Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 124

Thread: Constitution = Collectivist

  1. #1

    Constitution = Collectivist

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
    The constitution is an anti-liberty document because it is inherently collectivist. To promote the general welfare can be interpreted to have a totalitarian government based on opinion.

    It assumes that to promote the general welfare, through a government action, benefits all the people. However, there was significant dissenters against the constitution. Obviously, many individuals did not believe the constitution benefited them.

    To say "We the People"...established the constitution is a blatant lie. Many individuals dissented against the document. Many states barely ratified the constitution. Let's reword it correctly: "We the White, male, land owning, living in states".


    Individuals are not safe. The Lie of the Land is that the constitution restricts government. It does not. Only the people of the government are able to restrict government. To say a piece of paper could restrict government is crazy. To say people of the government would restrict themselves is crazier. History shows.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Lol, that is going to offend a lot of peoples sensibilities...

    Well... the truth hurts.
    “I will be as harsh as truth, and uncompromising as justice... I am in earnest, I will not equivocate, I will not excuse, I will not retreat a single inch, and I will be heard.” ~ William Lloyd Garrison

    Quote Originally Posted by TGGRV View Post
    Conza, why do you even bother? lol.
    Worthy Threads:

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by mediahasyou View Post
    Individuals are not safe. The Lie of the Land is that the constitution restricts government. It does not. Only the people of the government are able to restrict government. To say a piece of paper could restrict government is crazy. To say people of the government would restrict themselves is crazier. History shows.
    A piece of paper was never supposed to do it all. How could it? Our Founders told us that it was US that had to stay vigilant. We didn't.
    ================
    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.

    Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

    The Property Basis of Rights

  5. #4

    Collectivism is Not Always Bad

    Quote Originally Posted by mediahasyou View Post
    The constitution is an anti-liberty document because it is inherently collectivist. To promote the general welfare can be interpreted to have a totalitarian government based on opinion.

    It assumes that to promote the general welfare, through a government action, benefits all the people. However, there was significant dissenters against the constitution. Obviously, many individuals did not believe the constitution benefited them.

    To say "We the People"...established the constitution is a blatant lie. Many individuals dissented against the document. Many states barely ratified the constitution. Let's reword it correctly: "We the White, male, land owning, living in states".


    Individuals are not safe. The Lie of the Land is that the constitution restricts government. It does not. Only the people of the government are able to restrict government. To say a piece of paper could restrict government is crazy. To say people of the government would restrict themselves is crazier. History shows.
    What's wrong with collectivism? It's inescapable in any realm of society. There may be certain institutions and ideals where collectivism is not okay (like the economy), but it is not inherently evil. As a member of Ron Paul Forums, one could argue that you are a collectivist because you're part of a like-minded group whose goal is to return government back to its Constitutional limits and enhance liberty for all people in the United States. Unless, I'm mistaken about your intents for being here...
    "Then David said to the Philistine, 'You come to me with a sword, a spear, and a javelin, but I come to you in the name of Yahweh of hosts, the God of the battle lines of Israel, Whom you have reproached.'" - 1 Samuel 17:45

    "May future generations look back on our work and say that these were men and women who, in moment of great crisis, stood up to their politicians, the opinion-makers, and the Establishment, and saved their country." - Dr. Ron Paul

  6. #5
    Various wordings for the definition of collectivism:

    -The principles or system of ownership and control of the means of production and distribution by the people collectively, usually under the supervision of a government.

    -The theory that the state should own all means of production

    -The socialist principle of control by the state of all means of productive or economic activity

    or as Edward Griffin would simply put it:

    -The common base ideology among Communism, Fascism, Socialism, and Nazism. The group (an abstraction) is more important than the individual, and if necessary the individual must be sacrificed for the greater good of the greater number via government (ends justify the means).

    Griffin in the linked video, claims the founding fathers were clearly against the collectivism implicit in democracy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Theocrat View Post
    What's wrong with collectivism? It's inescapable in any realm of society. There may be certain institutions and ideals where collectivism is not okay (like the economy), but it is not inherently evil. As a member of Ron Paul Forums, one could argue that you are a collectivist because you're part of a like-minded group whose goal is to return government back to its Constitutional limits and enhance liberty for all people in the United States. Unless, I'm mistaken about your intents for being here...
    Fitting in with a certain crowd does not make one a collectivist, you are using a very loose definition of collectivism.
    Last edited by Andrew-Austin; 12-01-2008 at 08:52 PM.

  7. #6
    TW, spooner ?
    “I will be as harsh as truth, and uncompromising as justice... I am in earnest, I will not equivocate, I will not excuse, I will not retreat a single inch, and I will be heard.” ~ William Lloyd Garrison

    Quote Originally Posted by TGGRV View Post
    Conza, why do you even bother? lol.
    Worthy Threads:

  8. #7

    It Depends on Intent

    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew-Austin View Post
    Fitting in with a certain crowd does not make one a collectivist, you are using a very loose definition of collectivism.
    Fitting in with a certain crowd who has a motive to spread their beliefs and ideas to another group of people (which they feel will work for the benefit of everyone in society) is indeed collectivism. Is that not what Ron Paul Forums is about in spreading the ideas of liberty and limited government to an increasingly ignorant and tyranical government and citizenry, as well?
    "Then David said to the Philistine, 'You come to me with a sword, a spear, and a javelin, but I come to you in the name of Yahweh of hosts, the God of the battle lines of Israel, Whom you have reproached.'" - 1 Samuel 17:45

    "May future generations look back on our work and say that these were men and women who, in moment of great crisis, stood up to their politicians, the opinion-makers, and the Establishment, and saved their country." - Dr. Ron Paul

  9. #8
    Were Jefferson not in France at the time, I'm sure that we would have a far more properly worded an thought-out constitution.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    That, and it has too many loopholes that allow gov'ment to expand. (and that $#@!ing 16th ammendment! WTF?? )

    Quote Originally Posted by mediahasyou View Post
    The constitution is an anti-liberty document because it is inherently collectivist. To promote the general welfare can be interpreted to have a totalitarian government based on opinion.

    It assumes that to promote the general welfare, through a government action, benefits all the people. However, there was significant dissenters against the constitution. Obviously, many individuals did not believe the constitution benefited them.

    To say "We the People"...established the constitution is a blatant lie. Many individuals dissented against the document. Many states barely ratified the constitution. Let's reword it correctly: "We the White, male, land owning, living in states".


    Individuals are not safe. The Lie of the Land is that the constitution restricts government. It does not. Only the people of the government are able to restrict government. To say a piece of paper could restrict government is crazy. To say people of the government would restrict themselves is crazier. History shows.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Theocrat View Post
    What's wrong with collectivism? It's inescapable in any realm of society. There may be certain institutions and ideals where collectivism is not okay (like the economy), but it is not inherently evil. As a member of Ron Paul Forums, one could argue that you are a collectivist because you're part of a like-minded group whose goal is to return government back to its Constitutional limits and enhance liberty for all people in the United States. Unless, I'm mistaken about your intents for being here...
    It's bad 'cuz G. Edward Griffin says so!
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Theocrat View Post
    Fitting in with a certain crowd who has a motive to spread their beliefs and ideas to another group of people (which they feel will work for the benefit of everyone in society) is indeed collectivism. Is that not what Ron Paul Forums is about in spreading the ideas of liberty and limited government to an increasingly ignorant and tyranical government and citizenry, as well?
    Yes we are a group which tries to influence government and fellow citizens, and others disagree with our motives.

    That alone I don't think can define a group as collectivist though, you have to look at the group's motives. In our case, we wish to limit government and grant more liberty to everyone, which is not imposing anything on anyone. Repealing laws based on principle is quite different than enacting them for the 'greater good'. Putting individual rights first and restricting government to protecting those rights, is not sacrificing anyone for the sake of a majority.

    True if successful we would be denying certain minorities (the poor, corporate special interests) the government benefits and handouts they receive now, but the "for the greater good" axiom cannot be applied to this really.

  14. #12

    Thumbs up

    +1

    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew-Austin View Post
    Yes we are a group which tries to influence government and fellow citizens, and others disagree with our motives.

    That alone I don't think can define a group as collectivist though, you have to look at the group's motives. In our case, we wish to limit government and grant more liberty to everyone, which is not imposing anything on anyone. Repealing laws based on principle is quite different than enacting them for the 'greater good'. Putting individual rights first and restricting government to protecting those rights, is not sacrificing anyone for the sake of a majority.

    True if successful we would be denying certain minorities (the poor, corporate special interests) the government benefits and handouts they receive now, but the "for the greater good" axiom cannot be applied to this really.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  15. #13
    Umm Theo, just letting you know - you're taking Kade's line of thought on this.

    Just thought you should know... him being, what you have called - your arch-nemesis and all..
    “I will be as harsh as truth, and uncompromising as justice... I am in earnest, I will not equivocate, I will not excuse, I will not retreat a single inch, and I will be heard.” ~ William Lloyd Garrison

    Quote Originally Posted by TGGRV View Post
    Conza, why do you even bother? lol.
    Worthy Threads:

  16. #14
    By and large, I would call the Constitution a pro-liberty document, especially when compared to the unconstitutional government we face today. It does have obvious and glaring flaws in both its language and provisions though (considering, among other things, that it didn't work to restrain the government ), and the language used in the Preamble is no exception. Although the Preamble gives the government no actual power, the phrase "general welfare" can be interpreted both tightly (general welfare = protection of individual rights) or loosely (general welfare = any collectivist measure that "might help," even and generally at the expense of individual rights). Therefore, that phrase is a potentially - but not necessarily - collectivist choice of words.

    Anyway, when it comes to defining collectivism, I'm going to have to dig into the Ayn Rand quote from Kade's old signature (thanks Conza ):
    Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group.
    At its core, that is collectivism in its most dangerous form, and this is the form which is expressed in collectivist political ideologies. Broadening the definition very slightly, I would also argue that judging an individual based on group stereotypes or statistics is also collectivist. In fact, there's a strong link here to the strictest definition of collectivism, that which I quoted above: Collectivist statistics and stereotypes of people are exactly what government uses to justify violating the rights of everyone, even those who are exceptions to the stereotypes/statistics (and those "exceptions" usually comprise the majority of people anyway). In other words, collectivist judgments form the flimsy moral basis for tyrannical collectivist rules. By themselves, such generalizations do in way subjugate the individual to the group, because they alienate the individuals to whom the group judgment does not rightly apply, undermining their individuality for the sake of judging the group collectively.

    Broadening the definition much further and depending on the circumstances, I might argue that identifying with a group of people in contrast to other supposed groups is also collectivist. That said, this makes for a much weaker argument, because defining collectivism as such presents a second definition so loosely related to the first that it waters down the meaning of collectivism in its strictest sense, conflating benign group cooperation with the subjugation of the individual to the group. Working with or even identifying with a group of people (such as other Ron Paul supporters) is not necessarily collectivist in the anti-individualistic sense of the word, because you could be identifying with a group of people in contrast to other individuals who explicitly do not identify themselves with that group, or who explicitly identify with an opposing group. In other words, by aligning themselves with an opposing political ideology, neocons for example have each voluntarily identified with an ideology that libertarian and old-school conservative Ron Paul supporters oppose. We as the aforementioned self-described Ron Paul supporters disagree with each and every neocon individually (on the subject of their neoconservatism), precisely because their neocon beliefs are by definition in conflict with our own pro-liberty beliefs.* On one hand, if a few neocons like to drink the blood of Iraqi children, it would be unfairly collectivist of us to stereotype and judge all neocons based on the behavior of a few, because we would be making presumptuous generalizations about many individuals. After all, it's almost guaranteed that at least one neocon does not like to drink the blood of Iraqi children, and we would be disenfranchising that individual by imposing a collectivist judgment on him/her. On the other hand, if the term "neocon" is defined to apply only to someone with very specific beliefs with which we (or even simply I) disagree, it is then safe to judge said individuals together as a group for the beliefs they are guaranteed to share (and if they don't share said beliefs that define neoconservatism, they're not neocons, so the judgment does not apply to them - see where I'm going with this?). In this particular case, the "collectivist" judgment used out of convenience has no ill effects, since it's really more like a whole bunch of individual judgments condensed into one package.

    Bottom line: In the non-political sense, a broad definition of collectivism can include all collective or cooperative activity, such as an individual's identification with a group or even the benign formation of groups of individuals. However, this kind of "collectivism" is obviously not necessarily anti-individualistic, which is why it should not be confused with collectivism as it is used in the political sense! In the political sense, collectivism is defined in direct opposition to individualism. Collectivist ideologies are inherently anti-individualistic at their core, sacrificing the rights and dignity of the "expendable" individual for some perceived benefit to the collective. Whenever I say I oppose collectivism, this is what I am talking about.

    *Note: I should mention that it's actually slightly collectivist to assume that all Ron Paul supporters take a pro-liberty stance on everything - but if I conveniently define "Ron Paul supporter" to be a very strict hardcore subset of all those who actually support Ron Paul in some capacity, I can fall back on the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
    Last edited by Mini-Me; 12-02-2008 at 04:04 AM.

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Conza88 View Post
    TW, spooner ?
    You rang?

    By their very nature, essence and design, the BARBARIC human institutions ( us vs. them [ church, state, etc.] ) tend to be and ARE collectivist, fear based, competitive and ANTI-individual.<IMHO>

    'Lysander Spooner once said that he believed "that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize." At the same time, he could not exonerate the Constitution, for 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." It is hard to argue with that.' -- Thomas E. Woods Jr

    "The instinct to command others, in its primitive essence, is a carnivorous, altogether bestial and savage instinct. Under the influence of the mental development of man, it takes on a somewhat more ideal form and becomes somewhat ennobled, presenting itself as the instrument of reason and the devoted servant of that abstraction, or political fiction, which is called the public good. But in its essence it remains just as baneful, and it becomes even more so when, with the application of science, it extends its scope and intensifies the power of its action. If there is a devil in history, it is this power principle." -- Mikhail Aleksandrovich Bakunin
    Last edited by Truth Warrior; 12-02-2008 at 07:11 AM.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Theocrat View Post
    What's wrong with collectivism? It's inescapable in any realm of society. There may be certain institutions and ideals where collectivism is not okay (like the economy), but it is not inherently evil. As a member of Ron Paul Forums, one could argue that you are a collectivist because you're part of a like-minded group whose goal is to return government back to its Constitutional limits and enhance liberty for all people in the United States. Unless, I'm mistaken about your intents for being here...
    "Society are people." -- Frank Chodorov

    "If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one." -- Bob Lefevre

    "Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure." -- Bob Lefevre



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by mediahasyou View Post
    The constitution is an anti-liberty document because it is inherently collectivist. To promote the general welfare can be interpreted to have a totalitarian government based on opinion.

    It assumes that to promote the general welfare, through a government action, benefits all the people. However, there was significant dissenters against the constitution. Obviously, many individuals did not believe the constitution benefited them.

    To say "We the People"...established the constitution is a blatant lie. Many individuals dissented against the document. Many states barely ratified the constitution. Let's reword it correctly: "We the White, male, land owning, living in states".


    Individuals are not safe. The Lie of the Land is that the constitution restricts government. It does not. Only the people of the government are able to restrict government. To say a piece of paper could restrict government is crazy. To say people of the government would restrict themselves is crazier. History shows.


    "A limited government is a contradiction in terms." -- Bob LeFevre

    The Illegality, Immorality, and Violence of All Political Action
    http://users.aol.com/xeqtr1/voluntaryist/vopa.html

  21. #18
    And the anarchists overtake the board.
    ================
    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.

    Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

    The Property Basis of Rights

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Mini-Me View Post
    Anyway, when it comes to defining collectivism, I'm going to have to dig into the Ayn Rand quote from Kade's old signature (thanks Conza ):
    No worries. Just keep in mind his application of the quote was fallacious. The reason being, he chose to confine his point to this forum, which is retarded. You can't choose to ignore the rest of the world in an attempt to consider yourself an individual. He chose to mirror himself as an outsider, he loved making himself a target and it was no-ones fault but his own. The "individualism" he espoused is pretty much the same 95% of the population. Yet he'd be here and say "we're all collectivists." <-- which is collectivist thinking in itself.. lol

    ^ Clinically retarded.

    Btw, attempting to limit the state is also clinically retarded.

    On the Impossibility of Limited Government and the Prospects for a Second American Revolution
    Daily Article by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

    IV - Two Hundred Years Later …

    After more than two centuries of "constitutionally limited government," the results are clear and incontrovertible. At the outset of the American "experiment," the tax burden imposed on Americans was light, indeed almost negligible. Money consisted of fixed quantities of gold and silver. The definition of private property was clear and seemingly immutable, and the right to self-defense was regarded as sacrosanct. No standing army existed, and, as expressed in George Washington's Farewell Address, a firm commitment to free trade and a noninterventionist foreign policy appeared to be in place. Two hundred years later, matters have changed dramatically.[16]

    ....... <snip>

    Last but not least, the commitment to free trade and noninterventionism has given way to a policy of protectionism, militarism, and imperialism. In fact, almost since its beginnings the US government has engaged in relentless aggressive expansionism and, starting with the Spanish-American War and continuing past World War I and World War II to the present, the United States has become entangled in hundreds of foreign conflicts and risen to the rank of the world's foremost warmonger and imperialist power. In addition, while American citizens have become increasingly more defenseless, insecure, and impoverished, and foreigners all over the globe have become ever more threatened and bullied by US military power, American presidents, members of Congress, and Supreme Court judges have become ever more arrogant, morally corrupt, and dangerous.[17]

    What can possibly be done about this state of affairs? First, the American Constitution must be recognized for what it is — an error.

    Read on here.
    Yeaah, umm you can do what you enjoy doing Mini - i.e writing long ass essay's, thinking of ways things can be limited etc. But the results will be the exact same, because the premise is flawed. Instead of "thinking" out scenarios for the sake of it, why not use ya it more wisely? eh? I recommend Henry Hazlitt's; the Thinking as a Science.

    The DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.
    Preamble
    - 2.2 That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
    Last edited by Conza88; 12-02-2008 at 05:54 AM.
    “I will be as harsh as truth, and uncompromising as justice... I am in earnest, I will not equivocate, I will not excuse, I will not retreat a single inch, and I will be heard.” ~ William Lloyd Garrison

    Quote Originally Posted by TGGRV View Post
    Conza, why do you even bother? lol.
    Worthy Threads:

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    And the anarchists overtake the board.
    Yep, the collectivist barbarians AKA statists have had it long enough to make their failed case.<IMHO>

    BTW, isn't the WHOLE original purpose and function of this board just ONE INDIVIDUAL named Ron Paul?

    The Real World Order Is Chaotic
    Much as it bothers the god-kings.
    Last edited by Truth Warrior; 12-02-2008 at 06:57 AM.

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    And the anarchists overtake the board.
    Hopefully the anarcho-capitalists have taken over.. not the anarchists

    I don't see what the problem is... anarcho-capitalists hold the same positions as libertarians... i.e the non aggression axiom + Lockean private property rights..

    They just maintain the principles and follow the logical conclusion that the market can do better than the state does - in ALL areas.. without the coercion and violence...
    “I will be as harsh as truth, and uncompromising as justice... I am in earnest, I will not equivocate, I will not excuse, I will not retreat a single inch, and I will be heard.” ~ William Lloyd Garrison

    Quote Originally Posted by TGGRV View Post
    Conza, why do you even bother? lol.
    Worthy Threads:

  25. #22
    "Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson

  26. #23

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Warrior View Post
    "Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson
    Jeffersonians FTW!!
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  27. #24
    More and more I find myself siding with the Anti-Federalists. If I were Emperor for One Day, boy, a new stronger Bill of Rights and a far more restrictive Constitution would take place of the near disaster we have now. I can see why Jefferson and many of the other Anti-Federalists felt the principles of The Declaration of Independence had been betrayed by Hamilton and the other Federalists. I hate to think what would have happened had the Bill of Rights never been ratified.

    General Welfare my aching ass (to paraphrase Penn Jillett).
    "Democracy, too, is a religion. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses." - H.L. Mencken

    Μολὼν λάβε

    "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt




  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Conza88 View Post
    No worries. Just keep in mind his application of the quote was fallacious. The reason being, he chose to confine his point to this forum, which is retarded. You can't choose to ignore the rest of the world in an attempt to consider yourself an individual. He chose to mirror himself as an outsider, he loved making himself a target and it was no-ones fault but his own. The "individualism" he espoused is pretty much the same 95% of the population. Yet he'd be here and say "we're all collectivists." <-- which is collectivist thinking in itself.. lol

    ^ Clinically retarded.
    Of course...that's why I spent the rest of my post detailing the meaning of collectivism. Kade completely misconstrued the meaning of the word "subjugation" in the Rand quote. He broadened the word's meaning to the absurd level where a person is "collectivist" simply by being of the majority opinion (among just one small social/political sphere, at that!), regardless of whose opinion in and of itself constituted political collectivism (which actually does advocate the violation of individual rights through subjugation of the individual to the group). Meh. I still miss him though, and I kind of feel bad criticizing him without him here to fight back.

    Quote Originally Posted by Conza88 View Post
    Hopefully the anarcho-capitalists have taken over.. not the anarchists
    Herein lies the problem with the distinction you're going to such pains to make: Philosophically, you're correct, but structurally, anarcho-capitalism is exactly the same as every other type of anarchism. It's entirely stateless (at least for a time, depending on its stability) and without any clear rules except those which "enough" people agree upon via social contract that order spontaneously arises to enforce them. How, then, are you going to make sure that if we ever fell into anarchy, it would be anarchy of a desirable and stable kind, where the unwritten rules would be based upon the non-aggression axiom? There is only one way: You must use a gradual approach of slowly scaling back the state as you educate people about why!

    Quote Originally Posted by Conza88 View Post
    Btw, attempting to limit the state is also clinically retarded.
    <snip>
    To use similar hyperbole, I'd also argue that attemping to abolish the state all at once is also "clinically retarded," along with the idea that anarcho-capitalism would ever be the result of a sudden government collapse. After all, just consider the mentality of about 95% of people in America: Even if I were ready to accept the idea, they are obviously nowhere near ready for even strictly limited government, let alone anarcho-capitalism! Because of that, any kind of anarchism if attempted today would turn out very ugly. The only way you could ever possibly accomplish your stated goal of anarcho-capitalism is with a gradual approach, as mentioned above: You must educate people enough to have more and more libertarian views, as you chip away at the state and dismantle it one piece at a time...and of course, you must strip away each piece of the state in such a way that everything goes smoothly and there isn't a reactionary shift back towards statism.

    If all government (federal and state) were ever demolished too quickly - in some kind of violent revolution of the mob, for instance - anarcho-capitalism would not just spontaneously result from the aftermath. There would be anarchy for a time, but it would be the violent sort of anarchy resulting from a leviathan state collapsing into a power vacuum. Some of the uneducated mob would take advantage of the confusion and disorder to loot and pillage, and the rest of the uneducated mob would scramble together some kind of iron-fisted government to bring back order. After all, how many times have you seen the fall of one government spontaneously turn into peaceful anarcho-capitalism? In such a scenario, we would have no choice but to deliberately come together and form the most limited government we possibly could, while mustering up grudging support from the reluctant "centrist" masses. Otherwise, they would take charge and form another government with a Constitution much more explicitly collectivist than the current one. After we formed the most limited government we could, we would then have to resume our work of educating people, limiting the new government, and downsizing it until the "appropriate" size is reached. In your eyes, the appropriate size is "nonexistent," but you must still first pass through minarchism to get to any kind of stable and orderly anarchism, let alone anarcho-capitalism in particular.

    If just the US government collapsed but state governments remained, that would be the optimal situation, since organized law enforcement could still keep order and quell the violent looting, pillaging, rioting, etc. of the shellshocked masses during the immediate aftermath. Certainly, it would be much easier to subsequently limit and scale down state governments than the federal government, assuming the federal government were already out of the way. In that case though, we're once again back to gradually limiting and downsizing a government.

    Do you see where I'm going with this? No matter how you slice it, the only way you can ever successfully achieve anarcho-capitalism anyway is with a gradual approach, and that is inherently an excercise in simultaneously limiting and downsizing government. To explicitly restate the implications of this necessarily gradual approach, I will quote something I said to you a few weeks ago (that I never got a real response to):
    In other words, achieving anarcho-capitalism pretty much REQUIRES you to be wrong about your assumption that no checks and balances could ever restrain a state! If you actually want to achieve anarcho-capitalism, then you more than anyone should be interested in what Constitutional checks and balances might actually work well enough to keep government limited for a very long time.
    Last edited by Mini-Me; 12-02-2008 at 10:10 PM.

  30. #26
    I got a long way to go, but I'm getting a lot of food for though in this thread. At first sight, I would have to agree with Mini-Me regarding Anarcho-Capitalism. How exactly could such a system be put into place, especially with the masses as brainwashed and propagandized as they are today?

  31. #27

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by mediahasyou View Post
    The constitution is an anti-liberty document because it is inherently collectivist. To promote the general welfare can be interpreted to have a totalitarian government based on opinion.
    "Can be interpreted" is a far stretch, and YES liberals HAVE argued this. However, history has proven that early years of our nation was far from using the Constitution to promote welfare, general or otherwise.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by youngbuck View Post
    I got a long way to go, but I'm getting a lot of food for though in this thread. At first sight, I would have to agree with Mini-Me regarding Anarcho-Capitalism. How exactly could such a system be put into place, especially with the masses as brainwashed and propagandized as they are today?
    Step #1 - Give up barbarism. Until then NOTHING changes.<IMHO>

    "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -- Mahatma Gandhi

  33. #29

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Warrior View Post
    Step #1 - Give up barbarism. Until then NOTHING changes.<IMHO>

    "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -- Mahatma Gandhi

    +1776 (good Ghandi quote, TW )
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  34. #30
    Oh yes, offended indeed! I don't need big words to tell the truth.

    The fact of the matter is the US consitituion is based off of basic biblical prinicpals . Take that away and see what happens,,

    this nation is one nation UNDER GOD !

    Our founding fathers thought alot of the good book, called the bible.

    This is how they wrote this document Which should be held
    so proudly....... Ron Pauls revolution for the Consitution !

    http://www.campaignforliberty.com/

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-27-2013, 01:26 AM
  2. Know Your Collectivist - Which Collectivist said it? Quiz
    By Todd in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-23-2010, 06:24 PM
  3. Collectivist Thinking Is Rife in the USA
    By Truth Warrior in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 03-17-2009, 09:51 AM
  4. Collectivist RP supporters, good or bad?
    By user in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 93
    Last Post: 02-23-2009, 12:24 AM
  5. An incipient collectivist lashes out
    By Oyate in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 06-01-2008, 11:05 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •