Ron Paul's amnesty with an asterisk

How do you know what I've read? Please tell me what have I read.

edit on 16-8-2011 by Rockdisjoint because: (no reason given)

Well, it's what you haven't read that's fairly obvious:

A. Proudhon
B. Baldelli

I mentioned Proudhon specifically because several of your arguments sound like they come from his "Inquiry in to the Rights and Principle of Government," only a lot less articulate, and seemingly without any idea of the obvious critiques of those ideas (such as that if property doesn't exist for government, it doesn't exist for anyone. Which is why Proudhon famously said "property is theft!"....yet you seem to be unaware of that whole argument).

The other poster mentioned Baldelli, I presume because you quoted the title of one of his works, but without seeming to notice it(!).

Sometimes, those old dead guys actually had some fairly deep ideas, and are worth a genuine read to inform your own viewpoint.

The fact that you don't seem to know any of this points to the idea that your fairly young; younger people often imagine that they are the first person to have such 'original' thoughts.

reply to post by dr_strangecraft


I had a very hard time accepting any of Baldelli's premise. He seemed to be speaking specifically about libertarianism but pining to take credit for a new social construct of socialist anarchism - which, to me, is simply disingenuous. I understand the attempt, but disagree with the conclusion.

I also agree that it is apparent that she is Cliff's Notes student of any teachings of the movement. Again, not that I agree with any part of it. Again, it is libertarianism in both its premise and conclusion.

reply to post by kozmo

"Socialism" is defined as "any of economic or political theories advocating collective or government ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods."

Honestly, I don't understand what any of this has to do with anything. I'm not a socialist and I don't really consider myself an anarchist either. Most socialist don't even define socialism like that, their definition is ``workers control the means of production`` or something like that.

Please explain.

reply to post by dr_strangecraft

The other poster mentioned Baldelli, I presume because you quoted the title of one of his works, but without seeming to notice it(!).

I was actually using John Locke's argument here.

Sometimes, those old dead guys actually had some fairly deep ideas, and are worth a genuine read to inform your own viewpoint.

What view point, immigration or government owning property?

The fact that you don't seem to know any of this points to the idea that your fairly young; younger people often imagine that they are the first person to have such 'original' thoughts.

What ``points``? You only mentioned one and I refuted that nonsense one page back.

Originally posted by kro32
I didn't know this source was not credible and had a history of misrepresentation. I will make sure not to use them again.

Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

1. Ron Paul is more pro-amnesty than say someone who wants to round up illegals and ship them to Mexico, but then again, no one really wants to do that.

2. Just because someone tells you a link is not credible you immediately obey their wish? I've commented on some of your threads before, and as many other posters have indicated, you put up straw man arguments against Ron Paul. I'm sorry if that is offensive and against ATS rules to point this out but it's the truth. However, what alarms me even more is your eagerness when it comes to having other people trash the link you provide and then you immediately bow to their wishes. WND is a good site when it comes to the Obama birth conspiracy but apparently not so good when it comes to Ron Paul. That means WND is not perfect, but far be it for me or anyone else to declare unequivocally that something is not credible and therefore not subject for discussion. That is the same type of mentality that tries to keep Ron Paul on the fringe. Get some courage and don't just passively accept what people tell you as official or not. I am glad you are asking questions about Ron Paul but you can't go through life asking permission before you post a link for fear it may not be conventional. For that matter, I happen to agree with one article written by Sorcha Faal and I could care less what anyone thinks of me for that. It's called being true to yourself and not bowing to peer pressure.

Why do we need to listen to some crappy 3rd party source to know what Ron Paul thinks when he has his own mouth and tells us all the time what he thinks?

With so many posts now being made trying to destroy the mans credibility I would think there would be something a little more solid on him by now - don't you?

No video's of him contradicting himself, no videos of him pulling the fingers or whispering things thinking he is off cam and no video's of him even stating false facts.

IS THIS THE BEST YOU CAN DO? This guy has been round years, and all you have against him is what someone else allegedly knows about him?

Give me a break!

reply to post by Kryties


No youre not! I have advocated that the US folk be wide eyed about Paul. He could be a clever ploy!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hes been part of the establishment for a long time!!!! Regardless of what he claims to beleive!! Beware of someone telling the truth or what appears to be the truth!

reply to post by Rockdisjoint

No it doesn't. The govt has no right whatsoever to restrict freedom of movement.

It has an inalinable right to restrict freedom of movement into its property, like any other entity has.

I'm not a Communist.

lol. Shareholder companies are communist?

How can a govt own land? To be the owner of property you must either trade for it or receive it as a gift. The U.S definitely didn't buy this territory and no one gave this land to it. How did it acquire this land?

Of course there is a third way acquire land, because if there wasnt then noone would be able to own any land - from who will the first settlers of s new land receive or buy it when noone owns it?

When land belongs to noone, you can simply claim it as your own, no need to buy it. What you find and decide to own first is yours. Thats what happened with govt and public US land.
And some of it WAS bought from previous owners.

reply to post by Rockdisjoint


Also, you are an anarchist, am I right? But I am not, so arguing from the position of anarchism has little effect on me. If there is no government, then of course, there will be noone to enforce these things and all this becomes pointless. Actually maybe not, since government can transform to voluntary citizen shareholder corporation tasked with the same thing - protecting borders. Then you would be OK with it?

Government has an obligation to protect borders and only let those people in that citizens agree with. Country-house analogy. This is particularly important in democratic governments, where an intruder can shift government into his favour by nothing more but immigrating, procreating and voting. It is a form of silent colonization.

If Paul is for real and he runs for POTUS i doubt he will survive the election. I could be wrong. But.....history being what it is! and his age.....!

reply to post by Maslo

It has an inalinable right to restrict freedom of movement into its property, like any other entity has.

But, this isn't its land.

lol. Shareholder companies are communist?

I don't really remember what you said, but I'm guessing it sounded communist.

Of course there is a third way acquire land, because if there wasnt then noone would be able to own any land - from who will the first settlers of s new land receive or buy it when noone owns it?

Whoever uses it first and it has to be done without stolen money.

When land belongs to noone, you can simply claim it as your own, no need to buy it. What you find and decide to own first is yours. Thats what happened with govt and public US land.
And some of it WAS bought from previous owners.

And how does it maintain ownership of that land? With someone else's money. That's like me stealing your credit card to pay my bills.

Also, you are an anarchist, am I right?

Depends on how you define anarchist. Since it has always been associated with socialism I'd say no.

If there is no government, then of course, there will be noone to enforce these things and all this becomes pointless. Actually maybe not, since government can transform to voluntary citizen shareholder corporation tasked with the same thing - protecting borders. Then you would be OK with it?

Sure, as long as it voluntary.

This is particularly important in democratic governments, where an intruder can shift government into his favour by nothing more but immigrating, procreating and voting. It is a form of silent colonization.

Are to trying to blame Obama on Mexicans?

reply to post by Rockdisjoint

Sure, as long as it voluntary.

So to recapitulate, you are not against protecting the borders or limiting freedom of movement into a country. You Just dont want the goverment to do it, only because of taxation, but corporation doing the same thing would be OK. So its not what is done, but who does it?
Thats pretty illogical stance IMHO, but OK, at least we have established that the act itself - limiting freedom of movement into a country, is not against libertarianism (or anarchocapitalism in your case) or natural rights at all. Thats all I wanted to point out.

reply to post by Rockdisjoint


check your gas pipes, i think you have a leak.

what are you spouting?

getreadyalready gave a great post and you responded with this?

you made no sense. sorry.

reply to post by Maslo

You Just dont want the goverment to do it, only because of taxation, but corporation doing the same thing would be OK. So its not what is done, but who does it?

I still wouldn't like it but I'd have no choice, but to accept it. Although, the corporation would have to own the area it's restricting access to. Or who ever hired the corporation would have to own the area.

Thats all I wanted to point out.

Ok.

reply to post by fooks

check your gas pipes, i think you have a leak.

My gas pipes are fine.

getreadyalready gave a great post and you responded with this?

It's only logical, before the govt people still had private property and the last thing the police ever care about protecting is your property. It makes absolutely no sense when people say the government is needed to protect private property.

reply to post by Rockdisjoint

It makes absolutely no sense when people say the government is needed to protect private property.

Under goverment, everyones private property is protected (except for taxation, which is spread among everybody).

Without government there would be no taxation, but only private property of those who can afford to pay for protection services will be protected. And there is nothing preventing the largest protection company from defeating the competition and establishing monopoly for protection - government in fact.

Thats why anarchy never worked for long, its inherently unstable. If it was really superior then it will appear at least once in history, and once it appears it will outcompete other systems of establishment, or at least work in a large part of developed world now. The fact that it failed everytime in competition with other systems speaks volumes about its feasibility.
Both working anarchy and working communism are impossible extremist utopias.

reply to post by Maslo

Under goverment, everyones private property is protected (except for taxation, which is spread among everybody).

There should at least be a private option though. And to say that everyones property under a government is protected is a lie. Here where I live in D.C they don't protect our property the way they protect the peoples property in Virginia and other places around here.

Without government there would be no taxation, but only private property of those who can afford to pay for protection services will be protected. And there is nothing preventing the largest protection company from defeating the competition and establishing monopoly for protection - government in fact.

There is no such thing as a monopoly without a government. Government grants the monopolies here, not the market. As for people not being able to afford it, they could still own guns and there will always be competitors to offer lower prices.

Thats why anarchy never worked for long, its inherently unstable. If it was reallt superior then it will appear at least once in history, and once it appears it will outcompete other systems of establishment, or at least work in a large part of developed world now. The fact that it failed everytime in competition with other systems speaks volumes about its feasibility.

The same thing could be said about state systems though, how many states have fallen over the years? Just look at Africa, all those countries have governments and they are all poor and starving most of the time. If a state system is always better, how do you explain that?

Both working anarchy and working communism are impossible utopias.

I agree anarchism and communism could never work, but I'm really not an anarchist according to anarchist and I'm definitely not a communist.

reply to post by Rockdisjoint

There should at least be a private option though. And to say that everyones property under a government is protected is a lie. Here where I live in D.C they don't protect our property the way they protect the peoples property in Virginia and other places around here.

There is private option, private security companies are allowed.

There is no such thing as a monopoly without a government. Government grants the monopolies here, not the market. As for people not being able to afford it, they could still own guns and there will always be competitors to offer lower prices.

Of course it is possible to create a monopoly without the government, thats how anarchy turns into a government. Or you dont have a monopoly, and protection companies will fight one another with guns (since there is noone to stop them, unlike now) - thats what happens in Somalia now.

The same thing could be said about state systems though, how many states have fallen over the years? Just look at Africa, all those countries have governments and they are all poor and starving most of the time. If a state system is always better, how do you explain that?

State systems: both very successfull countries and poor countries
Anarchy: only poor countries

And generally the more anarchy there is (less state), the more poor and unstable country is. Yup, its better.
Concrete implementations of state systems sometimes fail, but they are replaced by another state system.

I agree anarchism and communism could never work, but I'm really not an anarchist according to anarchist and I'm definitely not a communist.

There are two types of anarchism - anarchosocialism, which is IMHO a contradictio in terms and wont work in reality, and anarchocapitalism, which is what you seem to advocate, and which could work for a short time but is inherently unstable.

reply to post by Maslo

There is private option, private security companies are allowed.

Private security companies aren't the same thing as private defense firms and private law.

Of course it is possible to create a monopoly without the government, thats how anarchy turns into a government. Or you dont have a monopoly, and protection companies will fight one another with guns (since there is noone to stop them, unlike now) - thats what happens in Somalia now.

Somalia isn't a good case for a stateless society, since they were socialist before hand and they have only been stateless for a short period of time.

State systems: both very successfull countries and poor countries Anarchy: only poor countries And generally the more anarchy there is (less state), the more poor and unstable country is. Yup, its better.

I disagree. If this was true, then how come the U.S is close to collapsing and people are getting poorer?

When the U.S had a smaller government that lived within its means, the economy was booming and the people were getting richer. If bigger states equaled more prosperity then eastern Europe would have the richest nations in the world.

There are two types of anarchism - anarchosocialism, which is IMHO a contradictio in terms and wont work in reality, and anarchocapitalism, which is what you seem to advocate, and which could work for a short time but is inherently unstable.

Inherently unstable is a vague term, you admitted yourself that state systems collaspe all the time. Wouldn't you also consider them inherently unstable?