Political Theory

Re: Minarchism is theft

nirgrahamUK — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 08:03:17 GMT

it helps to actually have a theory of justice instead of making one up as you go.

[part blanked]

Re: Minarchism is theft

Conagain — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 07:08:07 GMT

blanked

Re: Minarchism is theft

Conza88 — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 07:02:09 GMT

Conagain:
Yes, you and I disagree on who are "victims", so you call it "blame the victims" I call it "silence is consent".

Victims... yeah, those who have had the threat or violence initiated against them and their property.

"Silence is consent". - No it's not actually, and your premise is flawed because no-one is ever asked the question to begin with.

Conagain:
I DID alter my question , and that is, how can guns protect property when using guns violates property?

When you initiate violence against someone, you lose the right to your property by the same extent. Thus when a person defends themselves against your initiation of violence, your rights are not being violated.

Don't like it? Don't initiate violence.

Conagain:
your disrespect for my ownership is violation of my property

You never legitimately owned the slave. His normative rights never went away, only his legal and defacto ones. Again, your claim of violation falls flat on its face, because it assumes you legitimately own the property. You don't.

Re: Minarchism is theft

Conagain — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 06:10:33 GMT

That does not make any sense. Care to elaborate / explain?

Yes, you and I disagree on who are "victims", so you call it "blame the victims" I call it "silence is consent".

I DID alter my question , and that is, how can guns protect property when using guns violates property?

Example : If I owned you as a slave, you using a gun to "protect yourself" is a violation of my property (your disrespect for my ownership is violation of my property)

Re: Minarchism is theft

Conza88 — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 06:02:29 GMT

Conagain:

Surely, you're not about to go blame the victims. Are you?

Yes, I WILL blame the victims, nobody is a victim in a free society.

That does not make any sense. Care to elaborate / explain?

Conagain:
Guns don't violate property to exist
Guns don't violate property to exist

Good, you now agree with me. So maybe you should alter your origional question.

Re: Minarchism is theft

Conagain — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 05:50:39 GMT

Angurse:

Meh. You get what you pay for.

no disagreement

Re: Minarchism is theft

Angurse — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 05:47:47 GMT

Conagain:

If I own you as a slave, you using a gun against me (in the name of protecting yourself) is violation of my property (your disrespect for my claim to property is again violation of my property)

Meh. You get what you pay for.

Re: Minarchism is theft

Conagain — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 05:40:33 GMT

Surely, you're not about to go blame the victims. Are you?

Yes, I WILL blame the victims, nobody is a victim in a free society.

Guns don't violate property to exist

Guns don't violate property to exist, but they violate a person's property by protecting another's.

If I own you as a slave, you using a gun against me (in the name of protecting yourself) is violation of my property (your disrespect for my claim to property is again violation of my property)

Re: Minarchism is theft

Conza88 — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 04:56:52 GMT

Conagain:
Keyword : ITSELF

Correct.

So what else will? Can anything limit the power of government? What can limit the power of a monopoly on the initiation of violence over a given territory, and is at the same time, the final arbiter?

Surely, you're not about to go blame the victims. Are you?

Conagain:
Conza88:
How can you say the State protects property, when it must violate property to exist?

How can guns protect property when it must violate property to exist? (Keeping in mind two people may disagree on what qualifies as property)

Guns don't violate property to exist. A gun manufacturer voluntarily purchases material to produce the product, gun exists - no violation of property.

Re: Minarchism is theft

Conagain — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 03:54:29 GMT

How can you say the State protects property, when it must violate property to exist?

How can guns protect property when it must violate property to exist? (Keeping in mind two people may disagree on what qualifies as property)

Re: Minarchism is theft

Conagain — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 03:52:18 GMT

Conza88:

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Dr. Ron Paul, End the Fed 2009

Keyword : ITSELF

Re: Minarchism is theft

Conza88 — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:25:03 GMT

Poptech:
He made no statement of his position on the constitution in that video.

I never stated he did. But he has elsewhere.

Conza88:
"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Dr. Ron Paul, End the Fed 2009

Poptech:
He merely commented on how he used it for his argument in one instance.

The situation he described and the issues involved applies basically for all his positions, not just one. That was just one example.

Poptech:
Conza88:
Are you implying Ron Paul is a fool? Are you suggesting he is not logically & principally consistent? Rothbard converted Robert Nozick in 5 minutes. What do you think is the case with Ron, who was Rothbards friend for 30 years?

I am not implying anything as I would like to know Dr. Paul's true positions on these matters. What I am telling you is the Libertarian Party is not anarcho-capitalist. Why can you not show me any video or writing stating that Ron Paul is an anarcho-capitalist?

I'd like to ask him myself, in private. In the mean time, I'll go with his written works stating his support of Natural Law, Natural Rights and the only reason he has a political career is because of Austrian Economics. I'll also go with his use of the Constitution as a rhetorical tool to help his arguments that stem from a natural law, natural rights and Austrian economic perspective. There is also his newest book, where the Constitution is stated as essentially useless in achieving limited government. Or you could go watch the motorhome diaries video that has already been posted in this thread where it is stated that Ron is for "self government." Or you could ask the LvMI forum user, Pablo, about when he asked Ron what he thinks of anarcho-capitalism.

The Libertarian Party is not logically nor principally consistent? They are not radical? I know - that's the problem. That's why most Ron Paul supporters didn't vote for them at the election. And all this sudden interest in Libertarianism resulted in no more votes for Barr. Selling out is no way to achieve Liberty.

Poptech:
Conza88:
You are the one who is saying it must hold a specific position and that it must be minarchism, or it should change its name. In order to get to this position, you must twist reality. This isn't an Ayn Rand Cult. Austrian Economics is not a closed system. It is in the tradition of Mises character & determination, that the Institute advances the scholarship of Liberty.

That is not what I am saying. What am saying is you cannot say the only position held here must be anarcho-capitalism. If this is the case then yes you must change the name as Mises did not support anarchy.

When was that ever said? It wasn't. Tsk tsk tsk. Strawman. So, really - you are the one who seems to have an issue with this - not anyone else.

Poptech:
Conza88:
What is the method Mises used and developed? What is the method Rothbard used and developed? Hint: it starts with 'P', ends with 'y'.

But changes not sanctioned by Mises would not be "Misean" anymore.

Find out what the word "tradition" means. Mises had an opportunity to address those issues raised by Rothbard. His response was Rothbard is a great economist.

Poptech:
What if I took anarcho-capitalism and carried it on in the Rothbardian tradition to become a constitutional republic. Would this now be in the "Rothbardian Tradition"?

Non sequitur. Begs the question.

Poptech:
Conza88:
What doesn't the government intervene in?

You didn't answer the question. If I can commit violence at anytime it is logically impossible for the government to have monopoly on violence.

What is meant by the phrase a monopoly on the use of [initiation] of violence, over a given territory ala the state. It gives individuals who are part of the state, i.e the RULERS, the ability to rule over other individuals who are not part of the state, and these people are RULED. That's the proper class analysis. The state fails the universality & equality of law principles of classical liberalism. It is stuck in a contradiction, which is highlighted by the question below you refuse to answer.

The government has a monopoly on what is to be unjust or against the "law", which is often legal positivism... if it is not based on natural law. It is thus man made law, laws made by rulers to increase their power and oppress the people. Rulers follow their self interest, being in power doesn't change that. Refer to the classic Lord Acton quote; "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely."

You didn't answer the question, "what doesn't the government intervene in?"

Poptech:
Conza88:
Lmao! How is it subjective? Answer the question. What do you see as the proper role of government?

How can say an institution say it protects property, when it must violate it to exist?
It is subjective because of the use of the word "violate". The proper role of government should be for police, courts and the military.

No, it's not subjective. We're talking about property. Stock standard definition of violation applies. Why isn't "protect" subjective? . I'll simplify this for you:

How can you say the State protects property, when it must violate property to exist?

Or are you one of the crazies who thinks taxation is voluntary?

Ron Paul would abolish the CIA, FBI and bring all the troops home. How does that make you feel?

Poptech:
Conza88:
Wow, that is pathetic. So if he was to do exactly what he has been doing, saying the exact same things publicly, and you asked him privately, do you favor self government? And he said - "yes". You'd stop supporting him?

I never supported him so I would not have to "stop" but yes if I was supporting him based on him being a constitutional libertarian and found out later he was an anarcho-capitalist, I would stop. It is dishonest and fraudulent.

It's not dishonest, it's not fraudulent, he's never lied. Go buy his End the Fed book, that'd be a good start. Doesn't matter either way, you've stated you don't support Ron Paul. Again, so why care? The trolling opportunity... right?

Poptech:
Conza88:
And why can you promise this question will be asked in the future? Are you going to be an ass and ask him about it publicly? It's already been tried. Two guys, one with a camera asked Ron about Lysander Spooners Constitution of No Authority, they asked a question, but it required a follow up - for them to 'catch him'. He didn't allow a follow up. He knew the argument. By the way, you conveniently ignored the other questions. What do you think would happen to the movement? How would the MSM react? I guess you wouldn't care though, right? Since you wouldn't support him anymore.

If the right people ask the right questions and Paul refuses to answer them he will discredit himself. So you support him not being honest with the people who support him? Amazing.

He's been honest with those who support him. He's for self government, go check out the video. Go ask Pablo, a forum member here who asked him. Difference is they are not fools, who'd ask him publicly.

This whole conversation is becoming a joke. You don't even support Ron Paul, you supported Bob "cia" Barr.

Re: Minarchism is theft

Poptech — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 03:04:20 GMT

Conza88:
Everything he stated in that video implied he supports the U.S Constitution as a rhetorical tool in an age of manufactured consent. Appealing to it, means he can get a pass from the economically ignorant populace.

He made no statement of his position on the constitution in that video. He merely commented on how he used it for his argument in one instance.

Conza88:
Are you implying Ron Paul is a fool? Are you suggesting he is not logically & principally consistent? Rothbard converted Robert Nozick in 5 minutes. What do you think is the case with Ron, who was Rothbards friend for 30 years?

I am not implying anything as I would like to know Dr. Paul's true positions on these matters. What I am telling you is the Libertarian Party is not anarcho-capitalist. Why can you not show me any video or writing stating that Ron Paul is an anarcho-capitalist?

Conza88:
What is certain, is you've failed to prove it isn't. There is a myriad of information, examples and quotes that all point towards the beneath the surface obvious. There is more than one source stating Ron has told them, privately, that "his ideal is self government" and "anarcho-capitalism would be a great idea to strive for."

Third party is not good enough. Ron Paul can answer this himself. So prove it.

Conza88:
And again, we've already addressed this. Ron uses it as a rhetorical tool. His appeal to the Constitution is secondary, not primary. It is not where he gets his positions from.

No you haven't. So I will wait until you can provide actual proof. You could provide it for Mr. Rockwell, so surely someone as well known as Ron Paul should not be that hard.

Conza88:
Wrong. The point was 40%. The hot bed of activism during the Ron Paul campaign, where a lot of ideas sprang from, 40% from that poll. Voluntaryists. They support self government, just like Ron Paul. See the above motorhome diaries video? Are you calling that person a liar, who said Ron told them he is for self government? Are you calling the forum member here, Pablo - who asked Ron about anarcho-capitalism, to which the response was: "it is a great idea to strive for". Are you calling him a liar?

The point was 41 people. Sample size matters in polls. I don't know the person in the video. What am saying is Ron Paul should state his beliefs clearly. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend. The only way I am going to believe it is if Ron Paul says it himself.

Conza88:
Should the Ludwig Von Mises Institute support conscription? Yes or no? In this in the tradition and spirit of Liberty? Yes or no? Do you know what 'inspired' means? Do you know what 'tradition' means? Do you know what 'praxeology' is?

It would be hypocritical to say the view is not allowed here or "wrong". I find it disingenuous to use a person's name and then imply positions using that name that the person did not hold.

Conza88:
Furthermore, he did not have an ideology, he had a method. It is called praxeology. You do know what praxeology is, right? This is the method that is the underpinning of the Austrian school. That is the tradition it follows, Mises worked tirelessly to apply this method to economics / catallactics, and it is in this tradition that Rothbard has done the same. He extended its use and analysis. I suggest you read Power and Market.

Yes I know what praxeology is. The problem is you don't know what the definition of ideology is.

Conza88:
You are the one who is saying it must hold a specific position and that it must be minarchism, or it should change its name. In order to get to this position, you must twist reality. This isn't an Ayn Rand Cult. Austrian Economics is not a closed system. It is in the tradition of Mises character & determination, that the Institute advances the scholarship of Liberty.

That is not what I am saying. What am saying is you cannot say the only position held here must be anarcho-capitalism. If this is the case then yes you must change the name as Mises did not support anarchy.

Conza88:
What is the method Mises used and developed? What is the method Rothbard used and developed? Hint: it starts with 'P', ends with 'y'.

But changes not sanctioned by Mises would not be "Misean" anymore. What if I took anarcho-capitalism and carried it on in the Rothbardian tradition to become a constitutional republic. Would this now be in the "Rothbardian Tradition"?

Conza88:
What doesn't the government intervene in?

You didn't answer the question. If I can commit violence at anytime it is logically impossible for the government to have monopoly on violence.

Conza88:

Lmao! How is it subjective? Answer the question. What do you see as the proper role of government?

How can say an institution say it protects property, when it must violate it to exist?

It is subjective because of the use of the word "violate". The proper role of government should be for police, courts and the military.

Conza88:
Wow, that is pathetic. So if he was to do exactly what he has been doing, saying the exact same things publicly, and you asked him privately, do you favor self government? And he said - "yes". You'd stop supporting him?

I never supported him so I would not have to "stop" but yes if I was supporting him based on him being a constitutional libertarian and found out later he was an anarcho-capitalist, I would stop. It is dishonest and fraudulent.

Conza88:
And why can you promise this question will be asked in the future? Are you going to be an ass and ask him about it publicly? It's already been tried. Two guys, one with a camera asked Ron about Lysander Spooners Constitution of No Authority, they asked a question, but it required a follow up - for them to 'catch him'. He didn't allow a follow up. He knew the argument. By the way, you conveniently ignored the other questions. What do you think would happen to the movement? How would the MSM react? I guess you wouldn't care though, right? Since you wouldn't support him anymore.

If the right people ask the right questions and Paul refuses to answer them he will discredit himself. So you support him not being honest with the people who support him? Amazing.

Re: Minarchism is theft

Conza88 — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 05:10:41 GMT

wilderness:
Poptech:
wilderness:
I told you before. LewRockwell founded this Institution and is an anarcho-capitalist. He says so himself.

Can you show me where he says this.

As you would abandon Ron P., now you are free to abandon this forum:

1....

2....

Question: Who would you support in the 2008 elections?

... Of course I’m cheering on Ron Paul because he is exposing the nature of the whole system. He is not running for president. He is running against the presidency as it is currently understood. Ultimately, however, I do not believe that politics offers a way out. What we need is a new consciousness concerning the idea of human liberty.

Question: Do you agree with Ron Paul that we should go by the Constitution and that’s it?

Answer: The Constitution would be a major improvement over what we have today. But we need to realize that the Constitution itself represented a major increase in government power over the Articles of Confederation, which would have served us quite well had it not been overthrown. I’m not impressed by the bunch that foisted the Constitution on us. They were really up to no good. We’ve all but forgotten that most everyone opposed it at the time. It only squeaked through once the Bill of Rights was tacked on. The Bill of Rights isn’t perfect, but it at least had the advantage of spelling out what the government could not do. In a rather ingenious twist, even that has been perverted: it is now seen as a mandate for the federal government to tell lower orders of government what they cannot do, meaning that it ends up being a force for centralization. This is such a tragedy. If Patrick Henry could see what became of it, I’m sure he never would have tolerated it. The same might be true of Hamiliton, for that matter. So long as we are talking about founding documents, the one that really deserves more attention is the Declaration of Independence. Now here is an inspiring document that shows us where we should go in the future!

Poptech:
Who said I supported Ron Paul? I voted for Bob Barr not Ron Paul.

That explains a lot. Are you involved with the party at all? You seemed to take issue with the Rothbard caucus. How did selling out go for you guys, the LP? Any increase in votes? Oh wait, no...

Republican lite ftl.

Poptech:

To have an abandonment position, I would first need someone to abandon and since I have never been a Ron Paul supporter than it is not possible for me to "abandon him". But I will "abandon" anyone who pretended to hold my views but I later found out did not. These are the standards I hold myself to.

I don't have a statist (actual definition) agenda.

So you've never supported Ron Paul... then what exactly was the point of this?

Poptech:
Conza88:
If he did, what would you do? What do you think would happen to the movement? How would the MSM react? Would you still vote for him?

I would not support him.

You don't support him, nor will you ever, so why pretend, why care?

Re: Minarchism is theft

Conza88 — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 04:46:27 GMT

Conza88:

Poptech:
Yes the constitution has problems, many of which has to do with word usage, which can be addressed. This has nothing to do with abolishing it.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Dr. Ron Paul, End the Fed 2009

So wait... why is this person, who, according to you - is a strict Constitutionlist... why is this Champion of Liberty writing in his book, that the Constitution is useless and "incapable of achieving limited government, no matter how well written"? Aye? Funny that.. that's something an anarcho-capitalist would say.

Go on, try rationalize it... maybe you should instead check your own premises and the legitimacy of your beliefs. No?