When RPF's was born... [Archive] - Ron Paul Forums / Liberty Forest

Natural Citizen

11-16-2016, 10:41 PM

it was all about Enlightenment.

it was a place for those who "understood" to share.
and thus
promote, their collective knowledge and expertise.

I learned SO much from both RPF's and the Dailypaul.....

and yet in Today's world... we are not even worth an honorable mention... :o
how the hell did that HAPPEN?

Truth be told, I prefer public discussion in liberal/progressive corners of the www. They're easier to talk to. They're more open to reason. It's just such a tough habit to break logging in here, though.

This is the most misery inducing web site I log onto.

Natural Citizen

11-16-2016, 10:54 PM

Not only that, you never know when you're arguing with two different accounts that are the same person.

Anti Federalist

11-16-2016, 11:00 PM

it was all about Enlightenment.

it was a place for those who "understood" to share.
and thus
promote, their collective knowledge and expertise.

I learned SO much from both RPF's and the Dailypaul.....

and yet in Today's world... we are not even worth an honorable mention... :o
how the hell did that HAPPEN?

In many ways, all that can be said, has been said.

There are only so many ways you skin a cat.

And the ideas of limited government and individual liberty are not popular and do not resonate with most people.

So, frustration and apathy and anger sets in.

It is what it is.

Ron is a saint for doing it all these years and not either:

a - stroking out.

b - climbing to a high place with a rifle.

Danke

11-16-2016, 11:15 PM

In many ways, all that can be said, has been said.

There are only so many ways you skin a cat.
U
And the ideas of limited government and individual liberty are not popular and do not resonate with most people.

So, frustration and apathy and anger sets in.

I agree with this. Just got to laugh at it all. I try to.

Anti Federalist

11-16-2016, 11:57 PM

I agree with this. Just got to laugh at it all. I try to.

Exactly...have a larf.

http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/2102.jpg

Danke

11-17-2016, 12:03 AM

Exactly...have a larf.

http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/2102.jpg

I'd have to see the face before giving that the POW face. Although, I can understand a sailor automatically not liking that.

Anti Federalist

11-17-2016, 12:09 AM

I'd have to see the face before giving that the POW face. Although, I can understand a sailor automatically not liking that.

http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/2045.jpg

phill4paul

11-17-2016, 12:11 AM

Not only that, you never know when you're arguing with two different accounts that are the same person.

This is my most certain bitch. Just make it easy and let members create multiple accounts through vbulliten,

Jdayh

11-17-2016, 04:05 AM

otherone

11-17-2016, 06:30 AM

Ron is a saint for doing it all these years and not either:

a - stroking out.

b - climbing to a high place with a rifle.

Ron Paul was, and is, able to sleep at night. Life is great when no demons are chasing you. :)

thoughtomator

11-17-2016, 07:10 AM

and yet in Today's world... we are not even worth an honorable mention... :o
how the hell did that HAPPEN?

The anarchists took over, drove out most of the libertarians, gradually converted the dominant philosophy from the one espoused by Ron Paul to something very very very very different. And now the place is a running joke with zero real-world relevance except to document the decline and fall of the liberty movement in the face of leadership abdication.

The admins can simply go through my ignore list if they want to see who needs to be removed to restore a wisp of credibility.

I used to refer people to this site all the time; but in its present condition I would be far too embarrassed to do so.

Jesse James

11-17-2016, 07:29 AM

The anarchists took over, drove out most of the libertarians, gradually converted the dominant philosophy from the one espoused by Ron Paul to something very very very very different. And now the place is a running joke with zero real-world relevance except to document the decline and fall of the liberty movement in the face of leadership abdication.

The admins can simply go through my ignore list if they want to see who needs to be removed to restore a wisp of credibility.

I used to refer people to this site all the time; but in its present condition I would be far too embarrassed to do so.
Ron Paul is a closet anarchist...

Honestly everybody complaining in this thread should just piss off..

ChristianAnarchist

11-17-2016, 07:33 AM

The anarchists took over, drove out most of the libertarians, gradually converted the dominant philosophy from the one espoused by Ron Paul to something very very very very different. And now the place is a running joke with zero real-world relevance except to document the decline and fall of the liberty movement in the face of leadership abdication.

The admins can simply go through my ignore list if they want to see who needs to be removed to restore a wisp of credibility.

I used to refer people to this site all the time; but in its present condition I would be far too embarrassed to do so.

Perhaps we can implement some kind of rep system where only members who have been here for a certain number of years can use neg rep as a scoring tool to "hide" the posts of offending trolls. That way we could cool their jets and they would give up and go elsewhere...

thoughtomator

11-17-2016, 07:37 AM

Ron Paul is a closet anarchist...

In order for that to be true, he'd have to have been lying to us for an entire career of promoting the Constitution.

Is that really your contention? That the liberty movement was fundamentally a lie?

Jesse James

11-17-2016, 07:44 AM

In order for that to be true, he'd have to have been lying to us for an entire career of promoting the Constitution.

Is that really your contention? That the liberty movement was fundamentally a lie?
What a completely ridiculous thing to say. If I ran this place I would have you banned, because you just seem like a troll.

Constitutionalism is a the outer realm of libertarianism... A step towards constitutionalism is a step towards complete anarcho capitalism. He openly talks about how things should be run voluntary. He had a sign on his desk that said "Don't steal the government hates competition." He is well aware that if he somehow became president and controlled America, then managed to turn it into a complete constitutionalist society (like he wants) America would be the best off we have been in at least 160 years and we could seriously have a debate about whether we want to keep it running as such or turn the remaining functions of government private too. There's no conflict between supporting anarchism and supporting constitutionalism. It's a gradual step, and it might honestly be the ONLY step we have to getting an anarcho capitalist society.

CCTelander

11-17-2016, 07:54 AM

And excessive ban hammer use. :(

And those damned anarchists/voluntaryists. Don't forget those damned anarchists/voluntaryists. They're the cause of pretty much all the problems around here. Oh! And the damned "purists" too. Yeah, them too.

CaptUSA

11-17-2016, 07:56 AM

and yet in Today's world... we are not even worth an honorable mention... :o
how the hell did that HAPPEN?

Ron Paul didn't cure apathy - he just put it into remission. The state of politics brought it back. I don't blame the site - we've just returned to the way it was before the Ron Paul Revolution.

Most people don't have the stamina to keep fighting the power and growth of government. Many people never fully understood Ron's message and were easily led astray. Others just gave up and decided to live their own lives outside the prying eyes. So the Revolution lies dormant. But with the continued excesses of government, there may be events to resuscitate it when needed.

Natural Citizen

11-17-2016, 07:59 AM

I'd have to see the face before giving that the POW face.

Dang. That's what I'm sayin.

thoughtomator

11-17-2016, 08:09 AM

What a completely ridiculous thing to say. If I ran this place I would have you banned, because you just seem like a troll.

Then you'd be for banning Ron Paul himself. Which is no surprise to see on this forum given how radically different it has become from his vision.

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

He specifically calls out the anarchists for being unrealistic, that their ideas require human beings to be perfect, which is something that will never happen. It's the exact same argument that I've been consistently making here all these years... I suppose it's because I'm one of the few who actually listened to him?

It's a gradual step, and it might honestly be the ONLY step we have to getting an anarcho capitalist society.

That's the heart of the matter.

There are two paths from here to liberty. One requires the complete destruction of civilization. The other merely requires adhering to existing law.

I'll be damned if there aren't way too many people here who consider only the first path to be acceptable.

fisharmor

11-17-2016, 09:51 AM

The anarchists took over, drove out most of the libertarians, gradually converted the dominant philosophy from the one espoused by Ron Paul to something very very very very different.

The "anarchists" don't own this forum. The "anarchists" didn't drive anyone out.
What happened is, you and yours can't respond to the arguments put forth by "anarchists".
If you believe in the truth of your position, then argue for it. Present the truth of your position, deal with rebuttals, and if your position is better, then your position will become the dominant position here.

If you just bitch about how things aren't the way they used to be, and refuse to examine the facts on the ground, then you're gonna lose. That's the way life works. That's what we market-oriented folks are supposed to be advocating. You compete, or you lose. There is a marketplace of ideas here, and your ideas aren't finding buyers. It's not the "anarchists" job to be silent so your position looks better.

In order for that to happen - particularly the rebuttal part - you're going to have to LISTEN. And since your post insinuates that you don't believe "anarchists" are libertarians, and since you believe "anarchists" believe something very very very very (four verys) different from Ron Paul's position, that tells me you have a lot to improve on the listening front.

fisharmor

11-17-2016, 09:53 AM

The other merely requires adhering to existing law.

The existing law presumes that law is primarily a method by which the citizenry is punished for breaking the commands of the state.
I have no interest in that way because that notion it is diametrically opposed to liberty.

thoughtomator

11-17-2016, 10:15 AM

The existing law presumes that law is primarily a method by which the citizenry is punished for breaking the commands of the state.
I have no interest in that way because that notion it is diametrically opposed to liberty.

I'm talking about legitimate law, not the unlawful mess if anti-Constitutional legislation that the government has become today.

At the federal level, legitimate law is the Constitution and those laws authorized by it... full stop.

All we have to do is simply go back to the Rule of Law, it is that simple. 99% of the federal government disappears if we do.

To head off an anticipated response... I don't buy this "the Constitution failed" stuff. The Constitution didn't fail. The people failed. That part does not need to continue, and it can change overnight the moment the will is there to restore it.

That's sort of what was supposed to be going on here... restoring the Constitution.

On an average post-weighted volume, even at RPF there is no will to restore the Constitution; the general will at this site wants the Constitution destroyed.

If the disciples of Ron Paul himself cannot rally to the cause of restoring the Constitution... that is incredibly sad. Heartbreaking sad.

But it's not the end of my efforts to restore the Constitution. I find allies all over the place to that end, elsewhere. That's how we engineered Cantor out of his seat to replace him with a top 5 liberty oriented member of Congress, with almost no libertarian participation other than myself. To achieve that victory we needed a coalition of Republicans, conservatives, independents, and even Democrats.

How ironic that when that battle for liberty was joined, alleged libertarians weren't even on the field!

By their fruits shall ye know them; and the fruits of the liberty movement, I'm afraid, looks a lot like a lot of good people's time was completely wasted.

Anti Federalist

11-17-2016, 10:29 AM

I'd have to see the face before giving that the POW face. Although, I can understand a sailor automatically not liking that.

Butter face?

Who cares...besides, that outfit is hawt too.

High heel suede, leg warmers, denim skirt and a Christmas sweater?

Rawr.

Wish I get Mrs. AF dressed up like that.

fisharmor

11-17-2016, 10:34 AM

All we have to do is simply go back to the Rule of Law

Stop trying to anticipate what I'm going to write.
Nothing you wrote addresses my central point: that law under our current system is a means by which people are punished for disobeying the state.
The US Constitution does absolutely nothing to alter this principle.

thoughtomator

11-17-2016, 10:39 AM

Stop trying to anticipate what I'm going to write.
Nothing you wrote addresses my central point: that law under our current system is a means by which people are punished for disobeying the state.
The US Constitution does absolutely nothing to alter this principle.

The law under our current system is in direct defiance of the limits placed on it by the Constitution in so many ways it is impossible to list them all.

If it is restored, all valid aspects of the complaint will be satisfied.

fisharmor

11-17-2016, 11:18 AM

The law under our current system is in direct defiance of the limits placed on it by the Constitution in so many ways it is impossible to list them all.

If it is restored, all valid aspects of the complaint will be satisfied.

At no point in US history, even under the Articles of Confederation, has law ever been anything other than what I wrote.

But I see your game now: you insinuate that part - or possibly all - of "the complaint" is invalid.

You talk a fine game of anticipating what we're going to write, but I've had you cornered since my first post in this thread. All you offer is platitudes and assurances that my argument is either invalid, nonsensical, or not rooted in the real world.

The plain fact here is that you simply will not take the time to understand what you are arguing against.

That is how "anarchists took over". We had nothing to do with it besides offering our views. If you want the site back, you have to take it. And simply dismissing the argument isn't going to work.

CCTelander

11-17-2016, 11:22 AM

At no point in US history, even under the Articles of Confederation, has law ever been anything other than what I wrote.

But I see your game now: you insinuate that part - or possibly all - of "the complaint" is invalid.

You talk a fine game of anticipating what we're going to write, but I've had you cornered since my first post in this thread. All you offer is platitudes and assurances that my argument is either invalid, nonsensical, or not rooted in the real world.

The plain fact here is that you simply will not take the time to understand what you are arguing against.

That is how "anarchists took over". We had nothing to do with it besides offering our views. If you want the site back, you have to take it. And simply dismissing the argument isn't going to work.

But that might take actual effort. Too damned hard. Instead, the plan seems to be to bitch and complain loud enough that admin purges all us nasty, good for nothing anarchists.

Like I said elsewhere, nothing says "Liberty!" like a good, old-fashioned purge.

Burn the witches!

Origanalist

11-17-2016, 11:24 AM

Maybe we should all take a day and examine our navels.

undergroundrr

11-17-2016, 02:11 PM

Decuck yourselves. RPF is about:

Shutting down the SJW's.
Building the border wall.
Deporting the illegals.
Putting SWC Hillary in jail.

The Gold Standard

11-17-2016, 02:47 PM

To chime in about getting back to the Constitution, first of all, I would vote for someone who wanted to do that, but that isn't the issue here. I've spent plenty of time debating this topic with people, and using the Constitution as my justification leaves me at a disadvantage, because you can look at it in a way that many of the things we oppose can be considered Constitutional.

The 14th amendment is a nightmare for people trying to claim that the federal government doesn't have the authority to control what states do.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

If the federal government deems something a "privilege of citizens of the United States", Congress has the power to stop a state from denying that privilege. Social Security? Health care? Clean air? That's how they justify it, and I have no leg to stand on. And that doesn't even mention the general welfare or commerce clauses that we all know about.

It's hard to argue to "get back to the Constitution" when the reality is so muddled because of a poorly written and horribly amended document. Some of us go to the moral arguments, but when you do that you end up at anarchy, not constitutionalism.

undergroundrr

11-17-2016, 04:08 PM

For me, the biggest difference is foreign policy and war sentiment. I think most here had a tendency to be passionately anti-interventionist in the past. Ron vs. Rudy was the defining moment. For me personally, that exchange helped to align an innate impulse for peace with conservativism.

trump supporters will half-heartedly tell you he seems more anti-war than, say, Hillary. But they don't seem to care whether or not he is. It's incidental and somewhat conditional. The fear of illegals is primary, and it sounds identical to the fear of terrorists that was prevalent back in 2008. Tom Tancredo was way ahead of the curve.

I think the forum is now slanted against those for whom ending war was top priority. I'm a one-issue voter about it. But I'm feeling like part of a small minority these days. Today in other threads, I'm trying to find out whether Bannon (who is praised by a majority of current RPF'ers) is anti-war. Nobody seems to know or care. On another thread, one of the top posters of recent months is arguing for the draft. There are shockingly few voices being raised against his argument.

otherone

11-17-2016, 04:35 PM

It's hard to argue to "get back to the Constitution" when the reality is so muddled because of a poorly written and horribly amended document. Some of us go to the moral arguments, but when you do that you end up at anarchy, not constitutionalism.

What the revisionist constitutionalists don't understand is that "getting back to" the constitution requires CHANGING the constitution.
Irony.

Unknownuser

11-17-2016, 04:36 PM

Because "we" are small in numbers. However, I do find it odd that in the midst of a Liberty movement that seemed to be gaining steam...an alt right movement was born and the leader is now president.

wizardwatson

11-17-2016, 04:38 PM

Maybe we should all take a day and examine our navels.

That or Trumps navel. We don't have a lot of range these days.

Jesse James

11-17-2016, 06:23 PM

Jesse James

11-17-2016, 06:24 PM

Because "we" are small in numbers. However, I do find it odd that in the midst of a Liberty movement that seemed to be gaining steam...an alt right movement was born and the leader is now president.
if he didn't run for president he never would have become the leader

undergroundrr

11-17-2016, 06:25 PM

if he didn't run for president he never would have become the leader

And I'm unconvinced that the alt-right emerged from the liberty movement.

Dr.3D

11-17-2016, 06:25 PM

Maybe we should all take a day and examine our navels.
I was already doing that when I found out it's secretly connected to another part of my body.

otherone

11-17-2016, 06:30 PM

And I'm unconvinced that the alt-right emerged from the liberty movement.

From the paleos (who think they're libertarians).

http://stuffonmymutt.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/SOMM_416.jpg

Jesse James

11-17-2016, 06:30 PM

And I'm unconvinced that the alt-right emerged from the liberty movement.
True, but I will admit that a lot of former Paul supporters are now alt right.

Suzanimal

11-17-2016, 06:32 PM

I was already doing that when I found out it's secretly connected to another part of my body.

Innie bellybutton - I'm not sure what it's connected to but when I clean it (it smells like an odd combination of coconut oil and stank), I feel my tummy wiggle. Could be why I like the What's for dinner thread.

Dr.3D

11-17-2016, 06:50 PM

Innie bellybutton - I'm not sure what it's connected to but when I clean it (it smells like an odd combination of coconut oil and stank), I feel my tummy wiggle. Could be why I like the What's for dinner thread.
Gently scratch it with your fingernail.

Danke

11-17-2016, 06:55 PM

Innie bellybutton - I'm not sure what it's connected to but when I clean it (it smells like an odd combination of coconut oil and stank), I feel my tummy wiggle.

http://i.imgur.com/ngR4MZh.jpg

Unknownuser

11-18-2016, 05:01 PM

And I'm unconvinced that the alt-right emerged from the liberty movement.

I don't believe the alt right emerged from the liberty movement but it sure distracted everyone didn't it? Perhaps it has served its purpose.

PierzStyx

11-18-2016, 05:31 PM

The anarchists took over, drove out most of the libertarians, gradually converted the dominant philosophy from the one espoused by Ron Paul to something very very very very different. And now the place is a running joke with zero real-world relevance except to document the decline and fall of the liberty movement in the face of leadership abdication.

Judging by your Constitution thread, you don't actually understand Dr. Paul's political positions. He is a libertarian and he doesn't have any problems with anarchists.

The admins can simply go through my ignore list if they want to see who needs to be removed to restore a wisp of credibility.

Those setting themselves up as the single one who knows everything are the ones usually so ignorant they don't understand hwo badly wrong they are. It si called the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Look it up.

I used to refer people to this site all the time; but in its present condition I would be far too embarrassed to do so.

Well if those you referred were like you, bring'em on. Maybe they're opening to learning more instead of imposing their worldview on others.

PierzStyx

11-18-2016, 05:33 PM

And I'm unconvinced that the alt-right emerged from the liberty movement.

it didn't. The Alt. Left has been around forever. The Turner Diaries were published in 1978.

PierzStyx

11-18-2016, 05:46 PM

Then you'd be for banning Ron Paul himself. Which is no surprise to see on this forum given how radically different it has become from his vision.

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

He specifically calls out the anarchists for being unrealistic, that their ideas require human beings to be perfect, which is something that will never happen. It's the exact same argument that I've been consistently making here all these years... I suppose it's because I'm one of the few who actually listened to him?

Now I'm just questioning if you actually listened to that video at all. He said that teh ultimate goal is self-government and that his goal was to always be moving in that direction.

He didn't dismissed anarchism. He in fact said that we are moving more and more to the point of when governments would be irrelevant. We just are there yet, but we are moving that direction.

In other words, exactly what Jesse James said.

You need to stop putting your words and your beliefs into Ron Paul's mouth. You only make yourself look more and more foolish when you do.

Pericles

11-21-2016, 11:20 AM

The "anarchists" don't own this forum. The "anarchists" didn't drive anyone out.
What happened is, you and yours can't respond to the arguments put forth by "anarchists".
If you believe in the truth of your position, then argue for it. Present the truth of your position, deal with rebuttals, and if your position is better, then your position will become the dominant position here.

If you just bitch about how things aren't the way they used to be, and refuse to examine the facts on the ground, then you're gonna lose. That's the way life works. That's what we market-oriented folks are supposed to be advocating. You compete, or you lose. There is a marketplace of ideas here, and your ideas aren't finding buyers. It's not the "anarchists" job to be silent so your position looks better.

In order for that to happen - particularly the rebuttal part - you're going to have to LISTEN. And since your post insinuates that you don't believe "anarchists" are libertarians, and since you believe "anarchists" believe something very very very very (four verys) different from Ron Paul's position, that tells me you have a lot to improve on the listening front.

Members such as myself did debate anarchists. Pointing out inconsistencies in Rothbard's writings is a sure way to drive them off because many of them could not reason out the consequences of those contradicting ideas.

ProBlue33

11-21-2016, 11:45 AM

This place was happening in 2008 & 2012, the purity people forced it into irrelevance in 2016, Brian was in at tough spot either way.
Had he allowed the site to evolve organically things might have been different. This is not the only site either, 2016 really polarized both websites and posters. Actually Reddit seems to me to be the most relevant website taking the true pulse of reality now.

undergroundrr

11-21-2016, 11:56 AM

I check into /r/Libertarian/ every so often. It definitely resonates better with my line of thinking than RPF does these days. Is there anywhere else a libertarian can go that's not dominated by 5 or 6 heavy-posting trump freaks?

fisharmor

11-21-2016, 12:00 PM

Members such as myself did debate anarchists. Pointing out inconsistencies in Rothbard's writings is a sure way to drive them off because many of them could not reason out the consequences of those contradicting ideas.

I would like to believe you. Do you remember threads, so I can verify?

Also, I've only read The Case Agasint The Fed.So Rothbard doesn't figure very prominently in my thought process. Which is probably why I missed your no-doubt elegantly savage ruination of the stateless mindset.

Pericles

11-21-2016, 04:57 PM

I would like to believe you. Do you remember threads, so I can verify?

Also, I've only read The Case Agasint The Fed.So Rothbard doesn't figure very prominently in my thought process. Which is probably why I missed your no-doubt elegantly savage ruination of the stateless mindset.

Here is one I could find http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?404036-Is-a-Man-s-Reputation-His-Property&highlight=Pericles

The original thread had some good material and another at about the same time.

The Gold Standard

11-21-2016, 07:10 PM

Here is one I could find http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?404036-Is-a-Man-s-Reputation-His-Property&highlight=Pericles

The original thread had some good material and another at about the same time.

Looks like a good conversation. I didn't read the whole thread, but disagreeing with how Rothbard believed the free market would handle reputations doesn't prove or even suggest that it couldn't handle the issue. If there was no state, there would still be a system of law which, depending on market preferences, may or may not address it. Or you would just have a high demand for good information on people and companies, which someone would surely cash in on satisfying.

But back to the point, if debates like that chased away the anarchists, then how is it that people are crying that it was the anarchists chased away the statists?

Pericles

11-21-2016, 08:14 PM

Looks like a good conversation. I didn't read the whole thread, but disagreeing with how Rothbard believed the free market would handle reputations doesn't prove or even suggest that it couldn't handle the issue. If there was no state, there would still be a system of law which, depending on market preferences, may or may not address it. Or you would just have a high demand for good information on people and companies, which someone would surely cash in on satisfying. But back to the point, if debates like that chased away the anarchists, then how is it that people are crying that it was the anarchists chased away the statists? That thread had only part of the original conversation where I quoted two Rothbard articles - one about the value of reputation tending to make contracts and transactions self enforcing contradicted by another Rothbard article in which he says he assumes everyone lies, and so he pays no attention to reputation .... The real fun thread was on voluntaryism in which the question is when someone withdraws consent to the rules by which a society operates, does said person have an incentive to essentially screw over everyone else because there is no redress against someone who does not consent to the arbitration or court process in use. Then the string about hiring security companies and so on. All of that missed the point that if someone withdraws consent, he does not recognize the security company or arbitrator you select. That finally went to the then the security company will force you to appear - which of course if you are involuntary brought into a process with which you did not consent, how is that different from the modern state? Then there was the LOL at anarchists - had some classics in it.

HVACTech

11-21-2016, 10:55 PM

nice to see you here!! its been awhile , since the dictator kicked you out of DP. (totally not deserved) hope you are well HVAC !!

(As to your answer, the first post was most accurate)

I remember you..
and what I remember. is non-hostile. this place is hostile.
mostly I avoid it anymore.

currently, there is an opportunity to continue to spread the message of Liberty.. :)
we are now "moderate rebels"

LOL! how funny is that! :p

Anti Federalist

11-21-2016, 11:09 PM

this place is hostile.
mostly I avoid it anymore.

Yeah, with you creating quite a bit of that hostility...

HVACTech

11-21-2016, 11:15 PM

I would like to believe you. Do you remember threads, so I can verify?

Also, I've only read The Case Agasint The Fed.So Rothbard doesn't figure very prominently in my thought process. Which is probably why I missed your no-doubt elegantly savage ruination of the stateless mindset.

damn I liked that!
savage ruination of the stateless mindset

after all, why should a mindset have a state.. (of mind) right? when what is truly needed...
is a "stateless mindset"

fishy is one clever sophist!

HVACTech

11-21-2016, 11:17 PM

Yeah, with you creating quite a bit of that hostility...

poor baby, have you figured out that "cold" does not exist yet? :toady:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gz2GVlQkn4Q

Anti Federalist

11-21-2016, 11:45 PM

stuff and nonsense

Enough of your inanity.

Did you apologize to jmdrake for your exceedingly hostile and abusive post?

HVACTech

11-21-2016, 11:57 PM

Enough of your inanity.

Did you apologize to jmdrake for your exceedingly hostile and abusive post?

no. I did not Honey.

my inanity is NEVER cold sugar. ;)

Anti Federalist

11-22-2016, 12:37 AM

no. I did not Honey.

my inanity is NEVER cold sugar. ;)

Yeah, I didn't think so...keeping it classy huh?

HVACTech

11-22-2016, 12:46 AM

Yeah, I didn't think so...keeping it classy huh?

I get confused on all the things that you do not think about...

what did you not think "so" again... sugar baby?

Anti Federalist

11-22-2016, 12:48 AM

I get confused on all the things that you do not think about...

what did you not think "so" again... sugar baby?

That is indecipherable gibberish...go take your meds and go to bed

jmdrake

11-22-2016, 04:25 AM

And excessive ban hammer use. :(

Then you'd be for banning Ron Paul himself. Which is no surprise to see on this forum given how radically different it has become from his vision.

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

He specifically calls out the anarchists for being unrealistic, that their ideas require human beings to be perfect, which is something that will never happen. It's the exact same argument that I've been consistently making here all these years... I suppose it's because I'm one of the few who actually listened to him?

That's the heart of the matter.

There are two paths from here to liberty. One requires the complete destruction of civilization. The other merely requires adhering to existing law.

I'll be damned if there aren't way too many people here who consider only the first path to be acceptable.

HB, I think you're right. I just tried to +rep thotamator for posting this excellent video of Ron Paul but I can't because he's been temp banned. :(

Isn't it ironic that on a forum dedicated to self government people don't trust self government? Think about it. Why couldn't a forum be designed around the idea of self government? If I create a thread I can moderate it myself. If someone goes off topic I throw them off my thread or maybe spin off a subthread. If I find someone annoying whenever they get on a certain topic, I should be able to put them on ignore on a per thread or per topic basis. Oh sure, the website is private property. But why have this all based on one centralized website? What about interlinked websites? If we can't figure out self government in the context of web discussion because "Letting people say whatever the hell they want is too scary" then how are we supposed to convince the rest of the world that self governance is a good thing? And yeah, creating what I'm talking about would take some serious software development but I can't even get anyone to consider the idea. Maybe I'll just build it and see who comes.

jmdrake

11-22-2016, 04:40 AM

Now I'm just questioning if you actually listened to that video at all. He said that teh ultimate goal is self-government and that his goal was to always be moving in that direction.

He didn't dismissed anarchism. He in fact said that we are moving more and more to the point of when governments would be irrelevant. We just are there yet, but we are moving that direction.

In other words, exactly what Jesse James said.

You need to stop putting your words and your beliefs into Ron Paul's mouth. You only make yourself look more and more foolish when you do.

Actually you're both right. The key is that Ron Paul said it couldn't work if only one person was doing self governance. The majority around him would suppress him once he came to their attention. What Ron proposed is concentric circles of self government. The individual...the family...the community. Self government begins with a responsible self aware individual. That responsible self aware individual's liberty can best be guarded in the context of a family. (That's why the powers that be are so anti family). You know and are intimate with your household (or you should be) and it's hard to get one member of a household to turn against another (or it should be). That's why police hate responding to domestic calls. The second level should be the local community as in the neighborhood and/or church. Several families coming together for common good and common purpose like creating a community school or a neighborhood security organization. The community should help guard the individual liberty of the families in the community. Police should protect and serve the members of the community. That means that the idea that police have now that they have a right to escalate a situation as much as they need to in order to get "compliance" should be destroyed. They should only escalate as much as necessary to "protect and serve." Killing someone who is supposedly "resisting arrest" when all he's being arrested for is selling loose cigarettes is not "protecting and serving." The community, rather than rioting, should say "If you can't do your job without killing people who aren't threatening anyone's life and/or safety then stay out of our community and we'll hire a security force that actually meets our needs." Paul stopped at that level, but I would say that communities should be able to voluntarily organizes with other communities to form "states" to help defend liberty communities from non liberty communities.

otherone

11-22-2016, 06:56 AM

Actually you're both right. The key is that Ron Paul said it couldn't work if only one person was doing self governance. The majority around him would suppress him once he came to their attention.

Everyone self governs. Until they violate the King's law.

HVACTech

11-22-2016, 11:00 PM

]HB, I think you're right.[/B] I just tried to +rep thotamator for posting this excellent video of Ron Paul but I can't because he's been temp banned. :(

Isn't it ironic that on a forum dedicated to self government people don't trust self government? Think about it. Why couldn't a forum be designed around the idea of self government? If I create a thread I can moderate it myself. If someone goes off topic I throw them off my thread or maybe spin off a subthread. If I find someone annoying whenever they get on a certain topic, I should be able to put them on ignore on a per thread or per topic basis. Oh sure, the website is private property. But why have this all based on one centralized website? What about interlinked websites? If we can't figure out self government in the context of web discussion because "Letting people say whatever the hell they want is too scary" then how are we supposed to convince the rest of the world that self governance is a good thing? And yeah, creating what I'm talking about would take some serious software development but I can't even get anyone to consider the idea. Maybe I'll just build it and see who comes.

one centralized website is of course unnecessary!

"websites" are inherently statist. and as with All states. they are collectives.
self-banishment is the only noble thing to do sir.
please make so, post haste.

honor your noble words sir. :cool:

HVACTech

11-22-2016, 11:26 PM

That is indecipherable gibberish...go take your meds and go to bed

"hot is on the left, cold is on the right. shit rolls downhill, payday is on Friday"

do I REALLY need to tell you... not to chew your nails? crikey man.
you are slow...

did you notice that I played nice with your buddy? tell me true love. :)

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

TheTexan

11-23-2016, 12:53 AM

There are two paths from here to liberty. One requires the complete destruction of civilization. The other merely requires adhering to existing law.

I'll be damned if there aren't way too many people here who consider only the first path to be acceptable.

No kidding. These anarchists would have us driving our cars through woods and dirt if it were up to them. How can there possibly be liberty, without roads?

H. E. Panqui

11-23-2016, 06:18 AM

Jesse James

11-23-2016, 06:28 AM

..'alt-right' 'tea-party' etc., are merely new terms for the same old goddamned fool republicans...nothing really 'new' with republicans...

...same old monetary ignoramuses, imperialists/interventionists, gd fool abortion prohibitionists, fascists, etc...
the altright and tea party are completely different.

the alt right generally supports abortions. they know it is mostly poor minorities that have them so they "don't have a problem" with them aborting their kids.

ChristianAnarchist

11-23-2016, 08:39 AM

No kidding. These anarchists would have us driving our cars through woods and dirt if it were up to them. How can there possibly be liberty, without roads?

If it weren't for the goonerment goons holding back progress we wouldn't need roads. Someone would have come up with a hovering car that can float over every surface and take you where you want to go with no restrictions...

TheTexan

11-23-2016, 11:01 AM

H. E. Panqui

11-23-2016, 11:05 AM

jj writes: the altright and tea party are completely different.

:cool:

...'completely different'?!? :confused:

...i believe you'll find alt-righters and tea partiers are identical in that they both strongly tend to support the goddamned fool republicans...

"the alt right generally supports abortions. they know it is mostly poor minorities that have them so they "don't have a problem" with them aborting their kids."

...please name some names...i believe, for one example, the alt-righties at 'not-too-brightbart' are your typical goddamned fool republican abortion prohibitionists...

Athan

11-23-2016, 01:18 PM

b - climbing to a high place with a rifle.
Thanks for giving me the most badass American mental image

https://westernrifleshooters.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/1ninetymiles7uhqfb1rsa7f4o1_500ron-paul-on-a-velociraptor.jpg?w=500&h=333

ChristianAnarchist

11-23-2016, 05:02 PM

See? Hates roads.

I rest my case.

Currently in NYC. If you need reasons to hate roads you can find them here...

Anti Federalist

11-23-2016, 06:44 PM

Thanks for giving me the most badass American mental image

https://westernrifleshooters.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/1ninetymiles7uhqfb1rsa7f4o1_500ron-paul-on-a-velociraptor.jpg?w=500&h=333

http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/RevolutionRon.png

Superfluous Man

11-23-2016, 07:35 PM

And excessive ban hammer use. :(

Truth.

Superfluous Man

11-23-2016, 07:36 PM

Thanks for giving me the most badass American mental image

https://westernrifleshooters.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/1ninetymiles7uhqfb1rsa7f4o1_500ron-paul-on-a-velociraptor.jpg?w=500&h=333

I wonder if whoever made that would be willing to redo it with a black flag.

Anti Federalist

11-23-2016, 10:43 PM

I wonder if whoever made that would be willing to redo it with a black flag.

It was originally Reagan

http://www.gunaxin.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/ronald_reagan_riding_a_velociraptor_by_sharpwriter-d55rsh7.jpg

Anti Federalist

11-23-2016, 10:45 PM

http://pre09.deviantart.net/2804/th/pre/f/2016/117/5/2/the_donald_by_sharpwriter-da0eh6b.jpg

HVACTech

11-23-2016, 11:20 PM

If it weren't for the goonerment goons holding back progress we wouldn't need roads. Someone would have come up with a hovering car that can float over every surface and take you where you want to go with no restrictions...

there IS some truth to this you know... as my forte has to do with "energy"
I studied it intensely in 07-08.
what I found.. was that "free, cheap clean energy"
would result in like 70% unemployment.

and GOD gave us the answer. it is water. :)

yes, GOD has a sense of humor. :p

helmuth_hubener

11-30-2016, 06:01 PM

That finally went to the then the security company will force you to appear - which of course if you are involuntary brought into a process with which you did not consent, how is that different from the modern state?

Well, it depends what one's problem is with the modern state.

If one objects primarily to mass murder, mass income taxation, mass conscription, and general destruction of society, then it might be significantly different.

If one's primary objection is to forced court appearances, then for all practical purposes the systems are identical.

Pericles

12-09-2016, 06:16 PM

Well, it depends what one's problem is with the modern state.

If one objects primarily to mass murder, mass income taxation, mass conscription, and general destruction of society, then it might be significantly different.

If one's primary objection is to forced court appearances, then for all practical purposes the systems are identical.

Until government was invented, nobody ever got murdered, raped or robbed eh?

helmuth_hubener

12-09-2016, 06:47 PM

Until government was invented, nobody ever got murdered, raped or robbed eh?

I do not know: when was government invented? Please tell me that. If you do not know or cannot say any basic facts about the circumstances of "government being invented," such as when it occurred (a really basic, trivial fact!), then.... what? Then the question seems meaningless (or rhetorical) as any atytempted answer would be as well.

But, who am I to shy away from impossible tasks? I shall answer anyway!

I would expect that people have been being murdered and wronged in other ways since Cain.

I would expect this to continue until the Millennium.

I do not expect any attempted re-working (by mortals) of social institutions and arrangements will cause this situation to change.

Of course the rates of these crimes will increase or decrease by various factors.

I do not actually think that those rates can be increased or decreased at will by changes in governmental systems. I think they are beyond the control of government to a certain extent (but not a total extent), and that they are rooted in biological factors (again, to an extent). Specifically epigenetic factors, and also genetic ones, and also shorter-term quicker-acting ones such as pheremones, cognitive programming and manipulation, self-control, willpower, etc.

Anyway, our current State does a good-enough job (for me) at preventing or discouraging the things you mentioned: murder, rape and robbery. Anarcho-capitalism might do as well, and that would be fine. Even a bit worse would be fine.

What I posted was this:

Our current State engages in mass murder, mass income taxation, mass conscription, and general destruction of society. Those are the behaviors I think would be productive to engage in trying to improve.

otherone

12-09-2016, 07:18 PM

the question is when someone withdraws consent to the rules by which a society operates, does said person have an incentive to essentially screw over everyone else because there is no redress against someone who does not consent to the arbitration or court process in use. Then the string about hiring security companies and so on. All of that missed the point that if someone withdraws consent, he does not recognize the security company or arbitrator you select. That finally went to the then the security company will force you to appear - which of course if you are involuntary brought into a process with which you did not consent, how is that different from the modern state?

SIGH.
A stateless society means that crimes need actual victims, not imaginary ones. It's as simple as that.

pcosmar

12-09-2016, 08:25 PM

I do not know: when was government invented?

See : Nimrod"/Gilgamesh

shortly after freed from such.
see: Flood

pcosmar

12-09-2016, 08:27 PM

yes, GOD has a sense of humor. :p

Yup.

Just look at peoples noses.

MelissaCato

12-23-2016, 11:12 AM

osan

12-26-2016, 11:12 AM

evil spirits.

Learn to spell "progressives".

HVACTech

12-27-2016, 07:19 PM

I dunno but I waitress now in addition to everything else. LOL

at the end of the day, all one can really do is plant seeds of knowledge.
on RPF's attempts to discuss the proper size of government will draw fire.

in real life. simply pepper your conversations with the proper size of government and the role that "money" plays.
and what is "money" anyhow?
that is what I do.

RPF's is an anarchist dominated website. it is a great place to sharpen your skills against their arguments.
but in the real world. they are irrelevant.

why? they lack the ability to organize.
they ARE very passionate. and they are also STUPID enough to argue with an HVAC/R tech.
over HVAC/R subjects.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-21AtiWV3TE

HVACTech

12-27-2016, 07:44 PM

Learn to spell "progressives".

learn how to write concisely. and make your point.

do you seek to enlighten. or simply display your knowledge Mr Peacock?
as an instructor... I know your type.
excess verbiage. is indicative of a small intellect. and a weak ego.

I possess the ability to make my points succinctly. you do not.

HVACTech

12-27-2016, 07:48 PM

And excessive ban hammer use. :(

it was only proper dude.
you look funny in yoga pants.

Anti Federalist

12-28-2016, 03:55 AM

learn how to write concisely. and make your point.

I possess the ability to make my points succinctly. you do not.

http://i.imgur.com/5BBWoGt.gif

Lord Xar

12-28-2016, 07:23 PM

Truth be told, I prefer public discussion in liberal/progressive corners of the www. They're easier to talk to. They're more open to reason. It's just such a tough habit to break logging in here, though.

This is the most misery inducing web site I log onto.

My experience has been the opposite. I found that they are much more plugged/cemented into their ideology that it is literally a religion to them.
Try telling any devout person, their God does not exist. Same with liberal/progressives. They are literally capitulating to their ideology.

MelissaCato

12-28-2016, 07:50 PM

My experience has been the opposite. I found that they are much more plugged/cemented into their ideology that it is literally a religion to them.
Try telling any devout person, their God does not exist. Same with liberal/progressives. They are literally capitulating to their ideology.

Try telling any devout American, America does not exist. :cool:

Is America a religion ? :eek:

Lord Xar

12-28-2016, 10:39 PM

Try telling any devout American, America does not exist. :cool:

Is America a religion ? :eek:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6uVV2Dcqt0

pcosmar

12-28-2016, 11:43 PM

Try telling any devout American, America does not exist. :cool:

Is America a religion ? :eek:
It can be.

Who do you serve?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmx0gD-Qa5U

jmdrake

12-29-2016, 06:29 AM

Then you'd be for banning Ron Paul himself. Which is no surprise to see on this forum given how radically different it has become from his vision.

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

He specifically calls out the anarchists for being unrealistic, that their ideas require human beings to be perfect, which is something that will never happen. It's the exact same argument that I've been consistently making here all these years... I suppose it's because I'm one of the few who actually listened to him?

That's the heart of the matter.

There are two paths from here to liberty. One requires the complete destruction of civilization. The other merely requires adhering to existing law.

I'll be damned if there aren't way too many people here who consider only the first path to be acceptable.

Ummm....did you actually honestly watch the video you posted? Ron clearly said his goal is moving towards self government. No you can't get there tomorrow. I don't know of any anarchist at RPF that says "We can get rid of all government right now!"

MelissaCato

12-29-2016, 09:09 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6uVV2Dcqt0

Hey, I was praying Ron Paul would be my President for almost 10 years now, heck I'm still praying. lol

HVACTech

01-06-2017, 12:53 AM

http://i.imgur.com/5BBWoGt.gif

you seem to copy and paste well.

newbitech

01-06-2017, 01:39 AM

people can't tell the difference between government and "the" government. Actually, I think they do. Clearly Ron Paul is not an anarchist. He flat out says, you always want government. In a perfect world each individual conducts their own government, they govern themselves, this is self-government.

people do the exact same thing with the word anarchy. It has a dual meaning just like government.

We have a bunch of people bickering over semantics for the last 10 years here, trying to control the "narrative".

At one time, the place was somewhere that people with a common goal could come and seek out the truth about what was happening in the USA. People wanted justice, accountability and responsibility from each other and this was a place to talk about it and find it.

Somewhere between learning about Ron Paul's extremely nuanced yet common sense approach to liberty and trying to take over the Federal Government, propaganda and legalism was introduced.

Half the people wanted to expand on the nuances of liberty while the other half wanted to embrace the common sense outcomes of getting results.

There was a huge counter movement operation targeted at what Ron Paul was saying and doing that tried to pick apart every aspect from the ground up.

Eventually the loss of momentum came with successive electoral defeats and culminated in the successor to the movement taking the exact wrong tact at the exact wrong time.

This was the final severance between the two major factions in Ron Paul's liberty movement. Although for many of us, it didn't come as a surprise. Some of us were able to explore the nuances of liberty while remaining practical and motivated.

Others lost bits and pieces of it over time and only hang on here because because(the wonderful things he does? lol late night typo) that is a fire that burned hot, even if it is now only a faint ember.

idiom

01-06-2017, 02:17 AM

for some reason it was the ancaps who seemed to jump ship for the fascist murder train the fastest. Maybe they were giving up on Rothbards broken ideas, or maybe they just liked the trendy extreme ideas all along?

This site seems like a spoof of a liberty site now.

Mean while I just did my MBA and all the lecturers used Austrian economics. Course was all Schumpeter, Hayek and Mises.

In my time here New Zealand has also gone from around 12th to 1st ish on most freedom and prosperity indexes.

I am in North Carolina for the next six months if anyone has an urge to beat the shit out of me for being a man in a dress. I here that's local sport in the USA.

I have like one neg rep in my entire history, and have always found one account easily sufficient to argue both sides of any issue.

Still. Its weird. The world is on the verge of decision time. Kind of exciting time to be alive.

Also go watch Moana. fucking on point.

helmuth_hubener

01-06-2017, 09:03 AM

Mean while I just did my MBA and all the lecturers used Austrian economics. Course was all Schumpeter, Hayek and Mises. Down in NZ? That's terrific! The ideas, they're spreading....

In my time here New Zealand has also gone from around 12th to 1st ish on most freedom and prosperity indexes. Indeed. It's got a lot going for it.

I have like one neg rep in my entire history, and have always found one account easily sufficient to argue both sides of any issue. True, me too, though it does sometimes confuse people.

Still. Its weird. The world is on the verge of decision time. Kind of exciting time to be alive. What does this mean? What decision are you thinking of?