Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 35

Thread: An Open Letter to the Peace Movement from Roderick Long

  1. #1

    An Open Letter to the Peace Movement from Roderick Long

    An Open Letter to the Peace Movement by Roderick Long is one of my most favorite pieces of writing ever. It is short and inspiring with its heroic poetic language.

    I have found that it is one of the best ways to introduce people to my political views if I only have a few minutes of their time. It literally only takes 3-4 minutes to read yet it communicates just how radical my views are without arousing the typical quick objections that one usually hears upon mentioning that he or she is an "anarchist."

    I thought I would share it here. I am willing to discuss any thoughts anyone may have on it.

    UPDATE: Ten years ago today, on March 7, 2003, Professor Roderick T. Long wrote this letter urging peace activists who opposed the Iraq War to be more consistent in their support of peace by opposing domestic as well as foreign aggression. Nearly everyone supports peace, but almost no one supports peace consistently.

    Last edited by PeaceRequiresAnarchy; 03-06-2013 at 11:49 PM. Reason: 10th Anniversary
    "A consistent peace activist must be an anarchist." – Roderick T. Long, An Open Letter to the Peace Movement, https://peacemovement.wordpress.com/



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    My primary thought is that Roderick Long seems to take just the about the opposite view of Roderick Spode, whose policies I will not link to here, but which are laid out in his book with the England price 3 and 6p from all good booksellers. But remarkably, they both have about the same chance of ever being put into effect.
    “Do you not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?” - Oxenstiern

    Violence will not save us. Let us love one another, for love is from God.

  4. #3
    Inkblots,

    Roderick Long writes, "The object of the Molinari Institute is to see that alternative implemented." I agree that it is very unlikely that the Molinari Institute or anyone else will succeed at implementing the alternative any time soon.

    However, what do you think of his argument that we ought to support such an alternative?

    Surely the fact that such a consistently peaceful society is not likely to occur in the foreseeable future is not a reason to not consistently support peace. It's also true that it's extremely unlikely that we will ever succeed in bringing about a society without murder, yet you and I still oppose murder as immoral and unjust.

    We don't say, "Well, murders will always occur so I might as well support some acts of murder." Thus, shouldn't we take the same position on aggressive violence more generally as we do on murder and condemn it all as unjust and immoral?
    Last edited by PeaceRequiresAnarchy; 10-01-2012 at 10:58 AM.
    "A consistent peace activist must be an anarchist." – Roderick T. Long, An Open Letter to the Peace Movement, https://peacemovement.wordpress.com/

  5. #4
    If you could get the so called "peace movement" to consistently stand up for peace when a democrat is in power that would itself be something. Where are the rallies against the Libya war? How about peace rallies against the growing confrontation with Iran? Any anti Syria war peace rallies? You're as likely to find a modern "peace" protester advocating for war in Darfur or Uganda (to save the children of course) as you are actually protesting against war.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    If you could get the so called "peace movement" to consistently stand up for peace when a democrat is in power that would itself be something. Where are the rallies against the Libya war? How about peace rallies against the growing confrontation with Iran? Any anti Syria war peace rallies? You're as likely to find a modern "peace" protester advocating for war in Darfur or Uganda (to save the children of course) as you are actually protesting against war.
    I completely agree. There are so many people who consider themselves pro-peace yet support so much war. The Joseph Kony phenomenon asking for the US government to send soldiers to Africa to capture Kony that hit the internet earlier this year revealed just how ignorant/pro-war many of the people I know are. Sadly foreign interventionism is a bipartisan supported policy. It seems there is a long way to go in changing these peoples' views before they consider supporting peace as consistently as Roderick Long asks of them in his letter.

    However, I don't think that this means that we shouldn't discuss other issues concerning peace, such as those raised in Roderick Long's 2003 letter. It may be true that they may be "off the table" for the vast majority of people in our war-oriented society, but this doesn't mean we shouldn't investigate them fully to make sure we ourselves don't support war. We shouldn't point to the flaws of others as excuses for flaws in ourselves. We can still strive to consistently support peace even though many other self-identified pro-peace people support a large amount of war.

    So having said this, I think it's important that we pay attention to Long's message. It is important. "A consistent peace activist must be an anarchist.... If you love peace, work for anarchy."
    Last edited by PeaceRequiresAnarchy; 10-01-2012 at 01:32 PM.
    "A consistent peace activist must be an anarchist." – Roderick T. Long, An Open Letter to the Peace Movement, https://peacemovement.wordpress.com/

  7. #6
    Does anyone disagree with Roderick Long's argument that "A consistent peace activist must be an anarchist"?
    "A consistent peace activist must be an anarchist." – Roderick T. Long, An Open Letter to the Peace Movement, https://peacemovement.wordpress.com/

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by PeaceRequiresAnarchy View Post
    Does anyone disagree with Roderick Long's argument that "A consistent peace activist must be an anarchist"?
    Yes, I do not see anarchy as a requirement. or even a reality.
    Anarchy is temporary at best. Momentary, and the vacuum is quickly filled. often violently.

    like communism,, it sounds good on paper,, but fails in real life. It is contrary to human nature.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by pcosmar View Post
    Yes, I do not see anarchy as a requirement.
    Could you explain this?

    Recall Roderick Long's full point:

    As Ludwig von Mises writes:

    It is important to remember that government interference always means either violent action or the threat of such action. The funds that a government spends for whatever purposes are levied by taxation. And taxes are paid because the taxpayers are afraid of offering resistance to the tax gatherers. They know that any disobedience or resistance is hopeless. As long as this is the state of affairs, the government is able to collect the money that it wants to spend. Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning. Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.

    To the extent that government initiates force against its people – and every government qua government must do so, since a government that maintained neither coercive taxation nor a coercive territorial monopoly of authority would no longer be a government, but something a good deal more wholesome – every government is waging a war of aggression against its own people. A consistent peace activist must be an anarchist.
    Note that this is not an explanation:
    Quote Originally Posted by pcosmar View Post
    or even a reality.
    Anarchy is temporary at best. Momentary, and the vacuum is quickly filled. often violently.

    like communism,, it sounds good on paper,, but fails in real life. It is contrary to human nature.
    These points do not contradict the claim that "a consistent peace activist must be an anarchist." Saying that anarchy can be violent, or even that anarchy is likely to be violent, does not contradict the claim that a person who consistently advocates peace must advocate anarchism, since all governments wage wars of aggression against their own people.

    In order to successfully argue against Roderick's point you must show how a non-anarchist society (i.e. a society with a government/state) can be consistently peaceful. (Because if societies with governments can't be consistently peaceful, then naturally a consistent peace activist must advocate a society without these (necessarily violent) governments.) One way to do this is to show that not all governments wage wars of aggression against their own people.
    "A consistent peace activist must be an anarchist." – Roderick T. Long, An Open Letter to the Peace Movement, https://peacemovement.wordpress.com/



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by PeaceRequiresAnarchy View Post
    An Open Letter to the Peace Movement by Roderick Long is one of my most favorite pieces of writing ever. It is short and inspiring with its heroic poetic language.

    I have found that it is one of the best ways to introduce people to my political views if I only have a few minutes of their time. It literally only takes 3-4 minutes to read yet it communicates just how radical my views are without arousing the typical quick objections that one usually hears upon mentioning that he or she is an "anarchist."

    I thought I would share it here. I am willing to discuss any thoughts anyone may have on it.
    I guess what I'm saying is, if you can't even get these "peace activists" to be consistently antiwar, how are you going to convince them of anything else? I suppose I'm jaded by my experience. Years ago I joined the local "antiwar" Yahoo group. I went to a couple of their little meetings and posted on their forum. Then came the 2008 election. I was torn initially between Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul, but settled on Paul because I didn't like Kucinich's position on gun control. (I knew nothing about Austrian economics at the time). I was disturbed to see the "leader" (if you could call him that) push the anti-Paul hatefest festering at Democratic Underground and DailyKOS. It was like Ron Paul was their public enemy # 1 even though he wasn't ever close to getting the nomination! I pointed out that Ron Paul was consistently antiwar. This guy's response? "Yeah, but he just wants to save money on war so he can create more war." Really, these people were that stupid. (And the "leader" claimed to be a math professor). I pointed out that Ron Paul was for health freedom, thinking that would appeal to those in the group who supported natural medicine. The "leader's" response? "Ron Paul wants greedy companies to be able to sell you poison vitamins and herbs." (Why he thought a company would spend money to sell poison to kill off their customers is beyond me.) Oh, and the "leader", who also ran the Dennis Kucinich for president Meetup group, also was pushing a "draft Al Gore" petition.

    Sorry, but I have no hope that these people will do anything other than become temporarily "antiwar" again if/when a republican retakes the Whitehouse.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    I guess what I'm saying is, if you can't even get these "peace activists" to be consistently antiwar, how are you going to convince them of anything else? I suppose I'm jaded by my experience. Years ago I joined the local "antiwar" Yahoo group. I went to a couple of their little meetings and posted on their forum. Then came the 2008 election. I was torn initially between Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul, but settled on Paul because I didn't like Kucinich's position on gun control. (I knew nothing about Austrian economics at the time). I was disturbed to see the "leader" (if you could call him that) push the anti-Paul hatefest festering at Democratic Underground and DailyKOS. It was like Ron Paul was their public enemy # 1 even though he wasn't ever close to getting the nomination! I pointed out that Ron Paul was consistently antiwar. This guy's response? "Yeah, but he just wants to save money on war so he can create more war." Really, these people were that stupid. (And the "leader" claimed to be a math professor). I pointed out that Ron Paul was for health freedom, thinking that would appeal to those in the group who supported natural medicine. The "leader's" response? "Ron Paul wants greedy companies to be able to sell you poison vitamins and herbs." (Why he thought a company would spend money to sell poison to kill off their customers is beyond me.) Oh, and the "leader", who also ran the Dennis Kucinich for president Meetup group, also was pushing a "draft Al Gore" petition.

    Sorry, but I have no hope that these people will do anything other than become temporarily "antiwar" again if/when a republican retakes the Whitehouse.
    You've met a partisan congratulations. They make up about 95% of the voting. They are simply known as Boobus Americanus. A very special and dangerous breed. You'll see the opposite effect in play when a (R) occupies the White House, where the (R)'s turn into (D)'s, and vice versa. It's quite a spectacle to behold. I can only wonder what Darwin would be penciling witnessing such events, recur time and time again.
    Last edited by Austrian Econ Disciple; 10-02-2012 at 04:03 PM.
    School of Salamanca - School of Austrian Economics - Liberty, Private Property, Free-Markets, Voluntaryist, Agorist. le monde va de lui même

    "No man hath power over my rights and liberties, and I over no mans [sic]."

    What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.

    www.mises.org
    www.antiwar.com
    An Arrow Against all Tyrants - Richard Overton vis. 1646 (Required reading!)

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    I guess what I'm saying is, if you can't even get these "peace activists" to be consistently antiwar, how are you going to convince them of anything else? I suppose I'm jaded by my experience. Years ago I joined the local "antiwar" Yahoo group. I went to a couple of their little meetings and posted on their forum. Then came the 2008 election. I was torn initially between Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul, but settled on Paul because I didn't like Kucinich's position on gun control. (I knew nothing about Austrian economics at the time). I was disturbed to see the "leader" (if you could call him that) push the anti-Paul hatefest festering at Democratic Underground and DailyKOS. It was like Ron Paul was their public enemy # 1 even though he wasn't ever close to getting the nomination! I pointed out that Ron Paul was consistently antiwar. This guy's response? "Yeah, but he just wants to save money on war so he can create more war." Really, these people were that stupid. (And the "leader" claimed to be a math professor). I pointed out that Ron Paul was for health freedom, thinking that would appeal to those in the group who supported natural medicine. The "leader's" response? "Ron Paul wants greedy companies to be able to sell you poison vitamins and herbs." (Why he thought a company would spend money to sell poison to kill off their customers is beyond me.) Oh, and the "leader", who also ran the Dennis Kucinich for president Meetup group, also was pushing a "draft Al Gore" petition.

    Sorry, but I have no hope that these people will do anything other than become temporarily "antiwar" again if/when a republican retakes the Whitehouse.
    I understand. I think you're absolutely right, at least with regard to most people. But, hey, it doesn't hurt to put the argument out there just in case there are a few sane people who will actually listen to the arguments and not make up silly excuses to support war under the banner of peace. I have no hope for most people either (to become anything more than "temporarily 'antiwar'"), but we only need a small percentage of people to be persuaded to consistently oppose war and then we can go concentrate our numbers and form a voluntary society.
    "A consistent peace activist must be an anarchist." – Roderick T. Long, An Open Letter to the Peace Movement, https://peacemovement.wordpress.com/

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by PeaceRequiresAnarchy View Post

    These points do not contradict the claim that "a consistent peace activist must be an anarchist." Saying that anarchy can be violent, or even that anarchy is likely to be violent, does not contradict the claim that a person who consistently advocates peace must advocate anarchism, since all governments wage wars of aggression against their own people.
    I am not an Anarchist.. and yet am a peaceful man.
    I am not a pacifist,, and yet am a peaceful man.

    Anarchy is not required.
    I do not even believe that anarchy can exist in the real world,, beyond a temporary transition between governments.
    Anarchy is contrary to human nature. It can not exist.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by pcosmar View Post
    I am not an Anarchist.. and yet am a peaceful man.
    You're not consistently peaceful if you support some state aggression.

    Quote Originally Posted by pcosmar View Post
    I am not a pacifist,, and yet am a peaceful man.
    I agree that you can be a consistently peaceful man without being a pacifist. For example, you could support using violence justly (e.g. in self-defense) and still be a peaceful person. However, if you support using violence aggressively against others then it is logically impossible for you to be a consistently peaceful man. (Note that those who initiate the use of violence are those who are said to be committing violence "aggressively.")

    Quote Originally Posted by pcosmar View Post

    Anarchy is not required.
    A consistent peace activist (i.e. a person who consistently opposes aggressive violence) must be an anarchist. This is because all states necessarily employ aggression* We can thus also conclude that a consistently peaceful society (a society completely lacking aggression) is thus necessarily an anarchical one.

    * See Long's letter:
    To the extent that government initiates force against its people – and every government qua government must do so, since a government that maintained neither coercive taxation nor a coercive territorial monopoly of authority would no longer be a government, but something a good deal more wholesome – every government is waging a war of aggression against its own people.
    Also note that Long anticipated and responded to the objection that the government's uses of force against its citizens are not aggressive uses of force:
    It may be objected that in democratic countries, the government represents the will of the citizens; since the citizens are understood to consent to the government’s actions, those actions cannot count as “aggression” against the citizenry. Volenti non fit injuria.

    The notion that voting counts in any meaningful sense as “consent” was subjected to devastating criticisms in the 19th century by the English classical liberal Herbert Spencer, in his essay The Right to Ignore the State, as well as by the American abolitionist Lysander Spooner, in his pamphlet No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority. Both works are available online; those tempted to regard majority rule as a form of self-government are invited to consult them.
    Note that there are other reasons that people give for believing that the government's uses of force are not aggressive other than the fact that governments allow people to vote. The essay and pamhlet mentioned in the above quote respond to more than just the voting-as-consent objection, so I recommend them even if voting is not the only reason why you think the state's uses of force don't count as aggression.

    There are other objections (e.g. "The state owns the geographic US and therefore has the right to make the rules in its territory meaning that its uses of force against its own citizens are not aggressive) that the essay and pamphlet don't respond to, but these objections are quite extreme and the burden of proof is on those who make the claims (e.g. One must prove the claim that the state owns the geographic US. That is far from a far assumption to make as a starting point for debate.).
    "A consistent peace activist must be an anarchist." – Roderick T. Long, An Open Letter to the Peace Movement, https://peacemovement.wordpress.com/

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by PeaceRequiresAnarchy View Post

    * See Long's letter
    I could give a $#@! about Longs Letter,, or Roderick long. or Ayn Rand for that matter.

    There is a lot of philosophical naval gazing that is simply bull$#@!.
    Much of it starts with a false premise and builds from there.

    Anarchy is just that same bull$#@!,, It does not and Can Not exist outside of philosophic imagination.
    It is contrary to human nature.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by pcosmar View Post
    I am not an Anarchist.. and yet am a peaceful man.
    I am not a pacifist,, and yet am a peaceful man.

    Anarchy is not required.
    I do not even believe that anarchy can exist in the real world,, beyond a temporary transition between governments.
    Anarchy is contrary to human nature. It can not exist.
    Just to nitpick, how can you be a consistent peaceful man if you advocate armed agents confiscating another's property on your behalf? Do you not advocate for Government courts, for instance. How will these be paid? Surely in taxation right? Taxation which is an abrogation of liberty. Ergo, if I say no to this tax and this monopoly, and I do not consent or agree to that tyranny, that you're still peaceful when you send the Gendarmes to kidnap and imprison me? Really?
    School of Salamanca - School of Austrian Economics - Liberty, Private Property, Free-Markets, Voluntaryist, Agorist. le monde va de lui même

    "No man hath power over my rights and liberties, and I over no mans [sic]."

    What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.

    www.mises.org
    www.antiwar.com
    An Arrow Against all Tyrants - Richard Overton vis. 1646 (Required reading!)

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by pcosmar View Post
    I could give a $#@! about Longs Letter,, or Roderick long. or Ayn Rand for that matter.

    There is a lot of philosophical naval gazing that is simply bull$#@!.
    Much of it starts with a false premise and builds from there.

    Anarchy is just that same bull$#@!,, It does not and Can Not exist outside of philosophic imagination.
    It is contrary to human nature.
    Wrong. It has existed before - nay, thrived. Perhaps you're confused because you define anarchy different than what someone else does. Ok, fine, let's call it Voluntary Society, or Stateless Society. They've existed in many eons and epochs of human existence. Sadly, with the advent of Centralization, States, Nationalism, etc. it's all but disappeared.

    Simply being ignorant of history is no excuse.
    School of Salamanca - School of Austrian Economics - Liberty, Private Property, Free-Markets, Voluntaryist, Agorist. le monde va de lui même

    "No man hath power over my rights and liberties, and I over no mans [sic]."

    What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.

    www.mises.org
    www.antiwar.com
    An Arrow Against all Tyrants - Richard Overton vis. 1646 (Required reading!)



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Austrian Econ Disciple View Post
    Just to nitpick, how can you be a consistent peaceful man if you advocate armed agents confiscating another's property on your behalf? Do you not advocate for Government courts, for instance. How will these be paid? Surely in taxation right? Taxation which is an abrogation of liberty. Ergo, if I say no to this tax and this monopoly, and I do not consent or agree to that tyranny, that you're still peaceful when you send the Gendarmes to kidnap and imprison me? Really?
    Who said I advocate any of that. I certainly never did.

    I believe government should be kept at a minimum,, and "supported" voluntarily.. I suggest a tip jar.

    The founders proposed a very limited government.. But Human nature caused it's growth.
    People being irresponsible and lazy (human nature) caused it's growth, and Authoritarianism (human Nature) caused it's growth.

    Anarchy is just an open door for the next power hungry Megalomaniac.

    Failure to maintain the limits placed on government is the fault of the citizens.
    What makes you think it would be any different in an anarchist fantasy?

    The Constitution was set up to allow Self Government. Likely as close to anarchy as will ever exist,, and it was short lived.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Austrian Econ Disciple View Post
    Just to nitpick, how can you be a consistent peaceful man if you advocate armed agents confiscating another's property on your behalf? Do you not advocate for Government courts, for instance. How will these be paid? Surely in taxation right? Taxation which is an abrogation of liberty. Ergo, if I say no to this tax and this monopoly, and I do not consent or agree to that tyranny, that you're still peaceful when you send the Gendarmes to kidnap and imprison me? Really?
    That's a solvable problem without taxation. First reduce the number of criminal laws to cut down on the number of prosecution. Civil court costs are already allocated to the parties. In criminal court those who are convicted are assessed costs. In certain cases where the prosecution is clearly frivolous, the court cost should be assessed to whoever initiated the prosecution. And yeah, you'll have the indigent problem.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by pcosmar View Post
    Who said I advocate any of that. I certainly never did.

    I believe government should be kept at a minimum,, and "supported" voluntarily.. I suggest a tip jar.

    The founders proposed a very limited government.. But Human nature caused it's growth.
    People being irresponsible and lazy (human nature) caused it's growth, and Authoritarianism (human Nature) caused it's growth.

    Anarchy is just an open door for the next power hungry Megalomaniac.

    Failure to maintain the limits placed on government is the fault of the citizens.
    What makes you think it would be any different in an anarchist fantasy?

    The Constitution was set up to allow Self Government. Likely as close to anarchy as will ever exist,, and it was short lived.
    You're an anarchist, but don't realize it. If it's voluntary, then it isn't a State, and if it isn't a State, there is anarchy. (Just to be clear, you wouldn't send the Gendarmes against competing dispute resolution organizations would you?)

    By the way the Constitution was never set up for Self-Government. You could make an argument, although a bad one for the Articles of Confederation, but the entirely purpose behind the Constitution was to consolidate and centralize power - making an American Empire to rival Britain. It succeeded on every level - you just fail to realize it has, or have some strong cognitive dissonance going on. There's a reason it was closed door, and Henry said he smelled a rat. That rat is that awful document (in relation to the AoC).

    It was a coup by Federalist blowhards.
    Last edited by Austrian Econ Disciple; 10-02-2012 at 09:20 PM.
    School of Salamanca - School of Austrian Economics - Liberty, Private Property, Free-Markets, Voluntaryist, Agorist. le monde va de lui même

    "No man hath power over my rights and liberties, and I over no mans [sic]."

    What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.

    www.mises.org
    www.antiwar.com
    An Arrow Against all Tyrants - Richard Overton vis. 1646 (Required reading!)

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    That's a solvable problem without taxation. First reduce the number of criminal laws to cut down on the number of prosecution. Civil court costs are already allocated to the parties. In criminal court those who are convicted are assessed costs. In certain cases where the prosecution is clearly frivolous, the court cost should be assessed to whoever initiated the prosecution. And yeah, you'll have the indigent problem.
    Does not solve the problem of monopoly. Besides, you'd have to entirely change the justice system from one of incarceration to one of restitution, which I am entirely in favor of. In any event, you can't claim to be a peaceful man, if you advocate violent monopolies - that was the whole point of the article. Surely, we can at least agree inasmuch, right?
    School of Salamanca - School of Austrian Economics - Liberty, Private Property, Free-Markets, Voluntaryist, Agorist. le monde va de lui même

    "No man hath power over my rights and liberties, and I over no mans [sic]."

    What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.

    www.mises.org
    www.antiwar.com
    An Arrow Against all Tyrants - Richard Overton vis. 1646 (Required reading!)

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Austrian Econ Disciple View Post
    Does not solve the problem of monopoly. Besides, you'd have to entirely change the justice system from one of incarceration to one of restitution, which I am entirely in favor of. In any event, you can't claim to be a peaceful man, if you advocate violent monopolies - that was the whole point of the article. Surely, we can at least agree inasmuch, right?
    You specifically raised the problem of you being forced to pay for it. That's solvable regardless of whether or not you move away from an incarceration based system. At least paying for the court isn't a problem. Paying for the incarceration is. But that's solvable too if those incarcerated have to earn their upkeep. And no, I don't agree that someone can't claim to be a peaceful man unless they agree with anarchy. If anarchists make their case by laying out exactly how they plan to solve the problems associated with anarchy in a modern society that's one thing. But to demonize the other side as not being peaceful doesn't help the anarchist cause in my opinion. I also don't think that advocating violent competitors, as opposed to violent monopolies, makes one peaceful. (Not sure if you're advocating that.)
    Last edited by jmdrake; 10-02-2012 at 10:24 PM.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by pcosmar View Post
    I believe government should be kept at a minimum,, and "supported" voluntarily.. I suggest a tip jar.
    +rep
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Austrian Econ Disciple View Post
    You're an anarchist, but don't realize it. If it's voluntary, then it isn't a State, and if it isn't a State, there is anarchy. (Just to be clear, you wouldn't send the Gendarmes against competing dispute resolution organizations would you?)
    He said "supported voluntarily". There is no reason why something couldn't be a state and be supported voluntarily. Many people make donations to public libraries and other "state" institutions. If such institutions began receiving all of their funds from volunteer sources that wouldn't mean the state would just disappear. It would be that the state would actually be beholden to the people though.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Austrian Econ Disciple View Post
    You're an anarchist, but don't realize it.
    No, I'm not. Perhaps Minarchist,, perhaps Voluntarism. At least as secular Government goes.

    There is always some government,, some law,, written or not. Be it Family, Tribe or Clan,, or in any society.
    Anarchy simply does not exist.
    Could there be a better form of Government? Yes, I believe so. But there will always be some form of government.
    Last edited by pcosmar; 10-03-2012 at 08:25 AM.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Thanks Austrian Econ Disciple for continuing the argument in my absence.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    And no, I don't agree that someone can't claim to be a peaceful man unless they agree with anarchy. If anarchists make their case by laying out exactly how they plan to solve the problems associated with anarchy in a modern society that's one thing.
    You're missing the point. The answer to the question of whether or not states necessarily employ aggressive violence is not dependent on how a society lacking a state would deal with various social problems.

    Your reasoning seems to boil down to:
    1. I don't think various social problems could be solved in a society without a state.
    2. Therefore I don't think that states necessarily employ aggression

    But that's a blatantly invalid argument. Even if you were right about your premise, your conclusion still would not follow from the premise.
    "A consistent peace activist must be an anarchist." – Roderick T. Long, An Open Letter to the Peace Movement, https://peacemovement.wordpress.com/

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    He said "supported voluntarily". There is no reason why something couldn't be a state and be supported voluntarily. Many people make donations to public libraries and other "state" institutions. If such institutions began receiving all of their funds from volunteer sources that wouldn't mean the state would just disappear. It would be that the state would actually be beholden to the people though.
    If it's supported completely through voluntary contributions then it can't be a state. It's true that many people make voluntary contributions to the state, such as through donations to public libraries, etc, as you mentioned. But, it's also true that the state forcefully extracts some property from people involuntary. It is this involuntary income that makes the state the state. If you got rid of this income and only kept the voluntary income then the institution would no longer be a state, as Austrian Econ Disciple said.
    "A consistent peace activist must be an anarchist." – Roderick T. Long, An Open Letter to the Peace Movement, https://peacemovement.wordpress.com/

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by pcosmar View Post
    No, I'm not. Perhaps Minarchist,, perhaps Voluntarism. At least as secular Government goes.

    There is always some government,, some law,, written or not. Be it Family, Tribe or Clan,, or in any society.
    Anarchy simply does not exist.
    Could there be a better form of Government? Yes, I believe so. But there will always be some form of government.
    A consistent voluntarist is an anarchist. Also, the statement "there will always be some form of government" has nothing to do with whether governments necessarily employ aggression or not.
    "A consistent peace activist must be an anarchist." – Roderick T. Long, An Open Letter to the Peace Movement, https://peacemovement.wordpress.com/

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by PeaceRequiresAnarchy View Post
    If it's supported completely through voluntary contributions then it can't be a state. It's true that many people make voluntary contributions to the state, such as through donations to public libraries, etc, as you mentioned. But, it's also true that the state forcefully extracts some property from people involuntary. It is this involuntary income that makes the state the state. If you got rid of this income and only kept the voluntary income then the institution would no longer be a state, as Austrian Econ Disciple said.
    Just because AED said it, doesn't make it true. And in this case your position and his position is provably not true. This is provable by induction. A 100% privately funded state library is still a state library. Some state colleges and universities are receiving mostly private funding. Some have claimed that they should be freed from state control because they are no longer receiving any more percentage of state funds than are private universities. Certainly a state legislature could decide to make such an institution private, but there's no reason why a state legislature would legally have to make that decision.

    Or consider the hypothetical Island of piconesia. Let's say someone from outside the island said "I've found a way to tap the energy from your volcano and use it to power all of Japan. We'll pay you enough money for this that it can entirely support your economy." For this hypothetical assume that nobody to this point had claimed ownership of the land surrounding the volcano because it was deemed worthless as it was too dangerous to live near the active volcano. Just because all of the funding for the piconesia government was now coming from a foreign corporation who volunteered the funding to piconesia, doesn't mean piconesia doesn't have a state.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by PeaceRequiresAnarchy View Post
    Thanks Austrian Econ Disciple for continuing the argument in my absence.


    You're missing the point. The answer to the question of whether or not states necessarily employ aggressive violence is not dependent on how a society lacking a state would deal with various social problems.

    Your reasoning seems to boil down to:
    1. I don't think various social problems could be solved in a society without a state.
    2. Therefore I don't think that states necessarily employ aggression

    But that's a blatantly invalid argument. Even if you were right about your premise, your conclusion still would not follow from the premise.
    I'm not missing the point and I haven't made an invalid argument. You're just so into your own philosophies that it's made you incapable of learning something from a different point of view. You can't honestly say that someone can't claim to be peaceful simply because they haven't been convince by you that your solution would actually bring more peace. The key word here is honestly. You can dishonestly say that all you want. If anarchy leads to less peace than I'm not being against peace by being against anarchy. Now I'm sure you believe that anarchy leads to more peace. And that's cool. But until I agree with you, saying that I'm not being peaceful because I don't agree with you is just silly.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by PeaceRequiresAnarchy View Post
    A consistent voluntarist is an anarchist. Also, the statement "there will always be some form of government" has nothing to do with whether governments necessarily employ aggression or not.
    The point pcsomar was making, and you seem unwilling or unable to grasp, is that even in examples of societies that anarchists use to "prove" their point about the viability of "anarchy", there is still government. Whether or not those governments employ aggression or not is irrelevant. For instance some have raised the idea of ancient Scotland or modern Somalia as "anarchy" forms of government. (Some anarchists shy away from the Somalia example because that country is clearly not peaceful). In ancient Scotland there was a sort of "restitution based" legal system that AED agrees with. The same thing exists in Somalia. But guess what? Both societies depended on clan government to work. Sure, it's a government system that's completely foreign to our understanding of government. But it was still government.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Matthew Showers: An Open Letter to the Liberty Movement
    By presence in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-05-2012, 04:35 PM
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-26-2012, 06:46 PM
  3. An Open Letter To The Occupy Wall Movement
    By PeacePlan in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-14-2011, 02:25 PM
  4. Roderick Long on How Ron Paul Should Talk About Health Insurance
    By sailingaway in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-16-2011, 01:37 PM

Posting Permissions

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