse?It has never even been achieved so you can say this is how it will be and it will be perfect.

I can dream up all sorts of governments that get nothing but better and better and better,but somebody might ask me to prove it.

[JCDenton0451]

I'm happy to see the Libertarians
step up and define themselves even smaller.
Phew,they were coming pretty close to losing that 0.5% patch on their colors.
Gotta keep the riffraff out.


*libertarians

And the philosophy is growing.

Statism is the past or humanity will be a thing of the past.
:facepalm:

"Statism" you're referring to is actually called civilisation. It has been part of humanity for the past 5000 years, and it will stay with us for as long as humanity exist.

I'm very mad at the OP and everyone in this thread who agreed with his nonsense. This brand of libertarianism is a religious cult: a bunch of people who choose to ignore facts about human history and human nature to believe in some utterly unrealistic things and a utopian paradise that will never come. It just shows that there are libertrians who really conform to the every negative stereotype that MSNBC hosts have about libertarians. That's a shame.

[bolil]

Slavery. That is a nice common threat we here of all colors share a revulsion towards. We could, I am quite sure, severely curtail slavery if the common man was allowed to follow common law. It is a demon we can fuck up -- if not slay-- with COMPLETE agreement, can but are not allowed. The authorities will take care of it.

Unleash liberty on slavery, and after we kill that we can fight eachother. I do know I don't have the training to go it alone.

[AuH20]

:facepalm:

"Statism" you're referring to is actually called civilisation. It has been part of humanity for the past 5000 years, and it will stay with us for as long as humanity exist.

I'm very mad at the OP and everyone in this thread who agreed with his nonsense. This brand of libertarianism is a religious cult: a bunch of people who choose to ignore facts about human history and human nature to believe in some utterly unrealistic things and a utopian paradise that will never come. It just shows that there are libertrians who really conform to the every negative stereotype that MSNBC hosts have about libertarians. That's a shame.

Throwing the baby out with the bathwater. That is the "solution" being peddled in this thread. Even a revolutionary thinker like Thomas Paine thought a limited government was a necessary evil.

[bolil]

"All truth is simple' — Is that not a compound lie?" -FN

[AuH20]

Personally, I actually agree more with Ted Kaczynski that technology with no moral restraints is the greater threat as opposed to government. Megalomaniacs have always been with us but now they have Moore's law and other breakthroughs making their desires possible.

[noneedtoaggress]

That's an interesting view. I think usually when I see libertarians making a big deal out of self-ownership, they go on to make it the basis for all other rights and obligations, so that obligations that come from a contract derive from the rights one has due to self-ownership.

What I meant by that was expanded upon in the next sentence, that simply having obligations to someone doesn't mean that those obligations mean they own you.

If you promise to do something for a family member you may have created an obligation to fulfill your promise, that doesn't mean that you are their property.


But what I'm talking about are not negative rights that can be derived from self-ownership, but positive rights that exist naturally apart from any contract.

Where are these rights derived?

[fr33]

:facepalm:

"Statism" you're referring to is actually called civilisation. It has been part of humanity for the past 5000 years, and it will stay with us for as long as humanity exist.

I'm very mad at the OP and everyone in this thread who agreed with his nonsense. This brand of libertarianism is a religious cult: a bunch of people who choose to ignore facts about human history and human nature to believe in some utterly unrealistic things and a utopian paradise that will never come. It just shows that there are libertrians who really conform to the every negative stereotype that MSNBC hosts have about libertarians. That's a shame.

Nope. Statism is the cult. It demands obedience and respect of other people. Libertarianism defined in the OP is simply the idea that people should leave me alone and stop demanding my obedience and my property. And it's only a part of humanity if you allow it to be.

[AuH20]

I would be extremely happy with the following:

1) no gun restrictions
2) no property taxes
3) abolition of the progressive income tax system and perhaps a flat tax
4) no mandatory public education requirements

That would be ideal. That's what I'm working for.

[noneedtoaggress]

:facepalm:

"Statism" you're referring to is actually called civilisation. It has been part of humanity for the past 5000 years, and it will stay with us for as long as humanity exist.


The foundation of civilization is peaceful interaction. If men were more inclined towards aggression than peaceful interaction toward their fellow man, there would be no society to speak of not even a social unit as large as a family, only lone aggressive humans trying to survive on their own. On the other hand in even a Garden of Eden idealized utopia where there was no scarcity everyone could have their desires fulfilled and there was no conflict whatsoever, there would still have to be some form of peaceful interaction for there to be anything even remotely considered a "society" at all.

The defining feature of the state is that it exists through institutionalized aggression. Aggression is antithetical to civilization, not a prerequisite to it.

Statism is not civilization. Neither is slavery. Slavery was extremely common and considered necessary for civilization until it was largely abolished, there may still be a slave trade today, but it's been de-institutionalized and condemned for the most part.

[heavenlyboy34]

:facepalm:

"Statism" you're referring to is actually called civilisation. It has been part of humanity for the past 5000 years, and it will stay with us for as long as humanity exist.

I'm very mad at the OP and everyone in this thread who agreed with his nonsense. This brand of libertarianism is a religious cult: a bunch of people who choose to ignore facts about human history and human nature to believe in some utterly unrealistic things and a utopian paradise that will never come. It just shows that there are libertrians who really conform to the every negative stereotype that MSNBC hosts have about libertarians. That's a shame.
Civilization has nothing to do with the State. The State preys on society.

It is you who chooses to ignore the facts of human history in hopes of achieving some utopia, sir. "Limited government" doesn't, never has, and never will exist outside theoretical books/discussions and acedemia. Your brand of libertarianism (as well as Objectivism and a number of others) is in fact a type of religion. You have your holy books (Constitution, Federalist papers, etc), your prophets and deities (founding fathers and various lofty politicians), your rituals (pledge of allegience, voting, etc), chastisment and casting out of the non-believers, etc.

[kcchiefs6465]

:facepalm:

"Statism" you're referring to is actually called civilisation. It has been part of humanity for the past 5000 years, and it will stay with us for as long as humanity exist.

I'm very mad at the OP and everyone in this thread who agreed with his nonsense. This brand of libertarianism is a religious cult: a bunch of people who choose to ignore facts about human history and human nature to believe in some utterly unrealistic things and a utopian paradise that will never come. It just shows that there are libertrians who really conform to the every negative stereotype that MSNBC hosts have about libertarians. That's a shame.
Against my better judgement I am going to waste time typing to a brick wall. I do this not to give your ridiculous notions any credence but in the hope someone else may read it. A few years, you may see things as I do. Probably not.

Statism that I am referring to is the idea that government is greater than people. That groups can dictate whims to a minority. It is the antithesis of believing that 10,000 people cannot impose their will on a single one, legitimately. That they do is the problem. Speak about utopias and that's fine. I understand libertarian ideals aren't received well with those with a lust to dominate and a will to exercise petty power over trivial things on their neighbor. Perhaps I was raised differently. I didn't really learn the philosophy, just became more apt at relating it to other people. That I can't change or stop the ill of the world can only be made into a rebuttal by those who lack any semblance of a rational argument and have the mental ability of an acrobat.

A lot of your post is so nonsensical that I don't even know what to say. I'm a little amazed you posted that, actually.

What about my post validates MSNBC slander against libertarians? You know what, keep it to yourself. Truth be told I probably won't read it anyways so in the interest of time and saving thread space I tried to keep my post as self-explanatory as possible. What I did not respond to or recant did not deserve a response and would have only been a waste of both of our times. Anyone with any sort of sense about them is scratching their heads at the conclusions you jump to from my very simple post.

To be clear, whether humanity succeeds or not depends on libertarian philosophy succeeding. Down the path we are on there will be a global annihilation. Einstein had a good quote on it, I recall. WWIV being fought with sticks and stones.

[AuH20]

Civilization has nothing to do with the State. The State preys on society.

It is you who chooses to ignore the facts of human history in hopes of achieving some utopia, sir. "Limited government" doesn't, never has, and never will exist outside theoretical books/discussions and acedemia Your brand of libertarianism (as well as Objectivism and a number of others) is in fact a type of religion. You have your holy books (Constitution, Federalist papers, etc), your prophets and deities (founding fathers and various lofty politicians), your rituals (pledge of allegience, voting, etc), chastisment and casting out of the non-believers, etc.

It was pretty good until 1913. You could get lost back in the day and no one could find you.

[mad cow]

It was pretty good until 1913. You could get lost back in the day and no one could find you.

I'll take it.

[noneedtoaggress]

It was pretty good until 1913.

Tell that to the secessionists.

[AuH20]

I'll take it.

One of the worst years in the history of the republic. 16th and 17th amendments. Also, the Federal Reserve Act.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/1913_was_a_very_bad_year.html

[fr33]

It was pretty good until 1913. You could get lost back in the day and no one could find you.

I'm thinking of a politically incorrect joke to include the black people who might try to hide in dark places since the constitution certainly did not provide freedom for them.

[Ender]

Well, excuse me as I repost what I said on page 2:




The most important document in the history of the US says:

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 was written by that short-sighted libertarian, Thomas Jefferson.

The Constitution was written to put in a strong central government and to gain control of the separate states. The Articles of Confederation were actually much more freedom based.

BTW- the Amendments were demanded by states that feared the Constitution and wanted a guarantee of preserved freedom. Even with the Amendments, the Constitution has not been able to stand as a freedom protecting document.

The DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE is the most important document in US history.


Originally Posted by JCDenton0451
:facepalm:

"Statism" you're referring to is actually called civilisation. It has been part of humanity for the past 5000 years, and it will stay with us for as long as humanity exist.

I'm very mad at the OP and everyone in this thread who agreed with his nonsense. This brand of libertarianism is a religious cult: a bunch of people who choose to ignore facts about human history and human nature to believe in some utterly unrealistic things and a utopian paradise that will never come. It just shows that there are libertrians who really conform to the every negative stereotype that MSNBC hosts have about libertarians. That's a shame.

The "religious cult" you talk about, in fact, in stated in no uncertain terms in the D of I.

The real negative stereotype, I'm afraid, are those of you who have become so inured in The Matrix that you will fight to protect it.

[noneedtoaggress]

Mission Statement
Inspired by US Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, this site is dedicated to facilitating grassroots initiatives that aim to restore a sovereign limited constitutional Republic based on the rule of law, states' rights and individual rights. We seek to enshrine the original intent of our Founders to foster respect for private property, seek justice, provide opportunity, and to secure individual liberty for ourselves and our posterity.


For the third time,I will post the Mission Statement of this website.

That Mission Statement is Exactly and Precisely why I am a member here.I am not an Anarchist,I am not a member of the Libertarian Party,although I was one for 20 years dating back to several years before Ron Paul was a member.

Given that extremely clear and concise Mission Statement,I think it is much more appropriate to ask-What are you Anarchist doing here?

Lol, this post and that username go well together.

[mad cow]

The DoI was written by Thomas Jefferson.That short sighted Libertarian was also a two term President of the USA under the Constitution and advised his good friend James Madison with a constant flow of letters on many,many things that Madison incorporated into the Constitution.
He was also no Anarchist.He is one of the Founders whose original intent I seek to enshrine.

[mad cow]

Lol, this post and that username fit together perfectly.

You object to the Mission Statement?

[noneedtoaggress]

You object to the Mission Statement?

I object to your hostility.

[mad cow]

I object to your hostility.

What on earth was hostile in the post of mine you quoted?

[noneedtoaggress]

What on earth was hostile in the post of mine you quoted?

The part where you questioned the legitimacy for members with "Anarchist" ideals to be included and participate in discussing liberty on this forum.

[mad cow]

The part where you questioned the legitimacy for people with "Anarchist" ideals to be included and participate in discussing liberty on this forum.

I am just curious why y'all are here given the clearly stated purpose of this forum.

If you hated Fords,had never owned a Ford and your last ten cars were Chevys,I would be just as curious as to why you would want to belong to a Mustang Forum.

Believe me,I have no desire to belong to an Anarchist Forum.

[noneedtoaggress]

Dreaming of a society where nobody is rude,armed robbery never happens and peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars is fun,this I can't deny,but come on,let's throw in free sex,drugs and rock and roll while we're at it.

This isn't what "anarchism" is. This is a utopia without conflict, and therefore no need for laws.

There are still laws in a stateless society.

[fr33]

I am just curious why y'all are here given the clearly stated purpose of this forum.

If you hated Fords,had never owned a Ford and your last ten cars were Chevys,I would be just as curious as to why you would want to belong to a Mustang Forum.

Believe me,I have no desire to belong to an Anarchist Forum.

Because we realize how impossible it is to convince Americans to accept just a tiny bit of freedom.

[Ender]

The DoI was written by Thomas Jefferson.That short sighted Libertarian was also a two term President of the USA under the Constitution and advised his good friend James Madison with a constant flow of letters on many,many things that Madison incorporated into the Constitution.
He was also no Anarchist.He is one of the Founders whose original intent I seek to enshrine.

Jefferson was not a fan of an extended Constitution with more central power:


In 1787, Jefferson was re-elected to a second three-year term as minister to France. Through correspondence with James Madison, he was kept up to relative speed on the progress of the Constitutional Convention, which was proceeding at Philadelphia in that same year. Jefferson was of the conservative opinion that a mere revision of the Articles of Confederation was necessary in order to increase the role of the federal government. Others, Madison most prominent among them, were for a complete overhaul, the direction of which Jefferson observed with an aloof but vested interest. He raised his loudest objections at the absence of a Bill of Rights, which he did much to shape in conjunction with Madison, and which stands beside the Constitution as a bedrock of Americas present-day political system (See the Constitution SparkNote).

[noneedtoaggress]

I am just curious why y'all are here given the clearly stated purpose of this forum.

Ron Paul philosophically has a close relationship with free-market anarchism (and associates with with people who consider themselves "anarchists"). Many "anarchists" here discovered it through Ron. This forum is largely used to discuss libertarian ideas and free-market economics and anarchism is at the philosophical core.

[mad cow]

Ron Paul philosophically has a close relationship with free-market anarchism (and associates with with people who consider themselves "anarchists"). Many "anarchists" here discovered it through Ron. This forum is largely used to discuss libertarian ideas and free-market economics and anarchism is at the philosophical core.

Ron Paul ran for President of the United States of America three times.I know,I donated to his campaign all three times maxing out on the last two.

He has a much closer relationship with the Republican Party,Being in it for thirty-odd years.
He is going to interview his son soon on his paid channel,maybe you think he is going to tell Rand 'Quit the Republican Party and become an Anarchist,don't make the same mistakes I did?'

[enhanced_deficit]

If you aren't for liberty in all places, you aren't a libertarian



There aresome people who while supporting US funded oppression of Liberty of people in Palestine, Egypt etc pretend to be libertarians, in my book such people are Hyocritalbiterians.

[noneedtoaggress]

Ron Paul ran for President of the United States of America three times.I know,I donated to his campaign all three times maxing out on the last two.

He has a much closer relationship with the Republican Party,Being in it for thirty-odd years.
He is going to interview his son soon on his paid channel,maybe you think he is going to tell Rand 'Quit the Republican Party and become an Anarchist,don't make the same mistakes I did?'

I'm not sure what this has to do with your question. You said that you were simply asking a question about why "Anarchists" would choose to participate here when you felt it contradicted the Mission Statement.

I gave you an answer about how Ron Paul has a strong philosophical connection to anarchism and associates with people who consider themselves anarchists and you responded by emphasizing his relationship with the Republican party and how dedicated you were toward his campaign.

I didn't see anyone question why Republicans should be here, though. So unless you're trying to make a case that this should be a "Republican" forum that "Anarchists" shouldn't participate in, I can't see why it matters. (and if that's the case it seems you weren't simply posing a question to "Anarchists" about why they'd choose to participate.)

Ron was a founding member of the Mises Institute, which publishes an overwhelming amount of academic material on free-market anarchism from an Austrian perspective. The reason he entered politics in the first place was due to his interest in Austrian Economics, which has a strong relationship to free-market anarchism. They've even come up with words for it, such as "austro-libertarianism". LvMI is one of the leading promoters of market anarchism today.

Ron has strong ties to this philosophy, that's why there are many members here who subscribe to it. Many of them found it through Ron as I mentioned earlier.

[mad cow]

I'm not sure what this has to do with your question. You said that you were simply asking a question about why "Anarchists" would choose to participate here when you felt it contradicted the Mission Statement.

I gave you an answer about how Ron Paul has a strong philosophical connection to anarchism and associates with people who consider themselves anarchists and you responded by emphasizing his relationship with the Republican party and how dedicated you were toward his campaign.

I didn't see anyone question why Republicans should be here, though.

Ron was a founding member of the Mises Institute, which publishes an overwhelming amount of academic material on free-market anarchism from an Austrian perspective. The reason he entered politics in the first place was due to his interest in Austrian Economics, which has a strong relationship to free-market anarchism. They've even come up with words for it, such as "austro-libertarianism".

This has to do with your answer.The purpose of this forum,as I understand it,is to restore a sovereign limited constitutional Republic based on the rule of law, states' rights and individual rights.

We talk about other stuff here all the time but that is the purpose.I post more in threads that have nothing to do with that purpose than I do in threads aimed at that purpose these days because it is the 'off season'.

However,I can't imagine being here,I would not be here,if this was a forum dedicated to some other purpose than that stated in the Mission Statement.

I had already maxed out to RP 2008 before I joined this forum.I would have maxed out to RP 2012 even if this forum had never existed.
I donated $500 to RP 1988 19 years before this forum existed.

I am a member of this forum because of the Mission Statement,I don't understand why somebody would be a member of this forum if they didn't agree with the Mission Statement and if the Mission Statement changes to something I don't agree with wholeheartedly,I will happily quit this forum.

[noneedtoaggress]

This has to do with your answer.The purpose of this forum,as I understand it,is to restore a sovereign limited constitutional Republic based on the rule of law, states' rights and individual rights.

We talk about other stuff here all the time but that is the purpose.I post more in threads that have nothing to do with that purpose than I do in threads aimed at that purpose these days because it is the 'off season'.

However,I can't imagine being here,I would not be here,if this was a forum dedicated to some other purpose than that stated in the Mission Statement.

I had already maxed out to RP 2008 before I joined this forum.I would have maxed out to RP 2012 even if this forum had never existed.
I donated $500 to RP 1988 19 years before this forum existed.

I am a member of this forum because of the Mission Statement,I don't understand why somebody would be a member of this forum if they didn't agree with the Mission Statement and if the Mission Statement changes to something I don't agree with wholeheartedly,I will happily quit this forum.

Your reasons for participating are your own, just as anyone else, and its your prerogative to leave for whatever reasons you see fit.

I answered your question to the best of my ability. I don't know what else to tell you.

[robert68]

The DoI was written by Thomas Jefferson.That short sighted Libertarian was also a two term President of the USA under the Constitution and advised his good friend James Madison with a constant flow of letters on many,many things that Madison incorporated into the Constitution.
He was also no Anarchist.He is one of the Founders whose original intent I seek to enshrine.

The record of his second Presidential term wasn't libertarian, and there's that "peculiar" institution he supported and benefited from.

[mad cow]

Your reasons for participating are your own, just as anyone else, and its your prerogative to leave for whatever reasons you see fit.

I answered your question to the best of my ability. I don't know what else to tell you.

If the Mission Statement of this forum were to change to we promote Anarchy and we don't support liberty minded candidates running for political office in the Evil State,I would quit at once.

[mad cow]

The record of his second Presidential term wasn't libertarian, and there's that "peculiar" institution he supported and benefited from.

He is a hero of mine,I really don't care if you hate his guts.

[noneedtoaggress]

If the Mission Statement of this forum were to change to we promote Anarchy and we don't support liberty minded candidates running for political office in the Evil State,I would quit at once.

Right, that's pretty much what you just implied, and I responded to it. What else are you looking for me to say?

[Feeding the Abscess]

And how long ago did he say that?

150 years ago.

[robert68]

He is a hero of mine,I really don't care if you hate his guts.

Hate his guts? Just pointed out some facts, geez. Excuse me if hypocrites aren't my hero's.

[shane77m]

I would be extremely happy with the following:

1) no gun restrictions
2) no property taxes
3) abolition of the progressive income tax system and perhaps a flat tax
4) no mandatory public education requirements

That would be ideal. That's what I'm working for.

Sounds good to me. I would like to see inheritance tax gone, capital gains tax gone, and eminent domain gone.

Due to the nature of man, there will always be a state. A constitutional republic would work if those doing the governing would actually remember for whom it is they work. Trials held in the public square should remind them. As it is now the US government has become a criminal organization.

[helmuth_hubener]

Ron Paul ran for President of the United States of America three times.I know,I donated to his campaign all three times maxing out on the last two. That was good of you to donate to our campaign. It was a libertarian campaign, all about spreading libertarian ideas, especially to college campuses.


He has a much closer relationship with the Republican Party,Being in it for thirty-odd years. This is a shallow and superficial understanding of Ron Paul. In addition to following the Ron Paul campaign on Fox News, you should have read Ron Paul's books! The wonderful thing is: it's not too late! Pick up those books! Get cracking! What you will find is this: Ron Paul's books are libertarian. They teach a man to be libertarian. In fact, yes, his books teach a radical and principled libertarianism, which ends up being voluntaryism/anarcho-capitalism/private property society.

[helmuth_hubener]

Due to the nature of man, there will always be a state. If this were true, then if one could show that there had not always been a state, that would be devastating to your position, wouldn't it?

There has not always been a state. It is trivially easy to show that there has not always been a state. Historical evidence abounds overwhelmingly. States absolutely, very clearly, have not always existed.

So where does that leave you? Do you think that human nature has recently changed? Is your position: "OK, fine, mankind didn't have any states before, but now we do, because mankind's nature changed and now our nature requires states."?

[helmuth_hubener]

Throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Yeah: Rosemary's baby.

AuH20, have you read Liberty Defined? It also advocates putting a knife through the heart of Rosemary's baby. It is a book, written by someone you may have heard of.

Here's an excerpt:

"Taxes are the price we pay for civilization," according to Oliver Wendell Holmes. This claim has cost us dearly. Civilization comes about through economic, moral, and social development. Freedom is a precondition. Taxes and the power to tax have been destructive to civilization and all progress. The whole notion of running the economy and the world and paying for it through forcibly extracting taxes from productive individuals violates the principle of natural rights, and when carried to an extreme, destroys the means of production and the wealth of the country.

Taxation is realized only by force and threat of force. This always means a violation of civil liberties and the Constitution. Freedom suffers from it. Yet the freer a country is, the more productive and civilized it becomes. Taxes are a hindrance to both.

[shane77m]

If this were true, then if one could show that there had not always been a state, that would be devastating to your position, wouldn't it?

There has not always been a state. It is trivially easy to show that there has not always been a state. Historical evidence abounds overwhelmingly. States absolutely, very clearly, have not always existed.

So where does that leave you? Do you think that human nature has recently changed? Is your position: "OK, fine, mankind didn't have any states before, but now we do, because mankind's nature changed and now our nature requires states."?

There doesn't have to be piece of paper defining a "state". There will always be some rules in a group of people that the people will follow. There is always going to be someone trying to "oppress" another person. Mankind by nature is greedy, lustful, selfish, fearful, deceitful. All characteristics that bring about people creating a "state". Having no rules and no laws and no oppression is a pipe dream. There will always be a "state".

[helmuth_hubener]

There doesn't have to be piece of paper defining a "state". There will always be some rules in a group of people that the people will follow. There is always going to be someone trying to "oppress" another person. Mankind by nature is greedy, lustful, selfish, fearful, deceitful. All characteristics that bring about people creating a "state". Having no rules and no laws and no oppression is a pipe dream. There will always be a "state".

Rules =/= laws =/= oppression.

Am I to understand from your post that you are trying to take the position that there have, in fact, always been states, historically? Is that what you're saying? Because if so, I will annihilate you. Just a warning. History is absolutely against this position.

[shane77m]

Rules =/= laws =/= oppression.

Am I to understand from your post that you are trying to take the position that there have, in fact, always been states, historically? Is that what you're saying? Because if so, I will annihilate you. Just a warning. History is absolutely against this position.

LOL. Please don't hurt me Internet Commando.

There always has been oppression and there always will be. It is human nature.

[AuH20]

If this were true, then if one could show that there had not always been a state, that would be devastating to your position, wouldn't it?

There has not always been a state. It is trivially easy to show that there has not always been a state. Historical evidence abounds overwhelmingly. States absolutely, very clearly, have not always existed.

So where does that leave you? Do you think that human nature has recently changed? Is your position: "OK, fine, mankind didn't have any states before, but now we do, because mankind's nature changed and now our nature requires states."?

There has always been an element of "coercion" at work at nearly every social dynamic, some greater & degrading than others. You can't run from it. Indian tribes and ancient clans all had something of semblance in place. The coercion was that you wouldn't eat and be cut off from community, left to die in the wilderness.

[AuH20]

There doesn't have to be piece of paper defining a "state". There will always be some rules in a group of people that the people will follow. There is always going to be someone trying to "oppress" another person. Mankind by nature is greedy, lustful, selfish, fearful, deceitful. All characteristics that bring about people creating a "state". Having no rules and no laws and no oppression is a pipe dream. There will always be a "state".

If everyone was just free, mankind would revert to that innocent, peaceful creature that he was designed to be. ROFL That's the libertarian blindspot, a massive one I may add.

[noneedtoaggress]

There doesn't have to be piece of paper defining a "state". There will always be some rules in a group of people that the people will follow. There is always going to be someone trying to "oppress" another person.

"Rules in a group of people" is not what the state is. You can have rules without a state monopoly. That's exactly what anarchism is.

Someone committing aggression does not make them "the state". The state is a term denoting a type of organization. A random mugger is not a state.


Mankind by nature is greedy, lustful, selfish, fearful, deceitful. All characteristics that bring about people creating a "state".

Sure, they're also the same characteristics that makes the state rife with corruption and abuse. Politicians are power-brokers for a centralized monopoly on power and they give access to this power to influential groups of people. The state doesn't fix any of those problems at all, it just gives those flawed humans an institution which legalizes it's own aggression.


Having no rules and no laws and no oppression is a pipe dream. There will always be a "state".

No one is disagreeing that it's not a pipe dream, but that's also not what "anarchism" is. It's possible to have rules and defend against aggression without a state.

[noneedtoaggress]

There has always been an element of "coercion" at work at nearly every social dynamic, some greater & degrading than others. You can't run from it. Indian tribes and ancient clans all had something of semblance in place. The coercion was that you wouldn't eat and be cut off from community, left to die in the wilderness.

"Coercion" is not the same thing as statism. The state is a specific kind of organization.

Ostracization is not coercion. It's using your right to free-association to stop associating with people you don't find it desirable to associate with. If someone does something that a lot of people within a community don't care for it's well within their rights to choose to stop associating with that person.

Ostracization is an voluntary form of enforcing social norms and rules.


If everyone was just free, mankind would revert to that innocent, peaceful creature that he was designed to be. ROFL That's the libertarian blindspot, a massive one I may add.

Except that's not a libertarian blind spot, because it's not what libertarians say. The blind spot is in your perception of what libertarians believe, and it sounds almost willful.

[helmuth_hubener]

LOL. Please don't hurt me Internet Commando.

There always has been oppression and there always will be. It is human nature.You did not answer my question. The state is a very specific institution with very specific characteristics. Such institutions have not always existed. Thus your statement "Due to the nature of man, there will always be a state." is false. There has not always been a state. Historians who have looked at the topic will all join hands in unity with me on this.

Now, you have further explained what you were trying to say. It turns out that you are actually making multiple assertions:

1) There will always be some rules in any group of people.
2) There will always be some attempted oppression, even if it's only one single person who is attempting to oppress one other.
3) The above are what a state is (even if there's no piece of paper saying "we have a state"), and so there will always be a state.

I just think about these things logically and slowly, so please bear with me.

Statement 1) is correct, as long as the group is larger than one, and as long as the group wishes to avoid conflict. If conflict is not undesirable, then no rules are needed, everybody can just do whatever, make things up as they go along, maybe punch things out whenever a conflict arises.

Statement 2) is consistent with what we can observe of human nature. There seem to always be some "criminal types" who will not respect other people and instead behave anti-socially. Oppression generally suggests something much more large, organized, and inescapable than this kind of occasional and diffuse free-lance criminality. Oppression is done by a group that has achieved power over your whole society, not an isolated element that circumvents that power. But, if you want to call mere criminality "oppression", I will go along. Certainly the victim of the kidnapper is being "oppressed" by him in some sense, though not the normal sense.

Statement 3) is the real problem. It seems to stem from a misunderstanding. Perhaps I was too arcane in my use of symbols earlier. Rules do not equal laws, which in turn do not equal oppression, and all of which are not synonymous with a state. The state is a very specific institution with a very specific definition. That definition is: an institution which has claimed, and to a large extent succeeded in getting a geographical monopoly on ultimate conflict resolution, including conflicts involving itself, and a geographical monopoly on taxation. One can have a society with rules and laws, and also with the scattered criminality you call "oppression" in Statement 2), without having a state. In fact, in a society without a state we most definitely would have all of that: rules, laws, and criminality.

In saying there should be no state, Ron Paul supporters do not mean that there should be no rules, no laws, or no criminality. We do not propose to abolish rules, nor laws, nor criminality. To abolish either rules or laws would be horrific, and while abolishing criminality is a laudable goal, indeed is one of the main goals of rules and laws, absolute abolition is of course not to be expected, but rather a minimization.

Does that clear anything up?

[AuH20]

You did not answer my question. The state is a very specific institution with very specific characteristics. Such institutions have not always existed. Thus your statement "Due to the nature of man, there will always be a state." is false. There has not always been a state. Historians who have looked at the topic will all join hands in unity with me on this.

Now, you have further explained what you were trying to say. It turns out that you are actually making multiple assertions:

1) There will always be some rules in any group of people.
2) There will always be some attempted oppression, even if it's only one single person who is attempting to oppress one other.
3) The above are what a state is (even if there's no piece of paper saying "we have a state"), and so there will always be a state.

I just think about these things logically and slowly, so please bear with me.

Statement 1) is correct, as long as the group is larger than one, and as long as the group wishes to avoid conflict. If conflict is not undesirable, then no rules are needed, everybody can just do whatever, make things up as they go along, maybe punch things out whenever a conflict arises.

Statement 2) is consistent with what we can observe of human nature. There seem to always be some "criminal types" who will not respect other people and instead behave anti-socially. Oppression generally suggests something much more large, organized, and inescapable than this kind of occasional and diffuse free-lance criminality. Oppression is done by a group that has achieved power over your whole society, not an isolated element that circumvents that power. But, if you want to call mere criminality "oppression", I will go along. Certainly the victim of the kidnapper is being "oppressed" by him in some sense, though not the normal sense.

Statement 3) is the real problem. It seems to stem from a misunderstanding. Perhaps I was too arcane in my use of symbols earlier. Rules do not equal laws, which in turn do not equal oppression, and all of which are not synonymous with a state. The state is a very specific institution with a very specific definition. That definition is: an institution which has claimed, and to a large extent succeeded in getting a geographical monopoly on ultimate conflict resolution, including conflicts involving itself, and a geographical monopoly on taxation. One can have a society with rules and laws, and also with the scattered criminality you call "oppression" in Statement 2), without having a state. In fact, in a society without a state we most definitely would have all of that: rules, laws, and criminality.

In saying there should be no state, Ron Paul supporters do not mean that there should be no rules, no laws, or no criminality. We do not propose to abolish rules, nor laws, nor criminality. To abolish either rules or laws would be horrific, and while abolishing criminality is a laudable goal, indeed is one of the main goals of rules and laws, absolute abolition is of course not to be expected, but rather a minimization.

Does that clear anything up?

The modern nation-state does not protect the weak or vulnerable. It seeks to dominate and craft a consensus for it's criminal activity. I think all of us can agree there.

[helmuth_hubener]

There has always been an element of "coercion" at work at nearly every social dynamic, some greater & degrading than others. Ron Paul-supporting libertarians are not opposed to all coercion. We are just opposed, like Ron Paul, and probably like you, to aggression. We are just opposed, like Ron Paul, and probably like you, to the idea of monopoly taxation.

There would be plenty of "coercion" in my preferred society. There would be a plethora of rules. There would be no dearth of law. What would there not be? How would it differ from present day America?

1) There would be no institution with a monopoly on dispute resolution, including disputes involving itself. This is a ludicrous idea on the face of it. No one could possibly rationally support such a thing.

Instead, we would have multiple competing sources to which we could turn for dispute resolution.

2) There would also not be any institution with a monopoly on taxation, that is, with the ability to unilaterally charge whatever it wishes for its "services" whether we like it or not.

Instead, we would have a free and voluntary market. We would pay our fellow human beings however much we (and they) chose, for whatever services we (and they) chose.

[LibertyEagle]

I'm not sure what this has to do with your question. You said that you were simply asking a question about why "Anarchists" would choose to participate here when you felt it contradicted the Mission Statement.

I gave you an answer about how Ron Paul has a strong philosophical connection to anarchism and associates with people who consider themselves anarchists and you responded by emphasizing his relationship with the Republican party and how dedicated you were toward his campaign.

I didn't see anyone question why Republicans should be here, though. So unless you're trying to make a case that this should be a "Republican" forum that "Anarchists" shouldn't participate in, I can't see why it matters. (and if that's the case it seems you weren't simply posing a question to "Anarchists" about why they'd choose to participate.)

Ron was a founding member of the Mises Institute, which publishes an overwhelming amount of academic material on free-market anarchism from an Austrian perspective. The reason he entered politics in the first place was due to his interest in Austrian Economics, which has a strong relationship to free-market anarchism. They've even come up with words for it, such as "austro-libertarianism". LvMI is one of the leading promoters of market anarchism today.

Ron has strong ties to this philosophy, that's why there are many members here who subscribe to it. Many of them found it through Ron as I mentioned earlier.

Ludwig von Mises was not an anarchist. Nor was Mises.org all about anarchism until after Burton Blumert died; it used to be largely about classical liberalism. LewRockwell.com was a different story.

[erowe1]

This brand of libertarianism is a religious cult: a bunch of people who choose to ignore facts about human history and human nature to believe in some utterly unrealistic things and a utopian paradise that will never come. It just shows that there are libertrians who really conform to the every negative stereotype that MSNBC hosts have about libertarians. That's a shame.

But don't you oppose all brands of libertarianism?

IIRC you're the one who supports government food inspection and public education and stuff, aren't you?

[GunnyFreedom]

I wonder.

If the Rowan County Commissioners board prefers amongst themselves to open their meetings in prayer, specifically prayer "in the Name of Jesus," do those five individuals have the liberty to do that?

[kcchiefs6465]

I wonder.

If the Rowan County Commissioners board prefers amongst themselves to open their meetings in prayer, specifically prayer "in the Name of Jesus," do those five individuals have the liberty to do that?
People can pray wherever they so wish.. including the schools.

So long as there isn't a law mandating it and people can abstain from prayer if they wish, I really couldn't care less.

In your opinion could they just as well open the meeting with a prayer to Lucifer? That is, would you defend someone's right to?

[Cabal]

There always has been oppression and there always will be. It is human nature.

No one has said there will ever not be oppression, the intent to oppress, or the threat thereof.

Just because oppression may arise does not make it human nature. You should really stop tossing around the term 'human nature' so cavalierly. Humans have a capacity to do many things, this does not make all of these things human nature. Human nature is a very specific concept, and must be universally applicable, or at least very nearly so, in order to actually qualify as human nature. For the most part, human nature is concerned with biological and neuropsychological functions, and the behaviors which follow. History does not necessarily determine what is or is not human nature.


There has always been an element of "coercion" at work at nearly every social dynamic, some greater & degrading than others. You can't run from it. Indian tribes and ancient clans all had something of semblance in place. The coercion was that you wouldn't eat and be cut off from community, left to die in the wilderness.

No one has said that there will ever not be some element of coercion.


If everyone was just free, mankind would revert to that innocent, peaceful creature that he was designed to be. ROFL That's the libertarian blindspot, a massive one I may add.

No one has made that argument, or said anything of the sort, other than you in this straw man.

[erowe1]

People can pray wherever they so wish.. including the schools.

So long as there isn't a law mandating it and people can abstain from prayer if they wish, I really couldn't care less.

In your opinion could they just as well open the meeting with a prayer to Lucifer? That is, would you defend someone's right to?

If anybody is praying to the Devil, that's a serious problem. But under no circumstances would I see the solution to that problem as something involving violence against them or anyone else.

[noneedtoaggress]

Ludwig von Mises was not an anarchist. Nor was Mises.org all about anarchism until after Burton Blumert died; it used to be largely about classical liberalism. LewRockwell.com was a different story.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Whether LvMI has a more radical presence than it did doesn't change the intellectual relationship between Austrian Econ and market anarchist philosophy. It doesn't change Ron Paul's ideological ties to it or his association with self-described anarchists. It also doesnt' change the fact that many of the "anarchists" who participate here found it through Ron. I was answering a question about why anarchists might participate here, and was simply trying to show that there is a strong relationship that exists.

[Cabal]

Ludwig von Mises was not an anarchist.

And yet...


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. … However, the right of self-determination of which we speak is not the right of self-determination of nations, but rather the right of self-determination of the inhabitants of every territory large enough to form an independent administrative unit. If it were in any way possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, it would have to be done. --Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism


The situation of having to belong to a state to which one does not wish to belong is no less onerous if it is the result of an election than if one must endure it as the consequence of a military conquest. --Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism


No people and no part of a people shall be held against its will in a political association that it does not want. --Ludwig von Mises, Nation, State, and Economy


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. --Ludwig von Mises, Nation, State, and Economy

But you're right, Mises did not consider himself an anarchist. OTOH, in Mises time, anarchy meant something much different than it does today, in the libertarian context. In any case, Mises' ideal 'State' was one very much concerned with remaining virtually voluntary.

[Christian Liberty]

Ron Paul has close ideological ties to Rothbardian anarchists, but he also has a close tie to the Founding Fathers and the Constitution. I suspect that he's a minarchist, but it really doesn't matter anyway.

I find the people who want to basically cut off everyone who isn't an anarchist just as annoying as the people who will stoop to pragmatism for virtually anything.

[shane77m]

to stem from a misunderstanding. Perhaps I was too arcane in my use of symbols earlier. Rules do not equal laws, which in turn do not equal oppression, and all of which are not synonymous with a state. The state is a very specific institution with a very specific definition. That definition is: an institution which has claimed, and to a large extent succeeded in getting a geographical monopoly on ultimate conflict resolution, including conflicts involving itself, and a geographical monopoly on taxation. One can have a society with rules and laws, and also with the scattered criminality you call "oppression" in Statement 2), without having a state. In fact, in a society without a state we most definitely would have all of that: rules, laws, and criminality.

In saying there should be no state, Ron Paul supporters do not mean that there should be no rules, no laws, or no criminality. We do not propose to abolish rules, nor laws, nor criminality. To abolish either rules or laws would be horrific, and while abolishing criminality is a laudable goal, indeed is one of the main goals of rules and laws, absolute abolition is of course not to be expected, but rather a minimization.

Does that clear anything up?

I could see a group of people living together without an institution of the state as you describe. At least I could see it for a while, eventually though, there will be someone who will step up and form a state. Unless some other outside entity steps in and sets up a state before the voluntary society forms its own state. People want their own interest served. That will inevitably lead to the formation of a state. Individuals living in a voluntary society will need to remove those that don't hold to those views in order to maintain itself and be able to defend itself from outside influences.


No one has said there will ever not be oppression, the intent to oppress, or the threat thereof.

Just because oppression may arise does not make it human nature. You should really stop tossing around the term 'human nature' so cavalierly. Humans have a capacity to do many things, this does not make all of these things human nature. Human nature is a very specific concept, and must be universally applicable, or at least very nearly so, in order to actually qualify as human nature. For the most part, human nature is concerned with biological and neuropsychological functions, and the behaviors which follow. History does not necessarily determine what is or is not human nature.




Sure humans can do great things and be greatly compassionate. Humans are also wired to be greedy, fearful, violent, and etc. Hangout with some toddlers long enough and you will see it. You don't have to teach them those negative traits it just comes naturally for them.

It appears that no forms of government or non government work. Someone will always be oppressed or have violence perpetrated against them by an entity with more power.

[GunnyFreedom]

People can pray wherever they so wish.. including the schools.

So long as there isn't a law mandating it and people can abstain from prayer if they wish, I really couldn't care less.

In your opinion could they just as well open the meeting with a prayer to Lucifer? That is, would you defend someone's right to?

I certainly would. If the voters don't like it it's on them to elect different commissioners. Government has no authority to either mandate nor prohibit the free practice of religion in any way, shape, or form. A person does not give up their right to practice their own religion merely because they had the misfortune to get elected. It doesn't matter if that religion is Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Atheism, Satanism, or Rasta the Pasta god.

[GunnyFreedom]

If anybody is praying to the Devil, that's a serious problem. But under no circumstances would I see the solution to that problem as something involving violence against them or anyone else.

Certainly not any government intervention. If the people who elected them do not like prayers to Rasta the Pasta god, then it is up to them to elect different representatives next time around.

[Cabal]

It appears that no forms of government or non government work. Someone will always be oppressed or have violence perpetrated against them by an entity with more power.

Again, no one is saying oppression, the intent to oppress, or the threat thereof will ever be entirely eliminated. In all likelihood, it is also probably impossible to entirely eliminate murder--that doesn't mean we let murders murder freely, with impunity. You seem to be missing the point about why anti-statists are opposed to the State; and if you are indeed missing the point--if you do not understand their position--then how can you hope to engage in arguing against that position in any sort of meaningful way.

So far all you've done is talk about a fallacious notion of human nature, and then argued against an argument that was never made, i.e. oppression will always exist.

In any case, lets accept everything you hold to be true as valid and accurate. People are terrible, oppressive beings by their very nature. Why in the name of god would you want to centralize, organize, and monopolize the use of violence in the State if that is the case? If people, by their very nature, are greedy, power-seeking, violent, oppressive beings, doesn't it follow that they, and especially those who fit this description more than typical, are going to literally FLOCK to seize control of the State you have granted that absurd amount of power to, in order to use it for the very purpose of oppression?

Your premises and conclusions don't really add up very well. Unless of course your goal is to be oppressed as much, as effectively, and as efficiently as possible.

[noneedtoaggress]

I could see a group of people living together without an institution of the state as you describe. At least I could see it for a while, eventually though, there will be someone who will step up and form a state. Unless some other outside entity steps in and sets up a state before the voluntary society forms its own state. People want their own interest served. That will inevitably lead to the formation of a state.

Just because there are people out there who would enslave others to serve their own interests doesn't mean that institutionalized slavery is inevitable. Statism is institutionalized aggression. Institutionalization comes through mass acceptance.


Individuals living in a voluntary society will need to remove those that don't hold to those views in order to maintain itself and be able to defend itself from outside influences.

A state is not necessary for either of those things. A state is a specific type of organization that has a monopoly on force and is sustained through taxation.


Sure humans can do great things and be greatly compassionate. Humans are also wired to be greedy, fearful, violent, and etc. Hangout with some toddlers long enough and you will see it. You don't have to teach them those negative traits it just comes naturally for them.

Right, which is why it's better to decentralize power and organize according to principles of voluntary association rather than give authority and power to a territorial monopoly made up of greedy, fearful, violent people that decides the outcome of it's own cases and legalizes actions of it's own agents that would be considered criminal for anyone else.


It appears that no forms of government or non government work. Someone will always be oppressed or have violence perpetrated against them by an entity with more power.

If by "work" you mean achieve a utopian society with no conflict, you're right.

But that's not the point. The point is to minimize violations against individual rights, and maximize human liberty.

[JCDenton0451]

There are some people who while supporting US funded oppression of Liberty of people in Palestine, Egypt etc pretend to be libertarians, in my book such people are Hyocritalbiterians.

lol At first I thought this was a thread advocating agressive foreign policy. What's up with this weird title?

If you aren't for liberty in all places, you aren't a libertarian

[JCDenton0451]

Against my better judgement I am going to waste time typing to a brick wall. I do this not to give your ridiculous notions any credence but in the hope someone else may read it. A few years, you may see things as I do. Probably not.

Statism that I am referring to is the idea that government is greater than people. That groups can dictate whims to a minority. It is the antithesis of believing that 10,000 people cannot impose their will on a single one, legitimately. That they do is the problem. Speak about utopias and that's fine. I understand libertarian ideals aren't received well with those with a lust to dominate and a will to exercise petty power over trivial things on their neighbor. Perhaps I was raised differently. I didn't really learn the philosophy, just became more apt at relating it to other people. That I can't change or stop the ill of the world can only be made into a rebuttal by those who lack any semblance of a rational argument and have the mental ability of an acrobat.

A lot of your post is so nonsensical that I don't even know what to say. I'm a little amazed you posted that, actually.

What about my post validates MSNBC slander against libertarians? You know what, keep it to yourself. Truth be told I probably won't read it anyways so in the interest of time and saving thread space I tried to keep my post as self-explanatory as possible. What I did not respond to or recant did not deserve a response and would have only been a waste of both of our times. Anyone with any sort of sense about them is scratching their heads at the conclusions you jump to from my very simple post.

To be clear, whether humanity succeeds or not depends on libertarian philosophy succeeding. Down the path we are on there will be a global annihilation. Einstein had a good quote on it, I recall. WWIV being fought with sticks and stones.

I'm sorry, but what an overlong and pretentious load of crap. I'm not entirely sure about your own views, since you were too busy insulting me to elaborate on them, but some people in this thread are actually talking about abolishing the US government and the State as such. If this is your cause, it's destined for failure, because the vast majority of people value a sense of security and stability that only Civilization can provide. The State is a necessary condition for the Civilization to develop and survive. And this is not just some personal opinion or a theory of mine. It's the conclusion I reached based on my knowledge of human history.

[JCDenton0451]

Throwing the baby out with the bathwater. That is the "solution" being peddled in this thread. Even a revolutionary thinker like Thomas Paine thought a limited government was a necessary evil.

It's kind of ironic, because he is right in one sense: libertarian movement is growing. But the people who join tend to have a fairly moderate outlook. If only they knew they're joining the movement to overthrow the government of the United States, how many would re-think their affiliation with libertarians?:rolleyes:

[noneedtoaggress]

I'm sorry, but what an overlong and pretentious load of crap. I'm not entirely sure about your own views, since you were too busy insulting me to elaborate on them, but some people in this thread are actually talking about abolishing the US government and the State as such. If this is your cause, it's destined for failure, because the vast majority of people value a sense of security and stability that only Civilization can provide. The State is a necessary condition for the Civilization to develop and survive.

Aggression is antithetical to civilization. Just because it exists and has existed throughout civilization does not mean that it's a prerequisite. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?425305-If-you-aren-t-for-liberty-in-all-places-you-aren-t-a-libertarian&p=5195177&viewfull=1#post5195177)

Defense from rights violations is what is conducive and necessary for civilization to flourish and the reason why you're claiming the state is necessary as it monopolizes on the provision of law (except it legalizes aggression by it's own agents which is antithetical to civilized society).

The state is parasitical and extracts resources from civilized society while claiming to be it's foundation because it monopolizes on necessary services and perverts their function to exploit the productive members of society for the gain of those who are politically connected.

You've got it backwards. The state needs civilization to exist, civilization does not need the state to exist.


And this is not just some personal opinion or a theory of mine. It's the conclusion I reached based on my knowledge of human history.

That would make it a theory of yours.

[AuH20]

It's kind of ironic, because he is right in one sense: libertarian movement is growing. But the people who join tend to have a fairly moderate outlook. If only they knew they're joining the movement to overthrow the government of the United States, how many would re-think their affiliation with libertarians?:rolleyes:

I'm no moderate. If the government becomes too oppressive, it has to go. With that said, some institutions should be salvaged. It shouldn't be entirely burnt to the ground.

[erowe1]

I'm sorry, but what an overlong and pretentious load of crap. I'm not entirely sure about your own views, since you were too busy insulting me to elaborate on them, but some people in this thread are actually talking about abolishing the US government and the State as such. If this is your cause, it's destined for failure, because the vast majority of people value a sense of security and stability that only Civilization can provide. The State is a necessary condition for the Civilization to develop and survive. And this is not just some personal opinion or a theory of mine. It's the conclusion I reached based on my knowledge of human history.

There's nothing remarkable about the fact that you're using this cliche of an argument.

The problem is that you try to paint whatever you are as some other, and better, kind of libertarian. Other people with views like yours don't pretend that.

[DonVolaric]

From reddit (http://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/1l06a7/just_a_friendly_reminder_this_is_a_libertarian/): Hello green73, As a Jeffersonian Republican (Classic Liberal) I will always fight for your Freedom's (1st Amendment). I also believe in Natural Rights that is balanced around your moral compass (the ability to judge what is right and wrong and act accordingly). Unfortunately, the reality is that we do need a Referee in the game of football. As a strict Constitutionalist with Conservative Values I use this analogy because if "We The People" allow our Federal Representation to Violate the True rule of law and if the Governors of States, don't understand the power of the 10th amendment. The results of unaccountability means that the game has been rigged for the aristocrats to always win. The genealogy of the Constitution would disagree with your inception, but I do agree with 90% of your comments. Best Regard, In Liberty Don Volaric

[osan]

The "all or nothing" view of libertarianism is silly.

Actually, no it is not.

Freedom is an all or nothing deal. Either one is free or is something else.

There are no degrees of freedom, but only of slavery.

http://freedomisobvious.blogspot.com/2009/11/degrees-of-freedom.html

Why do you feel it is "silly"? What is it you fear? I use "fear" because that is what your assertion reeks of - willingness to compromise principle for the sake of some token reward. Better to be a less-ugly slaver than more ugly.

The moment you concede the least epsilon of your freedom, you have in principle conceded it all because the position of the line one draws is by necessity arbitrary. If someone can convince you to draw a line over here, or anywhere, they have you by the nuts because there should be NO LINE the other side of which your freedoms no longer apply. Drawing that line concedes YOUR territory to someone else's claim. If this much, then why not that? The moment your defense is demonstrated arbitrary, and such concession sets you up for easy slaughter, you are done - you have no hope of recovery because any opponent can then demonstrate you as "wishy-washy" and that your credibility is less than zero.

Do as you wish - believe as you wish - but when Theye come to you with bright knives in the night for their pounds of flesh, look no further than the mirror when you find yourself sans armor before them, powerless, asking yourself "how could this have happened?"

[heavenlyboy34]

Actually, no it is not.

Freedom is an all or nothing deal. Either one is free or is something else.

There are no degrees of freedom, but only of slavery.

http://freedomisobvious.blogspot.com/2009/11/degrees-of-freedom.html

Why do you feel it is "silly"? What is it you fear? I use "fear" because that is what your assertion reeks of - willingness to compromise principle for the sake of some token reward. Better to be a less-ugly slaver than more ugly.

The moment you concede the least epsilon of your freedom, you have in principle conceded it all because the position of the line one draws is by necessity arbitrary. If someone can convince you to draw a line over here, or anywhere, they have you by the nuts because there should be NO LINE the other side of which your freedoms no longer apply. Drawing that line concedes YOUR territory to someone else's claim. If this much, then why not that? The moment your defense is demonstrated arbitrary, and such concession sets you up for easy slaughter, you are done - you have no hope of recovery because any opponent can then demonstrate you as "wishy-washy" and that your credibility is less than zero.

Do as you wish - believe as you wish - but when Theye come to you with bright knives in the night for their pounds of flesh, look no further than the mirror when you find yourself sans armor before them, powerless, asking yourself "how could this have happened?" +rep

[osan]

Constitution is the best protection we have against more government intrusion.

If this is true, then we may as well all sit down and eat bullets because we are doomed.

The Constitution is shit - was from its inception, and remains so.


Any libertarian with half a brain should understand that.

You have apparently not given this sufficient thought.


What do you do in a situation when there is a clash between the people with two different and incompatible moral worldviews?

This is not difficult to answer - each lives according to its principles to the degree they do not trespass upon others. This is only difficult for those who wish to impress their world views upon others. That so many are so corrupt, it does not follow that the answer is to throw up one's arms and simply give up and revert to the same old shit.


Should the majority just try to force its point of view on a minority - a decidedly unlibertarian outcome.

Where has anyone suggested this? Have you been drinking to excess?


Or maybe they could use a framework that would allow them to work out their differences in some fashion.

This seems disingenuous. The answer again is obvious, but the salient point turns on the bold text. It begs the question of whence authority. Here's a news flash for you: that authority lies within the bosom of every individual. The moral framework contained within the very fabric of his being. All individuals hold the authority to which you only refer most obliquely, and that appears to be the dishonest part - unless you lack the intellectual sophistication to see it, which I doubt is the case. In the end, all such "working out" of differences is conducted not by non-existent "courts" or "states" or "governments" or any the other phony baloney mental strawmen for which so many fall so completely, but by individuals, not a single one of which holds any greater authority to carry out than any other.


A framework that both enables organised society to function and protects the minority rights (opinion, worldview) from the abuse of power by the majority. This is how I see the Constitution - a framework.

It is a LOUSY one. Weakly written and IMO intentionally so. But even were it otherwise - tightly and perfectly constructed - it guarantees nothing in itself. It is but a collection of words on paper. Without the people, the individual human beings for whom it is ostensibly written, there is nothing at all. Liberty lives in the minds of those who choose either that liberty or the other thing, whatever it may be. Freedom is fact only if we make it so. It is nothing if we sit idly as others act to master us. I can write the perfect constitution and it will avail the world nothing if nobody takes it to heart and is willing to materially and unequivocally to prevent his fellows from violating the principles embodied therein.

Words on paper are meaningless without right hearts and the action that such rectitude demands.