Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
I was talking about the future...not the near future, necessarily, but what I believe is ultimately going to happen. Maybe you didn't catch what I said a few posts back, but I said that we're heading toward the opposite of what all of us here want. And as I said, I highly doubt that we're going to be able to overthrow what is coming, on our own. But ultimately it will be overthrown, by the true power of this world. You know that I'm a believer, so I assumed you knew what I was talking about. At that point there's not going to be a "State."
I know most of you on this thread don't believe any of this… So that's why I said I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on what's going to happen in the future.
“I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other.”
― Henry David Thoreau
Depends on what this empty language means. Murica was envisioned by people in the 1800s as only "working" in a little 13 state region that had only a relatively heterogenous culture. It's a much larger country now-also way more crowded and diverse in ethnicity, race, religion, etc. That's just a few of the reasons the model doesn't “work” on a “large scale”.
First, I've not caused the state to be inevitable; I've just recognized that it is.
Second, I'm not opposed to the overthrow of a bad state; I'm only opposed to replacing a bad state with a worse one.
...which ought to be a fairly non-controversial proposition.
I think you may have missed my point P3te, unless you were being sarcastic.
You and Sisyphus. Poor guy.
You, the all-knowing. We bow before you and your vice-like grip upon the unknowable.Second, I'm not opposed to the overthrow of a bad state; I'm only opposed to replacing a bad state with a worse one.
...which ought to be a fairly non-controversial proposition.
What things you must be able to tell us about the future! Please TELL US!
We await your wisdom...
...
...
...
...
We're waiting...
I read nothing of this thread. I haven't been here in a bit. But I will just spout off regardless.
When I first found the philosophy of Anarcho-capitalistism I found it more of our final goal which probably will never been reached in our lifetime (probably in any lifetime). I believe we should hold the ideas dear and principles firm.... BUT... I think that being too strict will stifle any progress. Support any and all reduction of state/government power. Also preach less government. Most people won't jump down our logical rabbit hole of philosophical journey... Sadly, most people don't desire intellectual challenge or principle, but just desire to have a roof and food.
In this current era, I think our goal at the moment should simply to oppose the left. The democrats/progressives/socialists/liberals/sjws/etc... pose such a great threat to everything we believe in that i'd rather buddy up with a conservative I disagree with on some things than try to make sense of these illogical groupthink leftists that exist nowadays. Their logic leads to the opposite of their goals. "WE HATE FASCISM SO THUS WE NEED TO BE FASCIST AND USE FORCE AGAINST THOSE WE DISAGREE WITH EVEN IF THE PEOPLE WE OPPOSE AIN'T. ALSO IF YOU DISAGREE WITH ME YOU ARE NAZI!"
The left so dangerous at this point and time in the US.
I mostly agree. I would say that right vs. left isn't so cut-and-dried, especially if one is equating right with Republicans and left with Democrats.
I look at it like this - if one candidate/party wants to spend $300,000,000,000,000 on social programs, and the other candidate/party wants to spend $300,000,000,000,001 on militarism and border walls, I'd prefer the candidate with the social programs won. In fact I'd prefer it 1/300,000,000,000,000 more than otherwise. And vice versa. Of course, in the end there's not really any discernible difference between the two (except that one party's government will be more well-armed than the other.) They're both redistributing my wealth in counter-productive, life-destroying ways. One candidate/party's rhetoric may rub me more wrong than the other. But my life's goal is going to minimize the effect of both teams on my ability to control my own property and determine my own actions.
Partisan politics, misleading or emotional bill titles, and 4D chess theories are manifestations of the same lie—that the text of the Constitution, the text of legislation, and plain facts do not matter; what matters is what you want to believe. From this comes hypocrisy. And where hypocrisy thrives, virtue recedes. Without virtue, liberty dies. - Justin Amash, March 2018
I'm not seeing a counterargument, except perhaps "the future is unpredictable, no one knows, all guesses are equal, etc." If that's what you're saying, well, you've just tossed out all economics, all history - the social sciences altogether - and therefore also any possible basis for any argument in favor of anarcho-capitalism, or for or against any social order/policy.
...again I'm reminded of the communists, who, upon learning that their theory was irrational, rejected reason.
Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 10-31-2017 at 05:43 PM.
Hmph? How about that? By your very own words you define statelessness by making a declarative statement, and your definition of "minarchism" (the time we could spend on that term...) comes out the gate claiming that statelessness is impossible.Anarchist: "the state should be abolished and a free market in security should replace it"
Minarchist: "that would be nice, but it isn't actually possible, hence the goal should be to keep the state as small as possible, not abolish it."
That's interesting. Because above you stated that it isn't possible to make an argument without predicting the future. Yet even you define the anti-statist as making a declarative (and not a predictive) statement.
It's almost like you're full of $#@!, isn't it?
You said that arguments cannot be made without making certain predictions about the future.
Then you defined statelessness with a declarative statement, full stop (""the state should be abolished and a free market in security should replace it"). Note, there is no prediction in that statement - it is, quite precisely, a philosophical statement without presumption of future consequences. Just a statement about how human society should be organized. I agree with it, in fact - it is simple, yet eloquent, and makes the case rather precisely.
Again - you've stated that arguments cannot be made without making predictive statements. That all of economics, history and political science would be upended if we didn't make presumptions about the future. Which justifies your adherence to "minarchism", since you "know" that stateless will not succeed.
As an aside, We're fortunate, as human beings, that you weren't around when human beings were considering whether or not civilization would persist without the institution of slavery.
Your definition of "minarchism" (again, just a lol term) jives with your ability to see the future... Which is nice and all. It's just that you can't actually know what humans will accept and refute in the future. Just as you couldn't have known that slavery would eventually been rejected if you'd been peddling your nonsense on message boards in the 1800's.
So, to recap, arguments do not necessarily need to be predictive; and your prescience is only as valuable as your ability to convince others of it.
Connect With Us