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.
The burden of proof is on you, as you are making the positive claim ("a state-run society is objectively better than a stateless one"). But if you really want to discuss that, there have been a few threads in RPF history relating to defense in a stateless society. I'm not going to rehash them.
Your ideology still holds that murderers who are state-empowered are somehow less heinous than any other murderers.
I never tried to get anyone to agree with me on Nidal Hasan. I had a weak moment and made a stupid post. But if you'll recall the post in question, I actually asked that someone convince me that my gut reaction was wrong. I never told anyone they should agree with me. I do stand by, however, that the world would be better off if Tom Cotton and Obama both dropped dead tomorrow.
Last edited by Christian Liberty; 09-18-2013 at 11:04 PM.
This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading
Eduardo, half the time you act like you genuinely respect me, the other half of the time you act like you think I'm some kind of radical home-grown terrorist? Which is it?
This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading
I respect you, but I think you're misguided, politically as well as your eager following of Sola_Fide's theology on many issues. I think you're young (I'm guilty of that as well) and your views will mature over time. I just don't want to see you get lost in dangerous views, such as the ones I states above in a joke about you being a paid government plant (which I don't think you are).
The Jeffersonian claim you cite was not a constitutionalist one. The constitutionalists have traditionally made the opposite claim-that a strong, centralized regime prevents factions, promotes peace, etc, etc. In fact, citing that quote runs against your claim. Unfortunately, like every other Constitutionalist I've encountered, you are succumbing to the numerous internal contradictions within your civic and legal theory (well, Constitutionalism has no sound legal theory behind it at all...something you Constitutionalists really need to work on).
It may not be as much as you think (Or maybe I think you think that its more than you actually think). I don't believe in double predestination the way that he defines it, although I do agree with it by RC Sproul's definition, which I posted in another thread. I don't agree with him that all Arminians are unsaved. I don't agree with him on supralapsarianism. While I do agree with him that the Catholic Church isn't Christian, I think he goes too far on the rhetorical front with that as well. You aren't going to like this, but I think there's a way to point out that the Catholic Church does teach damnable heresy without being a jerk about it.
You know, I think my stupid Hasan comment illustrates a valid point though. Question everything. Take nothing for granted. That's basically what I was doing.I think you're young (I'm guilty of that as well) and your views will mature over time. I just don't want to see you get lost in dangerous views, such as the ones I states above in a joke about you being a paid government plant (which I don't think you are).
And yeah, I'm definitely not a government plant. I couldn't be, I hate them way too much
This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading
Doesn't your question assume that there IS a solution that allows for indefinitely peaceful society (not counting crimes by individuals or small groups against individuals against whom justice is somehow served and the issue ended)? I think that is a false assumption. I think the human condition dictates a constant struggle for liberty over time. The longer the struggle is postponed, the bloodier the correction.
"Sorry, fellows, the rebellion is off. We couldn't get a rebellion permit."
It sounds like your view of constitutionalism is different than mine, which places large restrictions on the power of a centralized regime as listed in the ....well, the constitution. That does not mean that any regime will not try (and succeed anytime the populace becomes complacent) to overstep the bounds placed upon it by the constitution.
"Sorry, fellows, the rebellion is off. We couldn't get a rebellion permit."
I'm not all that convinced an anarchist society would be very prone to invasion, quite frankly.
I assume an anarchist society would probably be significantly productive, and thus would be exporting and importing many goods with a number of foreign communities/nations, thus forming friendly, cooperative partnerships. Not only does this minimize potential enemies, but the friendly partners would have an interest in keeping the productive anarchist society out of war.
An anarchist society would have no tax structure in place. This alone, I think, is a huge disincentive for any potential invaders.
An anarchist society wouldn't be involved in foreign interventionism, adventurism, or nation building of any kind; nor would an anarchist society be funding or supporting militant regimes. This would also minimize the possibility of retaliatory invasion.
The simple truth is, most nations in this day and age are not antagonistic, or aggressive, and of those that are, even less are capable of launching a full-scale invasion, at least not against the North American landmass. Disputes that lean toward or result in war tend to be regional or internal. The US--sometimes followed by allies after the US initiates action--is of course the largest exception to this norm.
Of course there will always be the possibility of someone or some government deciding to amass an invasion force, but it's not as if these things happen over night, so there would be time to prepare, engage in diplomacy, and formulate some type of response or deterrent. I will admit that, when it comes to warfare, that is one area where the State is probably superior to a peaceful society, but then that isn't a virtue, really. But I don't think that means an anarchist society would be all that susceptible to an invasion, nor do I think that means an anarchist society would be unable to respond to one, in the off-chance that it does somehow take place.
Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and anti-statism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul. - M. Rothbard
I read Cabal's posts. He is logical and reasonable which many lack. I am skeptical of anarchism in that I know the way of men. I've seen enough that I think it would take, or need, some doing to philosophically or ideologically change the mindsets of people. That said consistently I agree with the philosophy. It is mainly minor instances of my own lack of understanding of what they'd propose as solutions. Pot shots from the trees and the sheer economics of providing for an invading force would no doubt challenge a nation to consider invading here. But that said I could see instances of where a defensive force need be ready. At the moment a more strictly defined Constitution and a diligence in upholding rights not seen in any previous American generation is where I feel comfortable advocating. After that we can argue about what is necessary and what are the alternatives.
I'm not well versed in how everything would, or imaginative enough to see how it could work out.
Last edited by kcchiefs6465; 09-18-2013 at 11:49 PM.
I read it, it was an excellent response.
However, I do think the point about the US is relevant. Not to throw Somalia into it, but didn't the US try to intervene there? If the US went ancap, SOMEBODY would probably become the new world empire (Note that this is an "is" claim, as in, "I think that would happen" not a "Should" claim. I see no NEED for such an empire but I suspect one would arise regardless.)
This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading
It's an interesting thing to ponder. The interwebz have made the world a lot smaller and better connected. It seems that younger people don't have the irrational fear of foreigners older folks have long had-an impulse which tends to lead to militant nationalism, cheauvanism, warfarism and imperialism.
This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading
(It certainly has that possibility, but outside of Western European and Japanese cultures, is there a reason to believe that productivity is a desired - or desirable - characteristic? Take many Pacific islands, where the work ethic is not well developed because, well, what is the point when the weather is moderate and the food abundant? Take nomadic people with traditionally few possessions and who don't place an emphasis on a big house and stuff. Someone I knew was a missionary in Papau New Guinea in the early 60's and their culture was completely different than ours, with no strong central government. Violence was an integral part of life for most people as families were engaged in ongoing tit-for-tat retaliatory killings, kind of like the Hatfields and McCoys, only it was pretty much every family), and thus would be exporting and importing many goods with a number of foreign communities/nations, thus forming friendly, cooperative partnerships. Not only does this minimize potential enemies, but the friendly partners would have an interest in keeping the productive anarchist society out of war.(you don't think that groups within the society would go around invading other areas? I think they would. I think areas within the US would be controlled by criminal organizations that would develop into their own governments. And I think the reason that would happen is because most people just want to live their daily life but sociopaths would collect young men with promises of riches and take over an area for a base and they would initiate raids on others and as their stolen wealth grows, initiate full-blown wars)An anarchist society would have no tax structure in place. This alone, I think, is a huge disincentive for any potential invaders.
An anarchist society wouldn't be involved in foreign interventionism, adventurism, or nation building of any kind; nor would an anarchist society be funding or supporting militant regimes. This would also minimize the possibility of retaliatory invasion.
(I think most nations throughout history have not been, but there are always the troublemakers who see opportunity and exploit it)The simple truth is, most nations in this day and age are not antagonistic, or aggressive("in this day and age" seems to take a short term view of history. For reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...f_wars_by_date ), and of those that are, even less are capable of launching a full-scale invasion, at least not against the North American landmass. Disputes that lean toward or result in war tend to be regional or internal. The US--sometimes followed by allies after the US initiates action--is of course the largest exception to this norm.
(one word: Blitzkrieg)Of course there will always be the possibility of someone or some government deciding to amass an invasion force, but it's not as if these things happen over night(I agree, it is not a virtue!), so there would be time to prepare, engage in diplomacy, and formulate some type of response or deterrent. I will admit that, when it comes to warfare, that is one area where the State is probably superior to a peaceful society, but then that isn't a virtue, really.But I don't think that means an anarchist society would be all that susceptible to an invasion, nor do I think that means an anarchist society would be unable to respond to one, in the off-chance that it does somehow take place.
"Sorry, fellows, the rebellion is off. We couldn't get a rebellion permit."
That's the problem with getting bogged down by the question of solutions. The truth is no one can know with any certainty how things can or will unfold. No one can know with any certainty what problems will arise, or what solutions will be used to respond to these problems. We can speculate, and hypothesize, sure... but at the end of the day that's just an intellectual exercise.
You're absolutely right--there are far too many considerations to factor in to really make any kind of accurate prediction about things in the absence of a State. We can't really look to history as much of an indicator either. And while there has been much discourse over the years on a number of topics, ranging from abortion, to roads, to dispute resolution, to insurance, to defense, to security, and so on, I can understand how these sort of issues can seem to be a practical problem for some. I used to be the same way. I used to think that we need definitive solutions and answers to all of the problems that may arise, but over the years I've come to realize it doesn't matter.
As mentioned above here, and touched on in a previous post, there's so many far reaching factors to consider, that we can't even begin to imagine what will even be a problem that needs solving, let alone how many potential new solutions there may be waiting to answer those problems that we can't even fathom right now.
As libertarians, or minarchists, or constitutionalists, or whatever, we all generally understand that the free market is really very capable and efficient at satisfying demand in the best ways we've seen yet. So, if that is truly the case, then it should follow that in the absence of the State, the free market--much freer than any market we've ever encountered--will most certainly be that much more equipped to come up with solutions to all kinds of problems that may arise. In which case, we needn't be too concerned with conjuring up imaginary problems, or solutions to them. If the problem is significant enough, it stands to reason there will be adequate demand for a solution to that problem. If there is adequate demand for a solution to a given problem, the free market will endeavor to satisfy that demand, and in all likelihood, the free market will find a number of different approaches to solving the same problem. That's what the free market does--people compete with each other to find the best, most desirable, most valued, most efficient ways of satisfying demand, and solving problems. So, why would it work any differently in the absence of all the State's interferences? It should work better than we've ever seen it work before, if we are correct.
Another point, of course, is the morality of it all. Problems, solutions... okay, sure. But the State is still a morally bankrupt, brutal, parasitic monstrosity no matter how many hypotheticals we can conjure up. And there is really no reason to believe that this truth will ever change. It's the proverbial nature of the beast. When you centralize a monopoly on the use of violence, you have yourself a State, and the State will always behave like the State. So, then it becomes a question of is liberty so frightening that the State could ever be regarded as the better alternative? This is a question we all have to ask ourselves individually. But I would submit that if there is even a small possibility that we can live without the State, it's sure as hell worth a shot
I'll never forget the way I heard Stefan put it in one of his discussions. He compared the abolition of statism to the abolition of slavery, and he said something to the effect of, our goal is to see that the slaves are freed, we can worry about what happens next afterward. Of course, you are again correct in saying that before any of this can happen there will need to be an intellectual revolution--another Enlightenment era, if you will. The only problem is, the longer people continue to bet on statism, the more delayed that enlightenment is. But make no mistake, it is an inevitability. Because when you think about it, and if you are honest with yourself, you understand that statism will eventually be seen as primitive and barbaric by the standards of future societies, just as present society looks back on god-kings as primitive and barbaric.
Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and anti-statism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul. - M. Rothbard
Yes, sir. I've been considering this period as a new enlightenment for some time. I personally can foresee a ending of time if we do not succeed in the effort. (at the least the further irradiating of this planet either sterilizing people or making earth unhabitable.)
I read a little earlier about Americans losing their imagination... their creativity. Truth be told I feel that way sometimes. I've been so accustomed to how things are it is hard to envision how things could be or the solutions that would arise if needed.
Give me about six months. I'm reading a new book every 4-7 days. I plan on being well versed in every aspect of the subject of liberty.
The whole purpose of government is to protect the rights of the minority from the force of the majority (including gangs). So, yes, I think it is helpful, IF and only if, it is kept within its boundaries and those boundaries are guarded constantly by the people.
================
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
Connect With Us