Ron Paul & voluntarists

[A Son of Liberty]

And a voluntary society can exist within the State.

How? Are you defining the state as something other than that entity which enjoys a monopoly of force within a given geographic area?

[Travlyr]

How? Are you defining the state as something other than that entity which enjoys a monopoly of force within a given geographic area?

I don't define words. A voluntary society can exist within any one of the existing 50 States in America. All that needs done to achieve that goal is to amend their constitutions.

[josh b]

I really think the forum minarchists who make a point of arguing against an-cap and voluntaryist philosophy on a regular basis are probably responsible for opening more minds up to voluntaryism and anarchy than the an-caps themselves.

Before I joined up here I had no idea how strained the relationship was between the traditional Rothbardian libertarians and the newer minarchists. More and more this post seems to be the case.

Well, as long as the we're all supporting Paul I really don't care how this turns out. Let's get this thread back on topic.

[A Son of Liberty]

I don't define words. A voluntary society can exist within any one of the existing 50 States in America. All that needs done to achieve that goal is to amend their constitutions.

You didn't say "a state". You said, "the State".

The United States of America is known as such because the country was founded as a loose confederation of states - independent governing districts; just as Great Britain was/is a state, France is/was a state, and Maryland was a state - 'was' because it's authority as an independent governing district has been for all intents and purposes entirely usurped by the federal government established by the Constitution. The term state directly refers to a particular geographic region under some authority.

Don't duck the question - how is it possible for fully voluntary associations to exist within the context of particular geographic region wherein a particular entity enjoys a monopoly of force?

[Travlyr]

You didn't say "a state". You said, "the State".

The United States of America is known as such because the country was founded as a loose confederation of states - independent governing districts; just as Great Britain was/is a state, France is/was a state, and Maryland was a state - 'was' because it's authority as an independent governing district has been for all intents and purposes entirely usurped by the federal government established by the Constitution. The term state directly refers to a particular geographic region under some authority.

I do not agree with this premise. (bold)

Don't duck the question - how is it possible for fully voluntary associations to exist within the context of particular geographic region wherein a particular entity enjoys a monopoly of force?

Perhaps I don't understand the intent of your question, but I would think that if the State Constitutions were amended to have no penalty for not paying taxes, then it would be a voluntary State.

[newbitech]

How? Are you defining the state as something other than that entity which enjoys a monopoly of force within a given geographic area?

What is wrong with force? Are you confusing the term with coercion? No matter, I am currently enjoying a monopoly of force within my given geographic area. I am "state"! yaya!

Not to be a total asshat, but that definition of "the state" seems to be missing something. I wonder what it is?

[A Son of Liberty]

I do not agree with this premise. (bold)

You don't agree that Maryland, etc., was an independent colony before it was a subservient federal district?

Perhaps I don't understand the intent of your question, but I would think that if the State Constitutions were amended to have no penalty for not paying taxes, then it would be a voluntary State.

State constitutions would have to be amended to allow for competition in all areas of human interaction - not just the funding of monopolized services. An individual must be free to contract with, for example, security agencies other than the local government police, etc.

[A Son of Liberty]

What is wrong with force? Are you confusing the term with coercion? No matter, I am currently enjoying a monopoly of force within my given geographic area. I am "state"! yaya!

Not to be a total asshat, but that definition of "the state" seems to be missing something. I wonder what it is?

There's nothing wrong with that definition of the state, because you do not enjoy a monopoly of force within whatever geographic region you're currently occupying... unless you're posting from some stateless territory on this planet of which I'm not aware...?

[Travlyr]

You don't agree that Maryland, etc., was an independent colony before it was a subservient federal district?

Prior to the "War Between the States" and counterfeiting by oligarchs in America, the States were not considered subservient to the federal district.

State constitutions would have to be amended to allow for competition in all areas of human interaction - not just the funding of monopolized services. An individual must be free to contract with, for example, security agencies other than the local government police, etc.

Nobody said it would be easy.

[newbitech]

There's nothing wrong with that definition of the state, because you do not enjoy a monopoly of force within whatever geographic region you're currently occupying... unless you're posting from some stateless territory on this planet of which I'm not aware...?

yeah, actually I am. There is currently no unwanted use of force occurring anywhere around me. The geographic region I am in is about 1500 square feet. I don't own it, but the person who does has granted me permission to use it how I see fit. There will be no use of force occurring here without invitation, and certainly no aggressive use of force (coercion?). So yes, I do have a monopoly of the use of force within this given geographic region. I am enjoying it. I am an entity. That fits your definition that I originally commented on, does it not?

So yeah, something is missing, and I am waiting for you to reply and fill in that blank. Please hurry, I don't like being referred to as "state"!

[Travlyr]

Before I joined up here I had no idea how strained the relationship was between the traditional Rothbardian libertarians and the newer minarchists. More and more this post seems to be the case.

Well, as long as the we're all supporting Paul I really don't care how this turns out. Let's get this thread back on topic.

Why do you call the minarchists - newer? While I believe the Constitution went too far, early America ... States organized under the Articles of Confederation are minarchy by design. Rothbard is 20th century.

[A Son of Liberty]

Prior to the "War Between the States" and counterfeiting by oligarchs in America, the States were not considered subservient to the federal district.

That's why I said, "was".

Nobody said it would be easy.

Did anyone say it was possible?

[A Son of Liberty]

yeah, actually I am. There is currently no unwanted use of force occurring anywhere around me. The geographic region I am in is about 1500 square feet. I don't own it, but the person who does has granted me permission to use it how I see fit. There will be no use of force occurring here without invitation, and certainly no aggressive use of force (coercion?). So yes, I do have a monopoly of the use of force within this given geographic region. I am enjoying it. I am an entity. That fits your definition that I originally commented on, does it not?

So yeah, something is missing, and I am waiting for you to reply and fill in that blank. Please hurry, I don't like being referred to as "state"!

There will be no use of force there without invitation, huh? Let's cut to the chase: where are you located?

[Travlyr]

That's why I said, "was".

But your claim was that the Constitution undermined the States. I pointed out that it was a counterfeiting cabal that undermined the States.

Did anyone say it was possible?

Yes, I did.

[A Son of Liberty]

But your claim was that the Constitution undermined the States. I pointed out that it was a counterfeiting cabal that undermined the States.

Sorry - I lost my train of thought in the interim. Not particularly relevant anyway.

Yes, I did.

But you didn't substantiate it.

[Travlyr]

Sorry - I lost my train of thought in the interim. Not particularly relevant anyway.

Very relevant.

But you didn't substantiate it.

Amend the Constitutions. Substantiated.

[A Son of Liberty]

Very relevant.

Amend the Constitutions. Substantiated.

Amend them... into irrelevance? Sounds good!

[Travlyr]

Amend them... into irrelevance? Sounds good!

Nobody said it would be easy.

[A Son of Liberty]

Nobody said it would be easy.

In order to amend the state to allow fully voluntary association, it would be amended right out of existence.

I don't think this is the target you're aiming at...

[newbitech]

There will be no use of force there without invitation, huh? Let's cut to the chase: where are you located?

are you attempting to use coercion to get some involuntary information out of me? I was hoping to not have to attempt to validate my monopoly on the use of force within my already given geographical area. By asking for more details on my location other than what I have voluntarily provided, you are coming across as a threat to my individual sovereignty and you are forcing me to consider legitimate use of force to protect my monopoly. I from upon your answer since you and I appear to be in the same corning and you continue to paint, in spite of my humble not violent request for you to agree with me and STOP PAINTING.

[A Son of Liberty]

are you attempting to use coercion to get some involuntary information out of me? I was hoping to not have to attempt to validate my monopoly on the use of force within my already given geographical area. By asking for more details on my location other than what I have voluntarily provided, you are coming across as a threat to my individual sovereignty and you are forcing me to consider legitimate use of force to protect my monopoly. I from upon your answer since you and I appear to be in the same corning and you continue to paint, in spite of my humble not violent request for you to agree with me and STOP PAINTING.

Lol okay bud. You can pretend that you live outside the jurisdiction of a particular state agency, and that my asking questions is somehow the use of coercive force... and I can move on to a less disingenuous discussion.

[newbitech]

In order to amend the state to allow fully voluntary association, it would be amended right out of existence.

I don't think this is the target you're aiming at...

The only amendment necessary is an amendment that will permanently end the coercive use of force. If the state choose to redefine itself and operate without violence, it can end itself. By your definition, the only way to end the state is to challenge it's monopoly in a violent manner. Thus provoking the state to violently defending its monopoly. Of course now we will abandon this definition and go back to, the state cannot be a person, yet once again, your definition proves that it can act as a person.

This definition makes it impossible for the state to exist without some form of violence. The only peaceful solution is for you to believe that the state will abandon itself, in which case it wouldn't have been a state to begin with. This leads me to believe that your definition of the state exists only in a fictional or hypothetical sense.

This is the same reason incidentally that I told COnza he can't have it both ways.

[josh b]

Why do you call the minarchists - newer? While I believe the Constitution went too far, early America ... States organized under the Articles of Confederation are minarchy by design. Rothbard is 20th century.

I was referring to libertarianism. It was first used by the Spanish anarchists if I remember correctly. Rothbard and company were the ones who brought the term back into use. From a previous post of mine:

I'll add that libertarianism was originally anarchist in nature. It was used as a reference to Murray Rothbard's political philosophy. Rothbard helped to found organizations like the Cato Institute and the Libertarian Party. They eventually moderated their views for the sake of gaining influence and the term 'libertarian' went with them.

Yes I used the forbidden word. You brought it up, lol.

[Conza88]

*immature ad hominem filled rant*

Conza, stick to your self righteous philosophizing, and leave Ron Paul out of it!

I'll stick to defending Ron Paul's true political position against so called "supporters" thanks.

All Ron Paul's words... why he prefers a voluntary society (self-government) OVER a return to the Constitution...

You don't have an issue with me [I'm just the messenger], you actually have an issue with Ron Paul. Why don't you go critique the video then. I'm not the one living in the fantasy world lady, you are.

And that's not my problem. So by all means, keep posting irrational tripe - and keep bumping this post for new forum members to see.

[Conza88]

Pretty sure those are just example of extremism Conza. You are trying too hard. Make it easy on yourself.

Think of your original post, on how Ron Paul described what YOU want to be, a voluntaryist. Right? So no coercion.

From one extreme, a relative voluntary society to the other extreme (the opposite) the authoritarian approach.

This is the context in which I used the word extremist. Do you see how Ron Paul talks about the difference between the two without coming across as extremist? Also notice how Ron Paul answers the next question, do we have a chance of achieving society based on those ideals? Not soon.

So there are some intermediate steps. Why? Because right now, unfortunately and almost unbelievably, a voluntary society is an extreme position in our current authoritarian state.

So a little bit of slavery is good?

What it means to be an anarcho-capitalist - Stephan Kinsella.

Libertarian opponents of anarchy are attacking a straw man. Their arguments are usually utilitarian in nature and amount to "but anarchy won't work" or "we need the (things provided by the) state." But these attacks are confused at best, if not disingenuous. To be an anarchist does not mean you think anarchy will "work" (whatever that means); nor that you predict it will or "can" be achieved. It is possible to be a pessimistic anarchist, after all. To be an anarchist only means that you believe that aggression is not justified, and that states necessarily employ aggression. And, therefore, that states, and the aggression they necessarily employ, are unjustified. It's quite simple, really. It's an ethical view, so no surprise it confuses utilitarians.

We have a long way to go before those types of things are considered extremism and the opposite is considered the norm. So rather than trying to cram extremist idea's down people's throats, why don't you find a different approach? Hmmm? Well, I am not even asking you to do that. I just want you to back off pinning labels on people.

All I can do is ask, and all I can do is point out how you are wrong for continually trashing views that are not in line with yours. False left right paradigm example....

You clearly need to learn logic. My approach is working thanks. Just not on you; but that's ok - you're the soundboard, you've been 'chosen' because of your intellectual dishonesty and close mindedness.

Ad hominems' you minarchists are full of them. If you want to have a discussion about strategy, I said in the OP - we can have that discussion......... BUT once again, you've got nothing but bs strawmen. You don't ASK what my position is, YOU ASSUME. And assumptions are the mother of all...

[Conza88]

The only amendment necessary is an amendment that will permanently end the coercive use of force. If the state choose to redefine itself and operate without violence, it can end itself. By your definition, the only way to end the state is to challenge it's monopoly in a violent manner. Thus provoking the state to violently defending its monopoly. Of course now we will abandon this definition and go back to, the state cannot be a person, yet once again, your definition proves that it can act as a person.

This definition makes it impossible for the state to exist without some form of violence. The only peaceful solution is for you to believe that the state will abandon itself, in which case it wouldn't have been a state to begin with. This leads me to believe that your definition of the state exists only in a fictional or hypothetical sense.

"In conjunction with the privatization of all assets according to the principles outlined, the government should adopt a private property constitution and declare it to be the immutable basic law of the entire country. This constitution should be extremely brief and lay down the following principles in terms as unambiguous as possible:

Every person, apart from being the sole owner of his physical body, has the right to employ his private property in anyway he sees fit so long as in doing so he does not uninvitedly change the physical integrity of another person’s body or property. All interpersonal exchanges and all exchanges of property titles between property owners are to be voluntary (contractual). These rights of a person are absolute. Any person’s infringement on them is subject to lawful persecution by the victim of this infringement or his agent, and is actionable in accordance with the principles of proportionality of punishment and of strict liability.19

As implied by this constitution, then, all existing wage and price controls, all property regulations and licensing requirements, and all import and export restrictions should be immediately abolished and complete freedom of contract, occupation, trade and migration introduced. Subsequently, the government, now propertyless, should declare its own continued existence as unconstitutional-in so far as it depends on noncontractual property acquisitions, that is, taxation-and abdicate." ~ Democracy: God that Failed, Hoppe - p215*

*The book Ron Paul recommends you read. I suggest you go do it.

[Conza88]

The only peaceful solution is for you to believe that the state will abandon itself, in which case it wouldn't have been a state to begin with.

Epic failure. Methodological individualism 101. Different individuals bro, do you not understand that?

“Since socialism cannot arise without the expropriation of assets originally “created” and owned by individual homesteaders, producers, and/or contractors, all socialist property, ill-begotten from the very start, should be forfeited. No government, even if freely elected, can be considered the owner of any socialist property, for a criminal heir, even if himself innocent, does not become the legitimate owner of illegitimately acquired assets. Because of his personal innocence he remains exempt from persecution, but all of his “inherited” gains must immediately revert to the original victims, and their repossession of socialist property must take place without their being required to pay anything. In fact, to charge a victimized population a price for the reacquisition of what was originally its own would itself be a crime and would forever take away any innocence that a government previously might have had.”

More specifically, all original property titles should be recognized immediately, regardless of who presently owns them. In so far as the claims of original private owners or their heirs clash with those of the current assets’ users, the former should override the latter. Only if a current user can prove that an original owner-heir’s claim is illegitimate - that the title to the property in question had initially been acquired by coercion or fraudulent means - should a user’s claim prevail and should he be recognized as the legitimate owner.[10]

[10] In those cases in which current users actually bought expropriated assets from the government, they should seek compensation from those responsible for the sale, and the government officials accountable for it should be compelled to repay the purchase price. ~ Democracy: The God that Failed, Hans-Hermann Hoppe p125.*

*The book Ron Paul recommends you read. I suggest you do that.

But then there is also - Ending Tyranny Without Violence by MNR.

[Conza88]

Yo Travlyr, what books/sources have you read on private law/ natural order/ voluntarism / self government / anarcho-capitalism?

Don't worry newbitech, I know that even though it's been roughly 4-5 years - you still haven't read anything substantial on the subject.

[Travlyr]

I was referring to libertarianism. It was first used by the Spanish anarchists if I remember correctly. Rothbard and company were the ones who brought the term back into use.

The Spanish Anarchists: The Heroic Years 1868-1936
I don't know if this is the same Spanish anarchists to which you refer, but if so they were a century behind the colonies which morphed into States. Constitutional government seems to be the elder of libertarianism.

Yes I used the forbidden word. You brought it up, lol.

lol... keep in mind that it is not forbidden. What I watch for are people who paint Ron Paul as an anarchist when he clearly is not. Lots of people have put much energy into it in order to disrupt (divide & conquer) the liberty movement. Actions speak louder than words. Ron Paul is running for a third time for the highest office the State has ever known. He is doing it because he is for the rule of law. Self described labels are honest and accurate. Ron Paul is a "defender of liberty and supporter of the Constitution." Ron Paul's words ... not Conza's. Philosophically Mises, Rothbard, and Paul are closely aligned. Mises understood and Paul understands that the State is actually a good design for property distribution and rights. I don't know where Rothbard stands on that.

[Travlyr]

In order to amend the state to allow fully voluntary association, it would be amended right out of existence.

I don't think this is the target you're aiming at...

Right. That is your target. But I walk this Earth too and I'm going to fight you before you reach your goal. I've mentioned earlier that anarchists will start a civil war if they try to achieve their goals. Here's why. My property pins are located and recorded in deeds held at the county clerk's office at my county building which is under the authority of the State where I live. If you have a better plan offer it up before you eliminate the State. If not, then get the hell off my property, leave me alone, and if you destroy the county building and my property deed I'll fill your butt full of lead. My property is where I raise my food. I will defend my rights.