-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...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

even the mises institute

even the mises institute would probably acknowledge mises hayek and freidmans flaws. Lew Rockwell basically iskeeping the name due to his affinity for Mises and a promise he made to Mises widow. But the ideology of the place causes most people to basically consider it the "Murray Rothbard Institute".

Also, Mises was the one who set the stage for Rothbards defense of anarcho capitalism. This is basically why Rothbard wrote Man Economy and State - it's just a more correct version of Human Action. And mises ADMITTED as much. Mises was alive when Man Ecopnomy and State was published and conceded that Rothbards forumlation of praxeology (without Mises' implicit assumptions of the legitimacy of the state, his flawed view of monopoly theory, etc) was an improvement over his.

exactly!

The Mises Institute is more Rothbardian than Misesian. And Rothbard was a free market anarchist.

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

Deeds not words

"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."

I am over 50 years old and if you are just now discovering the meanings of political lies then you may want to avoid some very serious errors in judgment.

You can go ahead and make those errors, anyway, since learning the hard way may be the only way.

Joe

I would love to understand

I would love to understand what this means, as you are wiser than me. Please explain more in depth. the point of the video below is to show how small percentage libertarians such as Ron Paul exist. More Rand Paul libertarians exist than Ron paul libertarians

Love?

"I would love to understand what this means, as you are wiser than me."

If you reach the goal of understanding something, if it is at all possible, then it may be a good idea to avoid making baseless assumptions.

Baseless assumptions can be illustrated as such: You, or someone else diving into the baseless assumption business, goes to Las Vegas and bets everything they have, the farm, their accounts full of Federal Reserve Notes, the shirt off their back, their left arm, a kidney too.

What are you betting on, in this baseless assumption business?

Back to the illustration in las Vegas: being the highly intelligent person that you are, exemplified by your current gambling bet (hypothetical illustration mind you) you bet on the end of the world happening this month, long odds, but those people in Vegas will take any bet, and they will take this one in particular.

You bet everything you have on the world ending this month, and by God you are going to collect if you win, you will be rich beyond measure.

To me, maybe not to you, that is a hypothetical illustration of someone making the baseless assumptions that you have so far made in this Topic published in English.

If you want to call a bad thing done by bad people something, a name of some kind, then please consider an accurate name for it, so as to leave less room for more baseless assumptions.

What is it, exactly, that makes what someone else has done, in your accurate judgement, bad?

If you are in the finger pointing business, please consider being more accurate about it.

Or not, it isn't really my business.

Joe

Just funny that Ron is an

Just funny that Ron is an anarchist and people wont even give anarchists a second thought. When he says a free society... Ron is saying no government besides spontaneous law and order by society. However, most Rand Paulers will never look twice

Ron is not saying

"no government besides spontaneous law and order by society". He's a Constitutionalist. He's saying the Federal government has only those powers specifically granted it by the Constitution.

Cyril's picture

I don't think you can easily

I don't think you can easily find someone throwing up socialism as much and harsh as I do.

Does that mean I am against any form of government ? Heck no, but I am for the tiniest government possible in its prerogatives :

ZERO economic

ZERO regulatory

ZERO social

The sole purpose of it should be to defend and protect the letter and spirit of the laws chosen by the people.

The Constitution, and first 13th amendments, to begin with, farther and farther in the rear view mirror.

We maybe should start by quitting paying congressmen and supreme court judges with public funds. Just an idea for the future reconstruction after SHTF.

Peace.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

My only question is if

My only question is if government messes up all of those things economic, regulatory and social. (im not saying i wouldnt mind living in your world than compared to now lol) then how can we trust it to live by documents such as the constitution?

no

next.

Your post made me smile :)

Your post made me smile :)

Southern Agrarian

I don't see the value...

...in trying to narrowly define libertarian, so that only anarcho-capitalists are libertarians (for the record, I'm an anarcho-capitalist, former minarchist), or define socialism so as to include minarchists, as that only alienates a large number of people who could be, and in fact are, our allies. I would wager that the overwhelming majority of Paulites are either minarchists or paleo-conservatives, not ancaps.

When we shrink the federal government back its Constitutional role, then we can split on anarcho-capitalism versus minarchism. Until then, let's keep the big picture in mind and stay united, eh?

By the way, politics aside, as a purely academic matter, it is dishonest to call public police, military, and courts socialism. Call it "security socialism" if you must, specifying it as socialism in only a narrow category of economic activity; but don't just call it socialism in general - that term should be reserved for systems where all aspects of economic activity are socialized.

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

So would you say that we are

So would you say that we are in a capitalist society with socialist parts to it? Because once 1913 came about and half of every transaction was monopolized, I assumed capitalism was dead. If we tax oil, subsidize oil and go to war for oil what is the price of oil... it was not derived from bidding prices up and down.. so that means gas has been socialized/artificially manipulated by government/allocating resources... and if almost every american uses gas and the dollar... how much more until we are socialism in your opinion?

Has private property been abolished?

No, therefore this is not socialism. To use Mises' taxonomy, we are experiencing "interventionism," which leads to socialism, but we're not there yet. Now, if there's a system where private property is only nominal, but where the State is de facto owner because it completely regulates use of all property, as in "fascist" Germany, that could justifiably be called socialism, but we're not there either. Private property is heavily regulated in the US, but it's still more real than nominal.

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

We live in a crazy hybrid

with a dizzying array of viewpoints and education from person to person. What is the Ben Franklin quote, "A republic if you can keep it?" It's mind numbingly simplistic to say "the Ron Paul movement is socialist." Certain viewpoints held by RP supporters may not be strictly libertarian this or anarcho capitalist that, but what do you gain by disqualifying your natural allies?

I figured the GMO food video

I figured the GMO food video was important, so I wanted to add my thoughts and i hope you will too