AnCap AllCaps Posted May 4, 2014 Posted May 4, 2014 If you are not familiar with dailypaul.com, it is a libertarian website started by a Ron Paul supporter back in 2006 or so, it is now A HUGE site for libertarians. The site is www.dailypaul.com There have been alot of "no government vs limited government" discussions there lately stemming from the Jan Helfeld debates with Stefan, Stephan Kinsella, and Larken Rose this month. Jan has gone on a spree on this topic. I invite you to head over and check out some threads. AND PLEASE join and become a member and get loud in those forums. Those guys are supposed "libertarians" and many people are openly challenging and discussing the validity of the NAP and self-ownership and "minarchism vs anarchism," and surprisingly the community is heavily THEIST and PRO-SPANKING! So there are plenty of interesting discussions with a whole fresh crew over there. Here are a few: http://www.dailypaul.com/317756/no-government-vs-limited-government-debate http://www.dailypaul.com/317382/is-julie-borowsky-an-anarchist http://www.dailypaul.com/318132/how-would-an-anarcho-capitalist-society-repel-invasion Also, if you do join the conversation, the forum allows you to TITLE YOUR POSTS, so each forum post starts with a huge title then the content of your statement is below the title. And you can see these titles all over the site, the "latest" or "top" comment's titles are listed in the sidebars NO MATTER WHAT THREAD you are looking at there. So if you GIVE YOUR POSTS CLEVER TITLES, they get more attention and are more focused. So if you had a comment to share about the Non-Aggression-Principle for example, you could put that in the title of your comment, and anyone interested in the NAP will see that and read your comment and perhaps respond. I welcome you guys over there. Please, overwhelm them with your arguments.
dsayers Posted May 4, 2014 Posted May 4, 2014 surprisingly the community is heavily THEIST and PRO-SPANKING! This shouldn't be a surprise. "Liberty is good" is a conclusion. Arriving at that conclusion correctly requires philosophical principles. A large percentage of people are spanked and raised in religion, so it's no surprise that they need for that to be normal. It takes philosophical integrity to break through that mental trap. This is kind of sad to read about. I've heard people defend Ron Paul, stating that even if he's not right, he's getting more people to talk about these sort of things. Problem is that so many of them refuse to take that one more step.
AnCap AllCaps Posted May 4, 2014 Author Posted May 4, 2014 Problem is that so many of them refuse to take that one more step. Well Larken Rose addresses that in his video: "Minarchism, Great Start, Horrible Finish" Many of us started with "minimal government" or libertarianism, and this was "the gateway drug" that had us apply principles (philosophy) that leads eventually to "government is irreconciably immoral, just like slavery." So it doesn't surpise me that they are minarchist, but that IT IS HARD FOR THEM to get from 99.999999% to 100%
Pepin Posted May 5, 2014 Posted May 5, 2014 I feel like I am in the minority of people who was able to apply rational principals to the concept of government immediately, it only required an exposure to the arguments. I can safely say that I didn't have any clue what a government was after high school. Going through a lot of libertarian material, I began to get a greater and greater understanding of what it was. I heard a lot of arguments about what government was needed for, and didn't exactly agree or disagree. Eventually, I came across a Bob Murphy video on private defense, and it took me a little bit to get that he was talking about a society without government. It wasn't a thought that had crossed my mind, not because I was instinctively opposed to it, but because my understanding of politics was very limited. Though I was convinced by that video, I decided to spend a month or two researching anarchism to make sure I wasn't being premature in my acceptance. Then I heard the claim that the state is a monopoly of force over a geographical area, and so so so much of what I didn't understand before made so much more sense.
Recommended Posts