Please convince me of statism!

[Anti Federalist]

I would have respected him a lot more if he would have kept his mouth shut about it and helped to get Ron Paul elected. Because then, we would be on a path to make sure that we didn't have a repeat of what happened to Guerena.

I'm not sure what electing Ron Paul to the postion of POTUS would effect at the local police level.

[pcosmar]

I would have respected him a lot more if he would have kept his mouth shut about it and helped to get Ron Paul elected. Because then, we would be on a path to make sure that we didn't have a repeat of what happened to Guerena.

It is apparent from both his statements and the reaction that the machine politics is still firmly opposed to Ron Paul, and to Liberty at all. I have no doubt they would have negated any effect from him in favor of Ron.

I'm not sure what electing Ron Paul to the postion of POTUS would effect at the local police level.

Well that is yet to be seen, But I can extrapolate several changes.
The absence of Government funds and the disappearance of a few agencies for a start.
The end of Fusion Centers and the SPLC's influence. (training and oversight)
The very likely END of the War on Drugs.
A presidential respect for the 2nd amendment. (and likely changes in gun law)

Any or all of these would have a distinct affect.

[heavenlyboy34]

It is apparent from both his statements and the reaction that the machine politics is still firmly opposed to Ron Paul, and to Liberty at all. I have no doubt they would have negated any effect from him in favor of Ron.



Well that is yet to be seen, But I can extrapolate several changes.
The absence of Government funds and the disappearance of a few agencies for a start.
The end of Fusion Centers and the SPLC's influence. (training and oversight)
The very likely END of the War on Drugs.
A presidential respect for the 2nd amendment. (and likely changes in gun law)

Any or all of these would have a distinct affect.

How can the POTUS affect the bolded? Do you mean by putting pressure on the legislature and the various states to change unfriendly state gun laws?

[Anti Federalist]

Well that is yet to be seen, But I can extrapolate several changes.
The absence of Government funds and the disappearance of a few agencies for a start.
The end of Fusion Centers and the SPLC's influence. (training and oversight)
The very likely END of the War on Drugs.
A presidential respect for the 2nd amendment. (and likely changes in gun law)

Any or all of these would have a distinct affect.

True enough.

[pcosmar]

How can the POTUS affect the bolded? Do you mean by putting pressure on the legislature and the various states to change unfriendly state gun laws?

(and likely changes in gun law)

Eliminating the ATF and Federal Firearms licenses.
By pardoning ALL NON crime Gun Offenses. (possession, transportation, sales)

And beyond that pushing for repeal of the GCA's from 1934 on.
Supporting and encouraging the Constitutional Militia.

[LibertyEagle]

It is apparent from both his statements and the reaction that the machine politics is still firmly opposed to Ron Paul, and to Liberty at all. I have no doubt they would have negated any effect from him in favor of Ron.

Is this news to you? That is exactly why we were asked to "become" the Republican party and get positioned the best that we could. This was never going to be a cake walk. But, these guys flushed their gains down the proverbial toilet for the pleasure of spouting off on one issue that would have absolutely no impact on what had happened. It was shortsighted and extremely foolish.

[LibertyEagle]

Geez guys, sometimes when I read what you post it sounds like you don't believe Ron Paul has a shot in hell.

[heavenlyboy34]

(and likely changes in gun law)

Eliminating the ATF and Federal Firearms licenses.
By pardoning ALL NON crime Gun Offenses. (possession, transportation, sales)

And beyond that pushing for repeal of the GCA's from 1934 on.
Supporting and encouraging the Constitutional Militia.

I didn't know the POTUS had the power to do that (underlined above). I could've sworn that was congress' job. I learn something new from RPFs every day. Thanks!

[pcosmar]

Geez guys, sometimes when I read what you post it sounds like you don't believe Ron Paul has a shot in hell.

I do believe he has a chance, But it is slim. And he will only get the nomination begrudgingly if at all.

We can get a seat at the table in some places. But not the head of the table,, at least not until a lot of old guard dies off. (20 or 30 years). I don't expect much from the GOP.

[pcosmar]

I didn't know the POTUS had the power to do that (underlined above). I could've sworn that was congress' job. I learn something new from RPFs every day. Thanks!

I'm not sure either. But he has spoken of eliminating agencies.
Were they created by congress? or by the stroke of a pen?

I do know he opposes them, and plans to eliminate them.

[A Son of Liberty]

I live in a pretty "Republican" area. The sort of place where people get offended when a Democratic president or Congress spends too much money, but nary a peep is heard when a Republican does. The sort of place where a lot of people think teh mooslims hate us for our freedomz.

My local GOP is NOT going to be converted, nor co-opted. I have better luck with left-leaning folks around here.

I'm not going to sit here and make presumptions about the circumstances Miller was working in. He took a stand on an issue that the rest of the members in his local organization SHOULD BE PROUD OF, and if they're not TO HELL WITH THEM. There's more than one way to skin a cat, as I well know... and the longer a person lies in bed with a bunch of vipers, the more likely he ends up bit. It's entirely likely that Miller scored points with independents and left-ish folks for taking his stand. Some of us don't like compromising our principles just so we don't offend the local GOP.

And pardon me but I'm getting a little tired of some of the preaching that goes on around here... some of you folks don't know what it's like on the ground in some of our counties and districts, so spouting off and calling people morons and/or decreeing that certain statements by some Ron Paul supporters do damage to the campaign is a whole lot of self-importance and little else in my book.

[Anti Federalist]

Valid points.

I'm really concerned about the direction this is going.

It's bad enough to suggest that the only way to "win" is to sit on your hands, smile politely and shut up about critical issues.

The vibe I'm catching now is: it's not just enough to do that, you had better be prepared to lie about what you think.

I live in a pretty "Republican" area. The sort of place where people get offended when a Democratic president or Congress spends too much money, but nary a peep is heard when a Republican does. The sort of place where a lot of people think teh mooslims hate us for our freedomz.

My local GOP is NOT going to be converted, nor co-opted. I have better luck with left-leaning folks around here.

I'm not going to sit here and make presumptions about the circumstances Miller was working in. He took a stand on an issue that the rest of the members in his local organization SHOULD BE PROUD OF, and if they're not TO HELL WITH THEM. There's more than one way to skin a cat, as I well know... and the longer a person lies in bed with a bunch of vipers, the more likely he ends up bit. It's entirely likely that Miller scored points with independents and left-ish folks for taking his stand. Some of us don't like compromising our principles just so we don't offend the local GOP.

And pardon me but I'm getting a little tired of some of the preaching that goes on around here... some of you folks don't know what it's like on the ground in some of our counties and districts, so spouting off and calling people morons and/or decreeing that certain statements by some Ron Paul supporters do damage to the campaign is a whole lot of self-importance and little else in my book.

[A Son of Liberty]

Valid points.

I'm really concerned about the direction this is going.

It's bad enough to suggest that the only way to "win" is to sit on your hands, smile politely and shut up about critical issues.

The vibe I'm catching now is: it's not just enough to do that, you had better be prepared to lie about what you think.

I think that's exactly the suggestion. That sort of thing leads one down some pretty awful roads.

Jose Guerena was murdered, in cold blood, in his home by the state. There is no way around that fact. To suggest that a person should keep from speaking out against that sort of thing is reprehensible, in my opinion.

Yeah, count me out of that sort of thing. If the local GOP want to defend cops who gun down innocent people, then guess what? I'm calling those people out. At what point are we supposed to speak up, if not when innocent people are murdered?

Disgusting...

[mport1]

What are your arguments for the state as defined above?

There are none. Good job, looks like you have things figured out just fine

[Danke]

Why was Conza banned...again?

[Conza88]

Why was Conza banned...again?

Way too many anti-state threads of mine all over the 'new posts' section. Dangerous, dangerous, dangerous. Seriously though, no reason was given. And it seems like they don't think they even need to . I believe someone asked for a specific quotation / reference point and misdirection was provided instead.

I'd just like to also point out - noone has yet made an argument for the state, to justify it's existence. I am led to believe that it is impossible, yes?

The fact that you have no arguments - means you then move onto the question of strategy... which is completely irrelevant. That discussion is something that can be had elsewhere if it is so wished.

However, this thread is related specifically to justification of the state.

I want the moderators to delete every single post in here that is a RED HERRING and talks about strategy... pointlessly so and make a new thread. Do your job thanks.

[Jake Ralston]

Why was Conza banned...again?

Probably because he is a troll that relies on divide and conquer tactics to create problems within a forum that is working overtime to get a certain man elected as Head of the State. Yes, Head of the STATE.

I for one have already debunked Conza88 by simply and thoroughly refusing to accept his philosophical ideals. Conza88 knows that no matter how hard he tries, I will never accept Anarchy or Voluntaryism. Conza88 knows that it's not a matter of logic, morality, or who is right and who is wrong. It's a matter of my own personal lifestyle that I choose to support. And best of all, he's not American, nor even physically in America, so he can't try the tired fallacy of claiming that I "suppress" him with my support of the state.

Anyways, who goes to McDonald's and demands they stop serving burgers? Welcome to Conza88's world ladies and gentlemen.

It's okay though, one of these days he will realize that his efforts are in vain. I mean imagine if he withdrew all the effort towards the unnattainable Utopian Anarchy and put it towards something worthwhile like, oh I don't know, helping Ron Paul get elected?

[Jake Ralston]

I want the moderators to delete every single post in here that is a RED HERRING

RED HERRING: "Red herring is an idiomatic expression referring to the rhetorical or literary tactic of diverting attention away from an item of significance."

CONZA88 you are the definition of a Red Herring. Because the "item of significance" here is trying to get Ron Paul supported and elected. Something you know nothing about because you resort to divide and conquer tactics, diverting attention to ANARCHY (chaos) and do nothing to contribute to the significance of Ron Paul.

[Conza88]

Probably because he is a troll that relies on divide and conquer tactics to create problems within a forum that is working overtime to get a certain man elected as Head of the State. Yes, Head of the STATE.

I for one have already debunked Conza88 by simply and thoroughly refusing to accept his philosophical ideals. Conza88 knows that no matter how hard he tries, I will never accept Anarchy or Voluntaryism. Conza88 knows that it's not a matter of logic, morality, or who is right and who is wrong. It's a matter of my own personal lifestyle that I choose to support. And best of all, he's not American, nor even physically in America, so he can't try the tired fallacy of claiming that I "suppress" him with my support of the state.

Anyways, who goes to McDonald's and demands they stop serving burgers? Welcome to Conza88's world ladies and gentlemen.

It's okay though, one of these days he will realize that his efforts are in vain. I mean imagine if he withdrew all the effort towards the unnattainable Utopian Anarchy and put it towards something worthwhile like, oh I don't know, helping Ron Paul get elected?

A "troll" that has done more for the liberty movement ala Ron Paul, than you have. How's that make you feel? If I'm a troll, then what on earth does that make you?

No doubt this is merely an attempt to try get a rise out of me, in the hopes of me providing ya'll with an excuse so I can get banned again - and it seem "justified". Really, whose the troll now? Your last two posts SCREAM it bro . Will the mods do anything, of course not.

No-one has said Ron Paul supports anarchy as YOU define it [chaos], or how Mises defines it. NO-ONE HERE EVEN USES THE WORD, THE MINARCHIST TROLLS are the ones who cannot let it go.. it's delusional.

Ron Paul -> his own words; he supports self-government over a return to the constitution. It is his end goal.

His words, his words, his words, his words, in context, in context... how do you interpret that? What on earth do you think it means? lmao!

Ron Paul: "government planning leads to chaos"

You guys are going to die, and you're still retain your cognitive dissonance.. stuck in a world of delusional self contradictions. Pathetic.

But really... just another bs red herring...

WHAT IS YOUR ARGUMENT FOR THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE STATE? Do you even have one?!

[Jake Ralston]

You guys are going to die, and you're still retain your cognitive dissonance.. stuck in a world of delusional self contradictions. Pathetic.

Silence troll!

Your fallacy-bound, argumentative attempts at entrapment are easily seen from far away. You are the self-embodyment of a red-herring.

Take your philosophical ideals and spread them like cancer in your own country. You are not one of us.

I will never accept your foolish attempts of Utopia. I will be 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!

[A Son of Liberty]

lol what a joke...

[Conza88]

Every single individual who has participated in this thread [and doesn't consider Ron Paul a voluntarist] is or has been guilty of using this in the present/past: Argumentum ad nauseam.

Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repitition). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again. But no matter how many times you repeat something, it will not become any more or less true than it was in the first place. Of course, it is not a fallacy to state the truth again and again; what is fallacious is to expect the repitition alone to substitute for real arguments.

Nonetheless, this is a very popular fallacy in debate, and with good reason: the more times you say something, the more likely it is that the judge will remember it. The first thing they'll teach you in any public speaking course is that you should "Tell 'em what you're gonna tell 'em, then tell 'em, and then tell 'em what you told 'em." Unfortunately, some debaters think that's all there is to it, with no substantiation necessary! The appropriate time to mention argumentum ad nauseam in a debate round is when the other team has made some assertion, failed to justify it, and then stated it again and again. The Latin wording is particularly nice here, since it is evocative of what the opposition's assertions make you want to do: retch. "Sir, our opponents tell us drugs are wrong, drugs are wrong, drugs are wrong, again and again and again. But this argumentum ad nauseam can't and won't win this debate for them, because they've given us no justification for their bald assertions!"

Jake Ralston, do you have a valid argument that supports the concept of a state [as defined in the OP]?

[angelatc]

Don't need to convince you of it. That's kind of the point.

[Conza88]

Don't need to convince you of it. That's kind of the point.

[Jake Ralston]

Jake Ralston, do you have a valid argument that supports the concept of a state [as defined in the OP]?

Conza88, I don't have enough respect for you to loan even half an effort towards proving a concept, idea, or principle. Nor do I feel any obligation to do so.

I know you've been told this before, and once you even acknowledged it. You are a terrible salesman. The "product" (idea, whatever) you are selling is not in the least bit appealing to the vast majority of humans. In your mind, it is perfectly logical and moral. Most disagree with you. The odds are stacked heavily against you, and you know it. To be blunt about it, you will never find your utopian Anarchy. You will spend your years reading about it, arguing and debating, and then going home banging your head against the wall in frustration. So much dedication, effort and time spent towards something you will never see come to fruition. But hey, maybe your laying the framework down for future generations, right? Which brings me back to my first point, your a terrible salesman. Your not helping the cause of Anarchy. There are a few reasons why you come here to the RPForums to unleash your rage:

1. Libertarians and Ron Paul supporters alike are some of the most intellectually honest people in the world. They know and care about politics.
2. The above mentioned cherish liberty and limited government, which in most cases is a few steps short of your goal.

You know you don't even stand a chance at converting the normal "sheeple" of the world. The people that follow the status quo, suck off the teet of the entitlement system, don't give a rats ass about politics, or even care to discuss it.

So you come here, with your condiscending attitude, your smartass remarks, your fallacies, your "logic" and "facts" and "intellectual honesty", your 90 minute youtube videos and 200 page articles, and everything else that comes with it. Yet you still fail.

One of these days you will need to acknowledge that those of us who decide we don't like your idea, simply don't want it. There is no arguing about it, no PROVING to you that our personal views of the State are justified in some way that makes sense to you. Anarchy is a no-go, and thats final.

So what does that mean for me (us)?

We are the following:

1. Intellectually dishonest.
2. Close minded.
3. Ignorant.
4. Lost.
5. Bound by fallacies.
6. ?
7. ?
8. ?

I left a few openings for you to insert any vocabulary that you see fit. But it doesn't matter. If we don't care about you or your ideas, we don't care which vocabulary you use to describe us. And it really shouldn't matter to you anyways, because you failed. You need people to join your cause. And when for whatever reason they don't, thats a failure on your end.

So what are you going to do about it? Keep spam posting? Keep spitting venom? Keep linking 90 minute youtube videos and 200 page blogs?

How about man-up and move on.

Try talking about Ron Paul and what your doing to help him get elected. Talk about activism or donating money to the cause. Find areas you can agree with people on and appreciate that, expand on it. Make friends from different walks of life. Broaden your horizons.

Or are you consumed by insanity? Trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?

[Conza88]

Do you still do drugs Jake?

Fallacy: Ad Hominem

"Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."...

Jake Ralston, do you have a valid argument that supports the concept of a state [as defined in the OP]?

No? Then be man enough to admit you have no legitimate basis for your beliefs... don't hide behind an irrational & invective filled diatribe... which has nothing to do with the OP.

[libertyjam]

The fact that you have no arguments - means you then move onto the question of strategy... which is completely irrelevant. That discussion is something that can be had elsewhere if it is so wished.

.

I don't believe that there are no arguments, just there are no arguments that you accept. Also it is false to claim that just because no arguments have been made directly to you, that there are no arguments.

[Conza88]

I don't believe that there are no arguments, just there are no arguments that you accept. Also it is false to claim that just because no arguments have been made directly to you, that there are no arguments.

Excuse me? Lmao! . Yeah, and it's a strawman to attribute that claim to me. Please link and quote me the arguments made that justify the existence of the state in this thread. What did I miss?

Regardless of their non-existence, can you please go ahead and provide those arguments you contend as existing and we will use reason & logic to see if they are valid.

[libertyjam]

Jake Ralston, do you have a valid argument that supports the concept of a state [as defined in the OP]?

I had to go back and see what this concept of the state as defined in the OP is, and I daresay most reject the definition out of hand, it contains so many errors.
Nor will I and I suspect most others waste time even arguing about it, there are much more important fish to fry for most . It may make an interesting discussion someday pointing out all the fallacies of Hans-Herman Hoppe and his faulty premises, and maybe someone will take you up on it, provided of course you are someone a person actually could have a rational discourse with and not merely the cudgel beating with words type that we see with others here.

[Conza88]

I had to go back and see what this concept of the state as defined in the OP is, and I daresay most reject the definition out of hand, it contains so many errors.
Nor will I and I suspect most others waste time even arguing about it, there are much more important fish to fry for most . It may make an interesting discussion someday pointing out all the fallacies of Hans-Herman Hoppe and his faulty premises, and maybe someone will take you up on it, provided of course you are someone a person actually could have a rational discourse with and not merely the cudgel beating with words type that we see with others here.

Oh great... so you didn't even read the OP before commenting? You just decided to weigh-in, in a state of ignorance? That's exactly what you just admitted.

*sigh*.

Why am I not surprised by this response?

What errors? What on earth is wrong with it? All I am after in this world is the truth. It's the reason I currently hold this intellectual position, I think what I accept is. And yet that is always the case for most people, so the key is being intellectually honest with an open mind. Premises often need to be questioned. I once believed what you do [check this forum, the posts would still be there]. I was shown the contradictions I held, and so I moved to the better argument. I don't like being wrong.. so when that happens I am easy in accepting that and acknowledging it, because then I won't have to be again [until someone else presents a better argument that refutes my position], and so on it goes.

And yet... surely if I'm acting like a pompous ass-clown [as some would no doubt content] & surely if those exact same people had reason, logic, evidence and truth on their side - they'd be able to show me the error of my ways & school me like there is no tomorrow, to put my ignorant & arrogant ass in it's proper place.

But it's not like they've even tried... perhaps it's because deep down they know... there is no justification for the state. Or is there? , I'm all ears .