Ron Paul says Constitution Bars Obama from Nobel Prize

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Originally Posted by torchbearer

Governance locally can be voluntary. It could cover the 4 neighbors who want to get together to protect there shit- set some rules for honorable dealings with each other- and if they want- they can use it to build a new water well for all them to use.

And I would be whole-heartidly in favor of that. That is not minarchism. The State and minarchism is a monopoly of force and law. I use the State definition as Rothbard defined the State. It is not over simplified just like the definition for voluntary is not simplified. It is an accurate description of the institution.

I'm not sure what makes you think that An-Caps are opposed to all Government? No, Government and the State are not one and the same. In the Rothbardian view (Which I pretty much agree to most of), Government is law. Law is agreed and consented to (And in the case of Natural Law, is present in humanity). The State differs in every way. We seek to dismantle the State and promote Government as in Self-Government (Voluntary contract, Natural Law, Private Property, etc.).

The fallacy in which you perpetuate is the need for Lone Point, LA to be involuntarily contracted with every State creed, law, and abridgement of Natural Law. The State being both the Federal Government and State Government. The people of Lone Point, LA should be able to lawfully, under Natural Law (And, in truth lawfully (Just like we used Natural Law to lawfully disassociate from the Crown) can), denounce and remove itself from all laws that are not consented to unto which do not violate another person. Taxation, Gun Laws, etc. If the people would stand up in a unified force the State would have to relinquish, because all power is derived from the individual.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Originally Posted by torchbearer

let me break it down to you-
You keep saying "the State" as is every form of government is exactly the same.
But not every government grows- not every government is coercive.
You are a simpleton in thought. Your language reeks of over-simplified words as "the state".

I gets a bit old having the mises crew sell their bullshit over hear-
The only last bastion of freedom you will find are in places like my home town of Lone Pine, LA. And you bullshit philosophy of no government isn't going to keep you safe from the Federal Tyranny.
But a minarchist community, based on a small voluntary government will keep you safe.

I don't think we are on the same page with our definitions. You think Government and the State are one and the same, and as I pointed out that couldn't be farther from the truth.

This sort of criticism can only involve us in an endless and arid dispute over semantics. Let me say from the beginning that I define the state as that institution which possesses one or both (almost always both) of the following properties: (1) it acquires its income by the physical coercion known as "taxation"; and (2) it asserts and usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the provision of defense service (police and courts) over a given territorial area. An institution not possessing either of these properties is not and cannot be, in accordance with my definition, a state.

Read this from Rothbard:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard133.html

Every State grows. If you can show me one historic example, where the State actually protected liberty, and did not violate liberty and that the State dissolved from outside force (Invasion), or from invasion from the inside, then I may concede, but there is not one example for which you seek. Do you honestly believe that Lone Point, LA needs the Federal Government to survive? That society would crumble and devolve into lawlessness without the Federal or State Government? In that absence during Katrina, many places in LA survived just fine without any subserviance to either. Militia protected property, and prevented crime. (Rural localities)

Our philosophy is NO STATE. The only thing that will keep me safe, or as safe as possible is Natural Law and the use of it. Self-Defense, Liberty, Laissez-Faire Capitalism.

PS: How come you support Ruwart and 'love' her, when she is an An-Cap and you vehemently disagree with the philosophy? Makes no sense...

[SLSteven]

I am sure he will seek Congress' approval for the Nobel Prize right after he shows a copy of his birth certificate.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by SLSteven

I am sure he will seek Congress' approval for the Nobel Prize right after he shows a copy of his birth certificate.

I'm surprised that it took 53 posts.

[Zippyjuan]

Just curious as to if this issue would receive the same responce here if Ron Paul was the President and was given a Nobel Peace Prize. Would your reaction be the same? Would you say he should not get it? Would you insist that Congress aproves it? Or would you say it was well deserved? (and I make no claim that Obama deserved his).

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Zippyjuan

Just curious as to if this issue would receive the same responce here if Ron Paul was the President and was given a Nobel Peace Prize. Would your reaction be the same? Would you say he should not get it? Would you insist that Congress aproves it? Or would you say it was well deserved? (and I make no claim that Obama deserved his).

The point would be moot because Ron would not accept it.

[Andrew-Austin]

This is hysterically stupid. What the fuck difference does it make if Congress "confirms" it, they already announced they were awarding him. You can't undo an award that was given by someone else.

And what if Congress did, unlike in the past, take the time to approve the Nobel prize (and its a given they would approve). Would something mystically change about the award?

The point would be moot because Ron would not accept it.

What qualifies as "accepting" it? Saying "oh thanks I am honored", or forgetting to mail it back? An award like this is more symbolic/abstract than physical, saying "lulz I don't accept" still can't erase the fact that you were given an award. History books are not going to say "the nobel commission gave Obama the peace prize, but he never received it because Congress didn't approve".



And yes it is a good point, because people on this board wouldn't give a shit about this (detail in article 1 section 9) if Ron were awarded. But its okay to worship this decree in the Constitution since the award isn't being given to Paul.

Im scared that this would backfire and we would have more young people saying "see the constitution is stupid we know better" .

They don't have to just say the Constitution is stupid, they can say this detail in article one section nine is stupid.

[Matthew Zak]

Originally Posted by Bruno

The point would be moot because Ron would not accept it.

And it would not be given to him.

[foofighter20x]

Oct 15 WashPost article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101502277.html

[SimpleName]

That is quite an awesome piece of the Constitution. I must say. Quality work by those fuzzy little founders. So smart! Someone in the media (preferably Faux News...for the fun of it) should ask him about it. At least Gibbs. Watching him squirm is always entertaining.