Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 352

Thread: Does 'eternal vigilence in the defense of liberty' ever work?

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by Theocrat View Post
    Your views are refreshing, too, and the way you lay out your arguments are not only logical, but are entertaining (in a good way).
    Congratulations Newbitech... you're making a huge impression in this thread
    "One of the great victories of the state, is that the word "Anarchy" terrifies people but, the word "State" does not" - Tom Woods



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by ClayTrainor View Post
    And how he thanks God for the state? Is that refreshing too?
    that is not what he said. its pretty obvious his words are being twisted.

  4. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by newbitech View Post
    that is not what he said. its pretty obvious his words are being twisted.
    Oh c'mon... it's pretty dam clear.

    Maybe you can point out my error. What is he thanking God for, in brackets?
    "One of the great victories of the state, is that the word "Anarchy" terrifies people but, the word "State" does not" - Tom Woods

  5. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by Curlz31 View Post
    Tried and didn't. There is a myriad number of posts you've left unaddressed on the issue - you had no response. Most amusing.

    "This is a disgrace in my opinion, and again, the man has no credibility as far as politics goes because he is an anarchist and by definition anarchist are apolitical."

    Except this is complete bull$#@!. Murray Rothbard is an anarchist, and you think he is apolitical? Wow - how retarded.

    Your objection is beyond dumb and not even close to anything sane or logical.

    Oh well, these haven't got a response either...



    The only charlatan here is someone who tries to apply thermal dynamics to social systems...
    in your unsubstantiated opinion maybe. No I believe you meant to say that I ignored you because you took the conversation off topic. W/E I guess its your thread, you have a right to take it off topic. Sounds hmmm fishy...glad fishing amused you. We all you know that you post under multiple personalities, so I guess the really amusing part is actually taking the bate and seeing which personality happens to show up.

    I digress.

    No its not complete bull$#@!. So now Rothbard is a fully fledged anarchist. I guess we can just leave the capitalist part out after all. I am sure Conza88 disagrees with you on that one, but then it wouldn't be the same here without him, huh Conz er Curly.. pffttt.

    Basically anarchism is apolitical. I don't have a problem with that, until a person who wants to participate in politics continues to label themselves as anarchist. Sure I will entertain the idea, right up until the point that person starts trying to get children to fight the power and pay no attention to authority in their own lives. That is irresponsible, deceptive, and fraudulent. If Rothbard is an anarchist, then he too was a political charlatan. But I am pretty sure Rothbard took care of himself, that's why he redefined his views as at least market-anarchist or anarcho-capitalist. I am pretty sure he had no interest in defining his own political views in a one word catch phrase.

    My objection to what? Manipulating young minds into believing that there is no such thing as outside authority? My objecting to the bashing of the founding of the United States by a Canadian blow hard? Molyneux simply exist to reinforce the evil father archetype (the darth vader evil empire symbology) yet doesn't explain how personal responsibility and accountability are the way to overcome this evil force. Rather, he depends on the support of children and young adults to spread his message of anti-authority. He is no doubt living out his own childhood short-comings vicariously through the counter-culture on the internet .

    Hey if you want to start a thread about thermal-dynamics as it relates to sociology, be my guest, I will respond in that one too, since you like talking about it so much.



  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by ClayTrainor View Post
    Oh c'mon... it's pretty dam clear.

    Maybe you can point out my error. What is he thanking God for, in brackets?
    he was talking about molyneux not being around. sheesh man, I didn't even have to go back and reread what he said.

    not your fault tho, its the internet, hard to really get an idea of tone. I am sure if you asked him if that is what he meant instead of just accusing him, then you'd get the answer from the source. I don't speak for anyone except myself, but really I understand what he meant because I doubt he is on here trying to defend "the state" in the way our mutual political enemies would do

  8. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by newbitech View Post
    he was talking about molyneux not being around. sheesh man, I didn't even have to go back and reread what he said.
    Sheesh? That's not clear at all.

    It reads as though he's thanking god for the existence of the state. Maybe you should re-read it.

    Either way, he's attempting to make the case that the State > individual, thank God for that.

    not your fault tho, its the internet, hard to really get an idea of tone. I am sure if you asked him if that is what he meant instead of just accusing him, then you'd get the answer from the source.
    I did ask him, didn't you notice?

    Quote Originally Posted by ClayTrainor
    Thank god for the state? tisk tisk...
    That's an opportunity to explain, right there.

    I don't speak for anyone except myself, but really I understand what he meant because I doubt he is on here trying to defend the state.
    Theo is on here defending the state... it's what he does. He thinks the state should execute gays, did you know this?
    Last edited by ClayTrainor; 12-13-2009 at 02:10 AM.
    "One of the great victories of the state, is that the word "Anarchy" terrifies people but, the word "State" does not" - Tom Woods

  9. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by ClayTrainor View Post
    He has several videos on other countries, and has done multiple interviews about the Canadian Health care system. He has many fans from around the world.

    He argues against the concept of government, any government, not just your government. The Fact is everyone focus' on America, when discussing world issues. They are the biggest, scariest government in the world, messing with everybody's business.




    Because you're older and much more enligthened, right?



    Than why are there several 40+ folks on his forums?
    good for him. but in this video he is targeting America and particularly American youth. Same reason there are 40 year olds on WoW forums I would suspect.

    No because the youth are the future and deserve to hear the truth from an American who has had a troubled upbringing and has and is learning to overcome those troubles.

    So now government is bad, but the big scary American government is "badder"? come on now.

  10. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by newbitech View Post
    good for him. but in this video he is targeting America and particularly American youth. Same reason there are 40 year olds on WoW forums I would suspect.
    Yea... they're all just like WoW nerds, totally inferior to you.

    No because the youth are the future and deserve to hear the truth from an American who has had a troubled upbringing and has and is learning to overcome those troubles.
    WHat?

    So now government is bad, but the big scary American government is "badder"? come on now.
    What kind of point do you think you're making here?

    America is the biggest government in the world, therefore much focus is paid to it. All government is immoral and wrong.
    Last edited by ClayTrainor; 12-13-2009 at 02:15 AM.
    "One of the great victories of the state, is that the word "Anarchy" terrifies people but, the word "State" does not" - Tom Woods

  11. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by ClayTrainor View Post
    Sheesh? That's not clear at all.

    I did ask him, didn't you notice?


    That's an opportunity to explain, right there.

    Theo is on here defending the state... it's what he does. He thinks the state should execute gays, did you know this?
    anarchist think the liberty movement should execute "the state". What's the difference? I wouldn't be surprised if what Theo said is something that came from the "old law" prior to moses. How can anyone speak of morality without analyzing what morality has meant to humans being throughout time. There are two things that we have in common with the ancients.
    1.) our morals
    2.) the stars

    you asked him very sarcastically, but he was being sarcastic too. You have to see thru this stuff. I did, either way I was responding to you because you addressed me. I stand by what I said about Theo earlier. I don't 100% agree with the "old law", but I am a spiritual person and I can appreciate that perspective even if i don't agree.

  12. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by newbitech View Post
    anarchist think the liberty movement should execute "the state". What's the difference?
    What's the difference between a concept and human lives? I don't know, you tell me.

    Anarcho-capitalism is based on the non-aggresion axiom, therefore force is wrong. Government is force.

    Dude, your arguments are terrible. I'm done with you.
    "One of the great victories of the state, is that the word "Anarchy" terrifies people but, the word "State" does not" - Tom Woods

  13. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by ClayTrainor View Post
    Yea... they're all just a bunch of WoW nerds, totally inferior to you.

    WHat?

    What kind of point do you think you're making here?
    Entertainment, that was my point Clay.

    Yes, I have experience in overcoming infringements on my god given rights from both my father, and "the state". actual hands on experience.

    Molyneux is full of $#@! in this video, I already made a few cursory objections in my original response.

  14. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by ClayTrainor View Post
    What's the difference between a concept and human lives? I don't know, you tell me.


    Dude, your arguments are terrible. I'm done with you.
    "the state" are people too. don't forget that.

    observations are not arguments. My opinions are not debatable only persuadable.

    anarcho-capitalism is not what molyneux drones on about.

    anarcho-capitalism is a political theory based on limited government outside the market place and no government (hands off) within.

    ancap != anarchy? yes or no (know)?

    Thank you, come again.

    by the way, what makes you think "the government" of America is segregated from "the government" of any other country? if you are an anarchist, you would see that there is no such thing as the different nationalizations of government. its just "the government". Same with "the state" in this regard, except the state exists only as a mechanism for "the government".

    In my view, "the state" is a social construct outside the purvey of "the government". I regard government as a singular non-possessive institution that has its core in the being of every individual and expands outward and horizontally. As we begin interacting on wider levels of association, "the state" construct is created in order to extend the functionality of the core, because as individuals we are limited in scope. "the state" necessarily expands the scope of individual governance as our associations overlap. Yes this creates a vacuum of power that must be filled, or the classical hierarchy of rulers. We must be vigilant as individuals in order to stamp out corruption and ignorance on the personal level first. And as we expand our association, the vigilance must be applied at every level in which we interact within the construct.

    Unfortunately, we often forget that he who lives in glass houses should not throw stones. I am looking for a group of people who want to get their individual lives right FIRST, then deal with "the state" when we are standing on solid ground. Molyneux is standing in quick sand. His ideas are like leaves on the wind.
    Last edited by newbitech; 12-13-2009 at 02:35 AM.



  15. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  16. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by Curlz31 View Post
    Yo LE, you've completely ignored the posts that destroy your world view...

    How about being intellectually honest, yeah?

    This whole issue is a red herring... Mises never refuted anarcho-capitalism; in fact - he never tried. And actually agreed with secession to the individual level.
    Mises was not an anarchist. Deal with it.

    I've prefer to agree with Ron Paul;
    Cool. You're a constitutionalist now, eh?

    whose ultimate goal is self government - NOT a return to the Constitution.

    http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/...-an-anarchist/

    Hahaha....
    Neither liberty or self-government is limited to anarchists, you know. Self-government is a term that was used by limited government conservatives, long before Murray Rothbard ever thought about anarcho-capitalism.

    That Mises, at least in theory, believed in the right of individual secession and therefore came close to anarchism can also be seen in his description of liberalism, that “it forces no one against his will into the structure of the State.”

    That's NOT what you would do!... you don't even follow Mises, pathetic.
    "came close to anarchism", is NOT anarchism. The fact that you would attempt twist this obvious truth to fit your own agenda is what is pathetic. lol.

    The fact still remains that Mises was not an anarchist.
    Last edited by LibertyEagle; 12-13-2009 at 02:54 AM.
    ================
    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

  17. #74
    Newbitech, it's very hard to tell sometimes what you mean by government.

    Here's what I oppose: the initiation of agressive violence, or the threat of it

    If your idea of government does not involve forceful coersion of innocents, I have no problem with it. If it does, I do.
    “If you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.” -CS Lewis

    The use of force to impose morality is itself immoral, and generosity with others' money is still theft.

    If our society were a forum, congress would be the illiterate troll that somehow got a hold of the only ban hammer.

  18. #75
    That quote by Mises certainly indicates he was a voluntaryist. How you define anarchy depends on how you define government, which seems to vary widely. I don't really care on that score.

    All I care about is this: It appears Mises opposed coercing peaceful people. That makes him ok in my book.

    The constitution endorses extortion, which makes it not ok in my book, although it is far more ok than what we have now.
    Last edited by tremendoustie; 12-13-2009 at 02:55 AM.
    “If you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.” -CS Lewis

    The use of force to impose morality is itself immoral, and generosity with others' money is still theft.

    If our society were a forum, congress would be the illiterate troll that somehow got a hold of the only ban hammer.

  19. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by tremendoustie View Post
    Newbitech, it's very hard to tell sometimes what you mean by government.

    Here's what I oppose: the initiation of agressive violence, or the threat of it

    If your idea of government does not involve forceful coersion of innocents, I have no problem with it. If it does, I do.
    self government, family government, village government, city government, county/municipality government, state government, regional government, national government, world government, universal government.

    in that order. force and coercion have nothing to do with government. the confusion I think comes from "the government" which is not really government at all.

  20. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by Curlz31 View Post
    They didn't sign a contract. They didn't put their individual name on the dotted lined.

    They were all witnesses.

    If you are a witness to someone doing something, and sign for them - it is NOT YOU who just "SIGNED THE CONTRACT".

    When you witness someone elses will, or legal document (loan) - it isn't YOU who is going to be making the repayments or whatever.

    Sorry hun, your social contract theory fails.
    You're so full of $#@!, Conza.

    They signed the Constitution; which is exactly what I said. Yup, they sure did.

    You lose.... HUN.


    No I'm not, though it seems you have comprehension problems? Are you?

    Please point / show me this inanimate object. Should be easy right? Go ahead.
    Government is a structure, a framework. It is not a living entity.

    I didn't realize that concept would be so difficult for you to grasp.
    Last edited by LibertyEagle; 12-13-2009 at 03:02 AM.
    ================
    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

  21. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Cool. You're a constitutionalist now, eh? ;

    Neither liberty or self-government is limited to anarchists, you know. Self-government is a term that was used by limited government conservatives, long before Murray Rothbard ever thought about anarcho-capitalism.
    Nope...

    Quote Originally Posted by AutonomousLiberty View Post
    "What do you say to people who advocate for self-government rather than a return to the Constitution? Just like ..."

    Ron Paul: "Great. Fine. And I think that's really what my goal is."

    4m5s
    youtube.com/watch?v=wFYRHZpavX4#t=4m5s
    YouTube - Ron Paul Discusses Civil Disobedience, Self-Government & More with Motorhome Diaries


    "came close to anarchism", is NOT anarchism. The fact that you would attempt twist this obvious truth to fit your own agenda is what is pathetic. lol.

    The fact still remains that Mises was not an anarchist.
    This is beyond pathetic, for a response.

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Curlz,

    Must I remind you that Mises did not agree with anarchy?
    LibertyEagle,

    Must I remind you that you are guilty of the red herring fallacy.

    Description of Red Herring

    A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

    1. Topic A is under discussion.
    2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
    3. Topic A is abandoned.

    This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim

    Do us a favor sweety, stay on topic this time... and actually address the arguments.

    Or can you not?

  22. #79
    lol. Not that stupid video again. lolol

    http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=15

    Defending the Constitution
    "For the sake of the future of our Republic, it is important that we are not just consistent, but correctly consistent. We must defend not just the sections of the Constitution we find popular, we must defend the entire Constitution. Most importantly, we must jealously guard the philosophy of freedom upon which it is based. If we do, the sound we will hear is that of liberty once again loudly ringing across our land."
    Ron Paul, Texas Straight Talk, June 21, 1999
    The most popular documents on Defending the Constitution:
    1. A Republic, Not a Democracy Ron Paul Newsletter, December 11, 2000
    2. Congress Should Read the Bills Before they Vote! Ron Paul Press Release, March 14, 2006
    3. Sorry, Mr. Franklin, "We're All Democrats Now” Ron Paul Speech to Congress, January 29, 2003
    4. Federal Courts and the Growth of Government Power Ron Paul Newsletter, January 16, 2006
    5. What Does the First Amendment Really Mean? Ron Paul Newsletter, July 1, 2002
    6. The Electoral College Serves to Protect Liberty and Statehood Ron Paul Newsletter, November 13, 2000
    7. A Republic, If You Can Keep It Ron Paul Speech to Congress, January 31, 2000
    8. Restricting the Executive Orders Ron Paul Newsletter, August 2, 1999
    9. Let liberty ring loudly. All of Constitution, not just sections, must be defended Ron Paul Newsletter, June 21, 1999

    77 other documents on Defending the Constitution:
    1. Celebrating the Fight for Freedom on the Fourth Ron Paul Congressional Blog, July 6, 2009
    2. Secession: the Ultimate States' Right Ron Paul Congressional Blog, April 27, 2009
    3. Introducing the Sunlight Rule Ron Paul Speech to Congress, March 5, 2009
    4. What's in a Bill Name? Ron Paul Congressional Blog, August 11, 2008
    5. Congressman Paul Cosponsors Engel Paul Act Ron Paul Press Release, August 4, 2008
    6. Statement on HR 6304, the FISA Amendments Ron Paul Speech to Congress, June 20, 2008
    7. Comments on the Recovery Rebates and Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 Ron Paul Speech to Congress, January 29, 2008
    8. Statement Regarding Impeachment of Vice President Cheney Ron Paul Speech to Congress, November 6, 2007
    9. Statement Introducing the American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007 Ron Paul Speech to Congress, October 15, 2007
    10. The Sunlight Rule Ron Paul Newsletter, September 16, 2007
    11. Introducing the Congressional Responsibility and Accountability Act Ron Paul Speech to Congress, August 1, 2007
    12. Signing Statements Erode Constitutional Balance Ron Paul Newsletter, July 9, 2007
    13. In the Name of Patriotism (Who are the Patriots?) Ron Paul Speech to Congress, May 22, 2007
    14. Statement on the "Sunlight Rule" Ron Paul Speech to Congress, March 3, 2006
    15. Statement on H.Res 648 [Lobbyists using the House gym] Ron Paul Speech to Congress, February 1, 2006
    16. Searching for a New Direction Ron Paul Speech to Congress, January 18, 2006
    17. Our Political Federal Courts Ron Paul Newsletter, October 19, 2005
    18. Politics and Judicial Activism Ron Paul Newsletter, August 15, 2005
    19. Hands Off the Electoral College Ron Paul Newsletter, December 27, 2004
    20. The Electoral College vs. Mob Rule Ron Paul Newsletter, November 1, 2004
    21. The Imperial Judiciary Ron Paul Newsletter, October 4, 2004
    22. Resisting Judicial Tyranny Ron Paul Newsletter, July 26, 2004
    23. End the Two-Party Monopoly! Ron Paul Speech to Congress, July 15, 2004
    24. Paul Votes to Preserve the Elected House of Representatives Ron Paul Press Release, June 3, 2004
    25. The House of Representatives Must be Elected! Ron Paul Speech to Congress, June 2, 2004
    26. Whose Justice? Ron Paul Newsletter, April 12, 2004
    27. Congress Cannot Be Appointed Ron Paul Newsletter, January 26, 2004
    28. Christmas in Secular America Ron Paul Newsletter, December 29, 2003
    29. Statement Opposing the Continuity of Government Proposal Ron Paul Speech to Congress, September 9, 2003
    30. Federal Courts and the Imaginary Constitution Ron Paul Newsletter, August 11, 2003
    31. Independence from England, Dependence on Washington? Ron Paul Newsletter, July 7, 2003
    32. The "Continuity of Government" Proposal- A Dangerous and Unnecessary Threat... Ron Paul Speech to Congress, June 30, 2003
    33. Let’s Keep All Representatives Elected Ron Paul Speech to Congress, June 4, 2003
    34. Who Should Prosecute the Snipers? Ron Paul Newsletter, November 4, 2002
    35. Is Congress Relevant with Regards to War? Ron Paul Speech to Congress, October 3, 2002
    36. Were the Founding Fathers Wrong about Foreign Affairs? Ron Paul Newsletter, April 15, 2002
    37. Statement Opposing Unconstitutional "Trade Promotion Authority" Ron Paul Speech to Congress, December 6, 2001
    38. The Real Threat of the Faith Based Initiative Ron Paul Speech to Congress, June 13, 2001
    39. Statement on the Unborn Victims of Violence Act Ron Paul Speech to Congress, April 26, 2001
    40. "Campaign Finance Reform" Serves Entrenched Interests in Washington Ron Paul Newsletter, April 9, 2001
    41. Challenge to America: A Current Assessment of Our Republic Ron Paul Speech to Congress, February 7, 2001
    42. The Ashcroft Controversy Exposes Disdain for Conservative Principles Ron Paul Newsletter, January 22, 2001
    43. The Blessings of Liberty at Christmas Ron Paul Newsletter, December 25, 2000
    44. The Conflict Between Collectivism and Liberty is Reflected in the Presidential Election Ron Paul Newsletter, November 27, 2000
    45. Older Americans Act Amendments of 2000 Ron Paul Speech to Congress, October 24, 2000
    46. Child Support Distribution Act of 2000 Ron Paul Speech to Congress, September 7, 2000
    47. U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum Authorization Act Ron Paul Speech to Congress, September 7, 2000
    48. The Disturbing Trend Toward Federal Police Ron Paul Newsletter, July 31, 2000
    49. Electoral Follies. Paul Says Gore's Plan is Hypocritical, Would Ruin Free Elections Ron Paul Newsletter, April 3, 2000
    50. Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2000 Ron Paul Speech to Congress, March 22, 2000
    51. The Year Ahead. Looking towards the 2nd Session of the 106th Congress Ron Paul Newsletter, January 3, 2000
    52. Overall Review. The First Session of the 106th Congress Ron Paul Newsletter, December 27, 1999
    53. Cosponsored Bills. 106th Congress, 1st Session Ron Paul Newsletter, December 20, 1999
    54. Taking the Next Step. Building on This Year's Victories Ron Paul Newsletter, November 29, 1999
    55. History Repeats Itself, So Let's Repeat History. A Real Solution to Executive Order... Ron Paul Newsletter, November 1, 1999
    56. Regulating gridiron prayer. Communities, not feds, should have control Ron Paul Newsletter, September 13, 1999
    57. A flood of bills of rights. Pols hide power-grab agendas behind images of liberty Ron Paul Newsletter, August 16, 1999
    58. Flag Amendment is a reckless solution Ron Paul Newsletter, June 28, 1999
    59. The war that isn't a war. Cracks forming in unconstitutional wall of war policy Ron Paul Newsletter, May 3, 1999
    60. Rein-in the President. Lack of congressional diligence has brought problems Ron Paul Newsletter, April 19, 1999
    61. Unconstitutional wars gravest of crimes Ron Paul Newsletter, December 21, 1998
    62. Religious freedom found in following Constitution Ron Paul Newsletter, June 8, 1998
    63. Federalization of crime contrary to Constitution Ron Paul Newsletter, May 18, 1998
    64. Methods employed by Congress as bad as the legislation Ron Paul Newsletter, March 30, 1998
    65. Security of the people's liberty at risk Ron Paul Newsletter, March 23, 1998
    66. US must not trample Constitution to attack Iraq Ron Paul Newsletter, February 16, 1998
    67. 1998 is a new chance to change government for better Ron Paul Newsletter, January 5, 1998
    68. Communist China shouldn't be financed by US Ron Paul Newsletter, November 10, 1997
    69. IRS reform is big news, but "fast-track" bill attacks the Constitution Ron Paul Newsletter, November 3, 1997
    70. Gun Control? Disarm The Bureaucrats! Ron Paul Newsletter, October 20, 1997
    71. FDA bill was no reform Ron Paul Newsletter, October 13, 1997
    72. US shouldn't cast stones with Religious Persecution Ron Paul Newsletter, October 6, 1997
    73. Out-of-touch Congress needs to abolish IRS, not increase it Ron Paul Newsletter, September 22, 1997
    74. If someone accepts federal cash, then they must follow rules taxpayers set... Ron Paul Newsletter, September 15, 1997
    75. Congress to tackle Education budget this week Ron Paul Newsletter, September 8, 1997
    76. Constitution must always be considered Ron Paul Newsletter, September 1, 1997
    77. Line-Item Veto violates separation of powers, threatens America's constitution... Ron Paul Newsletter, August 18, 1997

    YouTube - Ron Paul - Back to the Constitution

    Quote Originally Posted by Curlz31 View Post
    This is beyond pathetic, for a response.
    Yes, because you cannot.

    FAIL.

    ================
    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

  23. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    You're so full of $#@!, Conza.

    They signed the Constitution; which is exactly what I said. Yup, they sure did.

    You lose.... HUN.
    Nice insults sweety, how about you substitute them for a valid argument?

    It's understandable you don't have one. Sorry your childish antics don't constitute a valid proof or evidence, or anything close to an argument.

    Try again. They were witnesses. I wonder how you've gone so far in life without a basic understanding in how contracts work... must be pure luck right?

    Government is a structure that is filled with individual people.

    I didn't realize that concept would be so difficult for you to grasp.
    And thus we go back to the origional comment...

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Government is an inanimate object, Clay.
    Please point / show me this inanimate object. Should be easy right? Go ahead.

    YouTube - Does the government really exist?

    Go ahead LE, waiting...

    OH, while you are at it:

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    That is where WE THE PEOPLE were supposed to come in, Clay.

    The Anatomy of the State


    If "we are the government," then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and untyrannical but also "voluntary" on the part of the individual concerned. If the government has incurred a huge public debt which must be paid by taxing one group for the benefit of another, this reality of burden is obscured by saying that "we owe it to ourselves"; if the government conscripts a man, or throws him into jail for dissident opinion, then he is "doing it to himself" and, therefore, nothing untoward has occurred.

    Under this reasoning, any Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; instead, they must have "committed suicide," since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and, therefore, anything the government did to them was voluntary on their part. One would not think it necessary to belabor this point, and yet the overwhelming bulk of the people hold this fallacy to a greater or lesser degree.

    Response aye? Did the Jews do it to themselves, LE? Yes or no?



  24. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  25. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by newbitech View Post
    self government, family government, village government, city government, county/municipality government, state government, regional government, national government, world government, universal government.

    in that order. force and coercion have nothing to do with government. the confusion I think comes from "the government" which is not really government at all.
    I know that you support swaraj. To me, taken with what you say here, it seems when you say government you mean the natural order that arises among free individuals interacting among themselves. There will be societal norms, and acceptable/unacceptable behaviors that characterize any family, village, city, etc -- not because of top down diktats, but simply as the sum of all individual decisions and beliefs.

    In that case, I do not think there is anything inherently immoral with your conception of government, and what I support would probably be considered a subcategory of that -- a village, city, or county in which force is only tolerated for defensive purposes.
    “If you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.” -CS Lewis

    The use of force to impose morality is itself immoral, and generosity with others' money is still theft.

    If our society were a forum, congress would be the illiterate troll that somehow got a hold of the only ban hammer.

  26. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by Curlz31 View Post
    Nice insults sweety
    Oh, do you mean like this?

    Quote Originally Posted by Curlz31 View Post
    Except this is complete bull$#@!. Murray Rothbard is an anarchist, and you think he is apolitical? Wow - how retarded.

    Your objection is beyond dumb and not even close to anything sane or logical.

    Or...

    Quote Originally Posted by Curlz31 View Post
    Sorry hun, your social contract theory fails.
    Quote Originally Posted by Curlz31 View Post
    No I'm not, though it seems you have comprehension problems? Are you?
    Quote Originally Posted by Curlz31 View Post
    I wonder how you've gone so far in life without a basic understanding in how contracts work... must be pure luck right?

    If you can dish it out Conza, you'd better be able to take it.
    Last edited by LibertyEagle; 12-13-2009 at 03:20 AM.
    ================
    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

  27. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Oh, do you mean like this?
    "Sweety", "hun" - are insults? Questions are insults?

    You can say no... I was just wondering.

    Better go check out your dictionary you referred me to earlier, hey sweety.

    What I find interesting is you doing everything you possibly can to avoid matters that actually matter... and are of substance:

    Government is a structure that is filled with individual people.

    I didn't realize that concept would be so difficult for you to grasp.
    And thus we go back to the origional comment...

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Government is an inanimate object, Clay.
    Please point / show me this inanimate object. Should be easy right? Go ahead.

    YouTube - Does the government really exist?

    Go ahead LE, waiting...

    OH, while you are at it:

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    That is where WE THE PEOPLE were supposed to come in, Clay.

    The Anatomy of the State


    If "we are the government," then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and untyrannical but also "voluntary" on the part of the individual concerned. If the government has incurred a huge public debt which must be paid by taxing one group for the benefit of another, this reality of burden is obscured by saying that "we owe it to ourselves"; if the government conscripts a man, or throws him into jail for dissident opinion, then he is "doing it to himself" and, therefore, nothing untoward has occurred.

    Under this reasoning, any Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; instead, they must have "committed suicide," since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and, therefore, anything the government did to them was voluntary on their part. One would not think it necessary to belabor this point, and yet the overwhelming bulk of the people hold this fallacy to a greater or lesser degree.

    Response aye? Did the Jews do it to themselves, LE? Yes or no?

  28. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by Curlz31 View Post



    Please point / show me this inanimate object. Should be easy right? Go ahead.
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/object

    you are staring at it.

    –noun 1. anything that is visible or tangible and is relatively stable in form. 2. a thing, person, or matter to which thought or action is directed: an object of medical investigation. 3. the end toward which effort or action is directed; goal; purpose: Profit is the object of business. 4. a person or thing with reference to the impression made on the mind or the feeling or emotion elicited in an observer: an object of curiosity and pity. 5. anything that may be apprehended intellectually: objects of thought. 6. Optics. the thing of which a lens or mirror forms an image. 7. Grammar. (in many languages, as English) a noun, noun phrase, or noun substitute representing by its syntactical position either the goal of the action of a verb or the goal of a preposition in a prepositional phrase, as ball in John hit the ball, Venice in He came to Venice, coin and her in He gave her a coin. Compare direct object, indirect object. 8. Computers. any item that can be individually selected or manipulated, as a picture, data file, or piece of text. 9. Metaphysics. something toward which a cognitive act is directed.


    for instance, as much as Molyneux rants about "the government", nothing seems to change. So what is he ranting on about again? Oh must be nothing.

    Thanks for clearing that up Curlonza
    Last edited by newbitech; 12-13-2009 at 03:31 AM.

  29. #85
    Yup, Curlz = Conza. You absolutely gave it away when you started quoting yourself. That was one of Conza's favorite things to do. That, and increasing the font size and using loud colors, when he got frustrated.
    ================
    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

  30. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by Curlz31 View Post
    Nice insults sweety
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle
    You lose.... HUN.
    Allright you two, get a room or something

    I would like to point out that advocating that the government return to the constitution does not imply that one is not a voluntaryist. I'd be proud to have written all those articles. You have to walk before you can fly, after all, and more liberty is better than none at all.
    “If you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.” -CS Lewis

    The use of force to impose morality is itself immoral, and generosity with others' money is still theft.

    If our society were a forum, congress would be the illiterate troll that somehow got a hold of the only ban hammer.

  31. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by newbitech View Post
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/object

    you are staring at it.

    –noun 1. anything that is visible or tangible and is relatively stable in form. 2. a thing, person, or matter to which thought or action is directed: an object of medical investigation. 3. the end toward which effort or action is directed; goal; purpose: Profit is the object of business. 4. a person or thing with reference to the impression made on the mind or the feeling or emotion elicited in an observer: an object of curiosity and pity. 5. anything that may be apprehended intellectually: objects of thought. 6. Optics. the thing of which a lens or mirror forms an image. 7. Grammar. (in many languages, as English) a noun, noun phrase, or noun substitute representing by its syntactical position either the goal of the action of a verb or the goal of a preposition in a prepositional phrase, as ball in John hit the ball, Venice in He came to Venice, coin and her in He gave her a coin. Compare direct object, indirect object. 8. Computers. any item that can be individually selected or manipulated, as a picture, data file, or piece of text. 9. Metaphysics. something toward which a cognitive act is directed.


    for instance, as much as Molyneux rants about "the government", nothing seems to change. So what is he ranting on about again? Oh must be nothing.

    Thanks for clearing that up Curlonza
    Please point / show me this inanimate object.

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Yup, Curlz = Conza. You absolutely gave it away when you started quoting yourself. That was one of Conza's favorite things to do. That, and increasing the font size and using loud colors, when he got frustrated.
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Government is an inanimate object, Clay.
    Please point / show me this inanimate object. Should be easy right? Go ahead.

    YouTube - Does the government really exist?

    Waiting.. thanks in advanced:

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    That is where WE THE PEOPLE were supposed to come in, Clay.

    The Anatomy of the State


    If "we are the government," then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and untyrannical but also "voluntary" on the part of the individual concerned. If the government has incurred a huge public debt which must be paid by taxing one group for the benefit of another, this reality of burden is obscured by saying that "we owe it to ourselves"; if the government conscripts a man, or throws him into jail for dissident opinion, then he is "doing it to himself" and, therefore, nothing untoward has occurred.

    Under this reasoning, any Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; instead, they must have "committed suicide," since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and, therefore, anything the government did to them was voluntary on their part. One would not think it necessary to belabor this point, and yet the overwhelming bulk of the people hold this fallacy to a greater or lesser degree.

    Response please? Did the Jews do it to themselves, LE? Yes or no?

  32. #88



  33. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  34. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Yup, Curlz = Conza. You absolutely gave it away when you started quoting yourself. That was one of Conza's favorite things to do. That, and increasing the font size and using loud colors, when he got frustrated.
    yeah I have heard the ol, "its my friends computer" quite a few times since the internet has been around.

    whoever this guy is in real life, he obviously planned on having several forum accounts here for the day when he'd inevitably be banned. I am sure now he has another personality built up that he's kept dormant, which is why he is looking to commit forum suicide once again. Basically the same old song and dance.

    That pissed me off more than anything. Its no wonder he spreads Molyneux crap around like he does. Molyneux wouldn't be so bad if he would just try to reach out to people. Not sure what Molyneux gets off the fringe anarch vs minarch debate. I seriously doubt Moly is interested in advancing the cause in liberty in the United States. Nothing I have heard out of his mouth has indicated that is his intentions. W/E, I'd still rather people discern Moly than some other political hacks like a Palin or McCain or Algore for instance.

  35. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by Curlz31 View Post
    Spam

    really? nothing to say? psshhh.....

Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-10-2013, 06:39 PM
  2. Question about Ron Paul's Defense of Liberty
    By swmmr1928 in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-14-2011, 08:40 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-17-2010, 03:28 PM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-12-2008, 09:49 PM
  5. An Open Letter to Dr. Ron Paul - In Defense of Liberty
    By hard@work in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 09-11-2007, 11:32 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
  •