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.
Correct.
There are two senses of "freedom" (anarchy) -- the first has to do with the brute fact of choice, or what is called "the inalienability of the will". You can't not choose. You can't get rid of your capacity to make choices. You cannot sell your freedom, even if you wanted to, that is, you cannot "alienate" yourself from your capacity to make choices. It is in this sense that all humans always have been and always will be in a state of anarchy. Anarchy, in this sense, necessarily exists by virtue of what it means to be human.
The second sense of freedom is contingent (not necessary), and this is the kind of general freedom that the founding fathers were trying to build when they founded the United States. General freedom can only exist where there is a general peace and prosperity, so that people can go about their daily lives being productive and enjoying the finer things in life -- dancing, feasting, celebration, etc. A pirates' cove is technically an anarchy in the sense that nobody is king. There is no taxman and there is no one, unrivaled strongman. But, at the same time, everyone must sleep with one eye open, keep their knife between their teeth at all times and keep their head on a swivel. We may say that the pirates' cove is "free", in some sense, but it is not a peaceful and prosperous freedom. Something is missing. And that missing element is the general order that is made possible by government. But the key is that government itself must be lawful, it must not be created as the ultimate super-pirate over all other pirates. And until now, every government that men have instituted has either been founded on piracy, or quickly degenerated into it (e.g. the US Federal government).
So, a good (lawful) government can permit us to sleep soundly (both eyes closed, knife in the night-stand instead of between our teeth), but vigilance is required so that pirates do not hijack it. And that is precisely what has happened to the US government. It has been hijacked from within. It started on the right path, then veered into yet another piratical tyranny to be added to the endless list of piratical governments of history.
Jer. 11:18-20. "The Kingdom of God has come upon you." -- Matthew 12:28
Incorrect. There is no perfect system because we are dealing with humans and nature, specifically human nature. Fundamentally there are genuine conflicts, bad actors, predators, and rash behavior driven by emotion. So the idea is to find the best system possible and acknowledge its flaws and make it as close to perfect possible by designing it to compensate for its flaws. A constitutional republic with checks and balances so far is the best way to do that that humanity has come up with.
Again proving my point that anarchists don't have any understanding of human nature or reality.
What kind of acid are you on?!
__________________________________________________ ________________
"A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst
You are not actually engaging the discussion, you are just giving the appearance of engaging. The fact that humans are not perfect is irrelevant because anarchist philosophy does not assume that humans are perfect. It is obvious from your replies that you are almost completely ignorant of anarchist philosophy, which is fine, but you are projecting the appearance in the thread that you have read anarchist philosophers and you are competent to "diagnose" the "flaws" of anarchism. You're not.
Lurkers who are interested in learning more about anarchism -- which most certainly does not have any kind of pollyanna-ish delusions about human nature -- can do worse than to start here:
See also:
Ad hominem fallacy. Genetic fallacy.What kind of acid are you on?!
Last edited by ClaytonB; 07-26-2022 at 11:32 AM.
Jer. 11:18-20. "The Kingdom of God has come upon you." -- Matthew 12:28
I'm curious. Did you bother watching the OP video? I suggest you do. It's only 15 minutes and he addresses EVERY point you're making. What stands out to me the most is the fact that he makes the point that not only is the government bad at what it does, and not only does it often make the problem WORSE and that the only reason people accept the government's version of "justice" is because they have enough guns to threaten people with violence to accept what is often INjustice, but that without the government forcing the solution on everybody, people would actually have to *gasp* talk to each other! Look at what's going on with abortion. You've got idiots in red states trying to pass laws to prevent women from travelling to blue states to get abortions. And then you have the very real case of the 10 year old rape victim who traveled from Ohio to Indiana to get an abortion and "conservatives" trying to convince themselves that was "fake news" (turns out that it wasn't) as opposed simply acknowledging the fact that, even if you are pro life you probably don't want a 10 year old rape victim to have to carry a baby to term just because she didn't seek an abortion until 3 days after your 6 week window. What's missing from all of this is a CONVERSATION! Most rational people don't want grown women "choosing" to have an elective abortion in the 8th month of their pregnancy just cause they feel like it. Most people also don't want 10 year old rape victims risking bodily harm. But we don't have a conversation because nobody is having a real conversation with anyone because everyone is concentrating on getting their guy in office because their guy will solve all their problem.
/rant
Again WATCH THE VIDEO.
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
And that is the problem with government. Whether it applies to justice, or charity, or anything else, government can do one of two things. It can apply everything it does with complete equality, or it can create slavery, because that's the effect of picking winners and losers.
Even if it applies all its statutes perfectly equally, which is the ideal behind the blindfold on all the old statues of Lady Justice (yes, I know that you knew that), the laws still couldn't have possibly taken every possible situation into account. They have to be one size fits all, but there's no such thing.
That's why God's Law is so vastly superior. That's also why it can't be codified, and can only really be taught through parables. And we've all seen the mess many pastors make of those. Can you imagine what a bunch of lawyers would do to them?
As for whether or not Teh Collinz bothered to take in the entirety of the OP before commenting, experience says...
That was addressed in the OP video that you didn't watch. The anarchist position is NOT that humans are perfect. To the contrary their position is that SINCE humans are not perfect it's insane to give a small group of them absolute power and hope for the best.
Again absolutely proving everybody's point that you didn't actually watch the video.Again proving my point that anarchists don't have any understanding of human nature or reality.
Watch the video.What kind of acid are you on?!
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
This is the most reliable dictum of all statism. It is never proven, only assumed. And it works for everything.
Replace the word "justice" with "roads," "schools," "fire departments," "postal service," "lighthouses," "public goods," "healthcare," etc., and you have the same thing we always encounter no matter what the issue is.
If the government took over shopping malls, then in a few years we'd have people who couldn't conceive of shopping malls being possible without the government providing them.
And the reasoning is always the same. They can't conceive of any way for the given service to be provided without the government, therefore, since they can't conceive of it, it's impossible. The statist reliably resorts to trying to turn the tables, always asking us, "If you think X can be provided without the government, then explain how." And if we can't explain how, or simply decline to try, they pretend that counts as a point in their favor.
But this is the miracle of the marketplace. It provides goods and services through mechanisms that are inconceivably complex. Even providing something as simple as the pencil, as inexpensively as the market provides it, involves an incredibly complex system that no government could hope to replicate.
Meanwhile, what we actually have over the entire history of the institution of the state is states that not only fail to provide justice, but that reliably provide injustice. So far the record is perfect. There has never yet been an example of a state that did the thing you say we need governments to do.
Last edited by Invisible Man; 07-26-2022 at 01:10 PM.
Ron PaulThere is nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency, but a globalism where free trade is competitively subsidized by each nation, a continuous trade war is dictated by the WTO, and the single currency is pure fiat, fear is justified. That type of globalism is destined to collapse into economic despair, inflationism and protectionism and managed by resurgent militant nationalism.
Congressional Record (March 13, 2001)
^^^THIS
"My POTUS is going to beat your POTUS up and then you're going to have to do things our way, punk!" This is what both sides are saying to each other. Everyone who is making this "argument" is morally equivalent, that is, they are all morally bankrupt, even if they wrap themselves in a cross and make a big show of what "Christians" they are. If your hope is getting your preferred strongman into POTUS so he can force everything to be "the way it oughtta be", you're no different than a Leftist except that you have a different laundry-list of way-it-oughtta-be's. You have a different list. That's it. Get lost with your moral high-horse crap, it just makes you that much more absurd.
Jer. 11:18-20. "The Kingdom of God has come upon you." -- Matthew 12:28
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
Of course it is. Who wants to spend three hours failing to agree with some statist about where to draw the line between "defend themselves" and "form a state"?
Seems a group can't defend themselves without drawing up a Constitution and forming a department or three. Ever try to build a War Cabinet out of palm tree with a pocket knife?
When dealing with a lot of "-isms", I often find it useful to spend a paragraph or so foregoing the use of any word ending in "-ist", "-ism", "-archy" etc. Labels help us think more quickly and succinctly but labels can also conceal confusion, broken definitions and fallacious reasoning.
Let "Freedom1" mean "the inalienable will of the individual, that aspect of the self which has to do with choice and cannot be rid except by sleep, death or physical incapacitation (e.g. coma)."
Let "Freedom2" mean "the social condition in which there is a general absence of absolute master-slave relationships between people."
Freedom1 is non-contingent meaning, if humans exist, then Freedom1 exists. Even a slave can choose whether to sleep on his back or on his side. Or fill-in-the-blank. In whatever dimension the slave is not constrained, he is free.
Freedom2 is contingent, meaning, it can exist or not exist, depending on social conditions.
The indestructibility of Freedom1 and the fragility of Freedom2 are both true facts about the world.
I assert that anarchy, in the philosophical sense (not the sense of social chaos and running violence in the streets), is the apex of Freedom2. That is, anarchy is the social condition in which Freedom2 is maximized (whatever that social condition is, meaning whatever real causal factors would bring it about.) Anarchy, then, is not a "system" of any kind. Rather, it is simply the condition in which no one is anyone else's slave, whether de jure or de facto.
Most of the ways that most people talk about public policy are flatly anti-factual. We can see this in the widespread use of warfare against civilians during WWII by both sides, as just one example. "Germany invades France" doesn't mean that every last German has invaded France or approves of the invasion of France, and so on. This is a fallacy of composition sometimes called a reification fallacy, where you think about an imaginary entity as if it were a really-existing thing or reason about the parts of an aggregate or whole as though they are consubstantial with the whole itself. (Any piece of clay in a clay pot is consubstantial with the whole pot since all bits of clay are the same as all others, throughout the pot. This is not the case for "Germany" or "France" or "the US government.") In order to reason correctly about systems of government, a first step is to strip away the colloquial expressions and fallacious thinking patterns that are typically employed when reasoning about them, by most people.
It is absolutely conceivable that government can play a role in making a condition of anarchy (real mutuality and general social freedom) possible. But it can only do so by respecting the same boundaries of mutuality as all other individuals and organizations within that society. HOAs give some kind of sketch of what such a "government" could look like, and there are many other examples that we could point to. Clearly, a government is concerned with much broader issues than any HOA is, but the point is that a government need not be inherently invasive or restrictive in nature in order to have resources for its operations.
Another thinking-tool that many of these discussions neglect is a clear separation between "goal space" and "implementation space". The purpose of a thing lives in "goal space". The means by which that purpose is achieved lives in "implementation space". We don't have to delve into implementation details in order to have a discussion about ends and goals. Anarchy is an end. A government is a means. The end/goal of any government worth tolerating is to promote the general peace and prosperity by securing life, liberty and property. Until we get a good strong consensus about that point, there is little use in having a discussion over implementations.
For example, the CCP sure as hell does not agree that the purpose of government is "to promote the general peace and prosperity by securing life, liberty and property." So, I'm uninterested in having any discussion about "how a government should be run" with anyone in the CCP. It's a useless discussion. And I think a lot of the discussion in America -- especially with the Woke-mob -- is a waste of time for the very same reason. We're talking about "how government should operate" with people who fundamentally disagree on what the purpose of government even is. We need to have a long, deep social discussion about the purpose of government.
1776 is not dead.
Last edited by ClaytonB; 07-27-2022 at 09:41 PM.
Jer. 11:18-20. "The Kingdom of God has come upon you." -- Matthew 12:28
Let's strip away all the nonsense and get down to brass-tacks -- here is what a State is:
Another image from film would be Yul Brinner in The Ten Commandments:
In history, a State was invariably personified in one man. He might have the title "chief", "king", "emperor", etc. but they all mean the same thing-- it is the man who has the power to say to any other man in his domain: "That's the bottom-line because I THE KING SAID SO!" This power has rarely, if ever, been completely absolute. The next-strongest men behind the king, if unified against him, can quickly become an existential threat to his claim on the throne, and frequently a threat to the connection of his head to his shoulders. So, there is an ineradicable "game theory"-aspect to the State. Defining what, exactly, a State even is can never be a simple matter of a written definition. But I hope that I've painted a clear enough picture as to avoid most of the pointless rabbit-trails that these discussions usually run down.
In modern times, it's more complicated, but I assert that nothing has really changed in regards to the Man At The Top. The only real change is that monarchy has gone native, it's gone underground, it's hidden behind countless public agency facades and shell-corporations. "BECAUSE I SAID SO"-power always has been, and always will be, monarchical in nature because you cannot have two or more people in the same domain with the ability to tell the other, "BECAUSE I SAID SO". It's inherently unitary in nature.
So, the question of whether "an anarchy can work" is the question of whether it is possible to have a society in which there is no one playing the Stone Cold Steve Austin role. Is it possible for an entire society to leave behind the chest-pounding Monkey Mind and the endless game-theory of statism and form a social order based purely on rational resolution of conflict? In my opinion, the answer is "no, but yes."
No, it is not possible to form such a society on purely humanistic terms. The reason is that stupidity is cheap and easy, and stupidity pays in a purely rational society. This is essentially what a$$holes are -- they are rude, stupid people who are willing to crap on others to get what they want by simply doing things that are not strictly illegal, but which no normal person would ever think to do because it's... rude and stupid. Art plagiarism is one common example. So, every attempt to form a rational society on purely humanistic terms will always fall to the a$$hole-problem.
However, it is possible to have a completely rational social order under the rubric of the divine monarchy, and this is basically what the entire New Testament is about. "No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the Lord." (Jeremiah 31:34) So, the promise of the New Creation in the New Testament, with Jesus as Lord, is all about a rightful kingship whose end and purpose is to create a real, permanent and general freedom, aka anarchy. (Note: The "an-" prefix, here, cannot refer to Jesus himself but, rather, to all other humans, that is, "no human is ruler, only God is ruler." In this sense, we can call it simultaneously a divine monarchy and anarchy.) The idea is that there is only one who has the right to say, "BECAUSE I SAID SO", and that one is the one who died on the Cross. That is the meaning of Jesus is Lord. A divine monarchy based on purchased right, paid in blood. No more chest-pounding Monkey Mind egoism....
Last edited by ClaytonB; 07-27-2022 at 10:05 PM.
Jer. 11:18-20. "The Kingdom of God has come upon you." -- Matthew 12:28
Ron PaulThere is nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency, but a globalism where free trade is competitively subsidized by each nation, a continuous trade war is dictated by the WTO, and the single currency is pure fiat, fear is justified. That type of globalism is destined to collapse into economic despair, inflationism and protectionism and managed by resurgent militant nationalism.
Congressional Record (March 13, 2001)
Ron PaulThere is nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency, but a globalism where free trade is competitively subsidized by each nation, a continuous trade war is dictated by the WTO, and the single currency is pure fiat, fear is justified. That type of globalism is destined to collapse into economic despair, inflationism and protectionism and managed by resurgent militant nationalism.
Congressional Record (March 13, 2001)
Not everything can be reduced to a meme or 140-character Tweet.
The State:
Escape from the State (palm trees, as requested):
Unfortunately, there is no humanistic path from here to there. But there is a spiritual path. That's what we call the Gospel. The Gospel does not accept the world as it is, rather, it rejects the world outright and promises a coming, future world in which man's relation to man, and man's relation to God, will have been set right. Men will no longer rule over one another, instead, all men will submit to God alone.
</3-hour sermon>
Jer. 11:18-20. "The Kingdom of God has come upon you." -- Matthew 12:28
The problem with anarchism is ... <insert long winded argument here>
The problem with statism is... the state.
- Kim KardashianIt's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!
My pronouns are he/him/his
Connect With Us