State or Private Law Society? [Ron Paul endorsed author]

[Conza88]

State or Private-Law Society - The reader friendly article version .

• The Problem of Social Order
• The Solution: The Idea of Private Property
• The Fundamental Error of "Statism"
• The Error Compounded: The Democratic State
• The Solution: Private-Law Society instead of State

Essentially, if you are to only read one article/short text on politics - it should be this. You'll be more correct than nearly every political philosopher of the past, and academic of the present. This is the one lecture/text you have to read.

Ron Paul recommends you read Democracy: The God that Failed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

[Conza88]

For those that are "tl;dr", here is another excerpt from a different source which gives the gist. But I'd recommend reading the text/watching the speech, it starts from first principles and reasons from there.

Daily Bell: How would law and order be provided in this society? How would your ideal justice system work?

Dr. Hans-Hermann Hoppe: In a private law society the production of law and order - of security - would be undertaken by freely financed individuals and agencies competing for a voluntarily paying (or not-paying) clientele - just as the production of all other goods and services. How this system would work can be best understood in contrast to the workings of the present, all-too-familiar statist system. If one wanted to summarize in one word the decisive difference - and advantage - of a competitive security industry as compared to the current statist practice, it would be: contract.

The state operates in a legal vacuum. There exists no contract between the state and its citizens. It is not contractually fixed, what is actually owned by whom, and what, accordingly, is to be protected. It is not fixed, what service the state is to provide, what is to happen if the state fails in its duty, nor what the price is that the “customer” of such “service” must pay. Rather, the state unilaterally fixes the rules of the game and can change them, per legislation, during the game. Obviously, such behavior is inconceivable for freely financed security providers. Just imagine a security provider, whether police, insurer or arbitrator, whose offer consisted in something like this: I will not contractually guarantee you anything. I will not tell you what I oblige myself to do if, according to your opinion, I do not fulfill my service to you - but in any case, I reserve the right to unilaterally determine the price that you must pay me for such undefined service. Any such security provider would immediately disappear from the market due to a complete lack of customers.

Each private, freely financed security producer must instead offer its prospective clients a contract. And these contracts must, in order to appear acceptable to voluntarily paying consumers, contain clear property descriptions as well as clearly defined mutual services and obligations. Each party to a contract, for the duration or until the fulfillment of the contract, would be bound by its terms and conditions; and every change of terms or conditions would require the unanimous consent of all parties concerned.

Specifically, in order to appear acceptable to security buyers, these contracts must contain provisions about what will be done in the case of a conflict or dispute between the protector or insurer and his own protected or insured clients as well as in the case of a conflict between different protectors or insurers and their respective clients. And in this regard only one mutually agreeable solution exists: in these cases the conflicting parties contractually agree to arbitration by a mutually trusted but independent third party. And as for this third party: it, too, is freely financed and stands in competition with other arbitrators or arbitration agencies. Its clients, i.e., the insurers and the insured, expect of it, that it come up with a verdict that is recognized as fair and just by all sides. Only arbitrators capable of forming such judgments will succeed in the arbitration market. Arbitrators incapable of this and viewed as biased or partial will disappear from the market.

[Travlyr]

Ron Paul recommends you read Democracy: The God that Failed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

Unless you are Ron Paul this is dishonest.

[Conza88]

Unless you are Ron Paul this is dishonest.

Or if you had read his newest book, you'd know in the section on Democracy he cites Hoppe's Democracy: The God that Failed, as well as Rothbard's For A New Liberty as recommended reading.

Trolls, keep trying... keep on failing. Cheers for the bump

So really, I am not dishonest - you are just ignorant. I'd ask for an apology about the false accusation, but coming from you it wouldn't be worth much, nor even likely - so I'll save my breathe.

[Travlyr]

All I am asking of you Conza is to let Ron Paul speak for himself and label himself.

For example, Travlyr recommends reading "Liberty Defined" by Ron Paul.

[Conza88]

All I am asking of you Conza is to let Ron Paul speak for himself and label himself.
For example, Travlyr recommends reading "Liberty Defined" by Ron Paul.

All I do is let Ron Paul speak for himself and label himself, the problem is mate - you choose to ignore his words, when it doesn't suit you. That's not my problem, that's yours. Go take it up with him if it's got your knickers in a knot.

Ron Paul book -> he recommends reading: Democracy the God that failed, and he recommends reading Rothbard's For A New Liberty.

He has literally recommended you read two of the best anarcho-capitalism / voluntarist books out there.

I suggest your time is better spent... listening to what Ron Paul says, and following through with it.. rather than wasting your time, trying to get me to stop -> merely continuing to repeat the words of his, you don't like.

Grow up.

[Conza88]

[CaseyJones]

moved to philosophy

[bwlibertyman]

Travlyr, where's the apology? You were clearly pwned.

[Conza88]

moved to philosophy

Moved to the 'playground of truth'.

Thanks, I need too learn to stop casting my pearls before swine.

[Wesker1982]

Great video. I think I will watch it again!

Or if you had read his newest book, you'd know in the section on Democracy he cites Hoppe's Democracy: The God that Failed, as well as Rothbard's For A New Liberty as recommended reading.

Yeah, it is not like he is hiding stuff like:

Healing Our World bridges the gap between conservatives and liberals, Christians and New Agers, special interests and the common good, with practical solutions to our economic and societal woes.

These practical solutions to economic and societal problems that Ron Paul is clearly advocating just happen to be all voluntaryist solutions.

In the next couple of years, I quickly went from an objectivist to anarchist. In the late 1960s, Morris and Linda Tannehill lived in the E. Lansing, Michigan area, where I was going to school. Through the friend who encouraged me to read Ayn Rand’s books, I met this fascinating couple and obtained a copy of their libertarian-anarchist book, The Market for Liberty. - Mary Ruwart, author of Healing Our World

Ron Paul also recommends reading Let's Abolish Government by Lysander Spooner.

[josh b]

Ron Paul also recommends reading Let's Abolish Government by Lysander Spooner.

Holy crap, he does! I just checked, it's on p.72 at the end of the 'Democracy' essay. I didn't notice that before!

That made my day.

[Travlyr]

Travlyr, where's the apology? You were clearly pwned.

Ron Paul & voluntarists thread

Conza's first ever response to me,

Seriously though, are you blind or intellectually dishonest?

Second,

epic fail. Are you demented? Are you? Read the friggin op of the thread.
You guys aren't concerned with the truth at all. Your whole "crusade" against "us" is based on an abysmally flawed assumption... And that is your downfall. Terribly humorous, terribly sad - that you're in fact a ron paul "supporter" and fail to see that.

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

Enough to know I like the State of Colorado better than anything you might be promoting.

intellectual honesty fail.
And, just like Ron Paul... I support SELF-GOVERNMENT COMPARED TO THE CONSTITUTION... self-government/voluntarism/anarcho-capitalism being his end goal. His words. Pretty damn clear.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Not closely, directly aligned. Ron Paul directly follows the Rothbard caucus' 10 points [The Ron Paul revolution is essentially Rothbardian].

I don't think so. I've never heard Ron Paul say he wants to dismantle the state. It would be more believable if Ron would say it instead of you, Conza.

Ron Paul says "the state is a good design for property distribution and rights?" <- Hahaha! That is beyond ret#$%^d.

Which is an outright lie. You misquoted me just like people twist what Ron Paul says. I never said what you said you I said. Here is the truth of what was posted,

originally posted by travlyr
mises understood and paul understands that the state is actually a good design for property distribution and rights.

That was MY claim, and it seems obvious to me that Ron Paul does not seek to take my property away from me.

Back up that claim, please oh please provide the sources that back up that statement. Wayyy too funny [due to absurdity]!

Right, or wrong, I understand the State differently than you.

After losing respect for Conza he posted this,
07-24-2011 06:12 AM

originally posted by conza88
intellectual honesty fail.

40 minutes later ... 07-24-2011 06:50 AM ... I saw this post.

originally posted by conza88
ron paul recommends you read democracy: The god that failed by hans-hermann hoppe.

So, I posted this.

unless you are ron paul this is dishonest.

I do not apologize to Conza. Conza has an agenda. Ron Paul recommends a lot of books some voluntary, some instructive, some intellectual. Conza picking this one out of the many is Conza promoting Conza's agenda not Ron Paul's self described promotion as a "Defender of Liberty and supporter of the Constitution."

Travlyr, where's the apology? You were clearly pwned.

I call a truce with Conza if he is interested.

As to the other Ron Paul supporters ... especially those who are AnCaps, I apologize for misunderstanding your position. I do not know enough about your philosophy to debate with you. So I am bowing out of the debate.

Nevertheless, I will remain vigilant in ferreting out anyone who seems to me to be trying to undermine Ron Paul's campaign because if the opposition wasn't so organized and strong, then Ron Paul would be already polling at 95% instead of the 11% I read about earlier.

<---- ZERO intellectual honesty, and that makes you a troll.

Fantasy land bro, you're living in a dream world.
The claim is absolutely baseless - which you seem to openly admit... amazing! You're literally making stuff up and claiming it as truth.

... but then that isn't really news, nor the fact that Rothbard supports Ron Paul. How lemmings here cannot understand that, is an indictment of them - not anyone else.

What a load of bull. You don't understand libertarianism. What a joke.

Are you a robot, or a spambot? No? Then stop acting like one.

Absolutely. But welcome to the make believe world of Trav. He can make up claims all he wants. He has no proof. He has no supporting arguments. BUT he makes the claim none the less.

He gives legitimate Ron Paul supporters a bad name.

Who do you speak of?

Mises wasn't a statist. He was a philosophical 'anarchist' like Albert Jay Nock.

I've never heard anyone call him an anarchist-he wasn't.

Now you have.

Noooo, you haven't.

Quotation marks and the presence of another word, gives it a different meaning. Or do the basic mechanics of the English language completely escape you? There is also the indication towards another individual... maybe if you weren't ignorant in terms of their history and content, you'd understand the context.

Mises was better than the classical liberals. There is no 'constitutionalism' or any of that bs. His principle of liberalism, is that of individual secession. The only thing stopping his support was 'the technical considerations', but if it could be done... it would and should be. So 'in theory' he was, hence 'philosophical anarchist'. Call it whatever the fck you want, he didn't support a state.

If you want to say you follow Mises, you need to contend with that.

All you do is further embarrass yourself.. the fact you don't even realise it is even more amusing.

Admit it, you have read nothing substantial [beyond wikipedia and yet I doubt even that] about self-government, anarcho-capitalism, voluntarism, private law society etc.

You continue to dodge the question, it's a pretty simple one mate. And yes, you continue to show yourself an intellectual dishonest ____.

See how retarded this is - you throw labels at us, the hypocrisy is out-friggin-standing... you're a walking parody! You do not first ask what is meant by a word... because you don't care to have an intelligent discussion, that much is obvious. All you want to do is rant against the strawman you draw up - too feel good in your fantasy world of make believe.

What you have described and continue to mindlessly repeat ad neuseum (for your own sake, not others) is that I support your definition of "anarchy". Epic fail as usual. That is not what I support. I support self-government. What I consider the legitimate use of anarchy - means "no rulers", THAT does NOT mean "no rules".

Rules without rulers what good are they?

Demented fools do not understand that, so I choose other words to use and associate with as rhetoric plays a role in discussion. The fact you continue to throw this label around shows your dishonesty.

If you want to continue to adopt that as your definition - by all means, but know I don't support what you think it is I support, nor that when I choose to defend the concept - I'm defend freedom, not your bs notion of it.
Do you not understand the difference between nation and nation-state? Don't worry about an answer - it's bloody obvious you don't.
Nope, not the definition of the state. You're missing the whole monopoly on coercion and taxation / threat of aggression and violent force part... KIND OF THE WHOLE POINT.

Which is exactly my point. What the hell are you talking about, Conza?

Waste of time bro. The only reason you haven't gone on ignore yet, is because it's hilarious pointing out your intellectual dishonesty. Haven't got the guts to admit the truth - to yourself above of all people.

You know nothing about which you deny. You have a closed mind. For shame - hardly a Ron Paul supporter worthy of the name.

Sorry, but I can not muster any respect for Conza.

If you do, then it makes no difference to me as long as nobody tries to undermine Dr. Paul's run for president.

[Conza88]

Like I said, spambot. Since we seem to be in the 'business' of pasting from other threads; this is all that needs to be said to your inane post.

ADAM KOKESH: So you've described yourself as a voluntarist. Can you tell us what that means for the big picture, and what your ideal society would be, as a voluntarist?

RON PAUL: Voluntary means no coercion. So if you want to change people's habits or change the world you should do it by setting examples and trying to persuade people to do it. You can use force only when somebody uses force against you. So voluntary use of information and persuading people, I think, is the best way to go; and no matter what kind of problem you're looking at.

ADAM KOKESH: Do you think we have a change of achieving a society based on those ideals in America?

RON PAUL: Not soon. We had a relative voluntary society (you know) in our early history, but steadily, even after the Constitution was passed, steadily it was undermined and it systematically grew, it grew certainly through the 20th century; that is the authoritarian approach, which is the opposite. That is: the government tells us everything we can do and can't do.

Hello forum How is everyone?

As some of you may remember.. the above is obviously not anything new. I often made the case on these forums & over here(contains the video where he says he prefers self-government as opposed to a return to the constitution).

Before jumping in (if you are so inclined) I'd suggest you don't assume any positions/strategy I hold because of the above. Simply ask.
Cheers!

Edit: (additional video)

[heavenlyboy34]

Conza, you're probably better off not trying to reason with Travlyr. He's proven impervious to reason and evidence numerous times in my experience with him.

[Sentient Void]

Conza, you're probably better off not trying to reason with Travlyr. He's proven impervious to reason and evidence numerous times in my experience with him.

Indeed. He's completely irrational when it comes to RP and his anarchist statements, advocations and connections.

[Conza88]

Good point. Thanks guys. Where is the block feature? That still around?

[heavenlyboy34]

Good point. Thanks guys. Where is the block feature? That still around?

I think it is, but I don't know how it works anymore. I was trying to make it work earlier today.

[Conza88]

I think it is, but I don't know how it works anymore. I was trying to make it work earlier today.

Control panel -> edit ignore list (down on the left side).

Travlyr has been added to the list.

[bunklocoempire]

Bunkloco

[A Son of Liberty]

"The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody had decided not to see."

//

[Conza88]

Holy crap, he does! I just checked, it's on p.72 at the end of the 'Democracy' essay. I didn't notice that before!

That made my day.

Hahah . Someone take a photo of this recommendation list please? [Don't think the haters have been able to get over their cognitive dissonance yet].

@All - Abolish Government by Lysander Spooner - free pdf here.

Guess what Ron Paul recommends for reading? Guess what chief article is within the book, besides the obvious title giving a hint.

NO TREASON: The Constitution of No Authority

[Travlyr]

Conza, you're probably better off not trying to reason with Travlyr. He's proven impervious to reason and evidence numerous times in my experience with him.

Indeed. He's completely irrational when it comes to RP and his anarchist statements, advocations and connections.

Control panel -> edit ignore list (down on the left side).

Travlyr has been added to the list.

In a world where a state is not a State, anarchy is not Anarchy, extremism is not Extremism, and philosophy is not realism, then I must assume that impervious is not Impervious, reason is not Reason, evidence is not Evidence, irrational is not Irrational, and ignore is not Ignore.

For that I thank you.

Ron Paul is a self described "Defender of Liberty." Let's do no harm to his political campaign ... let Ron Paul speak for Ron Paul, let Ron Paul promote Ron Paul, promote ourselves as we see fit, and see if we can win some Liberty for ourselves starting next year.

Ron Paul 2012!

[Conza88]

Didn't read the above... but I'm assuming it was continued misdirection?

But seriously, could someone let me know... if Trav ever answers the question of what books he has read on anarcho-capitalism/voluntarism/logically consistent libertarianism/private law society/self government [that which is advocated by Ron Paul]... because I'd love to know. Currently as it stands, 5 times asked, 5 times dodged.

[Travlyr]

What I pointed out last night Conza was that your very first attempt to converse with me on this forum was to insult my intelligence. That is not something Ron Paul would do. It is not a winning strategy. And your agenda is your agenda ... Ron Paul's agenda is Ron Paul's agenda. Promote accordingly.

[Conza88]

Damn, had to read that one.. (As always thanks for the bumps, these threads get so many more views because of you & others who are intent on them not. Most amusing).

Liar. A question isn't an insult, try again. But seriously, your actions deserve ridicule... ummm, let's take this EXACT THREAD for instance... ! LMAO, you bring it on yourself! Don't blame me bro, take some responsibility for your completely sad & misguided actions.

Like I've said elsewhere, grow up. How old are you anyway? Oh yeahhhh, and what books have you read about self-government/voluntarism/private law society/anarcho-capitalism?

(#6 times asked, 6 times dodged).

[Sola_Fide]

In my opinion, I would not argue that making our society more voluntary isn't desireable, it definitely is. I would just argue that defenses of a completely voluntary society from natural law, utilitarianism, or totally denying prescriptions are not internally consistent and begin on logical flaws.

Furthermore, I truly believe that every armchair voluntaryist here would be happy with an arrangement like the Articles Of Confederation.

My argument is not against all civil government, rather it is against centralization. I think a decentralized government is consistent with liberty.

[Travlyr]

In my opinion, I would not argue that making our society more voluntary isn't desireable, I would just argue that a defenses of a voluntary society from natural law, utilitarianism, or totally denying prescriptions are not internally consistent and begin on logical flaws.

Furthermore, I truly believe that every armchair voluntaryist here would be happy with an arrangement like the Articles Of Confederation.

My argument is not against all civil government, rather it is against centralization. I think a decentralized government is consistent with liberty.

+ rep

[Travlyr]

Damn, had to read that one.. (As always thanks for the bumps, these threads get so many more views because of you & others who are intent on them not. Most amusing).

You are welcome.

Conza's first ever response to me,

Originally Posted by conza88
Seriously though, are you blind or intellectually dishonest?

Pretty insulting for a first encounter, and not a winning strategy.

[Conza88]

I had seen your responses elsewhere, that wasn't my first 'encounter' with you. It was already crystal clear you weren't and are not intellectually honest. And I was right. How do I know?...

Oh yeahhhh, and what books have you read about self-government/voluntarism/private law society/anarcho-capitalism?

(#6 times asked, 6 times dodged).

Luckyyyy no. 7?!