Statelessness vs. the State

[Travlyr]

There is no contest... only understanding.

Ludwig von Mises states,

We call the social apparatus of compulsion and coercion that induces people to abide by the rules of life in society, the state; the rules according to which the state proceeds, law; and the organs charged with the responsibility of administering the apparatus of compulsion, government.

The state of controlling rulers is required to maintain liberty, peace, and prosperity.

[Dick Chaney]

So was this guy anti-state as in anti-federal government or anti-state as in anti-state government?

[Travlyr]

So was this guy anti-state as in anti-federal government or anti-state as in anti-state government?

How about anti-county... anti-township ... anti-city... anti-girlfriend? Who actually rules?

[Dick Chaney]

How about anti-county... anti-township ... anti-city... anti-girlfriend? Who actually rules?

Without the state government the federal government would have swallowed the entire republic by now.... what are you, a big government guy?

[Travlyr]

Without the state government the federal government would have swallowed the entire republic by now.... what are you, a big government guy?

Turn your TV off and your radio. I would suggest you read history. It is the girlfriend who controls society.

[Dick Chaney]

Turn you TV off. I would suggest you read history. It is the girlfriend who controls society.

okay, well apparently you just want to waste my time and not have a serious conversation, so I'll leave this thread.

[Travlyr]

okay, well apparently you just want to waste my time and not have a serious conversation, so I'll leave this thread.

Yes, Dick. Understanding is simply a waste of time.

[Travlyr]

Dick,
This thread comes from a much deeper thoughtful thread, but few people can handle the truth. Can you? If so, then debate honestly.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4727040

[Dick Chaney]

My TV is off, my radio is off, and I do read history. States rights is the only tool America has to defend itself from the federal governments bull $#@!.

[Travlyr]

My TV is off, my radio is off, and I do read history. States rights is the only tool America has to defend itself from the federal governments bull $#@!.

The federal government is an illegitimate government. What they have is fake money, fake power, and a propaganda machine. They do not have the right to "kill lists." They kill people because they have an unlimited money supply, a military/police force, and the TV.

It is called "Statelessness" or "Anarchy." A legitimate state would put a stop to it. That is the purpose of a legitimate "State."

[beaven]

The reality of government, in some form, is part of our humanity. We are born into families, the basic form of government, where certain persons (parents) lead, have power, and act for the good of all members. Families can form bonds with other families to promote mutual good. But these bonds should be voluntary and easily dissolved when their purpose no longer serves the members of the family. For bigger governments, their only real value is to act as a place-keeper. That is, since they exist, some other won't occupy their spot. The idea is for that government to exist but exert as little power over others as possible while fending off others from becoming government.

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

Until humanity learns to comply, and abide, with the non-aggression axiom. Humanity will always need at the MAXIMUM, a small-limited government. I consider myself a Minarchist-Libertarian with Anarchist Tendencies. I see the potential in a world without the state, but I also acknowledge the logical reality that man cannot be trusted in a world without government.

Humanity as a whole must comply with the non-aggression axiom, if they wish to create a world without the state, and heaven on earth.

[Travlyr]

The reality of government, in some form, is part of our humanity. We are born into families, the basic form of government, where certain persons (parents) lead, have power, and act for the good of all members. Families can form bonds with other families to promote mutual good. But these bonds should be voluntary and easily dissolved when their purpose no longer serves the members of the family. For bigger governments, their only real value is to act as a place-keeper. That is, since they exist, some other won't occupy their spot. The idea is for that government to exist but exert as little power over others as possible while fending off others from becoming government.

Exactly. There is no escaping the state. Therefore, the state must be designed to be as benign as possible.

[muzzled dogg]

nice for a fb status post

[noneedtoaggress]

The reality of government, in some form, is part of our humanity. We are born into families, the basic form of government, where certain persons (parents) lead, have power, and act for the good of all members. Families can form bonds with other families to promote mutual good. But these bonds should be voluntary and easily dissolved when their purpose no longer serves the members of the family. For bigger governments, their only real value is to act as a place-keeper. That is, since they exist, some other won't occupy their spot. The idea is for that government to exist but exert as little power over others as possible while fending off others from becoming government.

Right, but families are not states. Anarcho-capitalism is anti-state, specifically, as a form of governance. It's not "anti-governance" as a whole, but says that institutions of governance should be open to a competitive market and funded voluntarily.

If a family were to look like the state, the parents would be putting their kids to work to support them and their rule "for the benefit of the family". The parents would end up living off their children coercing them to support the collective "family unit" and would have incentives to not allow them to leave or pursue independence. When the children began to grow into adulthood and seek independence and rebel, there would be a crackdown likely making everyone's lives miserable in an attempt to maintain the power structure.

"Statelessness" doesn't mean there is no governance whatsoever. It means there is no statist monopoly on governmental institutions.

[Travlyr]

States are born from the idea of individual land rights. Surveying land, establishing boundaries, enacting trespassing laws, and protecting land rights is an aggressive move against the rest of society. Don't trespass on my land. Do not trespass in my house. Do not trample on my garden. Do not steal my livestock. And laws are born. The state comes with individual land rights.

[Travlyr]

Until humanity learns to comply, and abide, with the non-aggression axiom. Humanity will always need at the MAXIMUM, a small-limited government. I consider myself a Minarchist-Libertarian with Anarchist Tendencies. I see the potential in a world without the state, but I also acknowledge the logical reality that man cannot be trusted in a world without government.

Humanity as a whole must comply with the non-aggression axiom, if they wish to create a world without the state, and heaven on earth.

That is centuries away... not decades.

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

That is centuries away... not decades.

More than likely. But, I don't attempt to make that assumption. Perhaps the ills of this government, will result in this rapid era of enlightenment necessary.

[Travlyr]

More than likely. But, I don't attempt to make that assumption. Perhaps the ills of this government, will result in this rapid era of enlightenment necessary.

Hope is eternal. Until then a legitimate state is the only hope for liberty, peace, and prosperity. This is the Earth and the Earth is not Utopia.

[A Son of Liberty]

You said that you would copy and paste all of the posts from the other thread into this one, which would necessitate that it would be found in the Philosophy subforum, based upon board rules. I had no idea this thread was here until it turned up on the popular threads list on the cover page.

At this point, I think we'd just as well continue with the existing thread.

[Agorism]

Exactly. There is no escaping the state. Therefore, the state must be designed to be as benign as possible.

Ancient iceland and ireland as well were used as models for having competing states not based on geography where u could leave one and join another or form your own.

If that's too extreme you can just support a trend of decentralization. meaning try to get rid of the federal government, try to weaken states, try to weaken townships, etc.

[Travlyr]

You said that you would copy and paste all of the posts from the other thread into this one, which would necessitate that it would be found in the Philosophy subforum, based upon board rules. I had no idea this thread was here until it turned up on the popular threads list on the cover page.

At this point, I think we'd just as well continue with the existing thread.

I am lazy like everyone else.

[Travlyr]

Ancient iceland and ireland as well were used as models for having competing states not based on geography where u could leave one and join another or form your own.

If that's too extreme you can just support a trend of decentralization. meaning try to get rid of the federal government, try to weaken states, try to weaken townships, etc.

Tiny tiny populations.

[Henry Rogue]

There came a point in my life where the republican ideas of Liberty and Free market did not work for me any more. I knew of Libertarians before that and had this feeling in my gut so to speak that I was one. So I set out to define libertarian. Came across these videos that were meant for beginners.
the first one made sense to me.

The second I thought ok i get it, but I don't see how a Free Market would prevent a foreign invasion or any form of government rising with in. Video sounds like somebody reading to a child.

The third just scared the crap out of me. So i get to trade a government police army for a bunch of Pinkertons no thanks i just want to be left to defend myself.

This is the point that I learned what a An-Cap was. New to me. Now being around An-Caps on this forum i like them, polite and smart and i generally agree with them on economics, but not the role of government or lack there of. I guess it comes down to how much government each of us is willing to tolerate. Tolerate not the best word choice, because we all tolerate a heck of a lot.

[Travlyr]

There came a point in my life where the republican ideas of Liberty and Free market did not work for me any more. I knew of Libertarians before that and had this feeling in my gut so to speak that I was one. So I set out to define libertarian. Came across these videos that were meant for beginners.
the first one made sense to me.

The second I thought ok i get it, but I don't see how a Free Market would prevent a foreign invasion or any form of government rising with in. Video sounds like somebody reading to a child.

The third just scared the crap out of me. So i get to trade a government police army for a bunch of Pinkertons no thanks i just want to be left to defend myself.

This is the point that I learned what a An-Cap was. New to me. Now being around An-Caps on this forum i like them, polite and smart and i generally agree with them on economics, but not the role of government or lack there of. I guess it comes down to how much government each of us is willing to tolerate. Tolerate not the best word choice, because we all tolerate a heck of a lot.

Those videos are as lazy as I am. None of them understand "Human Action" like Mises does. As a matter of fact, very few people can even understand what Mises writes. Only 1% can read Mises. The 99% simply can't do it.

[Cabal]

Those videos are as lazy as I am. None of them understand "Human Action" like Mises does. As a matter of fact, very few people can even understand what Mises writes. Only 1% can read Mises. The 99% simply can't do it.

Yes, that's it. You're intellectually superior to 99% of the human population. That's obviously the answer. Unfortunately you fail at tenses, and/or you believe that Mises is still alive, which tends to work against that [absurd] conclusion. Alternatively, you're just pulling random numbers directly out of your ass, which is probably why they smell so bad.

[Henry Rogue]

Those videos are as lazy as I am. None of them understand "Human Action" like Mises does. As a matter of fact, very few people can even understand what Mises writes. Only 1% can read Mises. The 99% simply can't do it.

Yeah, I haven't even started to tackle Mises yet. I'll work my way to it someday.

[heavenlyboy34]

Yes, that's it. You're intellectually superior to 99% of the human population. That's obviously the answer. Unfortunately you fail at tenses, and/or you believe that Mises is still alive, which tends to work against that [absurd] conclusion. Alternatively, you're just pulling random numbers directly out of your ass, which is probably why they smell so bad.

lolz I suggest the ignore function. It's much less frustrating than trying to reason with an extremely unreasonable person like Trav.

[Cabal]

Yeah, I haven't even started to tackle Mises yet. I'll work my way to it someday.

Don't let him fool you. Human Action may seem daunting, but it's really not too bad.

lolz I suggest the ignore function. It's much less frustrating than trying to reason with an extremely unreasonable person like Trav.

Lol. Nah, I learned not to bother trying to reason with him. He's made it abundantly clear that he has no regard for reason. But I don't mind pointing out how much of a derp he is.

[Travlyr]

Don't let him fool you. Human Action may seem daunting, but it's really not too bad.



Lol. Nah, I learned not to bother trying to reason with him. He's made it abundantly clear that he has no regard for reason. But I don't mind pointing out how much of a derp he is.

Yet HB34 is not intellectually able to read Mises himself.