Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 101

Thread: Ron Paul talks about Anarchy

  1. #1
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318

    Ron Paul talks about Anarchy

    Advocate freedom please

  2. #2
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Someone who gets it!

    I find it laughable when people will call me an anarchist and then ascribe to that term one of violence and chaos and destruction of private property. Yet I am one who is for respecting property, paying for your crimes, non initiation of violence and coercion, and for liberty. Something their very adherence to the state over individuals is the opposite of.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Posts
    210
    I've nothing to add - just wanted to check in as an Anarcho-Capitalist.

  4. #4
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Lyndsy Simon View Post
    I've nothing to add - just wanted to check in as an Anarcho-Capitalist.

    Pleased to meet ya Lyndsy! Glad to have fellow liberty minded folks to keep company with!
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  5. #5
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,268
    https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/t...apitalism.html

    Sounds great on paper. In practice, I have my doubts.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  6. #6
    Regular Member waskel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Neskowin, OR
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/t...apitalism.html

    Sounds great on paper. In practice, I have my doubts.
    “In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not.” Einstein

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,147
    Quote Originally Posted by waskel View Post
    “In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not.” Einstein
    I doubt it, that Einstein said such.

    This brings us to the difference between doing and thinking. The point is hard to understand from the vantage point of intellectuals. As Yogi Berra said, "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice; in practice there is." So far we have seen arguments that intellect is associated with fragility and instills methods that conflict with tinkering. So far we saw the option as the expression of antifragility. We separated knowledge into two categories, the formal and the Fat Tony-ish, heavily grounded in the antifragility of trial and error and risk taking with less downside, barbell-style -- a de-intellectualized form of risk taking (or, rather, intellectual in its own way). In an opaque world, that is the only way to go. (Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder, 'Optionality, Technology, and The Intelligence of Fragility, When Two Things Are Not the Same. page 213. Random House; First Edition edition (November 27, 2012)
    http://www.amazon.com/Antifragile-Th...dp/1400067820/
    Last edited by Nightmare; 08-11-2014 at 08:35 AM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  8. #8
    Regular Member waskel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Neskowin, OR
    Posts
    57
    Possibly. It's been attributed to several people, unlike this,

    "To be called to account publicly for what others have said in your name, when you cannot defend yourself, is a sad situation indeed."

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,147
    Quote Originally Posted by waskel View Post
    Possibly. It's been attributed to several people, unlike this, "To be called to account publicly for what others have said in your name, when you cannot defend yourself, is a sad situation indeed."
    A quotation without context is quite pointless, as one can get anything you want at Alice's Restaurant, 'ceptin' Alice or the truth.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  10. #10
    Regular Member waskel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Neskowin, OR
    Posts
    57
    Well, you know... When you come to a fork in the road, take it.

  11. #11
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,004
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/t...apitalism.html

    Sounds great on paper. In practice, I have my doubts.
    We won't be allowed the choice. Any freedom we have is a matter of cultural preference or convenience, not principle. The mass of humanity operates on a situational ethic where each new problem is completely novel to them. This combined with a love of authority figures and the libido dominandi make general freedom impossible with this many people. It's fun to talk about though.

    That's why it's so important to get people interested in guns and shooting. They won't defend their rights but they may if it's their hobby too.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  12. #12
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,268
    Anarcho-Capitalist...works until your neighbor, that owes you 'X', decides not to pay you. How is a redress of wrongs then accomplished.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  13. #13
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Anarcho-Capitalist...works until your neighbor, that owes you 'X', decides not to pay you. How is a redress of wrongs then accomplished.
    Take them to court, obviously.

    Edit: or numerous other methods. There are numerous methods used today depending on the specific circumstances, why would any in particular not be an option in an "anarchical" society?
    Last edited by stealthyeliminator; 08-11-2014 at 01:41 PM.
    Advocate freedom please

  14. #14
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,268
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    Take them to court, obviously.

    Edit: or numerous other methods. There are numerous methods used today depending on the specific circumstances, why would any in particular not be an option in an "anarchical" society?
    Sue them in court?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

    You may not be a anachro-capitalist if you need a court.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  15. #15
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Sue them in court?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

    You may not be a anachro-capitalist if you need a court.
    I am pretty familiar with 'anarcho-capitalism,' more than the Average Joe I would imagine... Third sentence in the Wikipedia article "In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be operated by privately funded competitors rather than centrally through compulsory taxation."
    Advocate freedom please

  16. #16
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    I am pretty familiar with 'anarcho-capitalism,' more than the Average Joe I would imagine... Third sentence in the Wikipedia article "In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be operated by privately funded competitors rather than centrally through compulsory taxation."
    Privately funded competing police departments and courts? Guys get mad about citation or arrest quotas but want it be "competitive"? Can anyone else imagine that nightmare?



    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  17. #17
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Privately funded competing police departments and courts? Guys get mad about citation or arrest quotas but want it be "competitive"? Can anyone else imagine that nightmare?



    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    I think that you're applying the word competitive incorrectly. It would be possible that so-called "citations" wouldn't even exist, as a matter of fact. Since transportation systems would also be privately owned and operated, they would likely create a set of rules and a fee schedule for violations. Violation of the rules and refusal to pay the fees would easily result in being trespassed and denied access to the company's transportation system. Competing transportation systems would likely compete to create the most appealing ruleset and fee schedule. Mostly theoretical, but there are of course privately owned and operated roadways and other transportation systems in existence today. As there are privately owned and operated law enforcement/security agencies. And repossession companies. And private courts (which are regularly employed in favor of taking a matter to government court). etc...

    Edit: You may be asking "what's the damn difference, then?" The difference is actually pretty subtle. Subtle but crucial.
    Last edited by stealthyeliminator; 08-11-2014 at 07:08 PM.
    Advocate freedom please

  18. #18
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,004
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    I think that you're applying the word competitive incorrectly. It would be possible that so-called "citations" wouldn't even exist, as a matter of fact. Since transportation systems would also be privately owned and operated, they would likely create a set of rules and a fee schedule for violations. Violation of the rules and refusal to pay the fees would easily result in being trespassed and denied access to the company's transportation system. Competing transportation systems would likely compete to create the most appealing ruleset and fee schedule. Mostly theoretical, but there are of course privately owned and operated roadways and other transportation systems in existence today. As there are privately owned and operated law enforcement/security agencies. And repossession companies. And private courts (which are regularly employed in favor of taking a matter to government court). etc...

    Edit: You may be asking "what's the damn difference, then?" The difference is actually pretty subtle. Subtle but crucial.
    I haven't studied Anarchy that much, but I am a firm believer in the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP). In my mind it's obvious there must be an end to appeals (by law) for courts to function well. I believe Murray Rothbard said the same thing. It's not government laws and courts that I object to as much as government violating the NAP. If my state had a small sales tax because the citizenry wanted to pay for certain things in common, I'd have no problem as long as businesses not willing to pay weren't threatened at gunpoint as is the case now.
    Last edited by 77zach; 08-11-2014 at 08:10 PM.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  19. #19
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Anarcho-Capitalist...works until your neighbor, that owes you 'X', decides not to pay you. How is a redress of wrongs then accomplished.
    It worked well in the west before it become "wild" with the movement of government intervention westward.

    Yes there still can be common law courts. Private security, and responsibility for you and your belongings without having to ask the state to do protect us.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  20. #20
    Regular Member acmariner99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Renton, Wa
    Posts
    662
    The key is the Non-Aggression Principle. It doesn't matter what kind of government you have or even no government at all (like anarco-capitalists describe), aggression can be imposed at any time. I don't see a difference between something like eminent domain and a private road builder seizing your home at gun point because you refused to sell it to them.

    IMO - anarchastic societies require everybody to abide by the "rule" of the non-aggression principle and a will to enforce proper behavior if that rule is violated. If everyone is on the same page, then it works. Somebody can come and impose their will at any time if they have the means and influence to do so.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,011
    The main difference between libertarianism and anarchy, is that libertarianism allows the rich man to keep his money and power.

  22. #22
    Regular Member The Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Henrico
    Posts
    2,139
    Voluntaryism anyone?
    Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis.

    μολὼν λαβέ

    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator
    So in actuality you have no evidence that anything wrong took place, you only believe that it could be spun to appear wrong. But it hasn't been. The truth has a funny way of coming out with persistence, even if it was spun negatively the truth would find its way because these people will not accept less.
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    The truth causes some people so much pain they can only respond with impotent laughable insults. Life must be rough for those people.

  23. #23
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    The main difference between libertarianism and anarchy, is that libertarianism allows the rich man to keep his money and power.
    Seems like you don't understand one or the other.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  24. #24
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by acmariner99 View Post
    The key is the Non-Aggression Principle. It doesn't matter what kind of government you have or even no government at all (like anarco-capitalists describe), aggression can be imposed at any time. I don't see a difference between something like eminent domain and a private road builder seizing your home at gun point because you refused to sell it to them.

    IMO - anarchastic societies require everybody to abide by the "rule" of the non-aggression principle and a will to enforce proper behavior if that rule is violated. If everyone is on the same page, then it works. Somebody can come and impose their will at any time if they have the means and influence to do so.
    To me if one follows the NAP principle logically there cannot be a state.

    People are robbed of property all the time, the difference is right now if you are politically connected the declare it legal.

    An armed society could easily thwart the actions of a rich man trying to steal your property with a gun.



    Quote Originally Posted by The Truth View Post
    Voluntaryism anyone?
    Anarchy renamed....
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  25. #25
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,004
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    To me if one follows the NAP principle logically there cannot be a state.
    I think the proper function of the law is to uphold the NAP. To do so the law must have the right to use force. I believe criminal courts that have an end to an appeals process must exist. I think the state does some legitimate things. If there were a small, voluntary sales tax (say, 2-4%) I would collect it/pay it and I think many people would also to come under the protection of the law.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •