[:)]
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!
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.
So you’ve never supported Ron Paul… then what exactly was the point of this?
You don’t support him, nor will you ever, so why pretend, why care?
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.
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?
Third party is not good enough. Ron Paul can answer this himself. So prove it.
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.
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.
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.
Yes I know what praxeology is. The problem is you don’t know what the definition of ideology is.
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.
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”?
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.
It is subjective because of the use of the word “violate”. The proper role of government should be for police, courts and the military.
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.
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.
I never stated he did. But he has elsewhere.
The situation he described and the issues involved applies basically for all his positions, not just one. That was just one example.
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.
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.
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.
Non sequitur. Begs the question.
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?”
No, it’s not subjective. We’re talking about property. Stock standard definition of violation applies. Why isn’t “protect” subjective? [8-)]. 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?
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?
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.
Keyword : ITSELF
How can guns protect property when it must violate property to exist? (Keeping in mind two people may disagree on what qualifies as property)
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?
Guns don’t violate property to exist. A gun manufacturer voluntarily purchases material to produce the product, gun exists - no violation of property.
Yes, I WILL blame the victims, nobody is a victim in a free society.
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)
Meh. You get what you pay for.
no disagreement
That does not make any sense. Care to elaborate / explain?
Good, you now agree with me. So maybe you should alter your origional question.
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)
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.
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.
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.
blanked
it helps to actually have a theory of justice instead of making one up as you go.
[part blanked]