Recent Comments

The newest 50 comments

"Monopoly on force"

Wissler's point, which I tend to agree with, is that there no true "monopoly on force" only attempts to do so. In many ways modern governments attempt to institute a monopoly on force; in other ways they abdicate the fact that they do not hold a monopoly on force (by allowing self defense, by invading other countries in the pretense of defending "human rights" etc).

At best a government can attempt to claim a monopoly on force.

As far as the quote, I was referring to your definitions of "anarchism" and "minarchism", and we need to break down this monopoly of force issue more (which is why I started the new thread).

At this point you are being deceitful, as evidenced by the blockquote. There's increasing reason to suspect that you don't want to define your terms for a monopoly of force because the monopoly of violence is exactly what you endorse.

You accuse me of being deceitful in the same breath as you completely mischaracterise my positions. Point me to where I've endorsed a monopoly on violence.
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

All for that, except

Tax the rich? Why?

palestinians wanted the policy.

palestinians wants to claim the land. Would rather choose hamas over Israel. It is also hamas policy and hamas responsibility for palestinians. In the end it is palestinians choice and palestinians decision of the outcome.

Best comment

From user "blounttruth":

The officers involved in this murder as well as the ones responding online in such a manner are simply uneducated tools of the for profit institution that used to be respected as it once brought justice to the people our police protected and served. Now they protect themselves and serve the pay masters, and try to deflect a murder because they wear a badge. One must only reflect back to Nazi Germany when the guards were held for their participation stating that they were only following orders, and the police today take an oath, not to the pay masters, but to the public before God almighty to first protect and defend the constitution of the United States. We have rights from our creator for life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, yet they took this mans most basic right of life for the crime of selling cigarettes and then try and justify it via some policy a bureaucrat created, but which is completely in conflict with the constitution.

Who was the victim from this mans sale of cigarettes? Who is the harmed party? He denied breaking the law and felt they had no right to abduct him, this is far from resisting and had they spent more time explaining that he was in custody he might have gone quietly. It appears that he was still trying to argue his case when they attacked and murdered him, and no matter what policy they try and hide behind in the eyes of God they killed this man who had harmed no one, and under the constitution they stole his most fundamental right.

It is time to demand the end of victimless crimes, allow police to focus on those out there who aim to harm the innocent, and above all protect and defend our rights, not the municipality that would make such a policy that murder for cigarette sales is justified.

In closing I would only say that the government functions via the consent of the governed, which means that the police have no more rights than an average citizen, and yet had a citizen witnessed an officer selling cigarettes and choked said officer to death, then there would no doubt be far different cries from the insiders club in blue. Time to wake up America and force a change in policy so this stops occurring on an ever increasing basis, and do not blame the cops, blame the system that trained them to think that they are above the constitution our founders laid forth and demand change in public, and stand against this behavior in court.

If the officers above honored their oath to God and the people then there would be less public outcry, and the people would respect the badge once again, but many were not around 20 years ago and do not know what it means to be a peace officer, only a tax collector and murderer, a harasser and devastator of families in honor of the for profit state. Officers should be made to pass a constitutional test, yet many do not know the first thing about the very oath they take to accept the position, and no wonder they are irresponsible and derelik in their duties, but the public's apathy is just as much to blame as officers ignorant of the oath they took to first and foremost protect and defend the constitutional rights of citizens.

I did

Guys with guns force people to buy and not buy all the time. What about that is controversial?

This is called falsification. When you make a universal claim, then all you need is a counterexample. That's the argument.

He said there is no such thing as a monopoly of force, when he lives in a world shaped by monopolies of force. If he says there are no cats all I have to do is show him a cat. It he wants to say that cat isn't a cat, that's up to him, not me. If you want to do it for him.. well good luck with that;)

Translation: Use my terms, and squeeze yourself into one of these categories, or I walk off the field of debate.

Cut the crap.

I gave you the definitions to be helpful, but I invited you to define your own terms if you don't like them. I didn't try to squeeze you into anything except an honest statement. Clearly that isn't your strong suit recently.

At this point you are being deceitful, as evidenced by the blockquote. There's increasing reason to suspect that you don't want to define your terms for a monopoly of force because the monopoly of violence is exactly what you endorse.

There's nothing wrong with thinking this, people do, Ron Paul does, Jan Helfeld does, but at least they have enough integrity to state their position and defend their position.

Did you read the whole post?

The writer clearly said they did not want to have the homeless taken away.

Do you have any positive suggestions?

Which force?

Do you have the right to a monopoly on any force in your own home?

Do you have the right to a monopoly on defensive force in your own home?

Case in point:

Person A in error opens door entering home and upon entering home Person B in error assumes intent by Person A to harm Person B, so Person B employs lethal defensive force in error.

Under Question 1 (if yes) there is no question as to the right or wrong done by Person B.

Under Question 2 (if yes) there is a question as to the right or wrong done by both Person A and Person B.

Is it not important to accurately discriminate the difference between aggressive force and defensive force?

Under Question 1 (if no) Person B is always wrong, even if Person A is intending to kill Person B.

Under Question 2 (if no) Person B is always wrong, even if Person A is intending to kill Person B.

If no is the answer to both questions, then Person A is right even if Person A willfully intends to kill (murder) person B, in, or out, of any home of any kind?


White Flag

The white flag is a flag of peace. The stars and stripes is a flag of war.

All rights reserved and no rights waived, ever.

ChristianAnarchist's picture

Maybe a drone with a paint

Maybe a drone with a paint can? They did say there was a "hint" of stars and stripes on the flag. Maybe they did not take it down but rather painted it in place during the night with a drone...

jrd3820's picture

Some of the people here have been working on this thread

It has information on candidates from all the states. This might help.

Maybe someone really did buy the Brooklyn Bridge.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

It is rather fascinating, though. I'd be interested in knowing what in the world that was all about, too.

OMG THAT was hard to watch....

and spells out why you don't see Selleck on the tube much anymore.

Tom exhibited great restraint from not going ape shit on that delete, delete, delete, delete.......

Tom's last words were great at 7:42, eyes roll, Thank You.....

Because: Some animals are more equal than other animals. -Animal Farm-

What the? >

Question for Faithkills

Actually, I decided to make a new thread for this one....

Do have a right to a monopoly on force in your own home?
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*


I have defined the terms "anarchy" and "government" several times, so I don't see how there can be any obfuscation on this.

Sadly, there are many on the DP who are deeply confused.
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

Agree with you totally Myke

However I think that we will have to totally replace the criminal regime in Washington before there might be any hope of accountability.

We have a specific instance of Clapper lying to Congress which is supposed to be a felony and no one does anything.

The best we can hope for is that these stories create enough of an uproar that the American people demand change. So far, the response to these stories has been lacking and frustrating. It takes time for collective attitudes to change, however I'm not sure how much time we have left given our current course.

We need to hold Snowden and Greenwald's feet to the fire to release more and sooner rather than later.

Free will is an illusion

Free will is an illusion brother!

Rand Paul 2016

Rand Paul 2016

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
My ฿itcoin: 17khsA7MvBJAGAPkhrFJdQZPYKgxAeXkBY

From the comments below, it seems like we are talking

about two different statements. Yes, Wead did say we'd know what happened (i.e. why Dr. Paul stopped campaigning and/or didn't challenge the votes) in about 10 to 20 years.

Then there was another time when he said something about Mittens threatening to destroy the good Doctor in a media blitz, if he didn't step aside and stay quiet for the duration (of the hoax).

Rand deserves an Oscar man!

Rand deserves an Oscar man!

'These are the times which try mens souls...'

Never forget... at times it is necessary to be the 'fox in wolves clothing'!

It is also LOOKS GOOD for the establishment to see and hear of the 'severe disappointment in Rand', in the minds of many Ron Paul faithful!

The extremity of the age, the threat to life, liberty, property, and therefore the free nation state, now calls for extreme measures.

Ron has known this for a long time now, and it formed a basis for strategy from 2007 forward!!

It is hoped that this will be the last time this be mentioned! Rand is cut of the same cloth!

Thats your take away FSU?


In the immortal words of

In the immortal words of Biggie

" If you dont know, now you know!"


1. There's nothing wrong with this definition per se, but I wouldn't conflate *any* organizing body with government. A corporation is not a government. A board of directors is not a government. Do you think most people think that it is?

2. This argument has been addressed repeatedly.

The problem is with the "we" you are referring to. The "we" are those who live in a libertarian bubble and use our own definitions of words, ones that the rest of the world doesn't use, and then try to communicate with the rest of the world using those same definitions. How do you think that works out?

As for #2, "tyranny" or "tyrannical government" would be a better, more accurate term than simply "state."

"If you're a minarchist then get about defending the monopoly of force.
If you're an anarchist then get about arguing a monopoly of force is always bad.
If you aren't sure then at least you know the right questions to ask."

Translation: Use my terms, and squeeze yourself into one of these categories, or I walk off the field of debate.

"Your guest deliberately misapplies Rothbard's understanding that there aren't natural market monopolies to somehow mean someone can't pick up a gun and force people to buy or not to buy. Rothbard's point was that monopolies only exist because of guns."

He doesn't "misapply", he disagrees in an upfront matter. So why don't you address the points he has made in regards to why he disagrees?

This reminds me of when I was a kid, and I would ask my parents why, and they would respond "because I said so."

Make an argument, not an assertion.
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

Ron Paul Didn't Quit Either In 2008 Or 2012.

He was "RAILROADED" {please look up the meaning of railroaded} by the main stream media, and the big money boyz, and the neo-cons from his own party.

Here is one definition of "railroaded":

Check out this book written by a strong Ron Paul supporter, RIGGED:


well ya see, CA, that'd be because you're sane, my man:

just wait until you see the predictable, resident "worse than the fungus on the fungus on the wart on Dipshiit Cheney's cancerous asshole polyps," reality-delutional, self-rationalizing collectivist zionist La Raza Horde, resident AIPAC-whore seminar sockpuppet COINTEL bots, revel in it, here.

Like some 'either-or'-binary imbecile, eventually some asshole resident AIPAC troll, even here, will call you an "Islamist," "Anti-Semite" (how one being anti-particular language is supposed to be a SPLC "racist"-card projected 'bigot' or something. lol), NeoNazi, and/or Aryan (just means "Noble" in Sanskrit; how Indo-Caucuses 'supremacy' became Teutonic, is an endless source of etymology-skewed wonder, but be that as it may), for ye dare empathize with pain of losing a child. How dare you! .o/ <=== that'd be my gallows non-hardy, sarc-har, har humor.

Volataire: 'To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.'

like clockwork, they always come. just you wait. lol.

Predictions in due Time...

"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

people are against Israeli policy

i don't think people on here are Anti-Israel? per say i think people are against Israeli policy towards Palestinians.

Sounds good.

Gardening takes a lot of skill and determination. You would need a dedicated owner that could direct the work.

Grew up watching Jame Garner

Grew up watching Maverick. I loved his acting on one of his last movies. The Notebook. Plus the remake movie Maverick. Peace be with you James. He is my dads age .My Dad and I enjoy the western shows back in the 50s and early sixtys.

ChristianAnarchist's picture

I too hate "religion". I do

I too hate "religion". I do not hate our Creator and that's a different subject entirely. I did enjoy reading this post and only disagree on the definition of sin (or rather some of the things listed as sin). In my travels through this world I have determined to my own satisfaction that the only things "sinful" or just plain wrong is any action that harms another or removes their property without their consent (unless in retaliation for a "judgement" and that's another whole can of worms...)

I see no one claiming that right

The problem is when people refuse to define their own words. This is usually a sign that someone is dissembling.

If you won't define your terms then you are not making an honest argument, and you aren't making an honest argument because you know that your real position is shady.

Or you could just be seriously confused and arguing despite that fact, but I don't think there are many people on the dp that confused.


What do you mean by "come a accross this concept naturally"? I wouldn't say I came across it naturally, but have slowly evolved my philosophy after reading Wissler's work. I would say it is not a concept where you can expect to convince people to your way of thinking, without their commitment to read and analyze the concepts on their own.

Sic semper tyrannis

Sic semper tyrannis

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
My ฿itcoin: 17khsA7MvBJAGAPkhrFJdQZPYKgxAeXkBY

Russian adventurism?! And

Russian adventurism?! And what do you call the U.S. foreign exploits??

Laughably in-cohesive non-argument.

Your joints ache because you

Your joints ache because you stopped. Your body is incredible, it can do great things. Of course squatting 500lbs at your age is not intelligent, but exercising smartly is.

I blew out my back on a leg press machine in my late 30's. Still to this day it bothers me but only when I stop exercising. To be honest, I don't think I'll ever be able to quit exercising. If I do I'll be in very rough shape.

If Al Bundy (Ed O'Neill) can start BJJ in his 50's, and get a blackbelt in his 60's, then I believe age truly is just a number.

Marc here are the definitions

that we typically use.

1: Government is an organizing body.
2: State is a entity claiming a legitimized monopoly of violence in a region.

We conflate these words in common usage often, I know I do, but when we are discussing these issues these are the best uses.

So while a state can be a government, a government doesn't need to be a state. A board of directors or a proprietor or a steering committee can be a government.

Now you don't have to accept these definitions, but then tell us what words you prefer for 1 and 2.

Some people deliberately refuse to define their terms and this indicates that they don't want to be tied down with clear concepts which in turn means they know what they intend won't look good if exposed.

So if you want to have an honest debate, either use the accepted terms or define your own.

The definition we care about is 'monopoly of force'. If you don't like 'state' then give us your own word.


If you're a minarchist then get about defending the monopoly of force.
If you're an anarchist then get about arguing a monopoly of force is always bad.
If you aren't sure then at least you know the right questions to ask.

Or you can do like your guest and pretend this isn't what the debate is about and say 'there's no such thing' as a monopoly of force. Because that's absurd, there are entities that claim and execute a monopoly of force and that is what states are. Further the monopoly of force is the mother of all other monopolies.

Your guest deliberately misapplies Rothbard's understanding that there aren't natural market monopolies to somehow mean someone can't pick up a gun and force people to buy or not to buy. Rothbard's point was that monopolies only exist because of guns.

Helfeld is honest and has integrity enough to admit what he believes. Your guest could do as well.

Definitions and Straw Men

I decided to write an article and post a new thread addressing some of the biggest criticisms here, which center around definitions, and the straw man arguments that often come along with them.
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

Yes indeed I have

Phoenix on a median divider where a guy was begging. Another guy walks up to him with a clip board and asks if this was his usual corner and then hustles the guy down for cash. Apparently the begger I saw was covering someone else's assigned corner that day and yes, there are strong-arms enforcing this predation on the poor.

Get your preps together! Learn historic food storage and preservation methods and the science that makes them work now, start saving money and the future

That is also how I see the

That is also how I see the sanctions, just for show. I think the western world is going to lose this battle in the long run. Putin, get this, called for bringing people together as a result of tragedies like this. He has restrained himself from pointing fingers whereas the western media has been laughably one-sided and the U.S.'s John Kerry and Samantha Powers go on the record of accusing the Syrian rebels, their political enemies, was both predictable and premature considering the short time after the event and lack of any investigation! This is the same foreign policy approach that has backfired and backfired and gotten the west into their current position of weakness.

I always support Rand

Because he's the best we got at this point. However, in this case, if I was him, I would have at least started the answer to Greta's question with: "If the investigation of the downed aircraft leads to Putin,".........

IMO, he's trying to come across as being strong on the downing of a commercial airliner, which every nation should condemn.

"A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself within" W. Durant

Hate is not the opposite of Love...

indifference is.

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.
Friedrich Nietzsche

A lot of Homeless people are Veterans

Stop the wars
Jail the Banksters
Tax the rich
Feed the poor.
Watch crime and homelessness go away.


It's never been tried before.

I doubt the people who did

I doubt the people who did not come across this concept naturally will ever understand this. They believe that they have the right to define words and we do not have a say in it, so help them god. But I applaud your efforts.

Freedom in our lifetime! -

Ron Paul suggested the opposite

This is sad.

Rand is just another Neocon stooge going down this road.

This is the kind of thing Hillary Clinton would say.


I demonstrated that "evidence" exists where the guy in the video says no evidence exists. Scholars agree that archaeological finds are evidence regardless of what their conclusions about the evidence are. Credibility stands for something. If someone is documented as presenting false information on a subject, their credibility is lowered in that subject. That isn't to say that they can not say something true about that subject, which is what the fallacy you speak of deals with. I didn't address anything else that he said. You've misapplied the fallacy.

The guy in the video likely uses a similar fallacy you falsely accuse me of when he rejects the Bible as a historical document. People with commitments to philosophies such as materialism often let their metaphysical philosophies dictate the credibility of historical testimonies which include philosophies different from their own, even though the testimonies they reject are not necessarily dealing with the philosophies they are committed to. For example, the existence of King David doesn't say anything about the credibility of the supernatural claims of the Bible. But some materialists reject the bible as a source for unremarkable historical claims because of the supernatural events it also records.




1.having no spines or quills.
2.having no spine or backbone.
3.having a weak spine; limp.
4.without moral force, resolution, or courage; feeble: a spineless, lily-livered coward.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, an

What will you win?

Pro-Israel policies?
Pro-Iran-Sanction policies?
Pro-Isolate-Russia policies?
Welfare for the Rich, cuts for the Poor policies?

Winning requires that there are new advisers, new thinking, new polices, new 'talking-points', new priorities.

But you can't do that with people from the Establishment.

The only way reform will happen is for someone to come in there and clean house in the CIA, Joint Chiefs, State Dept, and create a different mind set.

Slamming 'Non-Interventionist' theory..

and here they come... (as expected)

It is the EU’s favourite foreign policy theory, and it has been proved utterly wrong, yet again, with dire consequences for the global economy....

The idea that close economic ties between great powers make them less likely to alienate one another has been found sorely wanting in the present Russia-Ukraine fiasco...

economic interdependence has not restrained Russian adventurism. Instead, these close links have debilitated European behaviour, for the simple reason that the Russians are prepared to endure economic hardship to further their foreign policy objectives and Germany is not prepared to endure economic pain – for anything at all.