-27 votes

Is the Ron Paul movement Socialist?

I will keep this short because we have many Rand Paul socialists on this page; they will simply vote it down.

When I was working on the Ron Paul campaign at the start I was minarchist who believe some vital parts of society needed to be run by the government like the police, courts and law. By the end of the campaign and witnessing the Republican party first hand, for example I stood up to clap for a veteran who wanted to end the wars at my caucus. Only for the chairmans wife to tell me to, "you should go serve your country." Another example of the socialism in the liberty movement was my argument with a young lady about how public schools were garbage and she still wanted them around. Finally, another girl just said private schools are better and ended the discussion.

Well what is the definition of socialism? Simply to me it is government allocation of resources and in fact Rand Paul is a socialist. Why? because he believes in a public military, public court, public police etc etc that is socialism by definition. If you dont believe me wikipedia socialism and start reading the second paragraph here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

If you wont believe a 22 year old anarchist then why not listen to someone who has been around much longer. Because the real and honest truth is we only inches closer to liberty and Rand only takes us millimeters closer.

http://mises.org/media/6256/Is-There-Hope-for-Liberty-in-Our...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Socialist?

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Counterfeit is common

Capitalists have no problem recognizing a counterfeit capitalist.

Look over there, they say, that is not a capitalist, that is a Neocon, or whatever, but not a capitalist.

There was a time when a socialist meant the opposite of what it means today and anyone having an interest (interesting word: interest) in knowing the genuine (original) meaning of socialism could work hard enough to find it - or go with the counterfeit version of the word.

When people are familiar with the word good, someone may start using the word bad to mean good.

If it catches on, then bad means good.

Here is a competitive definition of socialism from the year 1848:

http://www.anarchism.net/scienceofsociety.htm

"What, then, if this be so, is this common element? In what great feature are Protestantism, Democracy, and Socialism identical? I will answer this interrogatory first, and demonstrate the answer afterward. Protestantism, Democracy, and Socialism are identical in the assertion of the Supremacy of the Individual,--a dogma essentially contumacious, revolutionary, and antagonistic to the basic principles of all the older institutions of society, which make the Individual subordinate and subject to the Church, to the State, and to Society respectively. Not only is this supremacy or SOVEREIGNTY OF THE INDIVIDUAL, a common element of all three of these great modern movements, but I will make the still more sweeping assertion that it is substantially the whole of those movements. It is not merely a feature, as I have just denominated it, but the living soul itself, the vital energy, the integral essence or being of them all."

Modern day anarchist bending or leaning toward capitalism (which is a pricing method: capitalism is a method of pricing) may find their inspiration in old writings of early Americans, and they may trace their roots back to people like Benjamin Tucker.

Where did Benjamin Tucker learn about ancap methods, ideas, principles, actions, etc.?

Tucker ran into the work of Josiah Warren.

Warren was the first (so called) American Anarchist.

The definition of Socialism above is from a fellow "conspirator" of Josiah Warren named Stephen Pearl Andrews.

You could easily say, and support the perception, that Josiah Warren was Anarchist Capitalist and Stephen Pearl Andrews was Anarchist Socialist, when both Capitalism and Socialism were becoming common words (gaining currency) BEFORE those words were counterfeited by the criminals among us, whereby those specific criminals among us use deceit to gain offices of VOLUNTARY GOVERNMENT and then they use that POWER of government to turn VOLUNTARY GOVERNMENT into Crime made Legal.

If that makes no sense to you, then you may need to know more before spouting off on all the TRUTH you do know, since being wrong aids and abets some very evil people much too often.

Joe

The RP Movement is a Voting and Lobbying Movement

since there's been little to no effort (no real effort anyway - not comparably) in finding free-market solutions.

The RP Movement (became) is the movement to get MORE liberty candidates in the position to be voted-for or lobbied-for.

ERGO -- the RP Movement is a "socialist" (according to Mises) movement.

Mises called Friedman a socialist because Friedman was willing to use Gov't Coercion to implement lassiez-faire capitalism as the after-birth of counter-revolutionary efforts (Chile) -- which of course requires murder (in all world cases).

My point here is that EVERY counter-revolutionary effort (which according to all history if it is to be successful there must be winners and losers -- dead) ALWAYS begins with a vote.

Voting and Lobbying is Theft of anothers Consumer-Will and Bribery.

Voting and Lobbying is Perpetual War.......prove me wrong!

Therefore RP Movement IS or will become, if the goals are ever to-become, violent or remain impotent.

Since pacifism is at the heart of the movement, it will remain impotent.

Inflationary Prices have only risen since RP's terms (and I love him by-the-by -- but as educator and never liberator) in office -- Now with 5 or so "lesser Paul's" in office........hmmmm, yeah.....impotent.

I believe we can conceive of an argument that better-benefits the rich and thus they will stop divide-and-conquer, to which we succor/sucker too so easily.

Some of you are in rare form today, lol

"I will keep this short because we have many **** **** socialists on this page"

I wonder how the romney folks felt when we told them they were socialists, lol.

I won't offer my opinion to the OP but it did make me laugh!

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

A Socialist is... One who advocates the use of legalized plunder

A Socialist is... One who would advocate the use of legalized plunder for social intervention.

http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#SECTION_G022

"But it is upon the law that socialism itself relies. Socialists desire to practice legal plunder, not illegal plunder. Socialists, like all other monopolists, desire to make the law their own weapon. And when once the law is on the side of socialism, how can it be used against socialism? For when plunder is abetted by the law, it does not fear your courts, your gendarmes, and your prisons. Rather, it may call upon them for help.

To prevent this, you would exclude socialism from entering into the making of laws? You would prevent socialists from entering the Legislative Palace? You shall not succeed, I predict, so long as legal plunder continues to be the main business of the legislature. It is illogical — in fact, absurd — to assume otherwise."

http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#SECTION_G022

“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”
― Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Is this a joke? Socialism is

Is this a joke?

Socialism is where the state owns large sectors of the economy (i.e. businesses) and takes away freedoms for collective equality.

The way I look at things, the government's job is to protect your life, liberty, and property.

There is a difference between public police and public courts than from stealing resources from one class and giving it to another.

Socialists believe in welfare, public healthcare, public education, and other things beyond life liberty and protection of property.

tasmlab's picture

Don't be nasty towards anarchists, after all...

Don't be nasty towards anarchists, after all RON PAUL told us all to go read Murray Rothbard and visit Mises.org and then some of us did!

Peace!

Currently consuming: Gatto: "Underground history of education..", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

No

but it seems to attract a bunch of them on the NO MORE WAR platform. Then all of a sudden we get posts demanding the government do something about GMO's...

tasmlab's picture

The term "socialism" seems to be used with precision

The term "socialism" seems to be used with precision, yet many people seem to have different ideas of what it means. It is even more poorly used with lefty types.

an anarchist may think it is any government of any sort
a lefty thinks its those nice programs they have in sweden
Hayek thinks its when the banks take over the economy and then everybody goes to a concentration camp
Neocons thinks its when grubby poor people get to slack off working
The green party thinks it's a pejorative that neocons use
etc.,

A term that is both to be thought of as having a precise definition while simultaneously seems to have many definitions doesn't seem to have much utility. In fact, it will just confuse everybody.

Currently consuming: Gatto: "Underground history of education..", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

I'm cutting and pasting this.

Nice. Just thought I'd let you know. I'll put tasmlab as the byline.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_(psychology)

Is this you?

Splitting (also called all-or-nothing thinking in cognitive distortion) may mean two things: splitting of the mind, and splitting of mental concepts (or black and white thinking). The latter is thinking purely in extremes (e.g., goodness vs. evil, innocence vs. corruption, victimization vs. oppression, etc.), and can be seen as a developmental stage and as a defense mechanism. In psychoanalysis, there are the concepts of splitting of the self as well as splitting of the ego. This stems from existential insecurity, or instability of one's self-concept.

Ventura 2012

Anarchist shill

Anarchist shill.... I never thought that i will write these words.

Right...

So I guess by your definition, Ron Paul is a socialist too? Give me a break...

this op has NO IDEA what

this op has NO IDEA what socialism is.
oh, the mind of a confused lib....

"OH NO! He has a SON?" Neoconservatives and Liberals EVERYWHERE!

Rand Paul 2016

lib? He's pretty clearly an

lib? He's pretty clearly an anarchist.

Ventura 2012

Maybe he meant libertarian....?

..I don't know which is stranger: having someone confuse an anarchist with a liberal, or having someone on the Daily Paul speak derisively about libertarians.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

I don't conflate libertarians

I don't conflate libertarians with anarchists. That is what I assumed he was doing. Even if it were true(its not) its incredibly damaging to the movement to do so because we concede most of our greatest minds to "socialism" lol. The great Socialist Economist Ludwig Von Mises....

And yes there are a lot of neo-con style trolls here that use neo-con buzzwords these days.

Ventura 2012

One of the most ridiculous threads I have ever read.

If you don't know what Socialism is - then don't use the word.

Having NO defense, police, etc is anarchy.

Ron Paul is not an anarchist. He believes in following the law as provided by the Constitution.

Very true

This idea that the "mere existence of government = socialism" is dangerous and extreme.

Socialism

Is a complex ideology with many aspects that define it, a policy endorsed by socialism is not necessarily socialist if it operates outside the confines of the entire system.

It may in fact be that there are policy points that can be correlated between both socialists and liberty movement, this however does not mean that we are socialist or they are libertarians.

Ideological arguments seem to only slow us down, so as a personal request don't fucking label me. no way being negative I just personally feel that should be the mantra of the movement.

Everyone wants you to be something you're not; do not give anyone the benefit (and in affect do yourself the disservice) of operating within predefined labels.

RP always talks about coalitions because they work. Remember that.

"The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out, the conservative adopts them." - Mark Twain

You Can't Defend Liberty Without Law

Police, courts, military and laws are the only thing that defend the individual liberty of a minority. Without it, there's no defense of liberty and all our talk about the non-aggression principle is moot. Without law enforcement, or even law, then acts of aggression would not be "illegal" and individuals would then have no rights. Nobody would have any rights outside of their own opinion. This is not the defense of liberty or in support of the non-aggression principle, this is the opposite. To somehow suggest these tools are anti-liberty is as nonsensical as saying guns are anti-liberty. They're not. It's in how their being used by a dumb society. Our job is educate those around us ( no matter how they infuriate us LOL) and elect moral and principled leaders (like Rand Paul) to change the nature of government.

This is not an overnight fix!

BTW, I still support the idea that everything is supported via donations, tarrifs or any other usury fees. This certainly won't happen in our lifetimes unless the entire thing collapses..

Sorry dude

You lost me when you say (Rand Paul). Morally sound and principled? Rand is a bit better then the common neocon. But there is no way he is morally sound. Anyone that agrees to put up blockades on another country for doing nothing is someone that thinks America can do anything and whatever it can in this world is a fuktard.

.

how do you know what rand knows?
go stick your nose back up hillaries phatstinkya$$ and keep it there.

"OH NO! He has a SON?" Neoconservatives and Liberals EVERYWHERE!

Rand Paul 2016

Well, Ron Paul voted for

Well, Ron Paul voted for President Bush in 2000 when he ran against Gore. From a liberty perspective I will vote for people who're much closer to my view than further away. Take Rand Paul and then compare him to Mitt Romney or John McCain to see this difference.

The candidate you and I want, virtually does not exist because he's retiring. So I'm going to find people who're closer to ALL of my views. The reason I support Rand is because he's willing to cut both military and welfare spending and NOT raise taxes. I also think he inherently wants us to stop policing the world, but knows that will be a later phase. Unlike his father he's politically savvy. There was a time when I wanted someone pure like Ron Paul. But now I want to trick the people who build the chains around our legs. Yes, I have nothing against tricking them into voting for a libertarian. If they can support such liberty violating policies, why should I have any sympathy for them? Why should the liberty candidates not take advantage of their stupidity? The tyrants do, so we must.

BTW, I'm not implying you're wrong. I'm just stating my views and where I differ. We have lots of different flavors within the liberty movement.

Ron Paul Has Not Voted For A Republican For President...

...since Reagan, per Lew Rockwell. He voted for neither of the Bushes. And if I recall correctly he didn't even vote for Regan in 1984.

___________________________________________________________________________
"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

Men are so simple and yield

Men are so simple and yield so readily to the desires of the moment that he who will trick will always find another who will suffer to be tricked.
~ Niccolo Machiavelli.

Trickery and treachery are the practices of fools that have not the wits enought to be honest.
~ Benjamin Franklin.

I believe the only way is through education. The cloak of trickery is fading.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts.
-Patrick Henry

Nice quote

"I believe the only way is through education. The cloak of trickery is fading."

Many people are fooled into focusing their defensive POWER on useless expenditures and this is an age old trick done by criminals.

Criminals learn to borrow good ideas from their victims, such as the concept of teamwork.

Criminal A and Criminal B go to WallMart.

Criminal A pretends to steal something, but in no way does that team worker do anything that could result in punishment, it is an act, and it is diversionary.

While all attention and focus of anti-theft is diverted to Criminal A, the Criminal B team worker is busy stealing something.

Socialism and Capitalism have voluntary applications that human beings volunteer to apply in real time on Earth, if English means anything.

Socialism and Capitalism have counterfeit versions used by criminals so as to keep their victims diverted away from effective defense against being victims.

If people don't see that, yet, they will, or they will die victims.

Joe

Anarchists are not opposed to law

Anarchists are opposed to a state monopoly on law. Out of the three minarchist bastions of police, courts, and the military, the police function is the easiest to argue. I think most minarchists can be led to see that private policy agencies would be more efficient and more accountable than the public police agencies that oppress us. The defense function is a little harder, but also not the major stumbling block. No, the major stumbling block is private law, because people just can't imagine a world without a final arbiter backed by force. Which is interesting, because private law has a rich history. But let's save that for later. Let's talk private police first. Wouldn't you want a police force in your neighborhood that is accountable to its subscribers?

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus

Private Law?

I'm intrigued.

Where can I get info about how that works, and where it has been tried, etc.