Anarchist ProIndividual Proves Government is Necessary Through His Actions

[Travlyr]

Here is what ProIndividual currently has in his signature here on the forums.

"My goal is to expose the anarchist philosophy for what it is... a lie." - Travlyr

"You guys have been lying to your recruits for years. Rothbard advocates for minimal government..." - Travlyr

"As far as I'm concerned, and I think the rest of the movement, too, we are anarcho-capitalists. In other words, we believe that capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism." - Rothbard

ProIndividual intentionally cut out the last half of my quote after 'Rothbard advocates for minimal government...' because that is where I pointed out that Rothbard himself agreed that minimal government is necessary in his concluding remarks in "For a New Liberty"

"The libertarian creed, finally, offers the fulfillment of the best of the American past along with the promise of a far better future. Even more than conservatives, who are often attached to the monarchical traditions of a happily obsolete European past, libertarians are squarely in the great classical liberal tradition that built the United States and bestowed on us the American heritage of individual liberty, a peaceful foreign policy, minimal government, and a free-market economy. Libertarians are the only genuine current heirs of Jefferson, Paine, Jackson, and the abolitionists." - Murray N. Rothbard

The point that I was trying to make in that original conversation was that Rothbard was inconsistent with his message, yet he understood the need for minimal government. Even if very minimal. A benign state.

Here is what ProIndividual has in his signature on another forum.

"If you have the ability to govern yourself, then you have the right to govern yourself, and all external government is tyranny." - Benjamin Tucker

The part of Tucker's quote that ProIndividual misses, which proves the failure of anarchy, is that ProIndividual is incapable of governing himself. He refuses to remove the false quote when asked. This is quite trivial except to prove the point. Anyone can misquote someone else to make it sound like they wrote something other than what was actually written. Again it is posted in his signature so it is constantly in front of others who were not privy to the original conversation. So he misrepresents me constantly. The anarchists do that to Ron Paul all the time too in youtube videos and by taking his quotes out of context because they have an agenda they want to promote. Certainly misrepresentation can and does get much more serious than mere misquoting. Falsely accusing others of a serious crime is just one other example that would be a huge deal to the accused. This is at the heart of why the 'no government' philosophy fails.

Mises said it best,

"Without the application of compulsion and coercion against the enemies of society, there could not be any life in society.

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." - Mises

"One must be in a position to compel the person who will not respect the lives, health, personal freedom, or private property of others to acquiesce in the rules of life in society. This is the function that the liberal doctrine assigns to the state: the protection of property, liberty, and peace." - Mises

As the individual being misquoted, I am not in a position to force ProIndividual to be honest with his dealings. I cannot access his signature and erase the misquote, he will not do it himself, nor do I really care because it is so trivial. Conza did the exact same thing to me a year or so ago and a mod modified his signature for me. They simply prove Mises was right. Government is necessary. Some people simply will not abide by the rules of life, and that is why they advocate for anarchy.

"If government is the answer, it was a stupid question." - ProIndividual

Anarchy is a lie. Force and coercion are sometimes necessary to compel the person who will not respect the lives of others to comply.

[liberdom]

Anarchy is a lie. Force and coercion are sometimes necessary to compel the person who will not respect the lives of others to comply.

Who said anarchy is without force and coercion?

And who disagrees that "Force and coercion are sometimes necessary to compel the person who will not respect the lives of others to comply."?

[TheTexan]

Isn't this post where you're publicly correcting his signature proof that you don't need the state to do that for you?

Shrug, who am I kidding. Travlyr your arguments are interesting and compelling, and I hereby renounce anarchism. I would also like to subscribe to your newsletter.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

I am not an anarchist, but Rothbard was.

[IDefendThePlatform]

So you think the state should drag ProIndividual to jail if he wont change his signature?

[Travlyr]

So you think the state should drag ProIndividual to jail if he wont change his signature?

Oh no. Like I said, that is trivial. Other aggressions are much more serious. ProIndividual just proved my point. I just wish people would be honest in their dealings then a state would not be necessary at all. The fact is that some people work to destroy others and they will cheat, lie, and steal to get their way. For example, enforcing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights would put an end to the police state. Ignoring it delivers tyranny.

[Travlyr]

Isn't this post where you're publicly correcting his signature proof that you don't need the state to do that for you?

No because I am powerless to change it. It will remain until he governs his behavior or someone else governs it for him. And it is so trivial that I don't really care other than point out that his dishonesty is proof that some people will cheat others and force others to compel him to comply with the rules of life.

Shrug, who am I kidding. Travlyr your arguments are interesting and compelling, and I hereby renounce anarchism. I would also like to subscribe to your newsletter.

My newsletter is not free.

[robert68]

Murray Rothbard wrote volumes and volumes of words in his life, is that the only place you can find where he wrote something like that? It’s very easy to find him writing such as the following, and this is from "For A New Liberty":

The idea of a strictly limited government has proved to be Utopian; some other, more radical means must be found to prevent the growth of the aggressive State. The libertarian system would meet this problem by scrapping the entire notion of creating a government — an institution with a coercive monopoly of force over a given territory — and then hoping to find ways to keep that government from expanding. The libertarian alternative is to abstain from such a monopoly government to begin with. [p. 68]

http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp

[Travlyr]

Murray Rothbard wrote volumes and volumes of words in his life, is that the only place you can find where he wrote something like that? It’s very easy to find him writing such as the following, and this is from "For A New Liberty":

http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp

I quoted his concluding remarks. I am a believer that Mises understood the world better than Rothbard. Rothbard understood economics, but he is too inconsistent on his design of 'no government.' As I pointed out in the very beginning of this thread,

"One must be in a position to compel the person who will not respect the lives, health, personal freedom, or private property of others to acquiesce in the rules of life in society." - Mises

I am not in that position in this trivial circumstance, but if it was a serious violation of my rights, then I would pursue whatever remedy was afforded me by the rule of law. And if the rule of law was not available, then I would be either SOL or a violent retaliator.

[thoughtomator]

Anarchism is a popular fad among those who study economics but not history.

[TheTexan]

Minarchy is a popular fad among those who study economics but not history.

FTFY

[Travlyr]

Anarchism is a popular fad among those who study economics but not history.

For sure. Ending the fiat Monopoly Money will deliver positive results for liberty, but trying to abolish all government does not work as proven by ProIndividual. When I read Ron Paul, Murray Rothbard, Leonard E. Read, even Friedrich Hayek, and others, that is what I take from their works. Separation of Money and State is what liberates. The question is how to achieve it.

Dr. Edwin Vieira Jr. tells us how with his brilliant work "The Purse & The Sword." It is using the rule of law and cooperation of the people who want to live lives of liberty, peace, and prosperity. Government is not based on the NAP. Laws can be but government is based on land law, contract law and standards.

[Travlyr]

FTFY

More proof. You changed his quote and did not attribute his actual quote to him. I do not wish to live among a mob of dishonest people who refuse to respect others.

[TheTexan]

More proof. You changed his quote and did not attribute his actual quote to him. I do not wish to live among a mob of dishonest people who refuse to respect others.

You're a liar, the phrase FTFY explicitly means I changed his quote. I was completely upfront and honest that I changed his quote. Nothing dishonest about that.

Noone likes a liar Travlyr. I expect better from you.

[Travlyr]

You're a liar, the phrase FTFY explicitly means I changed his quote. I was completely upfront and honest that I changed his quote. Nothing dishonest about that.

Noone likes a liar Travlyr. I expect better from you.

Yeah, I didn't know what FTFY meant until after I posted that. I agree that you were upfront and honest.

[A Son of Liberty]

Travlyr is a well known liar, who intentionally misrepresents and deceives. Just sharing for those few folks who don't know this yet.

He's the most dishonest, contrary yet sadly pathetic obsessive compulsive troll I've ever encountered on the internet in 15 years.

[Travlyr]

Travlyr is a well known liar, who intentionally misrepresents and deceives. Just sharing for those few folks who don't know this yet.

He's the most dishonest, contrary yet sadly pathetic obsessive compulsive troll I've ever encountered on the internet in 15 years.

Laugh Out Loud.

Do you have some proof to back these baseless claims Son Of Misunderstanding Liberty?

BTW aren't you a land owning anarchist? The epitome of a hypocrite.

[kuckfeynes]

So because some other user on here is being accidentally or purposely misleading with selective editing, anarchism is debunked?

Also of course Rothbard did not always stick to 100% hardline anarchism... He supported Ron Paul after all. Hell he supported freaking Buchanan. Anyone that prolific is bound to have a contradiction or two in his output, but I don't even think this is one. As far as I understand it, his view seemed to be that until we actually achieve what could be called minarchy, a move toward minarchism is essentially a move toward anarchism as well. He like Ron was always very concerned with coalition building and broadening the base (sometimes perhaps to detriment), so to see him advocate minarchism for two words in his "manifesto" is not really surprising. But when his greater body of work is considered, I don't think there's any ambiguity as to what he is really advocating.

[Feeding the Abscess]

So because some other user on here is being accidentally or purposely misleading with selective editing, anarchism is debunked?

Also of course Rothbard did not always stick to 100% hardline anarchism... He supported Ron Paul after all. Hell he supported freaking Buchanan. Anyone that prolific is bound to have a contradiction or two in his output, but I don't even think this is one. As far as I understand it, his view seemed to be that until we actually achieve what could be called minarchy, a move toward minarchism is essentially a move toward anarchism as well. He like Ron was always very concerned with coalition building and broadening the base (sometimes perhaps to detriment), so to see him advocate minarchism for two words in his "manifesto" is not really surprising. But when his greater body of work is considered, I don't think there's any ambiguity as to what he is really advocating.

He's not advocating minarchism, he's just describing what the classically liberal movement brought us; and that we're an extension of that movement, the next step in the progression to statelessness.

[Travlyr]

He's not advocating minarchism, he's just describing what the classically liberal movement brought us; and that we're an extension of that movement, the next step in the progression to statelessness.

The classical liberal movement brought homeownership to the common person. No longer was land ownership just for Royalty. Statelessness attacks that concept.

[Travlyr]

So because some other user on here is being accidentally or purposely misleading with selective editing, anarchism is debunked?

Yes, as explained by Ludwig von Mises,

Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints.

Liberalism is not anarchism, nor has it anything whatsoever to do with anarchism. The liberal understands quite clearly that without resort to compulsion, the existence of society would be endangered and that behind the rules of conduct whose observance is necessary to assure peaceful human cooperation must stand the threat of force if the whole edifice of society is not to be continually at the mercy of any one of its members. One must be in a position to compel the person who will not respect the lives, health, personal freedom, or private property of others to acquiesce in the rules of life in society. This is the function that the liberal doctrine assigns to the state: the protection of property, liberty, and peace.

Why the Mises Institute does not support the work of Ludwig von Mises is a mystery. Mises was not anti-State.

[fisharmor]

Oh no. Like I said, that is trivial. Other aggressions are much more serious. ProIndividual just proved my point. I just wish people would be honest in their dealings then a state would not be necessary at all. The fact is that some people work to destroy others and they will cheat, lie, and steal to get their way. For example, enforcing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights would put an end to the police state. Ignoring it delivers tyranny.

Great. Let us know exactly how we're supposed to force the state to enforce the constitution and BOR without crossing the state's edicts, and we'll get right on that.
I'm real interested in finding out how we're supposed to do that, really.
If in the end you admit that we can't do it at this point without breaking the law, then you will have admitted OUR point.
Disobeying the state construct to force it to do what we want renders it completely unnecessary.

If we have to resort to force which is illegal under the color of law to get out of this mess, you lose the argument.
Since we all commit three felonies a day without even trying to knock them down a peg, I'm really interested in seeing how you think you can logic your way out of this.

[fisharmor]

Laugh Out Loud.

Do you have some proof to back these baseless claims Son Of Misunderstanding Liberty?

BTW aren't you a land owning anarchist? The epitome of a hypocrite.

Holy $#@! I was just going to say, tongue in cheek, "Now's the time when you bring up your land ownership fallacy AGAIN", but you didn't even wait, did you?

[Travlyr]

Great. Let us know exactly how we're supposed to force the state to enforce the constitution and BOR without crossing the state's edicts, and we'll get right on that.
I'm real interested in finding out how we're supposed to do that, really.
If in the end you admit that we can't do it at this point without breaking the law, then you will have admitted OUR point.
Disobeying the state construct to force it to do what we want renders it completely unnecessary.

If we have to resort to force which is illegal under the color of law to get out of this mess, you lose the argument.
Since we all commit three felonies a day without even trying to knock them down a peg, I'm really interested in seeing how you think you can logic your way out of this.

The first thing one needs to do is understand the situation. The counterfeiting Oligarchy are the rulers in charge and they do not want to be limited by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Anarchists are on their team on that and so liberty is attacked from the top and the bottom. Think about it. Think about it for a long long time. Monopoly Money is how they control us. They have unlimited amounts of it and can buy any military, police, FBI, CIA, IRS, and on and on... whatever they want. None of those are constitutional institutions. The first action item is End The Fed. That will be the most important step to liberty. That can be done by using End The Fed affidavits as described by Aaron Russo. It could be done this year. Sound money limits government.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...v=VAYGWp8V9II#!

[Travlyr]

Holy $#@! I was just going to say, tongue in cheek, "Now's the time when you bring up your land ownership fallacy AGAIN", but you didn't even wait, did you?

It is your task to demonstrate how an anarchist can own land. Anarchy is a nomadic philosophy.

[Travlyr]

Holy $#@! I was just going to say, tongue in cheek, "Now's the time when you bring up your land ownership fallacy AGAIN", but you didn't even wait, did you?

What does this mean to you if not ownership over a given territory?

an institution with a coercive monopoly of force over a given territory

If one owns land they will protect it. And they are the sole protectors (monopoly of force) unless they get others to help them protect it. That is what LVT discussion is all about. When someone claims ownership of land that in and of itself is an aggressive action by keeping others off of it.

The idea that land law is based on NAP is false.

[HigherVision]

Who said anarchy is without force and coercion?

And who disagrees that "Force and coercion are sometimes necessary to compel the person who will not respect the lives of others to comply."?

I disagree, only initiation of force qualifies as coercion. Defensive force is the negation of aggressive or initiatory force, therefore it's the lack of this that is coercive. Pacificism is therefore actually pro-violence.

[liberdom]

I disagree, only initiation of force qualifies as coercion. Defensive force is the negation of aggressive or initiatory force, therefore it's the lack of this that is coercive. Pacificism is therefore actually pro-violence.

So you're pro-force, anti-initiation and anti-coercion?
Pacifism is pro-violence? What about apathy?

[HigherVision]

So you're pro-force, anti-initiation and anti-coercion?
Pacifism is pro-violence? What about apathy?

I'm anti-aggression and pro-defense. Not necessarily 'national defense' because government is itself an aggressor against the people it holds captive, but I'm in favor the concept of defense in general. What I mean when I say that pacificism is pro-violence is that if you're morally against people defending themselves against aggressors then you're by default supporting the aggressors. I don't mean like opposing wars when I say pacificism, I mean like people who are completely against the use of all defensive force entirely.

[HigherVision]

What does this mean to you if not ownership over a given territory?



If one owns land they will protect it. And they are the sole protectors (monopoly of force) unless they get others to help them protect it. That is what LVT discussion is all about. When someone claims ownership of land that in and of itself is an aggressive action by keeping others off of it.

The idea that land law is based on NAP is false.

No it's not because one doesn't just claim ownership of land and take it. That in fact is what government is. You have to obtain it with money that can only be obtained through service to others in the market, money that is voluntarily exchanged. Not through force like taxes. It's the person who tries to violate your property rights that's the aggressor.