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.
Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Robert Heinlein
Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler
Groucho Marx
I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.
Linus, from the Peanuts comic
You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith
Alexis de Torqueville
Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it
A Zero Hedge comment
BEWARE THE CULT OF "GOVERNMENT"
Christian Anarchy - Our Only Hope For Liberty In Our Lifetime!
Sonmi 451: Truth is singular. Its "versions" are mistruths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChristianAnarchist
Use an internet archive site like THIS ONE
to archive the article and create the link to the article content instead.
A - your assertion that a stateless society would be conquered holds as much weight in this discussion as my (sic) assertion that a stateless society would not be conquered. In other words, you have no proof, nor do I.
B - Working to form a government in and of itself does nothing to assure that said government would remain within the (presumptive) scope you would lay out for it. Please see the founding of the Federal government of the United States. As such, there is a real-world, specific example of the failure of your ideology (i.e., "minarchism"). In practical terms, we can reference a specific point in human social history where an effort was made to establish a limited state with the VERY goals which you have specified; and within a scant 240 years, we can see that this institution has metastasized and turned into a virulent institution which not only does NOT preserve individual liberty, but which specifically upends and obviates it. Theoretically, you may be correct that the thoughtful statelessness that we "anarchists" here advocate may be an undesirable situation for mankind... Fine; yet that is nothing in the face of the actual, real-world SHTSHOW that your so-called "minarchy" has ACTUALLY wrought upon humanity. So, ya know, stick your theories about what you think might happen in a stateless world up your own ass.
BEWARE THE CULT OF "GOVERNMENT"
Christian Anarchy - Our Only Hope For Liberty In Our Lifetime!
Sonmi 451: Truth is singular. Its "versions" are mistruths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChristianAnarchist
Use an internet archive site like THIS ONE
to archive the article and create the link to the article content instead.
While I'm on about it I'll also add (as fish armor, or maybe occam's banana, often correctly points out) that we ARE currently living within the minarchist's conception of the State; in that, those with the authority to determine the length and width of the State (in our case, "the People") have expressly stated that our current level of capital-G Government is the least amount of the State that we cannot do without.
Now, minarchists may argue that for this very reason "democracy" is not the way to establish a minarchist state; that monarchy is preferable to democracy, because one man is more easily contained than "the People", if I may be succinct with that argument. Yet in either case, the scope of the State remains to the caprice of men, or a man. Ultimately what one does when he advocates for a State is to metaphorically put the objective nature of man as ordained by God (or Nature if you prefer), on the rack while asking him (or them) to not take advantage of the situation to his (or their) own ends.
In a world without the State, as advocated by us anti-statists here, we at least acknowledge an even playing field. We do NOT advocate a position of advantage for some subset of mankind, whether it be one man (monarchy), a few men (oligarchy), a majority of men (democracy) or some machination of the latter ("constitutional republic", etc.).
Anti-statists (if you will) acknowledge the objective nature of man and seek to align human society with that nature. That is a philosophical and principled position. What is up for debate, of course, is the practical implications but, again, from a philosophical point of view the anti-state position is unassailable. Now, we argue that if the philosophical position is objectively correct then that is what should be put into practice. As it should be. The debate here SHOULD be to upend the philosophical principle first, then to recommend how the principle - the objective reality of human life - should be put into practice. Anti-statists do that here. The Statists do not. They start from the practical, without ever formally acknowledging the underlying philosophy.
The argument for an order of human society (be it statelessness or the State) should start from a defensible philosophical position, and a person should take a logically consistent position if he wants his ideas taken seriously. Otherwise, we're left with nothing more than castles made of sand, where there is no rhyme nor reason as to what is or is not acceptable. Such a society inevitably leads to chaos, as we see in our world today as a consequence.
We were to be a nation of laws; not men. Where the rights of the minority, or one, were protected against the force of the majority. The Constitution was written to bind down the federal government to just a very few functions. While the majority of any laws were to be local, while most were from self-governing.
Our Founders warned us to stay educated and vigilant. We did not. Thus, a great deal of the Constitution is largely ignored.
If it was not ignored, I venture to say upwards of 98% of the laws that have been written would be null and void.
Nothing ever remains the same. Countries rise and when too many of their populace become stupid and lazy, they fall. The Constitution, regardless of its imperfections, and the people who tirelessly demanded that their government adhere to it, kept it alive enough for quite a few generations to be raised in quite a bit of freedom. Sadly, I'm not sure how long the last vestiges will hold out.
But, one thing I know for sure. Until the nature of man changes and there is no longer greed for money and power, a LA LA land of anarcho-capitalism will never be possible.
Last edited by LibertyEagle; 10-20-2017 at 05:00 AM.
================
Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.
Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America
The Property Basis of Rights
Last edited by LibertyEagle; 10-20-2017 at 05:11 AM.
================
Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.
Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America
The Property Basis of Rights
================
Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.
Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America
The Property Basis of Rights
Perhaps you were thinking that any form of government, or even anarchy, lasts forever? Especially when the populace become lazy idiots.
================
Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.
Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America
The Property Basis of Rights
================
Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.
Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America
The Property Basis of Rights
The problem isn't the Constitution. It's the idiotic, lazy populace. Go back and read what I wrote.
================
Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.
Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America
The Property Basis of Rights
So, your answer is 'no', then.
Then what good is the Constitution? If the governing document - the document which says what the State may and may not do - of the American State cannot contain the State, it isn't worth the paper it's written on.
So what are we supposed to do? Pretend that every several decades (if even that long, when you actually look at the historical record) that we can inaugurate a State - an entity with ultimate authority over the human beings living within it's physical territory - and try, try, TRY to keep it within the paper box we build for it? WHAT A LEGACY TO PASS TO OUR CHILDREN! :LOL:
Didn't you read Shelley's Frankenstein? That's what happens when you mess with Nature.
AT LEAST statelessness aligns with the nature of humanity - that there is no objective standard by which one or some subset of man may rule over other men.
How are you going to keep "THE POPULACE" from subverting all the good you do when you inaugurate your "CONSTITUTION"?
================
Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.
Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America
The Property Basis of Rights
================
Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.
Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America
The Property Basis of Rights
================
Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.
Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America
The Property Basis of Rights
Which generations were that, exactly? The one that Founder John Adams imposed the Alien and Sedition Act upon?
"Freedom" is a gray area for you, isn't it?
There's no such thing as an "American". There are human beings living under the imposition of the State of the United States of America.
It's not about ruling over other men? Correct me if I'm wrong here, but does the Constitution not lay out the manner by which popular and representative voting will occur, and the terms by which the assembled government may, you know, GOVERN?
Connect With Us