Proof that Anarchy = Destruction of Society

Specifically after 4:00.

Accept nothing, receive nothing. No obligations.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFYRHZpavX4"]Ron Paul Discusses Civil Disobedience, Self-Government & More with Motorhome Diaries - YouTube[/ame]



He's an anarchist.

Here is the other part of what is a great interview.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyLyLarrD3w"]Ron Paul Discusses Immigration, the Welfare/Warfare State & More with Motorhome Diaries - YouTube[/ame]
 


guerilla said:
Sure. I am not an American, but I get that. But you're not always free to move, and the alternatives may not be much better.
Click to expand...

Ah, I forgot you were Canadian. Moar taxes nom nom. Real talk though, I've been to the Canadian Niagara Falls 40-50 times and it blows away the American Falls. Border security is much nicer too.

Thanks for the discussion, I've begun reading the book you suggested.
 
guerilla said:
He's an anarchist.
Click to expand...

He must work undercover like the guys in my avatar lol.

EconomicPolicyJournal.com: Ron Paul: Cut President's Salary to $39,366

The president already receives "free" meals, travel and housing, so why does Ron think that the government should, in your words, "steal" an additional $39,366 from the people?

His current slogan is "Restore America." What is this America that he speaks of and why does he think it needs to be restored? Do the Cherokees and Iroquois get to have input on what is or is not America and how that is or is not enforced?

On a related note - a lot of "freedom movement" people go back to the founding fathers, but what is rarely mentioned is the influences that the Native American Indians had upon them, so much so that the natives were often used to symbolically represent America and freedom in artwork.

Chp 7: Mohawks, Axes, and Taxes, Symbolic identity as a prelude to revolution, "Exemplar Of Liberty"


fig25.gif


An anonymous engraving created at the beginning of the Revolutionary War, in 1776, pits "The Female Combatants," an English woman in an enormous beehive hairdo, against America, an Indian woman. The English woman says: "I'll force you to Obedience, you Rebellious Slut," to which America replies: "Liberty, Liberty forever, Mother, while I exist."
 
If Ron Paul in his own words isn't good enough for you, then nothing will be.

Paul plays a politician on TV because most people aren't ready for anarchism.
 
guerilla said:
If Ron Paul in his own words isn't good enough for you, then nothing will be.
Click to expand...

What words? Do you interact with him behind the scenes? The majority of his words available to us would equate more with minarchist.

Paul is well aware that when a video camera is present that it can end up on youtube and be part of his public persona. In case you haven't noticed, people (especially politicians) often contradict themselves or act hypocritical. Paul might do it less than most, but that doesn't mean he never does it.

Paul plays a politician on TV because most people aren't ready for anarchism.
Click to expand...

Then why does he choose to play one of the ones that is most concerned about having an "America" and using tax money to defend its borders? Why does an anarchist feel a need to tell us that the president should get a salary?

Ron Paul can apparently say anything he wants and it will be anarchism, but then it becomes minarchism or something else if people like Andrew Napolitano (or lukep :)) repeat it.



Ron Paul : "Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards."


Why does an anarchist feel the need to point out that a government piece of paper gives the "State of Texas" a "right" to prevent people from freely doing what they want in private?
 
Moxie said:
Why does an anarchist feel the need to point out that a government piece of paper gives the "State of Texas" a "right" to prevent people from freely doing what they want in private?
Click to expand...
If you think I can explain the psychological motivations of another person, good luck.

Ron Paul is an anarchist. You can find clear indications of such in many of his interviews, articles etc.

For the purposes of education, he plays a Conservative Congressman.

You're right, he may contradict himself. He would never get on a stage, or get elected, or interviewed on TV if he openly opposed the idea of an American state.

You should listen to him speak about Lysander Spooner, and that the Constitution has no inherent authority.
 
Placeholder.

I'm going to start at the beginning of this thread and arrive here to either laugh, cry or masturbate.
 
Just get really rich. Once you're rich, you ARE the government.

While governments are idiotic, I can't criticize someone that have to lead 200 million and deal with crazy lunatics with nukes that lead billions of people. I my self have a hard time leading 5 employees.

Cut some slacks. We're all humans. Be it businessman, government, politicians, welfare parasites. We're all humans. That means we're all greedy, selfish, deceptive, etc. Often I look at disgust to some people and call them vermin. Then I realized that I too would behave just like him under normal circumstances. I don't know what's good or fair anymore. What I can do is to get rich bang bitches and be happy with my friends.
 
anarchy is the mother of order. anyone who has ever lived or done business without being subject to government oversight (or having the means to counteract it) knows this to be true from experience. everyone else has no standing to claim otherwise because they're hypothesizing and supporting their hypotheses with intellectual onanism.

-p
 
guerilla said:
jacky8 said:
Dictatorship is also great if the dictator is a truly good person.
Click to expand...
Time for you to learn economics.
Click to expand...

nothing to do with economics. singapore is an example of a multi-generational nepotistic benevolent dictatorship that works very well in terms of creating value and development. it's repulsive and immoral (to me), but you can't say that it doesn't work economically and the sheeple of singapore don't seem to mind, having traded their freedom for short-term material wealth.

to a real anarchist, the economic outcomes of establishing an anarchist society are immaterial. economic freedom is integral to personal freedom and there's a good chance a free-market anarchist economy would work well, but freedom trumps wealth.

-p
 
clyde said:
I don't think that. I think for the most part people will behave.

I think I know your answer though, nothing. We're already living in an anarchist state and the government is the guy with the gun that you don't want to piss off.

I argue that a government would quickly form as soon as the previous one left town.

I don't think it's completely impossible to have an anarchist world but it has to come through self-realization which will take awhile. First, there has to be a power that's stronger than all the world governments combined. I'm counting on extra-terrestial. Then we'll need people that are smart enough.
Click to expand...

there's nothing wrong with *a* government, as long as you can voluntarily associate with it or disassociate from it. every group has a means to enable collective decision making and there's nothing wrong with that. the problem is *one* government maintaining its monopoly on governance and coercing people into being governed through the exercise of its monopoly on the use of coercive force.

-p
 
guerilla said:
For the purposes of education, he plays a Conservative Congressman.
Click to expand...

parliamentarism is betrayal - anyone who feeds the beast is doomed to lie with it in the biblical sense. moreover, no amount of education can turn sheeple into people. the desire to be free above all else is something you either feel viscerally or not. it can not be explained or taught any more than the joy of free flight can be explained to a penguin.

-p
 
clyde said:
Were the Somali pirates held accountable when they kidnapped random sailors?
Click to expand...

firstly, somalia is a bad example. it is not an anarchist community, it's a failed state. the results you see are a consequence of said failure in a timeframe and under conditions which did not permit an alternative to develop. this is (one of the reasons) why i'm not an insurrectionist (any more), as seductive as that way of thinking might be.

secondly, why on earth is it someone else's problem that these sailors got kidnapped? their security is in the interest of themselves, their families and their employers and the costs of ensuring it should be borne by them. consequently, the arrangements for it should have been made by them as well. if your freedom isn't important enough for you to do what's required to maintain it, why on earth would i or anyone else care about it?

in a voluntarist society with collective group responsibility, the groups these pirates associate with would naturally be responsible for their actions and would thus be incented to prevent such actions. this is handly, because their local community is best placed to do that in the same way that complex industries like banking are best placed to do it - they just need the correct incentives to be in place.

-p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom