New Country for Old Libertarians: Seasteading Institute

[DocApocalypto]

my point about wickedfire is that man creates standards every time he socializes. i've read Human Action, ive even read the study handbook. I've read it all. And then I lived in the real world. The place where man ALWAYS organizes structure.

if Ron Paul is an anarchist, why is he running for president?? LOL.

even if he says, or said he was, the act of running for president sort of negates any philosophical banter.

 

[DocApocalypto]

If you really want to be a sincere and intelligent libertarian, research natural rights, property rights theory, negative rights, and Austrian economics. These are the bedrock ideas that form the core of serious and consistent libertarianism.

Just agreeing with Ron Paul on election platforms or political positions misses the very foundation he draws his original and enduring inspiration from.

By the way, this kind of boring haughty libertarian-name dropping coupled with brow beating is EXACTLY what keeps the message out of reach of the people we have to reach in order to shift momentum towards freedom.

>If you want to be intelligent, think EXACTLY how I think.< GAG.

If you think that drawing a salary for decades based on the threat of state violence is the act of an anarchist...well then you must be so smart that its a miracle you can hold a conversation with anyone.

They say Ron Paul is unelectable. I disagree. But start talking about natural rights, and they are right.

American electoral politics is not a philosophy class. We get it, you are well read and an armchair anarchist. Luckily our Fore Fathers created a FOUNDATION that protected you from the global golden horde long enough to read Rothbard. That is reality. Anarchists have NO CHANCE against the rest of the world, that is organized and ready to eat you alive.

 

[DocApocalypto]

one more thing....the sign in my front yard reads "RON PAUL 2012: Restore America Now"

what is the restoration? restore anarchy? i think maybe ron paul outgrew you. he's talking about restoring the Constitutional Republic.

if you want to be a "sincere and intelligent" ron paul supporter, you'll have to swallow your pride and admit that we aren't fighting for anarchy here.

 

[guerilla]

By the way, this kind of boring haughty libertarian-name dropping coupled with brow beating is EXACTLY what keeps the message out of reach of the people we have to reach in order to shift momentum towards freedom.

The shift is inevitable and it will happen. What I post on a forum is largely irrelevant except at the individual level. Internet is serious business bro.

>If you want to be intelligent, think EXACTLY how I think.< GAG.

Or maybe be responsible for your opinions.

If you think that drawing a salary for decades based on the threat of state violence is the act of an anarchist...well then you must be so smart that its a miracle you can hold a conversation with anyone.

Fanboys immediately get their back up, and are incapable of holding an intelligent argument. Instead of checking the facts, you're attacking me personally. Is that the example Dr. Paul sets?

American electoral politics is not a philosophy class. We get it, you are well read and an armchair anarchist.

Again with the personal attacks. Lack an argument much?

Luckily our Fore Fathers created a FOUNDATION that protected you from the global golden horde long enough to read Rothbard.

I don't even know what this means, but I am pretty sure Ron Paul, being a natural rights libertarian, would disagree with you. Most of the anti-federalist founding fathers too.

So would Frederic Bastiat,

"Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place."

Anarchists have NO CHANCE against the rest of the world, that is organized and ready to eat you alive.

The Jews had no chance against the Nazis, that didn't make the Nazis right.

what is the restoration? restore anarchy? i think maybe ron paul outgrew you. he's talking about restoring the Constitutional Republic.

lol

It is sad and funny that some people might actually think the wisdom of Ron Paul comes from a campaign slogan on a yard sign.

if you want to be a "sincere and intelligent" ron paul supporter, you'll have to swallow your pride and admit that we aren't fighting for anarchy here.

Your reflexive freaking out should tip you to the fact that you're possibly very wrong. I feel bad for you, because I dealt with guys like you after the 08 campaign. You're "following Ron Paul" or what you think Ron Paul stands for, but you aren't listening to what he is saying, and you aren't reading what he has written.

Start here, it is short read. He wrote it when he first left Congress.
http://mises.org/books/paulmises.pdf

Then watch this

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



and this

Particularly between 3:45 and 5:30

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

Yeah, Ron Paul is a libertarian. The struggle is philosophic, not electoral. And he understands and desires a private property society without taxes, which is ....
...
...

anarchy.

Yes, if you want to be a genuine Ron Paul fan, like the people who have been fans for years, you better start reading. Read what he has read. Read his books. Learn economics. Learn the philosophy of liberty. Understand property.

 

[DocApocalypto]

The shift is inevitable and it will happen. What I post on a forum is largely irrelevant except at the individual level. Internet is serious business bro.

The shift towards liberty is not inevitable. The shift towards statism is inevitable. Maybe throw in some history books with your philosophy reads.

Fanboys immediately get their back up, and are incapable of holding an intelligent argument. Instead of checking the facts, you're attacking me personally. Is that the example Dr. Paul sets?

Ron Paul is not my deity. And Ron Paul calls people idiots that disagree with him. Crying ad hominem doesn't make me cower, maybe it works elsewhere but you are the one that says "if you want to be intelligent do x, y, z". Be a man, and just call me stupid outright for not saying Mises every other word. You sound like a smug little shithead talking down to people like that. And no, I don't lack an argument just because I don't agree with every word you say AND think you sound like a prick.

Most of the anti-federalist founding fathers too.

I think you might be confused about what a Federalist is in context of the American Revolution. Most of the Fore Fathers were Federalists.

"Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place."

Bastiat is backing up my point. Man accumulates property, and naturally creates a structure to protect it. In the (completely irrelevant to the convo) videos you posted, Ron Paul talks about the Amish. The only reason the Amish aren't protecting their perimeter with AR-15's is because all of us sinners do it for them. Someone has to do it and we can't all like in the 1800s while the rest of the world is organized and armed to the teeth. I know that you need to discount this FACT OF LIFE in order to protect your anarchist worldview, but no matter how long winded you are, you are wrong.

The Jews had no chance against the Nazis, that didn't make the Nazis right.

What would any political argument be without an empty holocaust reference?

And after that violation of their liberty, they set up an anarchist Utopia in the middle east right? How long do you think the Israelis would last if they dissolved their government?

It is sad and funny that some people might actually think the wisdom of Ron Paul comes from a campaign slogan on a yard sign.

The smugness is almost too much to bear. This brings us back to the main disagreement here. I live in the real world. You want to talk about political theory. I'm not talking about the "wisdom of Ron Paul" aka he agrees with Mises on Austrian Economics. We get it! You read Mises. What the hell does that have to do with anything? Here in the real world Ron Paul talks about restoring the constitution EVERY FUCKING DAY.

Your reflexive freaking out should tip you to the fact that you're possibly very wrong. I feel bad for you, because I dealt with guys like you after the 08 campaign. You're "following Ron Paul" or what you think Ron Paul stands for, but you aren't listening to what he is saying, and you aren't reading what he has written.

No one is freaking out, but yes, I'm wrong and you are right. Afterall, you are a principled anarachist. The entire world is wrong and oppressing you.

What I "think" Ron Paul stands for? WHO's not listening to what he's saying? Part of his platform is securing the borders. BORDERS??? How very unanarchistic of him!! Who the fuck is a fanboy when you are delusional about what you support? The guy was in the military, decades drawing a federal paycheck in the congress, where they make LAWS, now he wants to be the EXECUTIVE with more power than anyone in the land. What is next for an anarchist? Working for OSHA maybe?

Start here, it is short read. He wrote it when he first left Congress.
http://mises.org/books/paulmises.pdf

LOL. Bro, I started there when I was 15 too. I was in the freedom movement before you could read. WE GET IT. You read Mises and are proud of yourself. SAY SOMETHING.

Then watch this

A watched you dad in his trailer and I didn't hear anything about anarchy. Sorry bro. I heard about the Amish wanting to be left alone and hear Ron Paul say it would be "crazy" to advocate cutting child health care from the Federal Budget....just like Mises and Rothbard would say, right? NO! Because Ron Paul is a politician, not a philosopher.

Yeah, Ron Paul is a libertarian. The struggle is philosophic, not electoral. And he understands and desires a private property society without taxes, which is
...

anarchy.

Dude, you are trying to project your worldview on Ron Paul. He lives in the real world and he understands you need SOME FORM on taxes. :55

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI5lC4Z_T80"]Ron Paul on Taxes - YouTube[/ame]

LOL. The struggle is philosophic in YOUR MIND. Here in the REAL WORLD someone needs to get elected. I have a feeling you are going to continue blasting profile links and reading Mises no matter how bad the tyranny becomes. If you aren't going to get out your assault rifle like a REAL Guerilla then STFU about your ideological purity and GO VOTE. In reality, we need a big tent. Your tent is more like a one man sleeping bag where you and Ludvig are cosy and warm.

Yes, if you want to be a genuine Ron Paul fan, like the people who have been fans for years, you better start reading. Read what he has read. Read his books. Learn economics. Learn the philosophy of liberty. Understand property.

LOL. Listen to this smug shithead. I've read all the shit you are promoting bro. And I've seen your candyass in pictures and I can assure you that I've been a "fan" (whatever that means) since before you knew where your mouth ended and your mommas titties began. I have a pointless degree in Political Theory and I can assure you that I can hold my own in a philosophical debate with you. Can you hold your own in the REAL world? Or do you need the police and military to protect you from a theoretical AK-47 coming for your property?

Something ALWAYS compliments private property....government. You can send me a hundred quotes from philosophers. I'll send back a thousand examples from history that prove that your beliefs belong in the only place they've ever existed, on paper.

Should the government be EXTREMELY limited? Yes. This is what Ron Paul's campaign is about. You can try all day long to conflate his campaign with your philosophical beliefs. Maybe you should argue with Ron Paul, since everyone else needs to "start reading".

START READING

"I am just absolutely convinced that the best formula for giving us peace and preserving the American way of life is freedom, limited government, and minding our own business overseas."
- Ron Paul

I will always vote what I have promised, and always vote the Constitution, as well as I will not vote for one single penny that isn't paid for, because debt is the monster, debt is what's going to eat us up and that is why our economy is on the brink.
- Ron Paul

"If you like small government you need to work hard at having a strong national defense that is not so militant. Personal liberty is the purpose of government, to protect liberty - not to run your personal life, not to run the economy, and not to pretend that we can tell the world how they ought to live. "
- Ron Paul

"There is nothing wrong with describing Conservatism as protecting the Constitution, protecting all things that limit government. Government is the enemy of liberty. Government should be very restrained."
- Ron Paul

"To me, to be a conservative means to conserve the good parts of America and to conserve our Constitution. "
- Ron Paul

 

[DocApocalypto]

FROM HIS CAMPAIGN WEBSITE

Enforce Border Security – America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws instead of policing the world and implementing UN mandates.

Guarding the borders with what? Pamphlets from the Mises Institute? Enforcing what laws? Natural law?
FROM HIS CAMPAIGN WEBSITE

That’s why, as Commander-in-Chief, Dr. Paul will lead the fight to:

* Make securing our borders the top national security priority.

* Guarantee our intelligence community’s efforts are directed toward legitimate threats (anarchy or bureaucracy? hmm) and not spying on innocent Americans through unconstitutional power grabs like the Patriot Act.

* Follow the Constitution by asking Congress to declare war before one is waged.

* Ensure our veterans receive the care, benefits, and honors they have earned when they return.

* Revitalize the military for the 21st century by eliminating waste in a trillion-dollar military budget.

Maybe YOU SHOULD READ MORE. Ron Paul sounds like a Constitutionalist, not an Anarchist. Sorry. I know its hard for a fanboy to face reality.

“I’m Ron Paul. I’m a congressman from Texas,serving in my 10th term. I am the champion of the Constitution.”

Not the champion of anarchy, champion of the constitution.

Before you reply, because I know you can do this for infinity, I'm done with this argument and this thread. You are wrong. And we already understand.... you read Mises.

 

[BigWill]

I am totally fucking in. Screw this shitty country.

 

[guerilla]

Crying ad hominem doesn't make me cower, maybe it works elsewhere but you are the one that says "if you want to be intelligent do x, y, z". Be a man, and just call me stupid outright for not saying Mises every other word. You sound like a smug little shithead talking down to people like that.

You sound really, really insecure.

I think you might be confused about what a Federalist is in context of the American Revolution. Most of the Fore Fathers were Federalists.

Maybe you should read some history. Most of the key founders were anti-federalists. No anti-federalists, no bill of rights.

I live in the real world.

Oh, you live in the real world. Excuse me then. Apparently since you live in the real world and I do not, that automatically makes your argument right.

LOL. Listen to this smug shithead. I've read all the shit you are promoting bro. And I've seen your candyass in pictures and I can assure you that I've been a "fan" (whatever that means) since before you knew where your mouth ended and your mommas titties began. I have a pointless degree in Political Theory and I can assure you that I can hold my own in a philosophical debate with you.

First of all, do you think you're winning any debate with this sort of personal attack?

And second of all, why not have that philosophical debate instead of continuing to act anti-socially? You're threatened by an argument that avoids emotion and relies on reason, I get it.

Surely you don't think I or anyone reading this cannot see that in your posts?

Something ALWAYS compliments private property....government. You can send me a hundred quotes from philosophers. I'll send back a thousand examples from history that prove that your beliefs belong in the only place they've ever existed, on paper.

You could do that, but it would be an appeal to history which is a logical fallacy. Correlation is not causation amigo.

Should the government be EXTREMELY limited? Yes. This is what Ron Paul's campaign is about. You can try all day long to conflate his campaign with your philosophical beliefs. Maybe you should argue with Ron Paul, since everyone else needs to "start reading".

I don't have to argue with Ron Paul because he and I believe in a fully privatized society where people can opt out of government. That is anarchy. He makes it clear in the interviews I posted.

I think you blew a gasket, tried to research me, flipped a lid etc over something pretty small. After you PM'd me asking for business help no less.

Take a chill pill bro. We can start over when you get past raging and namecalling, and want to have a serious and intelligent discussion.

 

[guerilla]

Not the champion of anarchy, champion of the constitution.

They aren't mutually exclusive.

Before you reply, because I know you can do this for infinity, I'm done with this argument and this thread. You are wrong. And we already understand.... you read Mises.

I also read Ron Paul. And Ron Paul reads Mises. And Rothbard. And Block. And Hoppe. And DiLorenzo. And Rockwell. And Tom Woods.

And so on, and so on.

Don't kid yourself, Ron Paul doesn't support any kind of tax, he supports complete private property ownership. He knows that all taxes are socialism, and all monopoly government, no matter how theoretically small, is socialism.

I am sure you will be back, because people don't research and attack people personally, to walk away from a double post cleanly.

 

[babylonian]

The real estate on the island won't cost a fortune, according to the Seasteading founder

[ame=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1491275279971003433&hl=en]SEASTEAD_CONFERENCE_1.mp4[/ame]

 

[REIMktg]

OK. So I read the Mises pdf and watched the videos - I also realize that my interest is not anywhere near as passionate as those posting above - nor do I believe I am anywhere as interested as either of you - though I will likely read more on the subject.

When it all comes full circle I have to assume that the Seastead's will be governed by a set of rules etc. In the end, after the reading and everything else, I see no way for these people to live together in any way that does not quickly lead to them establishing more and more rules that govern behavior, interactions, etc. It will not happen.

The platform is too small and the environment is too interrelated. Once guys factory puts our pollutant to hurt another guys air quality - one guy wants to smoke pot and another does not want to smell it - one guy wants to waterski and another does not want to hear his boat, one guy wants to walk around skantily clad or have pornography openly and another does not - one guy wants to never shower......

The lists are endless - these are simple ones of course.

Practical reality will always take any free society and lead it to a less than free society.

It may work if all the people were of a same overriding moral/social/religious outlook. In this case they would be governed by a set of rules that may assist in settling most disputes - but in the end it will all hinge on interpretation...... nope, will not work.

 

[guerilla]

When it all comes full circle I have to assume that the Seastead's will be governed by a set of rules etc. In the end, after the reading and everything else, I see no way for these people to live together in any way that does not quickly lead to them establishing more and more rules that govern behavior, interactions, etc. It will not happen.

What part of these seasteads are private property are you not understanding?

Galt's Gulch was owned by someone. That person set the rules.

Pretty straightforward.

 

[Moxie]

Don't kid yourself, Ron Paul doesn't support any kind of tax,

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg]Candidates@Google: Ron Paul - YouTube[/ame]


A bit after 17 minutes in, asked how to fund the military, he mentions excise taxes and tariffs, he doesn't mention voluntary donation.

This is also relevant :
An Open Letter to Anarchists on Behalf of Ron Paul by Anthony Gregory

 

[guerilla]

Ron Paul mentions those taxes, but if you asked him if he supports those taxes, he would tell you he does not. Ron Paul is a free trader, and wants no income tax.

Not a lot of room there.

Again, if people read Paul's older and more radical work, they would understand just how consistently he is for liberty and how little he thinks of politics.

 

[REIMktg]

What part of these seasteads are private property are you not understanding?

Galt's Gulch was owned by someone. That person set the rules.

Pretty straightforward.

I understand it is private property. But if a single person makes the rules for the whole Seastead then they will be governing all the owners within it. There will be disputes and that person will be the judge/king/dictator.

If you are saying the Seastead itself will have many individual parts that are sold as private property which is how I understood it - there will be disputes. Disputes give rise to governance.

This is what I do not understand. There will be disputes that need to be regulated. This will eventually grow into a large centrally controlled government/Seastead Owners Association (like an HOA), etc.

I do not see them functioning together.

You see earlier posts about all these libertarians living on a single platform pursuing their unfettered capitalist dreams - I am saying that each one will "push the limit" and encroach on anothers property or autonomy and eventually it will all implode.

Atlas Shrugged as a story is an excellent way to show people, in simple fashion, how society works (and how different types of people think) and how the world is manipulated - but they could never have lived in Galt's Gulch the way she planned.

People need rules to hold them back from abusing liberty.

 

[guerilla]

I understand it is private property. But if a single person makes the rules for the whole Seastead then they will be governing all the owners within it. There will be disputes and that person will be the judge/king/dictator.

Uhm yeah. But it's not a government. If people don't like it, they leave.

If you are saying the Seastead itself will have many individual parts that are sold as private property which is how I understood it - there will be disputes.

The entire Seastead will be owned by someone or some firm.

This is what I do not understand. There will be disputes that need to be regulated. This will eventually grow into a large centrally controlled government/Seastead Owners Association (like an HOA), etc.

I do not see them functioning together.

This again doesn't follow. How did you get from disputes to suddenly we have a central government? How does the US and Argentina co-exist? Because there is a central world government over them?

You see earlier posts about all these libertarians living on a single platform pursuing their unfettered capitalist dreams - I am saying that each one will "push the limit" and encroach on anothers property or autonomy and eventually it will all implode.

The single platform has a single set of rules. People who don't get along, leave. I cannot explain this any more simply to you. Seasteads are not a commons, they are property.

People need rules to hold them back from abusing liberty.

You distrust men, but you insist they are trustworthy enough to make the rules. Check your premises.

 

[MSTeacher]

Ron Paul doesn't support any kind of tax, he supports complete private property ownership. He knows that all taxes are socialism, and all monopoly government, no matter how theoretically small, is socialism.

Ron Paul mentions those taxes, but if you asked him if he supports those taxes, he would tell you he does not. Ron Paul is a free trader, and wants no income tax.

Not a lot of room there.

Again, if people read Paul's older and more radical work, they would understand just how consistently he is for liberty and how little he thinks of politics.

So what you're not saying is that he is telling his potential constituents things he doesn't truly believe in, or perhaps depending on how the idea is presented he's just not going as far as he'd like with his audiences at this point for this or that reason?

And there is no possibility that he's changed his views over several decades of study and experience?

And there's no room for the compatibility of private ownership and taxation in his current understanding of political economy, logical or not?

And you know this?

Hm.

In any case

You're welcome to quote me, but don't bother speaking for me.

reading this i think the good doc would tell you to heed your own advice.

 

[guerilla]

And there is no possibility that he's changed his views over several decades of study and experience?

Does that sound like Ron Paul to you?

reading this i think the good doc would tell you to heed your own advice.

I am referencing Paul when I talk about his position. I am not trying to interpret it.

The video I posted is from 2009, when he said that people should be able to opt out of government. Draw your own conclusions about what that would mean for the current political system. Draw your own conclusions about what that would mean for taxes.

I welcome everyone to read his books. I am pretty sure they are free online through the Mises Institute except the post 2007 election ones.

And there's no room for the compatibility of private ownership and taxation in his current understanding of political economy, logical or not?

And you know this?

You can't have private property if you have taxes. This is basic logic. If I own something, you aren't entitled to it. Any of it. That is why Ron Paul explicitly opposes the income tax.

Paul has made clear that the principle that the government is entitled to any of your money is the problem.

Here is the reading list at the end of the Ron Paul's "The Revolution: A Manifesto".

Anyone here read even two of those 50 odd books?

I like Ron Paul a lot. I busted my ass supporting his end of the cause for almost 2 years. I think he is good for politics and good for people who don't delve into philosophy or economics. I have learned a lot from him. He's opened doors of understanding for me and millions of other people.

His personal philosophy is based on an understanding of property rights theory, christian ethics, and Austrian Economics. His supporters would do well to get into some of the material that has helped guide him to where he is today.

 

[REIMktg]

You distrust men, but you insist they are trustworthy enough to make the rules. Check your premises.

I checked my premises.
I said man needs rules, I did not say they came from man.
In the case where they do come from man or are interpreted and extrapolated by man - they will always be less than perfect.
But man will degrade into factions and then violent factions over time.

The problem with the Seastead is you are simply trading one government for another. There will be taxes to support the Seastead - there will be repairs in common - there will be a threat to the safety of the Seastead so there will be a common defense.

Over time rules will lead to more rules then to more and more and eventually you will be back where the US is today.

Is that what you are advocating? A reset backward and then degrade forward and then reset again?

 

[guerilla]

I checked my premises.

Thank you.

I said man needs rules, I did not say they came from man.

Where do they come from?

The problem with the Seastead is you are simply trading one government for another. There will be taxes to support the Seastead - there will be repairs in common - there will be a threat to the safety of the Seastead so there will be a common defense.

Recognize a business. Cruise liners don't charge taxes or have common repair funds or draft the passengers for security.

They are run for profit. As will these seasteads.

Again, these are not socialist communes. They are private property.

Is that what you are advocating? A reset backward and then degrade forward and then reset again?

I don't know how anyone can read Atlas Shrugged and not understand the business model of Galt's Gulch.

You have not addressed my key point to you. Who will make the rules, and how will they be any better than any one else?

If you think so little of men, how can you allow men to make the rules? Doesn't it seem likely that the worst men in society will be attracted to power and control?