So it appears to be ANARCHY WEEK at DP.
I'm relatively new around here, so maybe I'm just making poor assumptions based on two months of heavy involvement. But it seems to me that there are many new threads running in support of anarchy in this last week or so.
There are many threads and posts against the Constitution, against the Rule of Law, and in explicit support of anarchy.
Has this been going on for a long time in such great measure?
Since Ron Paul is no anarchist, it naturally appears to me that this is the work of people who would like to subvert Dr. Paul's purposes by making him appear to be that which he is not.
Obviously, the stakes are very high and the establishment stands to lose a lot if Dr. Paul's message continues to spread. What better way to defeat the messenger than to subvert the message by throwing in new material?
If I'm right about this, perhaps we should expect to see the MSM calling Ron Paul an anarchist soon, and referring to the high amount of anarchist posting here.
Well,
I must agree with you that anachists are trying to dominate this site.
Ron Paul is not for anarchy.
Ron Paul is all for the Constitution.
And I would be wary of anyone trying to subvert the message of the Constitution.
none and atrickplay have been noticed.
Please Donate Today!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khDgz0rODZU&feature=g-upl
There's no subversion about it. My property is MINE, not yours
And I lived most of my life suffering from the same delusion you still do; that staking a claim on what was not mine via the government is acceptable.
I doubt you'd show up at my doorstep to attempt to steal from me to make me pay for your road, your kid's education, your protection, or anything else. If you were my neighbor and needed help, you'd probably come ask me for it, right? Because that's how civilized people behave. Barbarians don't do that though. They come and stake their claim to what isn't theirs by force.
What would you rather be? Civilized and decent, or a warmongering barbarian?
Ron Paul supports anarchy
Ron Paul was asked in this video at 3:55:
"What do you say to people who advocate self-government, rather than a return to the Constitution?"
Ron Paul responds: "Fine, I think that's really what my goal is."
Then he continues to talk about libertarians who want to opt out of government and he makes it clear that he supports it.
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/96155
Ron Paul is a "Min-Archist" -- Not an Anarchist
He is constantly talking about "limited gov't" and the "constitution."
He has written position papers on his "transition" from where we are now toward a "Minarchist" Gov't -- he never talks about Anarcho-Capitalism. He refers to "Mises" not Rothbard when talking about his dominant influences.
Remember Rothbard is not Mises.
Ron Quotes Ayn Rand -- Not Lew Rockwell.
Even though he greatly respects Rothbard and Rockwell (not doubt -- as do I).
Minarchism is the correct "next step" -- you can't go from an 80% Big Tax Gov't to a 0% Tax Anarchy. You must transition.
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
How clear, limelemon?
This is a good find on video. Thanks for posting it.
I wish the interviewer had asked a couple of follow up questions so as to be certain of Dr. Paul's intention. What he's saying here is so important that it deserves some solid clarification.
Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution
www.ruleoflawrevolution.com
Jack Pelham
www.jackpelham.com
www.ruleoflawrestoration.com
Agreed
That's what being a sovereign is all about. However, it requires knowledge and self-discipline and moral fiber that most people today do not have. It's tough enough to get them back to the constitution, let alone all the way to the point of self-governing. The Constitution, taken in its purest form, is an outline for self-government with minimal privelege given to a limited government for purposes of organizing defense and keeping interstate commerce running smooth.
The founders even put in a clause requiring Congress to meet "at least once in every Year." Obviously, they didn't picture Congress doing very much.
KenM
Self Government PERSONAL GOAL
Ron immediately went into Libertarian party and talked about the Libertarian "movement" for nearly 2 mins.
WE ARE GOING TO WIN!
___.---.___
.' ( ) '.
) /)' '( )
',_( ';-;'\_,'
|-|
(")
I think anarchy is what a
I think anarchy is what a lot of people threaten, if the government doesn't get more constitutional and smaller.
Don't confuse those people with bonafide anarchists.
There are very few true anarchists.
Tons and tons of minarchists though.
The state is lawless
it doesn't follow any set of rules.
"Greater than the force of mighty armies is the power of an idea whose time has come"
- Victor Hugo
Well..
I don't need a government to tell me what to do, what to eat, what to buy, what to give away, what to think... how to live.
I just want to live MY life respecting the lives and property of others.
As Dr Paul already said: "I just want to be left alone". "I don't want to run the lives of others".
What on Earth is wrong about that ?
I like this quote:
"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments: rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the universe."
(John Adams, 2nd US President)
From the pen of Edwin Vieira.
Constitutional lawyer Edwin Vieira is a friend of Ron Paul and writes about the Laws of the Constitution.
This is a long article written in June of 2008 but I highly recommend it to anyone who wants a much better understanding of what people in government can and cannot do, according to the Constitution.
It is titled "Government is not the problem."
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Government+is+not+the+problem%...
beesting
Great Essay!
I would urge all anarchists present to read Vieira's essay. Maybe then they will stop complaining about "the government." I would urge you to stop complaining about "the government" and start telling your representatives that you will not permit them to sway from the Constitution. Vote them out, campaign against them, and take them to court for their violations. Then we will have our country back to Constitutional principles.
KenM
Anarchy
I'm going to keep my eyes open for some interviews where Ron Paul says he doesn't have a problem with anarchism\voluntarism instead of a government by force.
I swear that I recently heard a Motorhome diaries interview where he seemed to think that was a good thing if people believed that.
It's amazing so many people on this site have a problem with differing political views within the movement.
More quotes...
"When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic."
-- Dresden James
"When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers, and destroyers press upon them so fast, that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon the American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour. The revenue creates pensioners, and the pensioners urge for more revenue. The people grow less steady, spirited, and virtuous, the seekers more numerous and more corrupt, and every day increases the circles of their dependents and expectants, until virtue, integrity, public spirit, simplicity, and frugality, become the objects of ridicule and scorn, and vanity, luxury, foppery, selfishness, meanness, and downright venality swallow up the whole society."
--John Adams
We already have Anarachy
Only this one is anarchy of the state. There is complete lawlessness going on in the legislature and all branches of government. I do NOT want anarchy because I have seen what it is like (ie. present day). There is no law granting the congress to do half the things it does yet it does them anyways. That is what I call anarchy.
"Greater than the force of mighty armies is the power of an idea whose time has come"
- Victor Hugo
A government can not be an anarchy
Anarchy = Without rulers.
What part of a government with rulers conforms to a society without rulers?
Exactly
and that's why I said it is an anarchy of the state. The state does not have rulers in our society. Any laws, such as natural law and constitutional law, no longer apply to the modern state thus the state operates in anarchy. It can do what it wants/whatever it can get away with.
"Greater than the force of mighty armies is the power of an idea whose time has come"
- Victor Hugo
The 'state' IS the ruler
And it is most certainly not operating as an anarchy.
I believe I know what you're trying to say, but I'd encourage you to think about your use of the word 'anarchy' to describe it.
All topics ebb and flow here.
Like the tides.
Nature is a good example of how things will be in the future.
My greatest fear with respect to anarchy is that a mob will form and carry out swift justice without a full hearing of the facts, but alas ....
I have faith in humanity and I am an optimist ...
People will respect the opinions of elders greatly with government out of the way, and patience will rule the day.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
Rhino, what unfounded hope you have!
So if aliens come tonight and whisk away all vestiges of government---the laws, the buildings, the officials (elected and not), then "people will respect the opinions of elders greatly"?
Just the removal of government will lead to that?
I see no basis in reality for this hope that you have.
Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution
www.ruleoflawrevolution.com
Jack Pelham
www.jackpelham.com
www.ruleoflawrestoration.com
I do ...
"I see no basis in reality for this hope that you have."
And it is not unfounded hope.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
First of all welcome.
I have been here almost two years. The opinions here are like snow flakes, very varied. I have learned so much here about all sorts of things and I love it. When I first heard about the Anarchy thing it concerned me but I am learning what they are talking about. I think Anarchy may not be the right word for the system they want but I could be wrong. In my own opinion, I don't think any system will be without flaws. I think if I lived under any system it would be Dr. Paul's. I think he would be happy to leave me alone and let me make my own mistakes and if I did well he wouldn't try to steal from me. I think he would let me speak and not punish me for my ideas. That's where I would like to live. Live and Let Live. Neither a borrower nor lender be. Charity begins at home. Just my two cents.
Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.
Anarchy is the right word
But like so many other words that have been twisted to mean something they never meant before, anarchy has been maligned and twisted in most people's minds to be synonomous with chaos and destruction. What better way could there be than to use FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) to keep people from examining the concept further?
Anarchy isn't chaos. The people clamoring the most against anarchy are the ones with the most to loose. Why do you think they all use the same rhetoric? Why do you think they try so hard to instill the fear, uncertainty, and doubt of what they claim would certainly be the end of civility? Think about it logically without the emotional response you've been programeed to and you will come to see the truth.
Do you think we
have Anarchy of the state as jman196 stated? I think jman is right we have Anarchy now, only it is at the state and federal level not the populace.
Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.
This isn't really new
This isn't really new material. If you are familiar with the Austrian school- you'd see that Ron Paul is very familiar with the idea of an anarcho-capitalist society. But as he's said on his own many times before- he was very reluctant to believe his bid for presidency would amount to anything- and he knows how washington works well. So I doubt he thinks it'd be possible to have an anarcho-capitalist society over here in the states. But that is the ultimate final step if you believe in markets over government monopoly force.
I do think people shouldn't talk about anarcho-capitalism right away to hardcore supporters of the government. But people familiar with Ron Paul shouldn't have an issue with why that system would be preferable.
Browser: Ron Paul is not an Anarcho-Capitalist
he is a Minarchist.
I love the idea of anarchism -- however, I do not believe we can go from 8-9months worth of direct and indirect taxation to zero -- in one move.
I do believe we could go from 70-80% taxation down to a Minarchist 7%.
There is no way you can take all the Naval Arsenal and Army / Air Force Arsenal and put it up for auction in the "free-market." I would not trust those (just disposed of power -- after a switch from corporatism to 100% anarcho-capitalism) to not buy it up and hire out militias to control the port cities.
Here's my "transition." From Corporatism to Minarchism.
1% National Sales Tax -- Paid to a 24 member Meritocracy whose sole power is Naval oversight. An incentive based salary and only one term. They have ZERO taxing authority, ZERO Monetary Authority, ZERO Regulatory Authority (over any market). The "hiring committee" is comprised of a revolving group of "experts" (from opposing ideologies) randomly selected each 6 years (one term). The Meri-24 get a % of what's left over (from their budget) - the rubric is based on innovation, cost controls, weaponology advancement, and record for protecting our ships and foreign merchant ships. They can only troll our waters and internaitonal waters.
3% National Sales Tax -- To pay off all foreign debt. A computer could be used to distribute these funds -- open-sourced oversight.
3% State Sales Tax -- Identical "ZEROs" as Central Meritocracy. The state Meritocracy would oversee Army and Air Guard -- One courtroom duty (Title transfers / disputes regarding major assets - things people would kill over: homes, yatchs, high-end automobiles, planes etc). The Army and Air Guard only patrol our borders -- perform large scale search and rescue. An appropriate hiring committee and incentive rubric would be created.
7% total in sales tax.
Everything else would be privatized
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
Has anyone ever asked him that?
Someone ask him if he thinks anarcho-capitalism would be a good system.
I bet he'd say that sounds pretty good!
Invalid: He's a lifetime member of the Mises Institute
He regularly writes articles for them.
He is very much aware of Anarcho-Capitalism -- He is more of a Misesean scholar not a Rothbardian one.
Rothbard moved Mises Institute in a different direction than Mises started it -- you got to understand that.
I'm sure Ron would say -- As a transition from Corporatism to Minarchism continuing towards A-Cap after that would be the goal.
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
OK you have proven yourself
OK you have proven yourself nothing but a shill. I posted several links a couple of times about Ancient Celtic society that lived 1000 years in freedom without government ( not without rules) in a very sophisticated society of voluntary association and you denied it in your response.
You also did not answer my question to name a government that has not lied, cheated, robbed, stolen, and murdered thier own people under color of law. You threw up a straw man saying there is nowhere that doesn't have that avoiding the issue of government doing it under color of law there by convincing people it's ok.
It's pretty clear you do not want meaningful discussion you just want to try and discredit and obfuscate the very logical and reasonable points being made here against government and the constitution and force and violence used to enforce it on those who wish to be free .
What part of ; "you do not have the right to rule over me or anyone even if you get a collective together to write a constitution etc." do you not understand? You have no right or authority to do such, it is all done by force period!
Why can't I opt out? There is only one reason and that is because your collective will use force to rule me period. And you do it because you can, you take what's mine to support a government I do not support. It is nothing but force and the constitution facilitates force period.
I know now you will not address the issues and continue to obfuscate because you are unwilling to face the truth that you support force and violence against your neighbors or you do support it and are just a shill.
-----
Get Prepared!
Only dead fish go with the flow...
-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!
Get Prepared!
Hawkiye, "nothing but a shill?"
So I am "nothing" but a shill. Not a man, nor husband, nor father. Not educated or upright. Not talented, nor a sovereign individual. Nope, I'm "nothing" but a shill.
OK, now that we have the ad hominem flourish out of the way, let's proceed with the rest of your post:
"Without government", you say? OK, let's start with the first link you posted. "Property Rights in Celtic Irish Law", by Joseph R. Peden.
I note for starters that the article refers to "Celtic Irish LAW". I note further that the etymology of the term anarchy is ["without" + "rule"]. Already, therefore, we have a contradiction in play. I've pointed this out many times, but nobody seems to notice any problem with it. No compunction to deal with the contradictions. This is not an admirable trait in philosophy---at least not from my position.
Then going on, Peden cites on page two that this culture had "Kings". Now this is certainly noteworthy for a society that is "without government", as you say. Then he cites the Druids as the "keepers of the law" (p. 2) , though he later goes on to say that there were "no police". Again, this deserves some careful explanation. Whichever title you choose, it sure sounds like "government" to me.
Then he speaks of the "professional class of jurists" called the brithim or brehons. How can you have a professional class of jurists unless you have a codified law? And how can you have a codified law unless there is a legislature? And yet on page 3 Peden says there was "no legislature".
So if the people did not have the right to assemble a legislature to make their laws, then where did those laws originate? Did they come to earth carved on a meteorite? Or did some person or persons make them up at some point and hand them down for their progeny? And if this is what happened, isn't this pretty much EXACLTY what so many folks are griping about with the US Constitution--that they ought not have to be bound by a compact to which they were not party?
The contradictions continue. What an ethereal pursuit is the defense of this notion of anarchy. Definitions, facts, and human nature notwithstanding, I'd say you make a pretty good case. But in the real world, it's self-evidently impracticable without breaking its own rules.
You cannot have laws without forcing some sovereign person to abide by something with which he does not agree. It is a contradiction of the most fundamental level.
As to the rest of your fallacious arguments, I have already answered them over and over in other posts. Perhaps if I find myself with nothing to do, I'll come back for some more.
Jack Pelham
Rule of Law Revolution
www.ruleoflawrevolution.com
Jack Pelham
www.jackpelham.com
www.ruleoflawrestoration.com