46 votes

DEBATE: Larken Rose vs Atty. Tom Willcutts, Moderated by Richard Grove, TragedyAndHope.com

An actual debate! Voluntaryism vs. Constitutional Minarchism. The Illegitimacy of the very concept of "autho-ra-teh!"

Larken Rose vs. Tom Willcutts (History... Debate on "Authority" and "Government")

http://youtu.be/cvo-yEymNuQ

YouTube Channel: TragedyandHopeMag

Published on Mar 7, 2013

History... So It Doesn't Repeat: A debate on the concepts of "authority", "government", and the "state", featuring author Larken Rose vs. Tom Willcutts (attorney for www.TragedyAndHope.com).

After the debate, visit www.LarkenRose.com to learn more about "The Most Dangerous Superstition".

Would you like to Know More?

http://www.TragedyandHope...
http://www.PeaceRevolutio...

Watch our films, download and listen to our podcasts, grow in the light direction!

** For those who may not be familiar with TragedyAndHope.com & its proprietor Richard Grove, please check it out.

For those of you who may have guessed, indeed the eponymous site is named after Carroll Quigley's magnum opus insider expose on the 'shadow govt'/'Deep State'/'New World Order': Tragedy & Hope.

While Quigley was in fact FOR 'The Order,' Richard named his site to bring attention to their con:
https://www.tragedyandhop...

Plus, he has THE most in depth series of interviews with John Taylor Gatto!
https://www.tragedyandhop...
http://www.youtube.com/us...

Also visit T&H contributor Jan Irvin's Trivium websites:

http://www.triviumeducati...
https://www.tragedyandhop...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Why would any libertarian feel so much vitriole toward a group?

Hanson, you are either not quite awake yet, have not quite grasped what "self governance" really means, or you are here trying to cut an entire group out of the quest for liberty. You, and one other regular, protesteth too much.
Someone, somewhere, understands that self governance IS how man was intended to live, and they are shaking in their boots that so many people are catching on, and they are sending people into the liberty movement to try to divide and conquer.
I think Karl Rove is a total neocon tuckfard, but if his supporters showed up here, I would not TRY to get them to leave.
I think the Vatican is as corrupt as any government, but I would not TRY to get Catholics to leave. I don't even waste much time trying to get them to face up to the corruption in their church, if they are on the path of truth, they will get there in their own time.
So thank you. You and your buddy's insistence on trying to get proponents of self governance to leave have made your "liberty" stripes apparent for all to see, and kept some good threads bumped.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

he

honestly deludes "anarchists" here are the same FBI COINTELPRO "Black Bloc"

He actually doesn't know that they are a false flag group, no seriously:

http://www.dailypaul.com/277482/debate-larken-rose-vs-atty-t...

it's really sad. he's got same 1~2 pts, cut and pasted and spin recycled.

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

Ah!

Well, that does explain a lot.
That is sad. Now we are looking at good old fashioned "fear of those I don't understand" which is only cured by a genuine effort to understand those we fear. Maybe there is hope for him yet, maybe eventually he will realize that we are among the LOUDEST voices for peace and realize that does not add up with the media hype of the goons.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

yup

until this morning I just thought he was an old school hard core 'arghgh, rarrr, get off my lawn ya libertarian kids!' constitutionalist. but it's obvious, he's utterly clueless about geopolitics or the very real reality historical fact of govt false flags abroad as well as here domestically.

I was bemused, but now I'm just annoyed, worse dismayed and sad at the state of humanity that we still have people who don't know that Black Bloc is FBI COINTELPRO, in the age of internet...in the year 2013, on DailyPaul, of all places.

oy veh!

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

He has always said taxation is theft.

He never adds any ifs or buts, he categorically rejects taxation as theft.

He supports limited constitutional government as a step in the right direction, but he has stated his ultimate goal is a voluntary society.

If you bothered watching the video, you would realize this, but that's giving your comprehension to much credit.

If a brain is like a sponge absorbing information, then your brain would be like a sponge full of solid concrete.

I don't plan on addressing anymore of your ramblings, because honestly there are much better ways to use my free time.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


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

It's one or the other

Ron Paul either believes in limited Constitutional government that requires limited taxation, or not. It's not a complicated assertion and your unwillingness to simply acknowledge it speaks volumes about your character, and the character of other anachists who try pretend this doesn't represent a fundamental contradiction.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

Do you not understand the difference...

between a milestone and a goal?

Dr. Paul sees the Constitution as a milestone on the road to a stateless society.

I want no taxes in the long run, but if I accept a 50% tax cut in the short run, does that mean I'm in favor of taxes?

"Governments have nothing. They can't create anything, they never have. All they can do is steal from one group and give it to another at the destruction of the principles of freedom, and we ought to challenge that concept." - Ron Paul

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

In response to the question "What do you say to people who advocate for self-government, rather than a return to the Constitution" Ron Paul replied "Great, fine, I think that's really what my goal is."

Do you have any evidence that Ron Paul means anything other than what he explicitly states?

No?

I didn't think so.

When Ron Paul says he believes taxation is theft, and that his ultimate goal is self-government, there is no reason to believe he does not mean what he says.

He's not a stupid man, he chooses his wording carefully, and knows exactly what he is saying.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


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

So you're saying Ron Paul is an...

anarchist, but he won't say he's an anarchist? You didn't answer my previous question on this point. If what you're saying is true, Ron Paul has been intentionally misleading most of his supporters. For example, Ron Paul had a number of well attended rallys in my state while running for president, and I can guarantee you that few if any would've showed up if they thought RP was an anarchist. So if RP is lying about who he really is, and anarchists condone his lying as a legitimate means to an end, what does that say about the character of anarchists? It seems anarchists are sociopathic liars who would lie about anything, including their adherence to the NAP, to advance their agenda. Good luck with that.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

He answers the question honestly.

In response to the question "What do you say to people who advocate for self-government, rather than a return to the Constitution" Ron Paul replied "Great, fine, I think that's really what my goal is."

If he were trying to mislead people, would he honestly answer the question?

When he says he wants to restore the Constitution, he isn't lying, it just isn't his ultimate goal.

It is a MILESTONE, not the goal.

Do you understand the difference between a milestone and a goal?

If I am in San Diego and I want to drive to San Fransisco, but first I want to stop in Los Angeles, Am I lying when I say I want to go to Los Angeles?

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


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

wow

that's a blast from the past!

dig it.

always loved that photo by the way; always thought it was interesting that Dr. Paul, as an intellectual and a surgeon, has a farmer's notchy, thick, 'salt of the earth' working man's hands.

not that into statues, or idolatry, and while promoting or wanting one of him kinda blurs the line of nuanced 'highly attuned respect without worshiping,' I hope to god when they make a statue of the Good Doc in the future, it'd be based on that photo: he looks like a Philosopher King, dang it!

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

Debate

Agreed with Willcutts' premise that government is an ideological apparatus by which conscience can be distilled; disagreed with Rose's premise that government is elusively imaginary.

I also agree with Willcutts' position that a conscionable apparatus can be adjusted (ex. civil trials for maliciously committed acts), while disagreeing with Rose's absolute positions (ex. government is ALWAYS bad).

Subsequently (and in agreement with various arguments) I believe the correct approach to adjusting unethical governance is to dignify individual choice concerning the public domain, while legally recognizing the principled agency of individuals.

More here
http://www.facebook.com/FreeDominionPoliticalParty

At DP, there's overwhelming support...

for Ron Paul's idea of limited Constitutional government. So for this post to get so many upvotes, there must be a lot of anarchists at DP who only pretend to support limited government. There are lots of anarchists who argue that Ron Paul is an anarchist and I posted a topic on this at the DP Liberty Forum. Hundreds of comments were posted by anarchists while few comments defended Ron Paul as a Constitutionalist who supports the rule of law. Maybe most DPer's feel the anarchists claims about RP are ridiculous and didn't bother to respond. But as a supporter of limited Constitutional government, I think it's important to recognize the subversive nature of anarchism.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

Actually..... Ron Paul was

Actually..... Ron Paul was the first person that got me into Voluntaryism.

lol

same here. it's all his fault, gosh dang it! lol

in fact, I'll bet many who've followed that road would also credit Dr. Paul for introducing those ideas to them, or at least be inspired enough to be open to such ideas, when faced further down the line.

I'll drink to our Gray Champ for waking up millions of remnants worldwide, anytime, any day, and with regularity, though preferably after 6pm. lol

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

LOL

from your 'oh, you're one of THOSE people...' presumptive non-quantifiers, ie.

Another anarchist who wants us to...
Submitted by Mark Hanson on Thu, 03/07/2013 - 18:17. Permalink

give up without a fight so the tyrants they claim to oppose can continue building an anarcho-barbarian nightmare. Check out these posts.

to this non sequitur:

At DP, there's overwhelming support...
Submitted by Mark Hanson on Sun, 03/10/2013 - 12:03. Permalink

for Ron Paul's idea of limited Constitutional government. So for this post to get so many upvotes, there must be a lot of anarchists at DP who only pretend to support limited government. And there are a lot of anarchists who try argue that Ron Paul is an anarchist.

you're making a moot, irrelevant point.

Your deduction from 'upvotes' is that because a thread seems to have generated a discussion outside of your own personally sanctioned topical choice, your nominal conclusion is that there must be 'pretend' constitutionalists "who try argue that Ron Paul is an anarchist."???

WTF? LOL, no really?

First of all, there's no DP membership requirement, that must conform to YOUR, Mark Hanson's, particular opinion of what R3VOLution should, or should not be about.

Second of all, no anarchist/AnCap/Voluntaryist/Agorist argues that Ron Paul 'must' be an anarchist. Nor, have I ever personally observed anyone make him out to be something he's not, of course that's not to say that others won't: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5PaC0_EXIg

Though the fact that he's long been associated with Rothbard/Mises Inst./LewRockwell.com and have made some of his voluntaryist-leaning philosophies publicly known, does not negate, nor diminish in ANY way the nobleness of the fact that while as a member of a Federal legislative body, his Oath, his 'contract' was such that he worked within the confines of the Constitution the best he knew how (possibly in the American Republic's history), bothered no one actually paying attention.

Like all favored (or 'controversial') historical political figures, some or much of their own philosophy may or may not coincide with those of others, that one may personally find favorable, agreeable, enough to want to share in the conversation.

Oh, but going back to your "Another anarchist who wants us to..." ie 'Oh, you're one of THOSE people'-thread, never mind the fact that contrary to your a-priori proclamation, you know jack sh*t about what I personally, actually want, um... WTF? "anarcho-barbarian nightmare" LOLOLOL

Cute pseudo neologism, by the way. I've been laughing AT it, ever since, no really.

Seriously, you do realize like that was the first time ever, that you even 'talked' to me, and in no ironic lack of netiquette, 'hey how you doing, FU, you must be one of 'those' people!' is how you actually introduced yourself...to a complete stranger?

Got common sense much?

To be frank, the 1st and the only rebuttal that really popped into my head was: 'oh you mean YOU [Mark] are one of THOSE... you know, an asshole?' LOLOLOLOL

Needless to say, I chose not to reply; while it would've fulfilled my daily bemusement quota, I didn't want my personal discussions here at DailyPaul devolving into a typical YouTube comment section idiocy, even after reading many of your threads and replies to others here, I've really tried to NOT venture into this realm, but because you've been harping on it for a while, seeing as how you insist, and persist...I gotta ask the following apropos question:

Just Who The F*ck do you think you are?

Who the f*ck do you think you are, to presume to believe that you, like some entitlement statist collectivist neoCon liberal, are 'deserved' an answer, requiring other DailyPaul members here who 'dare stray' from your own narrowly defined 'Constitutionalist' view, that people 'prove' their constitutionalist bona fides...to you, like you're some one man Politburo committee?

We've co-exhisted here for over 5yrs, let me repeat that, for over FIVE LONG FRAKKING YEARS, long before you came here making a fuss, and try to divide and conquer.

Better yet, all the BS niceties and your obviously questionable tact aside, seriously, just what is your aim here?

Is your quest to:

1. convert others to your way of thinking
2. to purge those whom you deem to be 'less worthy'? If so, should all AnCaps here wear a yellow star equivalent DP avatar?

Because frankly, trying either of your two presently exhibited methods at a site visited by a bunch of sovereign individualists, one visited LONG before you ever became a member requiring them 'prove' to you their bona fides, doesn't exactly go over well...um, like at ANY forums, let alone one inspired by Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul.

So you can keep talking, attempt to flippantly negate others' long held and forged beliefs, principles, and philosophies, as if your own tripe will somehow instantaneously upend conclusions that many came upon after a long period of self-reflections/inflections, philosophical catharses, and long internal examinations and research to come to, you got another thing coming if you honestly believe that you're gonna make 'friends' here, or at the least even remotely 'convert' them to your particular way of thinking.

I mean, at some level, you DO know that right? You have to know, no??

If you do and don't care what your audience (if your aim is to have an attentive audience) take from your encounters, then one must inquire, why not attain your mirror as your sole audience? WhyTF bother continuously making an ass of yourself?

So, if you actually want to engage in a legitimate discussion, I'm all ears, but reading your past posts, and your rather arrogant criticisms, not gonna get much traction, at least not with me.

So type away.

PS: So... by your non-'logic',

"a long interesting history of intellectual elites fleshing out these ideas." In other words, anarchism was created by the ruling class which Larken Rose, the anarchist, had just said cannot be legitimate. Oops! What a tangled web the anarchists weave when at first they practice to deceive.

if you Mark Hanson, our illustrious AnCap purger, like ham sandwiches, and so does Hitler (Adolf Schicklgruber was historically proven to be quarter Jewish, but obviously non-observant (LOL), and a purported vegan, be that as it may for the sake of conversation, you get the gist), then you too must be a Nazi, too!

That, makes perfect sense to me!

"anarchism was created by the ruling class"

Well... so were most other "-isms."

By your 'logic,' so were every single Founders of our American Constitutional Republic, who were intellectual luminaries of the Enlightenment Era; all intellectuals of yore were de facto Ruling Class of their time, and if they deposed a previous ruling order, they became the 'Ruling Class' thereafter.

You do realize that by and large, humanity, as a species, did not attend colleges (not to equate college as principled intellectualism per-se, but merely as a metric for wide-spread, more commonplace dissemination of history and info, be they accurate or otherwise), en masse, until the 1950's, right??

So, in fact by your 'logic,' every popular idea that has become popular either by an intelligentsia within the previous Ruling Class, or a rebel faction within that said Ruling Class who have popularized the idea, or a 'peon' who were familiar with that said Ruling Class idea, MUST automatically be bad, and one is absolutely deceptive to share those ideas!

Now that's what I call an 'intellectual' ToFurkey! LOL

By your 'logic,' Martin Luther too was Ruling Class, since he 'democratized' the Vatican's Latin Bible into a 'commoner's language, for the world to see via Johannes Gutenberg's press. So guess by your 'logic,' by default, that makes all Christians the Ruling Class' lackeys, too.

See how ridiculous vacant deductive reasoning can be?

Deductive analysis, is only apt when examined in proper holistic context. Not when you selectively do it as a member of a Cargo Cult, ridiculing everyone else as one, too.

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

I sense a bit of desperation...

in your comment. Specifically, your attempt to apply Larken's contradictory statement about the illegitimacy of the ruling class that spawned anachism, to me. I accept the fact that Thomas Jefferson was part of the intellectual elite, a.k.a. ruling class, but unlike Larken, I don't believe this makes Jefferson's ideas of limited government illegitimate.

At least Mr. Larken was honest enough to admit that anarchism is a "weird strange fringe postion". So I can understand your frustration at being part fringe group whose ideology is destined to eteranlly twist in the wind.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

Oh, I'm sorry, you're still here?

You mean you actually don't know that you just got pissed on?

You mean calling someone at DailyPaul a "fringe,"...is not the very definition of "I sense a bit of desperation..."??

Um, what f'ng parallel universe are you teleporting in from, again?

LOL.

Um, yeah, like got insecure psych. projection-"she doth protests too much," much?

Hm. I know I'm supposed to feel 'hurt' or weird about some DP-non grata annoyance calling me a 'fringe,' but oddly? Not so much.

Considering Dr. Paul's ridiculed as "fringe," guess I'm in good company. Count me in!

Suppose I can devolve and degrade to your kindergarten neoCon 'mommy, mommy, wah, wah! you're fringe! you're fringe!'-relegation, but instead I'll proffer you your last sail; now, you can actually answer the question I asked before:

What's your aim here?

1. to 'convert' minds?
2. make friends?
3. make a point?
4. to simply annoy
5. FU don't give a F8CK, just here to talk to the mirror and feel good about myself!

Do you honestly believe you've been successful, so far, if your answer is 1~3?

You know, if you continue to repeat the same method, knowing it's been a failure, you do know that, that's Einstein's very definition of..., right??

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

AnCapMerc, you're in danger of falling off...

your anarcho-moral high ground. Just relax, take a deep breath, and meditate on your Non-Aggression Principle. It's not my fault that Larken Rose, the anarchist, described anarchism as a "weird strange fringe position". If you insist on taking that statement personal, you should lodge your complaint with Mr. Rose.

My aim here is displayed at the top of every DP page. "Dedicated To Restoring Constitutional Government To The United States of America." This is the same aim as Ron Paul. My goal to help restore Constitutional government requires that I refute subversive ideologies like anarchism, communism, socialism, barbarism, etc., so I'm sorry if you feel like I'm picking on anarchists. I challenge all ideologies that conflict with the stated aim of Ron Paul, DP and myself.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

Wait, excuse me while I readjust the "falling off" yellow stream

from the right...to left.

Ah... muchos uns besser.

Sorry, not Rand, can't hold it in one direction for 13hrs.

I think I finally 'get' the 'Mark Hanson' now: you're definitely one of THOSE people!

You know? Those who push people away, pretending they hate everyone, or at least pre-emptively make others hate you, first, when what you really want is to be respected, loved, and most importantly, remembered by everyone as being endearing.

Simply put: you push people away, because you don't want to be pushed away.

Aww... you secretly fear rejection.

That's why you automatically equate 'freedom from arbitrary authority,' with fear, and as "barbarism."

Seriously, I've debated A LOT of people both on and off line, no offense, but with those who were/are much more historically and geopolitically attuned. But even in passing, even in perfunctory discourse, NOT ONCE have I ever seen anyone so liberally express their deeply seated internal fear of non-existent, and non-prompted topic of "barbarism," basically conflating it with anything outside of their own personal particular strain of a known political philosophy.

I 'get' it. Well, why didn't you say so?

Tell you what, I accept you. No really.

Not being facetious; even with your zeal and 'misguided' crusade and all, even if you obviously annoy the 'natives,' the longtime DailyPaul members here.

But seriously, no offense, and deep down I think you know this already, but don't you think you'll be much more successful with your stated aims, if you actually recognized the fact that the way you are currently approaching people, is not really working in your favor, or your stated goals, no matter how 'noble' you may feel it may be?

With that, I bid you adieu, for the day.

And really, all the BS verbal back and forth aside, if your goal is truly that, why would you continue a tactic with a proven higher failure yield, than success??

Something to think about, Mark Hanson.

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

You seem to think...

political activism is a popularity contest. But taking a stand on the truth can often be unpopular. That doesn't concern me but anarchists are so desperate to be popular, they hide behind Ron Paul's ideas of limited government even though RP has never said he's an anarchist. This demostrates the weakness of anarchists and their ideology, which has no chance of succeeding. So anarchism poses no threat, but it still needs to challenged when masquerading as limited government.

My objective is not to convert anarchists, although some who've been duped may be helped by my consistent factual arguments. It's more about firing a shot over the bow of the anarcho-Titanic to warn of the approaching iceberg.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

Do you Really 'think' this is working...for you? No, Really?

You've been here, what? A month-ish? It's time to reassess.

The whole 'stop repeating the same tactic while expecting different results'-thingy, never panned out, eh?

Mark Hanson, friends don't let friends remain a quasi-statist, forever. And, I'm probably talking to an impenetrable wall of water, be that as it may, I'm gonna parse this as clearly as I can.

Mark Hanson, do you have friends? Do you need a friend?

Because seriously dog, no one with flesh and blood real-life friends are so devoid of social skills or netiquette to the point of conducting themselves on or offline in the manner that you've been exhibiting, especially if your purpose isn't to merely continue to talk to oneself.

Which begs the question, again, for like the umteenth f'ng time, whyTF are you here?

I know you said that your aim is the same as the DP header. But what does that really mean?

How will you be restoring the Republic? You and what 'army?' At least not here at DailyPaul, since all you've been doing is antagonizing your potential 'recruits'; doesn't speak much for your leadership skills, no?

So you say your purpose isn't to convert, then practically speaking, the only other applicable action left, is to influence others' mode of thinking. Right?

But then, you HAVE to know that the way you've been going about it, doesn't work, right Mark Hanson?

I'm gonna ask you again: do you honestly believe HOW you're going about it, is 'working'??

I'm not asking whether you think I'm right/wrong, or you're right/wrong. Objectively speaking, do you think your tactics have been successful at what you're trying to accomplish here?

If so, what is your metric?

Because, factually, historically, and realistically speaking, if you actually recount almost all your visibly public encounters with other DailyPaul members here? Hate to break it to ya buddy, but I've never seen so much annoyance directed at a new member, than what and how people here have openly expressed their contempt, against you...in all the five yrs I've been visiting on and off and the 1yr plus I've been an active member here.

Like, never.

You do know how ineffective communicator of your own prized ideas, you've been, right??

Case in point?

You seem to think political activism is a popularity contest.

- No. and no; you have no I idea what I think. Stop assuming.
- No, I personally don't think political activism is a popularity contest.

That said, it's inherent for any political movement, to need to build a critical mass, to have any effect. So, in factually, contrary to your illusions, it kinda does become a vox populi "popularity contest," by proxy, at least with a politically irate faction of a given populace, of any epoch.

But taking a stand on the truth can often be unpopular.

- LOL! If you're assuming that's you? No, that's not you. No. Really, Really! LOL!!!

That doesn't concern me but anarchists are so desperate to be popular,

- Mark Hanson, remember we talked about psychologically projecting your own internal insecurities? You're doing it again. Stop it.

Mark, do you remember those wise-ass irreverent kids back in high school or college, who never gave a f*ck what others thought of them? Well, if you do want to find an apt behavioral profile of AnCaps? Yeah, we would've been those kids in our youth.

Oh and Mark, remember the those Hipsters or Trendies who clamor to wear the latest fad and eager to please some nebulous fashion police? That? Definitely not us.

...they hide behind Ron Paul's ideas of limited government even though RP has never said he's an anarchist.

- LOL!!! Oh, you 'got' us now, Mark! You 'got' us! LOL!!!

You know, I keep seeing you repeat that line about how AnCaps are "hiding behind RP"-meme: the REAL question is, WTF are you really "hiding behind"??

But I'll bite: so, gotta ask, how does one "hide behind Ron Paul's ideas?"

1. Well, I suppose that would assume that somehow AnCaps SHOULD be hiding behind a well known beloved figure...for the purpose of? According to you, to 'mask their views,' because I mean, come on! they SHOULD be ashamed of their views! Didn't ya know! They're inherently evil and unpopular!

Uh, not so much.

I 'get' it: it's your dimestore Pscych101. An attempt to elicit a defensive response, by pre-emptively treating your 'opponent' as if he/she should be getting defensive; and 'force' them to defend what needs NOT defending.

Well gee, only IF that actually worked. LOL.

So you failed there.

2. NO AnCap I know, and not even Lew Rockwell, who probably knows Dr. Paul the Elder most intimately, excluding his family members, have NEVER claimed that RP was an 'anarchist.'

NEVER.

So, let me make this retardedly clear: based on Dr. Paul's numerous writings, speeches, and interviews that I've read, listened, and watched, and followed the progress of, since 2003, Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul undoubtedly understands the nuance between minarchism and voluntaryism.

While those two philosophies DO crossover, as a Federal official he always kept his public views in the realm of strict Constitutionalism. But, at Mises and libertarian events, he has no qualms about stating very voluntaryist views, ie referencing Rothbard, Bastiat, Hoppe, Spooner, et al.

Now, now, that still doesn't mean that he's an AnCap, nor have ANY AnCap that I know of, ever claimed him to be such.

So, stop it.

It's like, you have this running fiction in your head where people claim things they haven't, and you feel the need to go all Spanish Inquisitor and force them to defend themselves for things that they NEVER stated! You know, not for nothing, but that cheap Psych101 trick? It's most often deployed by B-movie Cult Leader wannabes. I suggest you try another script rewrite.

This demostrates the weakness of anarchists and their ideology,

- No, that actually demonstrates your insecurity and paranoia for things you imagine that no one said, nor claimed, but somehow you feel a visceral need to have others defend what they never said or claimed, just because somehow putting others on the defensive satiates your lonely inner childish animal psyche on some level.

...which has no chance of succeeding.

- WTF?? LOL!!! "No chance of succeeding"...what?

What is this some WWE opener where one wrestler goes Baghdad Bob on his opponent to psych him out, so that he'll lose the impending scripted steroid ballet?

There's no such thing as an arbitrary, centrally, collectively decided measurable metric or a checklist of things that a 'typical' AnCap would consider a 'success!'

All of which, clearly illustrates that you truly have no friggin' clue, of the fundamental definition of the term "An-Archism," itself: it means without Rul-ERs, as in WITHOUT "Archons" or rulers in original Ancient Greek. Contrary to yours and MSM propaganda, "AnArchism" does NOT mean 'without any rules.'

Because if you DO like "Archons," that means that you actually like the idea that others have some arbitrary collective dominion over your own individual sovereignty.

So anarchism poses no threat,

- Well, holy f'ng Hesus Cristos! There, we finally agree without any reservation, for once! Bravo Mark Hanson, bravo!

...but it still needs to challenged when masquerading as limited government.

- LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!

Again, demonstrating that you are utterly willfully clueless of the very definition of what the term "anarchism" means!

It means without Rulers or the State, so then, WHY THE F*CK would it be "masquerading as limited government," or even "need" to???

Think on that, Mark Hanson.

My objective is not to convert anarchists, although some who've been duped may be helped by my consistent factual arguments.

- Yes, you're the 'Great' Mark 'the Houdini' Hanson. I bow before thee! You shall enlighten those poor unsuspecting saps "duped" by the dark light of AnCap-dom!

My dear Mark Hanson, you are consistently inconsistent, and your 'arguments' are baselessly baseless: you're giving yourself waaaaay too much credit for being able to enlighten others with the holy divine 'shining light' of your vision, on views that don't really need enlightening; it's self-explanatory for those paying attention.

It's more about firing a shot over the bow of the anarcho-Titanic to warn of the approaching iceberg.

- Well no, that'd be you firing into an empty ocean, because there's no such thing as an 'AnCap Ship of State,' that would be an oxymoron; we're not proffering you a ship to fire upon TO 'sink,' because there's nothing TO sink, capice??

Seriously, you see millions of Americans suddenly having a catharsis, instantly converting to Anarcho-Captialism where they all want to 'collectively' go forged in a single monolithic political direction?

Mark, What did we say about fictitious understanding of word definitions??

The only sinking ship would be the ginormous Ship of Statism and its Leviathan, which is what you'll eventually inevitably get, again, with what you're preaching.

The most puzzling thing is, you're new here, like a month-ish. Yet I've never seen anyone so eager to pick fights with some crazed evangelical zeal of exorcism, when they are completely unnecessary.

Have you done this at any other websites/forums? Just curious.

Either way, to put a bit of a tar in your feathers, let me make this abundantly clear: no AnCaps you've been debating are:

1. gonna leave DP before you do
2. gonna 'convert' to your views
3. by any objective 3rd party observation standards, will 'lose' the argument vs you, on any philosophic fundamentals

all of which makes your line of approach simply nothing more than a pestering nuisance; you're gonna be at an impasse, like forever.

Why you insist on continuing a failed tact, is kinda beyond me. And even verbally, I've yet to see you, hone your debate skills beyond the realm of evangelizing against non-existent fear or neologism "anarcho-barbarism."

I really have to ask, why do you do what you do?

You know, the amount of energy you waste here, you can EASILY be converting, or work on activism projects with moderate neoCons (if there is such a thing), to the politically expedient lipservice RINOs to come your way at sites like RedState, GreenLittleFootballs, TownHall, or hell, the National Review, or even the faketarian DailyCaller, toward a much more Constitutionalist view. Because for them, it'd be a plus, and definitely a move toward the 'correct' position.

You really don't think you're digging yourself a hole here?

You mean you really don't see that?

It's almost like you're on an imaginary island where you're tasked to hold a flag staked into a hill, as some wave of thousands of non-existent horde of 'anarchists' are charging toward your position.

Why do you feel so threatened that you feel the need to purge such 'oppositional' view to your own, even though philosophically they're way closer to you than say a typical movement liberal or neoCon's?

By the way, if you're secure in your own beliefs, frankly none of what any anarchists do, or say should bother you.

Because frankly, I've never met an anarchist try to convert others with your level of zeal; they frankly trust others will simply see their way, or don't. And, if they don't, they really don't care that you're a statist or a minarchist Constitutionalist, as long as you don't seek to impose your views on them, as you've clearly been doing now.

But the way you interact with Voluntaryists here, you act as if they have some alchemical power to poison others here at DP, which frankly doesn't speak very highly of your own views of other DailyPaul members here, if you think they can so flippantly be influenced by you or me, so easily.

With that said, I don't know if anyone's gonna extend the same level of courtesy and patience than I have so far. It's like you're masochistic or something.

Tell you one thing, I get too much bemusement out of messing with you. I feel bad, so I'm gonna stop.

Mark Hanson, it's been really really fun. But bra, get a clue, before all your encounters just become an extended soliloquy.

Adios.

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

You seem to be hung up on...

whether on not my tactics are working, which is a convenient diversion given anarchism's lack of success and appeal. I advocate for limited government which, in spite of historical ups and downs, has broad appeal and a proven track record of success. I suspect that's why you have to resort to personal attacks rather than factual arguments.

If anarchists aren't interested in RP's and DP's mission of "Restoring Constitutional Government To The United States Of America", what are they doing at DP? I guess wearing black masks and breaking windows was so successful they think juvenile delinqency will work on the net. I would like an answer to the previous question, i.e., if not cowering behind the appealing principles of limited gov't, what are anarchists doing at a website dedicated to promoting limited government?

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

You seem to be hung up on the fact that you cannot discern

the obvious. (well, you would be 'hung up' if you actually had a clue)

I guess wearing black masks and breaking windows was so successful they think juvenile delinqency will work on the net.

That alone, tells me how utterly clueless you are. Have you any fucking clue that you're talking about Black Bloc which has been run by FBI COINTELPRO since 1999 WTO protests? This is mainline historical FACT. You really are a clueless f'ng douche.

You honestly delude that Blac Block morons are the same ones who read Murray N. Rothbard, Lysander Spooner, and Frederic Bastiat?

You really are utterly helplessly clueless. I truly had no idea how delusional you really were. Wow.

You're the most brainwashed person I've ever met on DailyPaul. Your geopolitical acumen is less sharper than house flea's.

THAT, is your problem. You literally have ZERO CLUE WTF you're blabbing about. It'd be like if I saw a bunch of window and property burning assholes and a TV crew came and they screamed "We're Constitutionalists! We're Constitutionalists!" Your reaction will be "oh so those assholes must be Constitutionalists!"

Me watching the same TV broadcast? "Wow, these are assholes who are trying to smear Constitutionalists."

Really Mark Hanson, you truly need to learn to discern modern media.

Your reference to Black Bloc alone tells me how little you know, about anything. Up till then, I actually thought at least you wouldn't so gullible as to fall for propaganda. Hesus Cristos, you are cluelessly gullible.

If anarchists aren't interested in RP's and DP's mission of "Restoring Constitutional Government To The United States Of America", what are they doing at DP?

Um, because DailyPaul is not Ron Paul's personal site, and we've been discussing his strain of Constitutionalism with Anarcho-Capitalism, Agorism, Voluntaryism, Minarchism, libertarianism, Paleo-Conservatism, LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG before you ever came along, decided you needed to purge the new forum that you just joined of all the AnCaps who coexisted beautifully with others.

Besides, we're like a close distant family, and we've fleshed out these ideas/differences among each other waaaaaaaay before you came along.

So sorry bud, you're simply too late to the party, and we don't feel like repeating it. You still don't get that?

The fact that you cannot coexist with others who think differently from you, worse, you're sooooooooooo insecure, the mere thought of AnCaps being related to Dr. Paul and his ideas, is some world ending anathema to you. Ever notice how Dr. Paul practically has friends and professional colleagues who share all the various strain of -isms in the Freedom Movement that I just cited above, without being a dick, like you?

Question is, why aren't you trying to emulate Dr. Paul?

Like I said, I cannot find a market to buy you a clue, not in FRN's, gold, or bitcoins.

Seriously, I've seen less insecure personalities on the neoCon Sean Insanity forum, it makes it all the worse, because you're here on DailyPaul.

What's hilarious is that you actually cannot fathom the concept that you're the one who is new here, bitching at long time members that their views suck, and want them gone, when it'll be simply easier for yourself if YOU are the one who exits.

Capice? You're new. We've been here coexisting peacefully, and you honestly think it's weird that we think you're the problem!

LOLOLOL.

Seriously, bemuse me more darlin' bemuse me more.

PS: You can't take a hint.

That alone tells me you've never had a girlfriend; No means no, capice?

Can you read? No really? Can you?

I know it's kinda cute with the whole YouTube gen to be unable to actually comprehend and rebut what you're 'reading' and yammer on with non sequiturs, and make yourself 'win' by embellishing yourself on things you've never done.

But really, have you any clue?

You're like the annoying clueless kid that every girl said no to, not because you're ugly or unfashionable or something, it's because you're being an asshole.

Is THAT clear??

You have got to be the most deliciously deliriously cluelessly insensate, daft person who argues endlessly about not a single point of initial debate.

So... you think I'm attacking you personally because I 'can't' make merited philosophical arguments? LOL. THAT fork in the road, passed long ago, when I never heard of you, and your 1st introduction to me was basically, 'hey FU, you're one of "THOSE" people. You don't have anything of worth to say, because you're promoting 'anarchic-barbarism!"

I was like, are you friggin' for real?.... At DailyPaul...of all places, a month-member troll asshole who annoys the hell out of yrs long members to STFU?

Ever heard of 'you started it, you asked for it?'

You know that little point of personal impression that determines whether people treat you like a person, or the asshole you're acting like? Well, you kinda took a deep dump into the asshole pool from the get go. You got no one to blame but yourself for all your projective insecurities. The fact that I'm responding you see as "hung up," but hey, what can I say, I have a certain amount of daily bemusement fulfillment quota to fill, and you just happen to be my sh*ttart for the week.

I can reply with a 1000page treatise, your answer's not gonna be any different than below.

Here's you in a nutshell:

You: Hey FU! How you doin', even though it's 1st time 'meeting you.' 'You're one of THOSE people

Me: Awwww another clueless self absorbed internet a-hole! wee!

You: Me crusader. You scum. You hide behind RP, DP, Constitution!
Me: I did?

You: You're avoiding my greatness! You cannot argue with me!
Me: I was?

You: Anarchism cannot be limited govt!
Me: I know, it can't because it's lack of govt. And... so what are you arguing?

You: Anarchism is barbarism!
Me: Huh? Did I step onto a TV show?

You: You're avoiding me! Argue me on my merits!
Me: Um, your intro kinda sucked; You approached me like an asshole, so I'm simply treating you like the way you want to be treated: an asshole.

PRESS RECYCLE.

We're on about Spin Cyle 4.

You wanna keep going? 'Cause the only one answering seems to be me, and you keep cutting and pasting your same reply, over and over. It's getting pointlessly boring.

That, is why no one is responding to you like a human, because you're not acting like one, oBUSHma SockPuppet, hiding behind "Constitutionalism" and 'see, that's what it even says on top of DP banner!'

No, I'm just not that into you. Not that interested in you, what you have to say, or what you think you have to say.

But go forth! I bless thee upon the altars of your awesomely awesome quixotic crusade to rout the DailyPaul of the Anarcho Barbarism.

You need a brigade? A Calvary! A Trojan Horse? Begin my friend begin! I think your D&D board is getting lonely.

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

Wow, you covered all the bases,...

that was quite a thorough breakdown of his mindless ramblings.

I am afraid he will not read it, or he will simply fail to comprehend what was written, and post another of his long winded, absent minded assaults on reason.

It's a shame that such a well thought out comment will fall on deaf ears.

The cargo cult bit had me in stitches though.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


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

This guy doesn't think rationally...

or he is a very dedicated troll.

Check out this chain of comments: http://www.dailypaul.com/276369/is-ron-paul-an-anarchist-no-...

and the entire thread for that matter.

All his arguments are total non-sequiturs.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


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

to be fair, on Constitutionalism specifics, he does make

pretty good arguments, but I really have distaste for anyone who has 'do it my way, or else,'-dictates let alone, at DailyPaul, of all places! strong belief and conviction in one's own understanding of the world is commendable, but not when one seeks to impose it, tis all.

I love listening to even opposing ideas, but if the 'opponent's attitude is before ever even introducing oneself, proceeds to engage with 'FU, you suck! You're one of THOSE people!' I'm like really? I used to beat up on kids like that back in my pre-NAP days. lol.

but frankly I don't want to belabor the point further.

but..but..but... as a great philosopher king once retorted...

"can't we all get along?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sONfxPCTU0

...before getting hundreds of millions of taxpayers' FRN currency, and proceeding to get drunk again, while beating his next girlfriend... then croaking in pool after a heartattack...

er...yeah, I don't know what all of that means... oh right, non sequiturs, eh?

lol.

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

AnCapMerc, you say...

my arguments reflect a "do it my way or else" approach. But we're simply competing in the marketplace of ideas and anarchism cannot compete. So your attempt to characterize this competition as "do it my way or else", is ironic because it's anarchists who say markets have the ability to be the arbiter of all things good and evil.

One of the reasons I support the Constitution and Bill of Rights is they guarantee the anarchist's right to speak freely about their ideas, and allow the marketplace of ideas to determine which ideology is applied to society. If all media banned speech pertaining to anarchism, wouldn't anarchists demand that the State funded judicial system secure their right to free speech? If they did, I would support the use of my tax dollars to defend the anarchist's right to free speech. And my support for this judicial process is based on voluntarily consent.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

This is to long and all over the place

I don't know who larken rose is, but he sounds like he is a little far removed from reality. The society he envisions is essentially impossible. It sounds great, but in reality, I don't see it working..especially the way that society has eroded into what it is today. While I appreciate a good debate, I would prefer real life situations then a pipe dream of government disappearing overnight and everyone becoming a stand up individual. This is a bit of a waste of time. The moderator is a terrible in this also. Completely smug and on the side of Rose.

The first few minutes of the "debate"...

illustrate some interesting contradictions. The video begins with a woman's voice saying the participants will "debate whether or not government has rights which the individual does not." But this is a false premise because government does not have rights, only individuals have rights. As Thomas Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence, "That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." So the "debate" is based on a false premise.

Then the moderator, Richard Grove, said they were going to "have a logical reasonable conversation about irrational unreasonable things like authority and government." So the "moderator" had already concluded there is no debate because government is irrational and unreasonable while anarchism is not. This seemed a bit irrational.

Larken Rose, the anarchist, spoke first and described his ideology as a "weird, strange, fringe position", and I agree. During his opening statement Larken said "there cannot be a legitimate ruling class", followed by the moderator's description of anarchism as "a long interesting history of intellectual elites fleshing out these ideas." In other words, anarchism was created by the ruling class which Larken Rose, the anarchist, had just said cannot be legitimate. Oops! What a tangled web the anarchists weave when at first they practice to deceive.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

Anarchist mistake comes from

the fact that after Rothbard was expelled from Ayn Rand circle for plagiarizing, he had settled for the notion that natural individual rights is the main axiom (see Rothbard's Libertarian Manifesto.) The non-agression priciple thus aims to defend axiom that is not rooted in reality. Non-agression principle becomes self-serving cognitive tool and, over time, it conflicts with reality - reason.

Without UNIFORM laws and PREDICTABLE enforcement, private property wont be protected well. If private property is not protected, talking about Liberty is not a Libertarian idea. Ayn Rand had explain everything back in 50's-60's: majority of people who are not rational most of the time (under emotions, dogmas, beer, drugs, etc) or fall back on irrational morality (sacrifice for collective or neighbor) cannot maintain a free society for long. That also explains why our ideas do not sell well today without a help from bad economy - majority of Americans today are not consistently rational (80% of our folks here at DP is an example.)

Larken actually supports this at 20:00.