59 votes

The World Through The Eyes Of A Statist

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

No Rules, Baby! Start That Riot!

No one can tell me no!

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

Then There's the World as it Should be Through Our Eyes

Here's the animation for that:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z1buym2xUM

-Bloatedtoad

oh my glob!

i love this show.

a different cartoon...

i hesitated to post this, but we are all adults (i think).
i like this clip for two reasons. first the character, toki, is corrupted by power, and the second is easy enough to see for yourself.
i disagree with their views on anarchy, but with this cartoon being mainstream i think it's a net plus. the basic ideas are slowly being exposed to the masses.

the boondocks "the garden party"

starts at 14:54 abouts.

Heard of this show, but never seen it

I'm probably one of the few people here who still has a TV, but I just can't be bothered to watch much of anything.

Lot of people I know tell me it's worth watching, though. Might give it a try.

A signature used to be here!

ya...


http://youtu.be/Qh2sWSVRrmo

---Want to discuss politics with Mormons? Please read:

"Latter Day Liberty"-Connor Boyack(forward by Ron Paul

Doctrine and Covenants sections 134 & 89

Watch Secretary of Agg Ezra Taft Benson's discourse on "The Proper Role of Government"

lol honestly I don't normally

lol honestly I don't normally watch tv, but when I do...I watch Adventure Time. Don't care if it's supposed to be for kids, it's the best.

The sad reality is that

The sad reality is that Hollywood is pushing this exact same theme with its movies. They have done this for decades with their Wild West films and the premise of the new movie 'Purge' is that for 24 hours the gov. stops policing people and they naturally all turn into crazed murderers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0LLaybEuzA

We all share this eternally evolving present moment- The past and future only exist as inconsequential mental fabrications.

OMG it would be hilarious if it weren't so troubling.

That is absolutely ridiculous, but some people actually buy into this nonsense.

I can't get over how absurd that trailer was.

Wow.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

HILARIOUS!!!

Thanks for that.. I needed a good laugh!

Whew, I'm so glad I found a cartoon I can relate to

No NWO can ever take away my right to break every bone in my hand with a hammer!

I refuse to live in a world where they can send their agents out at any time to do it for me.

Now where's that hammer ...

I don't understand...

why someone would down vote this post and the comments?

What is so disagreeable about the content of this thread?

Are there people here who proudly proclaim them self to be a statists, did I somehow irritate these people?

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

I vote down any Anarchist that says the word "statist".

Anarchists have demonstrated that they don't even know what a statist is. In their mind anybody other than an Anarchist is a statist.

For me, downvoting you is about destroying a wannabe Anarchist meme.

By an Anarchists definition, minarchists are "statists" because they don't outright reject the concept of government. It's a divisive construct used to ridicule those who aren't Anarchists.

When an Anarchist talks about "Statists" they're serving no useful purpose to liberty or the liberty movement because their words aren't based upon truth.

Michael Nystrom's picture

Josh, I love you

And I thank you for standing up for jeff Bauman. For that you earned my utmost respect that can never be erased.

So my question is not a challenge of your beliefs, but an exploration - in peace - of them.

Trying my best not to sound like a "gotcha" commenter or reporter!

So Ron Paul recently said he's not an anarchist. Which means he's a statist.

I wouldn't say he 'proudly proclaimed it.' But proclaimed it was.

Do you have any thoughts you'd like to share? I'm only just getting to know you. But I have great respect for you and what you did.

This seems like a fairly big deal, because people always speculated what Ron Paul "was." As if a label mattered.

Thank you.

Is this your website?

http://www.lfjournal.com/

If so, thank you for linking to the Daily Paul.

The Daily Paul continues to exist only with your support. Please contribute to the the DP's Summer 2014 Fundraiser.

Thanks Michael!

Your kind words really mean a lot to me, I'm glad I could help.

I felt that somebody had to address all the absolute nonsense being spouted about Mr. Bauman.

While the thread did get a net positive response in it's upvotes, it still terrifies me that so many people here could be so irrational and so callous.

As for Ron Paul's statement that he is not an Anarcho-Capitalist, here's my take on it.

In the past he has said that he is a philosophical voluntarist, and that he was fine with people who advocated for self-government.

He has even written about private policing and defense.

I think he largely agrees with Anarcho-Capitalists, but he does not advocate for Anarcho-Capitalism because he does not think it is an attainable goal right now.

He definitely agrees with the moral argument, but I think he advocates for minimal government as a matter of practicality.

Even though Dr. Paul advocates for limited constitutional government, he is responsible for converting many people to Voluntarism/Anarcho-capitalism and is responsible for the current surge in the number of libertarian anarchists.

I look at him as the gateway drug to Rothbard.

I myself was sent down the path to Voluntarism by Dr. Paul's statements that taxation is theft and his mentions of the Non-Aggression Principle.

If we use the liberty train analogy, I think he would ride it all the way to the end if we could get there.

But, whether Ron Paul is a minarchist or anarchist doesn't really matter to me.

What matters is that he is a solid adherent of the Non-Aggression Principle.

I look at minarchists as my allies, at this point in time its more important that whether someone sees the State as a necessary evil or an unnecessary evil, that they see it as an evil.

I think Murray Rothbard put it best in his essay, 'Do You Hate The State?': http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard75.html

I think I rambled a little bit, but I hope I was able to answer your question.

Yes, LFJournal.com is my site, which I have badly neglected for some time.

You are certainly welcome, I listed it on the links because I felt this site along with Mises.org and Lewrockwell.com is one of the most important resources for libertarians online.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

He did say "...yet" lol.


http://youtu.be/i5PaC0_EXIg

But I'll take his 50yr+ record of practicing and living Philosophical Voluntaryism, over any current Post-RP libertarian youth demanding that Ron Paul be MORE voluntaryist than...er...Ron Paul!

LOL.


http://youtu.be/BoUrrlbDoVs


http://youtu.be/92ybf2L4Guw


http://youtu.be/7otK5NsuA4k

God dang, our fave Septuagenerian Homie's set the bar up so high, if he were to run today (setting aside our qualms with politics as a state-sanctioned mechanism, but speaking strictly as a platform to amplify good ideas), I guaran-friggin'-tee you, there will be internet libertarians biotching that Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul, ain't 'Ron Paul libertarian enough!'

Oy veh, he's unleashed a monster, alright!

Also, I observe that even here the term "you're a statist!" gets thrown around too broadly.

For definitional purposes, I believe we have to be clear: a "statist" is someone who is first and foremost a collectivist. It just happens their delusional source, where their power is perceived to derive from, is the State. As opposed to other type of groups (whatever that may encompass), commune, etc.

NEVER has Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul ever advocated, preached, or, as publicly observable, ever practiced or promoted any form of collectivism.

Also, I side with Walter Block's clarification that there's nothing wrong with a "collective," per-se.

In fact, The R3VOLution is a "collective."

We just don't presume that by the mere virtue of sharing a range of ideas, that we derive 'special powers' because we believe in those set of ideas.

If there were a voluntarily associated AnCap commune, that would be a collective. Of course, unlike a socialist's you'll be able to LEAVE, unless contractually obligated for a given duration. A key distinction.

As you know, the difference between a collective vs. a collectivist, is the latter presumes to derive their 'power' from a nebulous abstract construct known as whatever entity they claim will bring about a 'greater good,' and presumes it is a morally superior position to advocate for that collective's 'greater good,' when in reality, all they're really saying is, 'I want this done, but if I invoke 'it's for the group,' it gives me and my position and advocacy more sense of populous legitimacy, so it'll seem like others want what I want, as well! Suckers!'

Dr. Paul has never been a statist collectivist; the opposite of an Anarchist maybe arguably, in narrative semantics extremes one can posit, is a "statist," like "hot" is to "cold." But, in philosophical context, it's not 'wrong' to weigh degrees of variations.

It'd be logically impossible to 100% pin down and assert that X is an exact opposite philosophy, of Y.

As, a philosophy, I'd submit, encompasses a RANGE of ideas and beliefs while driven by a single or more set of core constant(s). Thus, one is always left debating how close to, or far from that purported ideological core, each little 'component' idea comports TO that core, or not.

Philosophy is, as classically defined in Greek, a love of wisdom/ideas.

And, its fundamental dialectic nature is such that it is continually rationally argued, to get AT the truth.

It doesn't necessarily start out with a specific, concrete, immutable set of perfect components that would bolster a core idea. As everything philosophical must be argued, to get TO where we want, as problems arise.

Yup, it's another one of those 'subjective' beings (humans) attempting to establish and define something "objectively." Like mathematical limits, we'll get close to... but not really.

LOL

It's like, geesh, who decided that it'd be hilarious to make such a ridiculous, constantly paradoxical, biological mish-mash! LOL.

It literally is as if we were created by someone or something, with a never resolvable, built-in psychological impossibility 'drama'-button.

It's like humans were intentionally designed TO BE schizophrenic!

So to me, arguing philosophical opposites, particularly in arguably similar arena, is like claiming an Audi is the opposite of a BMW.

Sure, one may subjectively make the case, aside from obvious the physical differences, that they're the "opposites." But are they?

Sure, they're both German, they both have heavy Nazi lineages.

Sure, they're both unnecessarily expensive, inflation, tariffs, currency exchange rates aside.

Sure, they're both car brands, with similar range of lineups.

But take an Audi S4 or even RS4 vs BMW M3. Setting aside the obvious difference in looks, chasis design, and engine, as far as actual internals go, they actually do share many components that function similarly (Bosch electronics and fuel injection, etc), but the combination of parts and components Audi uses, however similar, yield a different subjective outcome, be it different symphonics of the manifold, headers and exhaust, or the variation in the form of how an air-intake design can affect the actual sound entering and leaving the engine at various RPM. Then, all the quirks of the variances each car's combination yield different animal altogether.

So strictly in terms of philosophy, not sure within the specific areas of dispute many AnCaps do have, be it over transitioning out, parallel econ, agorist models, roads, homesteading, IP, private law, judicial systems, arbitration models, if one leaning any more in one way or another necessarily 'revokes' their 'AnCap-ness.'

To me, all this is akin to those arguing, 'Is Audi S4, as, or more 'German GT,' than a BMW M3?'

LoL.

Personally speaking, as long as philosophically people agree to NAP and apply and live it, beyond that, as long as they seek voluntary solutions, I really don't see the 'Audi vs. BMW' divide, that much.

Plus, even as an AnCap, it'd be delusional of me to assume that even IF in the post-currency collapse, if diverse pockets of various types of political 'communes' were to pop up all around America (from libertarian, communist, to whatever) that each denizen of those each respective voluntarily associated communes would philosophically automatically consider themselves "voluntaryists." Even though, more than likely, that's exactly what they're doing.

I mean even now, most Americans don't even know of, or follow/uphold/defend/protect, or let alone comprehend/understand possibly the best minarchist document ever humanly devised, The Constitution FOR the United StateS of America...and look where that got us. So, invoking "anarchism" before these same lost souls, when they can't even agree on or understand arguably THE best written minarchist document ever, that we already have, it's gonna be like trying to surf a tsunami to introduce to them what is perceived to be an un-written abstract philosophy called "anarchism" (even if we were to put a happy smiley face on it and call it "voluntaryism"); it may be a long road for a societal mind-wave change, to a fundamental critical mass-shift toward a more voluntaryist direction, IMHO.

But you know, here's been my daily bemusement that I never get tired of constantly observing: the biggest paradox is, even now, I'd posit that 99% of the world live by voluntaryism, DAILY, without even knowing.

It's whenever people want to do something outside of their individual spheres, an act they individually perceive to make them part of a larger act, is when people begin to delusionally rationalize that it'd be okay to use the monopoly of the force of govt/State/Leviathan, to 'achieve good things, for the greater good.'

I'd guarantee, if one were to inquire someone born into a socialist commune or a co-op, whether they ARE there, voluntarily, they'd more than likely answer: YES.

Actually, that may in fact BE true.

But where the problem occurs is when they decide their model community 'worked' so well, that they want it 'nationwide,' and actually believe others too would want it, as well. But of course, the unspoken proviso to the unsuspecting, is always that in order for them to do so, they'll need to tax and use the force of the State to achieve their ends.

Most people, in my observation, even the well meaning ones, never think about that difference: their own socialist commune maybe a voluntary co-op, but once they decide to impose their model, no matter how 'good,' it's simply a tyranny of good intentions.

And, unfortunately, observing some exchanges even among liberarian community, I see way too much confusion over the term "voluntar(y)ist," collective, "collectivist/collectivism"/"statist/statism" and often erroneously used interchangeably, most notably between: collective vs. collectivist/collectivism, without applying the 'Walter Blockian' distinction, as I alluded to, previously.

Be that as it may, as for Dr. Paul's response at Oberlin College, I thought he clearly identified his philosophical leanings.

Not that I'm rooting for him to 'convert' to a 100% Anarcho-Capitalist for the mere sake of him being one, I always see these things in terms of a journey, a trajectory.

So him saying "not yet" is fine by me.

Not that I dare need to be a judge of his philosophical process; it'd be obnoxious for a student to judge someone whom I consider a philosophical mentor (however much progress made within, or beyond a student may become over time). Men are beings of their time. So if he can be who he is, growing up in the shadow of tyrannical 'Progressivism' and neoCon statism, and be on this utterly beautiful philosophical path, with voluntaryism as a philosophical goal, I care not how close or far he gets to be a voluntaryist, in his life time.

A path toward that direction, and as long as one lives his/her daily life as voluntary, as humanly possible? I can think of no higher virtue. And the Gray Champ, he has done it, lived it, and lives it, to the fullest. And hey, he inspired MILLIONS worldwide to pursue their own individual paths, with that in mind. How cool is that?

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Michael Nystrom's picture

Josh, thank you for the explanation

I very much appreciate it.

And I agree with this:

it still terrifies me that so many people here could be so irrational and so callous.

I don't know what those people mean, and why they would believe and spread such an idea. Sometimes I feel like I'm boxing with ghosts.

- - - -

Thank you for the explanation about Anarcho Capitalism. I appreciate that. I believe it is a noble goal, but I wonder if it is every possible. I know that in order to make something a reality, you have to believe in it. I believe it would only be possible if people put a big curb on their egos.

Ironically, for the individual to survive, we have to think of, and manage, the collective. If 90% of us are living in poverty, there will be no freedom for the 10%.

My intuition tells me that. At the same time, anarchy seems impossible to conceive. As if my imagination is not big enough.

For anarchists to succeed, you need, not only to paint a beautiful picture of the future, but a path to get there.

The problem of many of us here is that we focus on the negatives of this world. By now, I am bored and tired of that line of thought. It is time to move beyond. What is the vision of the future, and how do we get there.

With all due respect to your website, as I know that it is much work to create and and maintain, it suffers the same problem of the Daily Paul: Recycled content.

One thing the Liberty Movement lacks is original content.

You have passion Josh, that much is cleaer. I see you haven't updated your content in a while.

Update it with something of yourself. You did something brave and important here Josh, in calling bullschnitt on that disinformation meme.

Tell us more.

You have a big heart.

The Daily Paul continues to exist only with your support. Please contribute to the the DP's Summer 2014 Fundraiser.

hey Michael,

I started reading yours and Josh's exchange late last night, and in my head began to respond to both, and sorta became a mish-mash of relevant answers to both, and neither, as in my typical fashion, wandered off into my verbal non-verbal lyrical jungle!

LOL.

anyway, here's my take on both of your exchanges and whether Dr. Paul is a voluntaryist and to what degree that is, or is not an issue.

http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/3056095

hope it adds a bit of spice and different or similar POV, if not, at least satisfy a semantical exercise in lengthy word-smithery.D

Hope you're doing well in Beantown, post The Seige. In fact, I'd recommend that to EVERYONE. It's like the Director of Color Purple, Zwick knew exactly what was coming. Though I kept hoping New Yorkers would respond similarly to rise up and reject the martial law policestate, post-9/11...

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

We are already in anarchy

I've heard many people say that society needs to be "ready" for anarchy, and we're not there yet.

Here is a different perspective from an article by Seth King --

There will always be criminals in the world and while we may be able to end institutionalized crime, we will never abolish it completely. Therefore, anarchists who claim that their goal is to achieve a free-market may suffer from erroneous thinking. I ask them, at what point do we achieve this so-called free-market? If government is nothing more than a criminal organization, and we will never completely eradicate all criminal organizations, at what point do we claim to have achieved a free-market? The answer must either surely be never, or always. For if a free-market is the absence of the initiation of aggression, then we can only ever hope for freer-markets and not the ever-illusive free-market.

On the other hand, if the free-market can effectively deal with criminal organizations, and if the state is nothing more than an extremely large criminal organization, then I say that its past time the free-market started to eradicate this criminal organization known as “government.”

I tend to believe that the free-market is here right now. We’ve already got it. I’ve written before that as an anarchist I do not believe that we need to achieve a stateless society before we achieve anarchy. Anarchy is merely truth. It is an understanding about how the world works. Anarchy has always ruled, currently does rule, and always will rule until the end of time.

We’re all living in the free-market right now. If you want a bazooka, go get one. Want to snort some cocaine? It’s available. Want to hire a prostitute? They’re out there. But watch out! There are criminals on the prowl who will kidnap you. And if you think the free-market is about the rest of the world letting you do the things you want then you have a poor understanding of the philosophy of freedom. Because freedom isn’t about having to ask others to do what you want. Freedom does not require anybody else’s permission.

We live in a world full of criminals. An anarchist is one who recognizes the state for what it truly is: a criminal organization. And as anarchist activists our goal is to abolish institutionalized criminal organizations. But one thing we must never do if we are to truly undermine a criminal organization’s legitimacy is to theorize about what actions it should or should not take in a moral sense. That is the behavior of the surrendered. Our goal is nothing short of its complete abolition.

http://dailyanarchist.com/2011/01/01/where-many-anarchists-g...

Also,

Do We Really Ever Get Out of Anarchy? - http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/3_2/3_2_3.pdf

I'm not Josh, but ...

... I would like to point out that Ron Paul has always been a minarchist and not an anarchist. If he were an anarchist, it is unlikely he would have ever run for office. He would not be practicing his philosophy if he did.

However, "statist" is usually a term reserved to people who believe in government as a tool that can be used for "good" as they see it. A minarchist only sees government as necessary, not good.

An anarchist sees government as neither good nor necessary.

Michael Nystrom's picture

p.s.

Just watched the video. Funny. It did get a good laugh out of me.

I remember my Senior year English teacher (high school) saying that humor is the highest level of intelligence.

"But not slapstick!"

The second part of her message disappointed me. It took some time for me to get over it. But eventually I did.

The Daily Paul continues to exist only with your support. Please contribute to the the DP's Summer 2014 Fundraiser.

Shortly after the time of the

Shortly after the time of the great depression, legislators realized something of human nature; Anarcho Laissez-faire Capitalism can't work. That's why they had Glass-Steagall put in place.

Laissez-Faire did not cause the Great Depression.

And legislators are not the saviors of mankind, protecting us from the perils of human nature.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

Cyril's picture

Top Three Myths about the Great Depression and the New Deal

Thanks for pointing it out.

In fact, one can list at minima...

Top Three Myths about the Great Depression and the New Deal :


http://youtu.be/7QLoeehMw0w

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

+1 Dear lord. This is

+1 Dear lord. This is hilarious. I will watch it at least 100 times and laugh just as much as the first time. Ron Paul would love it considering the heroin question he was crucified with. There is a voluntaryist on board with whoever produces that cartoon. Voted for front page.

Thanks

I am also immediately reminded of the Heroin question from the first debate.

That was probably my favorite response of his during the whole campaign, he knocked it out of the park.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EupRuxwuMLE

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

Josh my man, it's scary

how much you and I think alike.

I was just about to post this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9n4nwxgaQg

when I saw that you already replied, with the same exact clip. Well, mine's in HD. Ha. 'beat' ya there .D


http://youtu.be/T9n4nwxgaQg

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

It's much better in HD

You get a better look at that confused look on Chris Wallace's face. lol

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

Michael Nystrom's picture

Thanks, that was great to watch again

The presidential debates are like the playoffs of politics. They all get together and cap on each other, and then fight for yardage, all the way until they get to the Superbowl.

Do you think Rand will make it to the Superbowl?

The Daily Paul continues to exist only with your support. Please contribute to the the DP's Summer 2014 Fundraiser.