I'm a strong Ron Paul supporter who is strongly considering Anarchy as the solution

if you are opposed to archy (the philosophy that people should be ruled). ;-)
I am an anti-archist.

---
"Government is just a word for some people who claim authority over other people." - Glenn Jacobs

who is thinking now that anarchy is the obvious answer.

It's ok.
Dr Paul has a lot of anarchists friends.. Lew Rockwell, Thomas Woods...
And of course he was friend with Rothbard.

I firmly align myself with a statement made to Archibald Stuart by Thomas Jefferson in 1791:


“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”


It's no secret that our government is choking and smothering the life out of us with an influx of twisted and convoluted laws for every occasion imaginable, and taking every opportunity to nip away at our rights.


I also believe that democracy is essentially mob rule, where 51% of the people take away the rights of the other 49%. If the 51% can be brainwashed, led astray and coerced to blind tolerance and immorality, then our country decays as a whole. And, contrary to popular belief, democracy is not the basis of our country, despite the fact that we have been duped to accept that it is. Yet, you can ask anyone on the street what our basis of government is and most of them will say “democracy.”


I align myself with another of Jefferson's statements as well: “What country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.”


The situation we need today is people versus government, which was the intent and wish from the very foundation of our country. We cannot, however, have that these days because too many people have been led astray into a mindset of, “Everyone is equal and anything goes”. Highly successful divide and conquer tactics have been enacted upon the people to the point where we can never have a cut-and-dried situation of people versus government. I see anarchy as more of a situation of people versus people. Something has to give, but full-blown anarchy? I don't know...

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. — John Adams

That is a poor metaphor since unicorns, the evidence shows, existed and became extinct due to their valuable horns. Besides, they are not that fancifal when one considers we have 'unicorns' of the sea in narwhales.

Unicorns are mentioned in the Bible numerous times:

1) NUMBERS 23:22
2) NUMBERS 24:8
3) JOB 39:9/10
4) PSALMS 29:6
5) PSALMS 92:10
6) DEUT 33:17
7) PSALMS 22:21
8) IS 34:7

There can be only one permanent revolution - a moral one: The regeneration of the inner man. — Tolstoy

Larry King :"Lyndon Johnson once said the probable answer is that a government is going to have to be half capitalistic and half socialistic. Your going to have to have some...Social security is socialism, you have to take care of those that don't have. Pure capitalism can't work. Would you agree with that?"
Ron Paul: "No, not really. It's sorta like I practice OBGYN, I never could tell my patient they had a touch of pregnancy, and uh, your either pregnant or your not. You either have government intervention, messing up the markets, or you don't. You either believe in freedom and believe in voluntary choices---I mean just look at this disaster with the swine flu vaccine..."

Free yourself.

The word Anarchy is too negative, prefer Voluntaryism.
Churches survive on donations, why not the government?
grant

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFYRHZpavX4

Everyone here would support the Constitution (COMPARED TO) what we have now...

Are I am sure... back after the revolution.. all Ron Paul supporters would have been Anti Federalists!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Federalism

"Eventually, famous revolutionary figures such as Patrick Henry came out publicly against the Constitution. They argued that the strong national government proposed by the Federalists was a threat to the rights of individuals and that the President would become a king. They objected to the federal court system created by the proposed constitution."

"In every state the opposition to the Constitution was strong, and in two states — North Carolina and Rhode Island — it prevented ratification until the definite establishment of the new government practically forced their adherence. Individualism was the strongest element of opposition; the necessity, or at least the desirability, of a bill of rights was almost universally felt. In Rhode Island resistance against the Constitution was so strong that civil war almost broke out on July 4, 1788, when anti-federalist members of the Country Party led by Judge William West marched into Providence with over 1,000 armed protesters.[1]"

You can be an anarcho-capitalist and still support Ron Paul.. there is NO contradiction.

But not practical in helping Ron Paul.

It's available on Mises.org as an audiobook too. In his book, Rothbard discusses what he believes some of the potential market solutions to crime and punishment might be. I found the entire book to be interesting, and I think you may as well. Another fine read is The Law by Bastiat, also available on Mises.org as an audiobook.

The political means is theft. You either believe it's OK to steal like most people do, to take what isn't yours through government, or you don't. It's good to see one more person believe in the latter rather than the former.

Welcome to the real world.

anarchy ends up with mass confusion and oligarchy with a dictator that's been begged to take control to fix everything

I just question what will happen to the thousands of nukes, missiles, tanks, airplanes, aircraft carriers, etc in an anarchic society.

has always been the grand conundrum for me.

Society is so immense, so broad. How could you ever hope to make thing's work and not completely lay the nation to ruins by converting to anarchy? I mean...you would be with out a doubt opening up your borders to which ever country decided to come do a little nation building first... who knows, possibly a few at once.

On the other hand, what possible answer could there possibly be? As it stands, and as you said, "i.e. bureaucrats, politicians, government contractors, etc. to actually vote themselves out of a job, ever.". This leaves us in a bad spot of course, because we can't vote the corruption out, this has been proven since we started.

Here we all are trying to figure out a way for us to take back freedom, and Liberty, yet, in so far as tangible success, what do we have to show for it thus far? I would wager to say a whole lot of....hope? Promising things in the works?

lets take a moment and imagine our ideal eight year forecast. This should be simple rite? First Ron Paul gets elected 2012. From 2012-2016 Ron Paul gets hard at work implementing many of his great visions for our country. In 2016 Ron Paul get re elected and starts making some real ground in reverting the country back to principle, freedom, and liberty. All the while grass root's candidates from across the country are being sworn in to there respective offices.

Ok now that our wet dream is over, let's get down to the nitty gritty. Ron Paul will not only have the left wing beating down his door on a daily basis, but the RIGHT wing as well. I can already see it, the left on one arm, the right on the other tugging as if they were playing a game of tug-of-war. We all know how much influence the Right or Left wing can have on policy, Obama's presidency is a glaring example of that in and of itself. Now multiply that by two, and you can start to see what Dr. Paul will be up against on a daily basis.

After the two party nightmare is dealt with, there is the more sinister, ever present issue of corruption. You see if/when/after Dr. Paul makes it to the oval office, the issue is still going to be there. It's not going away because Dr. Paul becomes president. Democrats will go dormant, Republicans will do what they can, with what they have, on Dr. Paul's platform, and then of course we have the up and coming breed of Libertarian politicians. I don't know what makes everyone think that these new libertarian politicians are not going to be corrupted by power, and money just as all politicians from every country have since the beginning of civilization. See I think the idea is good, and we all have good intention's at the outset, the problem being money corrupts, and power corrupts absolutely. This has been proven time, and time again, for as far back as we even know. The fact is a % of these new politicians are going to turn, and we will probably find that this will happen sooner rather then later.

I believe it was Ron Paul that said a 3rd party would be a mistake, a free pass to the Democratic party, there is no reason we can't take the republican party back. This is where I completely lost hope for true Liberty and freedom. This one thought reinforces a few things. First that the libertarian party is going to be merged into the existing republican platform, mutating it into a very perverted combination of Libertarian-neoconism. The democratic party will continue on after Dr. Paul's assumed eight year term completely unhindered, and exactly the same as the day Obama left office, only a bit smarter from the 12~ year ride.

Because of this last paragraph we realize nothing has changed for the long term, we still have the two party system, only now far different then what we could have imagined back in 2009 when we were having this conversation. This is what history has taught us, that playing by the rules gets absolutely nothing done in any sort of beneficial long term situation. It simply gives government the "wiggle" room to camouflage into the background like a chameleon until the time is rite for that party and they can start making the power moves again. A perfect example would be the March on D.C.. Although this was a massive accomplishment for the people who went, in reality NOTHING changed as a result as far as government. Everything is proceeding as scheduled. Hundreds of thousands of people showed up to stand around with signs and coffee mugs completely compliant with all rules and regulation already in place for such a dissent. Surprise, Surprise, the media completely and utterly ignored it, hundreds of thousands of people, simply brushed off as if it never even happened. Guess what? That is exactly what the government did too.

In the end freedom, liberty, and a free market made America the most powerful, successful, and influential nation on earth, ever. So the solution inevitably would be to return back to our roots and what made us that way, as Dr. Paul has taught, well, me any way. The problem as we all know, to paraphrase George Carlin, 'The powers that be' will never allow it. To many people will lose power, money, and influence for it.

There in lies the Conundrum, I know I certainly have no idea what the answer is for long term sustainable personal freedom, liberty, and prosperity. I am however reminded frequently of the bill of rights, and the order in which they are listed. The people who created America foresaw all of this coming, and can all be directly quoted as such. my gut feeling tells me it's time to re-visit the constitution and bill of rights thoroughly. As much as we all hate to fathom it, I think therein lies the answer.

Fact is they are both under heavy fire rite now, and the option to revisit them may not be around much longer.

I too went through the same transition... I believe that everything the government spends our money on, could be done better and cheaper if we just bypassed the middleman (aka the government).

Roads, police, fire, schools, food safety, money, and yes even court houses, would inevitably be provided by entrepreneurs.

Nonetheless, there would have to be a strong understanding within a voluntary society that nobody has the right to use force or coercion on others. And the majority of individuals would have to defend the existence of a voluntary society.

It wouldn't be perfect, but far less damaging to the average individual than having a government... Because let's not forget that government uses force and involuntary means to get what it wants from the people.. Government is force.

from being a Reagan Conservative to being an anarchocapitalist. I had always been morally drawn to anarchism (let's face it, the very definition of government demands that the initiation of violence be institutionalized), but was not convinced of its practicality until I read a delightful little book by Morris and Linda Tannehill called "The Market For Liberty." It convinced me to make the plunge.

Limited Government IS an oxymoron. It is inherently unstable because its basic premise -- that the institutionalization of some minimal amount of coercive violence is morally acceptable -- is corrupt at its core. Anarchy is inclusive. It is consistent with both self defense AND pacifism. Although I am not an absolute pacifist, what right do I have to force pacifists to support my desired level of institutionalized violence (my private defense agencies). Just as they would not force me not to support no self defense, I cannot morally force them to support self defense. It is a win-win situation morally and practically. The only class of people who lose out in such a system is the political class and their sycophants, i.e. those who would use coercive violence to obtain an advantage over others in a society.

A word to the wise though -- try to avoid "Anarchist" web sites and organizations whose sole reason for existence is the ideological macho flash. They are just trying to shock people to show how superior they are (you had an overall positive influence on me, Ayn Rand, but part of your legacy is setting back the libertarian movement by a generation). Just as the true Christian is someone who is confident enough in their belief system that they do not go around shoving it down non-believer's throats, the true Anarchist is someone who is confident enough in their own belief system that they are comfortable working with others who may not share all their beliefs, but are in agreement with the direction we must move. Know them by their fruits!