Conza88, if you still accept Ron Paul as libertarian even though his intermediate goals (e.g., Constitutionalism) fall short of anarchism, then you and I have no debate. However, liberty student disqualifies Ron Paul from being a libertarian on those grounds.
P.S. Until Dr. Paul’s mission statement includes anarchism, I will believe he remains an advocate of constitutional government.
“Conza88, if you still accept Ron Paul as libertarian even though his intermediate goals (e.g., Constitutionalism) fall short of anarchism”
How does it fall short? You’ve completely dodged answering my previous question. Which is typical. You’ve also failed to read that thread, again. “Compared to what we have now, would you prefer a return to the size of government as outlined in the US Constitution?” (Leaving aside the obvious, the state would only grow again)
I don’t think anyone would refuse a reduction in the size of the state. Only the “left” sectarians.
When asked from a voluntarist perspective, would you favour self government over a return to the Constitution - he said that is what his goal is.
Much like the Articles of Confederation would be better than the Constitution, and so on down to self government.
“P.S. Until Dr. Paul’s mission statement includes anarchism, I will believe he remains an advocate of constitutional government.”
That’s because you are completely ignorant of his strategy. That’s your fault, not his.
“Thus, suppose that one is writing about taxation. It is not incumbent on the libertarian to always proclaim his full “anarchist” position in whatever he writes; but it is incumbent upon him in no way to praise taxation or condone it; he should simply leave this perhaps glaring vacuum, and wait for the eager reader to begin to question and perhaps come to you for further enlightenment. But if the libertarian says, “Of course, some taxes must be levied,” or something of the sort, he has betrayed the cause.”
“In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written.”
~ Ron Paul, End the Fed
As much as the state needs rolled back, i would not go back to the original consititution, nor the articles of confederation.
No. I can exclusively control stolen propety.
"As much as the state needs rolled back, i would not go back to the original consititution, nor the articles of confederation.
And yet I’m not talking about, nor suggesting we role back history - just the state. Direct ownership of somebody else became socially unacceptable, thanks largely to the arguments put forward by radical abolitionists. Your point is erroneous and doesn’t come close to addressing the one that was raised and still stands.
“The Articles of Confederation do not mention slavery in any way.”
Yeah, and? Implementing the Articles of Confederation doesn’t then mean direct slavery comes back into fashion with it.. lmao. How do you think slavery ended? Thanks to Lincoln? Haha.
Is your position seriously that we’d be better under the current status quo (size of government etc.) as opposed to the one outlined in the Articles of Confederation?! You don’t want to role back 100 years of government growth and national debt along with the hated federal income tax and the Fed?
Writes Tom White:
I went to Philadelphia with my nine-year-old daughter and visited the Liberty Bell, Franklin Court, Betsy Ross home, and finally Independence Hall. After the usual bag checks*, we waited in line to enter the old Pennsylvania State House. They allow a group of thirty or so in at a time, escorted by a park ranger. We gathered in a room before the tour started. The park ranger begins to tell us about the Continental Congress gathering to “fix” the Articles of Confederation. He starts by saying “There were four main problems with the Articles of Confederation. First, it gave the new country no authority to establish an army. Second, it had no power to make treaties with foreign governments. Third, they were unable to print money. Finally, they could not raise and collect taxes.” At this, some in the crowd began to clap.
It can’t be stolen property without property rights.
I agree. Let’s substitute some more ethically neutral language:
Individuals can physically possess material objects exclusively.
OK, how do you necessarily derive “rights” from that?
And yet I’m not talking about, nor suggesting we role back history - just the state. Direct ownership of somebody else became socially unacceptable, thanks largely to the arguments put forward by radical abolitionists. Your point is erroneous and doesn’t come close to addressing the one that was raised and still stands
Why always so combatitive? I was merely pointing out that just because we need to scale back government encroaches doesn’t mean I personally would rather go back to the articles, nor the original constitution. I’ll take anything with a strong stance against slavery and giving everyone the right to vote, than a plutocratic paper built around disenfranchisement.
Yeah, and? Implementing the Articles of Confederation doesn’t then mean direct slavery comes back into fashion with it.. lmao. How do you think slavery ended? Thanks to Lincoln? Haha
Non-sequiter, irrelevant, and bordering on ad hominem. Just putting words in my mouth that wasn’t there.
There were four main problems with the Articles of Confederation. First, it gave the new country no authority to establish an army. Second, it had no power to make treaties with foreign governments. Third, they were unable to print money. Finally, they could not raise and collect taxes
Yes, and we are much more wealthy and free, as a whole (businessmen and drug users aside) under our current borderline democractic fasicsm, than we were under the disenfranchising plutocracy this nation was founded on.
I would prefer neither the constitution we currently use, the one it was built on, nor the articles of confederation.
No, the position was that black and white statements are rarely true.
Liberty Student is not making a black or white argument. He’s making a black or not black argument. Of course there are shades of gray. There are very dark shades of gray, almost black. These shades are not black.
Libertarian capitalists from 1955 don’t agree with you. Murray Rothbard doesn’t agree with you. J.H. Huebert in Libertarianism Today doesn’t agree with you (and his book has received unqualified praise from LvMI).
Whether or not I believe in “absolute meanings” is irrelevant; I most certainly don’t believe a few agitators have an authority on what words mean. I especially discount those persons when most members of the same ideological sect disagree.
But, to answer your question, I do not believe in “absolute meanings.” I don’t believe that “meaning” is what it seems to be (and I take my cues from cognitive science).
But, if “absolute meanings” do exist, you still have much to explain for how you divined the correct interpretation while so many others (including founders of the movement and popularizers of the term) are perpetually mistaken.
I don’t.
What does that even mean?
Are you as embarassed as I am that some of these folks with many posts here cannot even grasp the simplest of logical concepts?
Appeals to authority are logical fallacies. Considering how dim your star is right now, don’t you think you should do better?
But if I do believe in them then you have made it clear that is very relevant. Is that because I am such a greater thinker than you? Or are you exceptional in your lack of relevance?
Another logical fallacy. Argumentum ad populum.
Apparently the cognitive science advising you exists outside the realm of logic.
If you do not believe in absolute meanings, then how can I be wrong? Or better yet, then how can you be a libertarian, and what does it mean to be a libertarian? Was Pol Pot a libertarian? Is Nancy Pelosi a libertarian? You’re the one arguing for no meanings and yet still applying ideological labels to yourself and others. But then I have clearly made the point that you’ve yet to demonstrate a basic grasp of logic, so your continuing to confirm it, while satisfying, is far from groundbreaking.
Do I have to prove the law of identity? Is the burden of proof on me to explain to you yet again, that something cannot be A and not A at the same time? What is it about your genius that you cannot understand this?
As usual, you have providing nothing of substance in this debate. If Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires, then surely this thread is your intellectual Waterloo with regards to matters of political economy and philosophy.
In fact, it is very relevant; your entire argument, or lack-their-of, rests on it. You are not contesting LS’s line of reasoning, but rather have chosen to attack the nature of language itself, which you have disconnected from reality. This is, of course, the ultimate cop-out, and, like global skepticism, it cannot be refuted. If 51% of the population claims that Pol-Pot is a libertarian than he is a libertarian; capitalism is not defined by private property rights and free exchange but rather by the exploitation of the weak and the capture of government by big business and bankers (just ask the average man on the street!).
It’s a very expedient tactic. You can conveniently substitute logic with language skepticism, and vice versa.
“Why always so combatitive?”
Why always so pointless? Red herrings seem to be your forte.
“I was merely pointing out that just because we need to scale back government encroaches doesn’t mean I personally would rather go back to the articles, nor the original constitution.”
And why not? Because you’re not a libertarian? Great, but I don’t care what your personal preferences are.
“I don’t think anyone [here and who is a libertarian] would refuse a reduction in the size of the state…” Which is a wonder why you responded.
“I’ll take anything with a strong stance against slavery and giving everyone the right to vote, than a plutocratic paper built around disenfranchisement.”
You obviously missed the memo that taxation is theft, and that for eg. the income tax - work half the year for the state, partial slavery alright. Giving everyone the right to vote? Slavery for the minority. And what paper “built around disenfrachisement”? Can you at least attempt to make some kind of argument - instead of posturing with baseless assertions and mind numbing statements that have little relevance to anything.
“Non-sequiter [sic], irrelevant, and bordering on ad hominem. Just putting words in my mouth that wasn’t there.”
Does follow, was relevent, and not even close to being an ad hominem. It was questions as to why you brought up what you did.
"Yes, and we are much more wealthy and free, as a whole (businessmen and drug users aside) under our current borderline democractic fasicsm, than we were under the disenfranchising plutocracy this nation was founded on. "
Absolutely absurd. You still don’t understand I’m not talking about rolling back history and all that capital accumulation etc., right? Doesn’t seem like it… because if you did - you wouldn’t have made that ignorant & beyond delusional statement. Do you know anything about economics? Serious question. What books have you read on Austrian Economics?
“I would prefer neither the constitution we currently use, the one it was built on, nor the articles of confederation.”
COMPARED TO WHAT?
Esuric, liberty student’s “line of reasoning” is simply asserting this his definition of libertarianism is ultimately correct; he is not supported by a consensus of libertarians, nor is his I-can-define-it-how-I-want approach validated by even basic linguistic research. Once again, my “meaning nihilism” (as it has sometimes been called) is irrelevant: one must convince me how J.H . Huebert is wrong (as the praised author of Libertarianism Today) while liberty student is right. What criteria are being used? That has not been provided; “logic” has been claimed, but I fail to see any instance of first-order predicate calculus.
liberty student, before I become too embroiled in a debate over “absolute meaning,” I realized that the term has not been properly defined (a true faux pas given your insistence on clear meaning).
So, I ask you, what does “absolute meaning” actually mean?
P.S. I am excited about you single-handedly revitalizing logical atomism. The world needs to know.
I don think liberty student was at any point trying to impose his semantics onto everyone else. In the original thread where this discussion came about, he was sharing his opinions on what it meant to be a libertarian; and why his definitions were more concise.
If anyone is being a word bitch… it’s you and larose IMO
