-23 votes

Is Ron Paul an anarchist? I don't think so, but...

Is Ron Paul an anarchist? I don't think so, but anarchists have provided evidence in their comments to try prove otherwise. And until now, anarchists at DP were hiding behind Ron Paul's belief in capitalism within the moral framework of limited government. Most of the evidence that anarchists use to claim Ron Paul as one of their own can be found on the first two pages. I'm opposed to the anarchist ideology and in spite of what anarchists say about Ron Paul, he's convinced more citizens of the merits of limited Constitutional government than any other politician in my lifetime. I'm not bringing up this topic to condemn anarchists, but to have an honest discussion about the merits of limited government vs. anarchy.

I recently posted a topic at the DP Liberty Forum titled "Can unalienable rights exist in a free market?" By free market, I meant a market operating in a stateless society, a.k.a. anarchy. Even though unalienable rights exist in anarchist societies, there's no agreement on what those rights would be and no mechanism to protect the free exercise of those rights. But I had mistakenly associated the lawlessness of the Fed, Wall Street and Obama with anarchy, and they are not anarchists, they are fascists. So I changed the name of the post to "Obama, Wall Street, and the Federal Reserve, a Fascist Regime" and pointed out how fascism severely restricts our ability to exercise unalienable rights. Fascism occurs when powerful business interests partner with a dictatorial central government and impose severe economic and social repression.

Many of the replies to my post argued that the definition of a free market doesn't mean a stateless society (anarchy), and for the most part they were right. But many advocated for an idealized form of free markets, i.e., no government intervention, taxation, or subsidies of any kind. I argued that this idealized form of a free market can only exist in a stateless society, and the resulting anarchy would eliminate the ability to exercise unalienable rights. Below are a couple quotes from someone promoting the idealized version of free markets. This link is the comment with the quotes. http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2969576

"Mark, do you believe that taxation is theft, and thus morally wrong? I do, and that is an important part of what makes me a free market capitalist..."

"A true free market capitalist would see taxation as theft of an individuals means of production by use of force, and thus, it is morally indefensible."

In my initial reply, I challenged him/her to admit they're an anarchist. Later I responded with the following argument: Ron Paul advocates for capitalism within the moral framework of limited government, and that requires some taxation. And being you oppose all taxes, how can you support this country's founding documents, which created a limited gov't with the power to tax? You obviously want to eliminate our country as founded because it has the power to tax, and that would mean eliminating the second amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights. So why don't you admit you're an anarchist who opposes the founding principles of this country? The links below are the reply to my position stated above, followed by my reply.


The person I quoted above also wrote a post titled "The Constitution supports drones and so do I". In the post he said "Our job as liberty loving citizens is not to repress the development and use of these technologies [drones], rather it is to work within the parameters of a free market in order to use these technologies to enhance freedom and personl liberty." I replied saying the Constitution defines the use of drones, particularly within U.S. borders, not the free market. Here's the link to the post on drones. http://www.dailypaul.com/273257

There were many replies to my post that supported a market completely free from government while saying they supported limited government. This seems to be a contradiction, so I thought it important to talk about the merits of capitalism within the moral framework of limited gov't vs. a completely free market that operates outside of government. If interested, you can read some of the comments yourself, here's the link.

The first reply to this post said the Bill of Rights protects our unalienable rights from government, not people. But governments are created and run by people, so without people government wouldn't exist. And history recognizes King George III as the tyrant that made the Revolution, Constitution and Bill of Rights necessary. Also, the Declaration of Independence specifically mentions the king and lists his crimes against the colonies. So the Bill of Rights protects our unalienable rights from people who run government.

I've read all the comments thus far, and while I support the anarchists idealized vision, i.e., a world where law enforcement by government is virtually obsolete because people are educated to voluntarily make moral choices, there is not one comment that offers practical solutions to get from the current immoral, chaotic state of the world, to a world so voluntarily moral, we no longer need government.

On the contrary, the general consensus among anarchists is that it's hopeless to even try restore a legitimate representative government, so we should all sit back and wait for the global system to collapse and start over. But of course, that's exactly what the tyrants they claim to oppose want us to do. Why? The fascist crony CRAPitalists who control the corrupt system are prepared for a global systemic collapse, at which point, they will control a fragmented neo-fuedalistic totalitarian nightmare. I've spent a lot of time over the years conversing with anarchists, and the plan of INACTION espoused here is a common thread. So I've concluded that the anarchist movement is a front for the very tyrants they claim to oppose.

But to all those who support the practice of capitalism within the moral framework of limited government, don't give up the fight. We can look back on history, from the barbarians to ancient Greek democracy, the Roman Republic before the Roman Empire, the Enlightenment, the Magna Carta, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, and know there are tried and true methods to improve the human condition. Check out this post titled "Morals, Ethics and the Role of Gov't in a Capitalist Economy"

After reading hundreds of comments, most of them from anarchists, there's an important point I need to make. There's compelling evidence demonstrating Wall Street crimes that have not been prosecuted, I'll provide some links below. The one thing that makes me doubt the anarchist claim that their ideology is based on morals that oppose crimes like fraud, is they never call for the law to be enforced. They never point out specific crimes that could be prosecuted. They never express moral outrage over the actions of private sector criminals. It's always the big bad gubbermint victimizing the poor private sector. While they condemn all government as evil, they never call for prosecution of criminals in government either.

So think about this, if anarchists have zero interest in holding criminals accountable now, why would they want a moral standard applied in a privatized world with no government? They argue that having laws against crime is the only reason crime exists, so if we just get rid of government law enforcement, no crime would exist. They use this same "logic" to defend Mexican drug cartels and mafia organizations while condemning government laws that criminalize their viscious business practices. Bottom line, we need to take down criminals in the public and private sectors if we're going to be a just, moral society.

Th first link is Neil Barofsky, Special Inspector General for TARP, saying "fraud" by the nine largest banks caused the financial crisis. The second link is William Black. He's former Deputy Director of the Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation. After the 1980's S&L meltdown, he helped obtain 1000 felony convictions of "elite" bankers. In this radio interview, he lays out compelling evidence that could result in criminal convictions of top Wall Street bankers. If millions of citizens emailed these links to local attorneys, Sheriffs, county prosecutors, State Attorneys General, and U.S. Attorneys, it would make a difference. R.I.C.O.(Racketeering, Influence, and Corrupt Organizations) and "honest services" statutes, would corral Wall Street criminals and their bipartisan co-conspirators.


For more info check out this post titled "Crime of the Century"

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

From my perspective...

these two short comments provide a reasonable summary all the comments.

http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2982988 (The Anarchist Constitution)
http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2983135 (My reply: Anarchists and Ayn Rand)

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

If I did drugs, I would want

If I did drugs, I would want some of whatever this guy is smoking or snorting. Dejavu ...


ENUMERATED POWERS are powers given to the federal government by the terms of the U.S. Constitution. The question whether the Constitution also should be understood to give the federal government unenumerated powers was the central issue in nineteenth century constitutional disputations. Under Article II of the Articles of Confederation, the Confederation Congress's powers were limited to those explicitly granted by that document. This limitation on the federal legislature's powers, when coupled with the extreme difficulty of changing a constitution whose amendment required the unanimous agreement of the thirteen states, stymied several nationalist initiatives in the period before the adoption of the Constitution.
The Philadelphia convention that drafted the U.S. Constitution in 1787 omitted any provision echoing Article II of the Articles of Confederation. However, several sections of the proposed constitution, particularly the list of congressional powers in Article I, section 8, gave the impression that the new federal government was to have only the powers it was expressly delegated. During the course of the ratification debates of 1787–1790, several Federalist spokesmen—most notably Governor Edmund Randolph of Virginia and Charles C. Pinckney of South Carolina—assured this principle would be followed.
When the new federal government was instituted, President George Washington found his cabinet sharply divided on the issue of unenumerated powers. Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton, who had joined with John Jay and others in offering a highly nationalist interpretation of the Constitution to the New York ratification convention, argued that both the Congress and the president could claim broad powers that, although not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, naturally inhered in the legislative and executive branches. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, on the other hand, insisted on the reading of the constitution successfully offered by Attorney General Randolph in the Virginia ratification convention.
Constitution and the Bill of Rights are contradictory.
Article 6 Clause 2
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Tenth Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The "supremacy clause" is the most important guarantor of national union. It assures that the Constitution and federal laws and treaties take precedence over state law and bind all judges to adhere to that principle in their courts.
The Tenth Amendment states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or the people.
See my dilemma? If the latter supersede the former then what’s the purpose of the former?
Washington, whose experience in the Revolution had convinced him of the necessity of Hamilton's program, sided with Hamilton. In the following decade, Chief Justice John Marshall authored a number of Supreme Court opinions endorsing the Hamiltonian-nationalist reading of the Constitution; the most important of these, Marbury v. Madison.
The Supreme Court's landmark decision on the issue of judicial review was Marbury v. Madison (1803),[2] in which the Supreme Court ruled that the federal courts have the duty to review the constitutionality of acts of Congress and to declare them void when they are contrary to the Constitution. Marbury, written by Chief Justice John Marshall, was the first Supreme Court case to strike down an act of Congress as unconstitutional.
What was the case actually about?
Marbury v. Madison
The famous case arose from one of the most bitter presidential elections,
the election of 1800. The two parties — the Jeffersonian Republicans and the
Federalists — had attacked the character and the patriotism of the two leading
contenders, incumbent president John Adams and his Vice President and
one time friend, Thomas Jefferson. The issues were profound: the Alien and
Sedition Laws of 1798, conflicting theories of the Union and the Constitution,
a conflict between nationalism and states’ rights, and a conflict between
skeptical republicanism and a more democratic faith.
In 1800, the votes of the electoral college guaranteed that John Adams
would be turned out of office, but it took the votes of the House of
Representatives to elect Jefferson. In the days before Jefferson’s March 4
inauguration, the Federalists worked hard to preserve for themselves a place
in the national government. They did all they could to seize the judiciary. In
January, Adams appointed John Marshall to the office of Chief Justice while
Marshall continued to serve as Secretary of State. In the last month of Adams’
presidency, a lame-duck, Federalist Congress created judicial offices while
Adams cooperated with the party’s efforts to nominate and confirm as many
Federalist partisans to judicial posts as time allowed. In the last three days
before Jefferson’s inauguration the Senate confirmed Adams’ appointees. By
March 4, inauguration day, the Secretary of State — John Marshall — had
failed to deliver some of the judicial commissions. President Jefferson then
directed the new Secretary of State, James Madison, not to deliver the
commissions, including the commission of one William Marbury as Justice of
the Peace for the District of Columbia.
Marbury took his case to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Normally, the Supreme Court is an appellate body, but Marbury invoked the
Court’s “original jurisdiction.” This meant that Marbury was to have his trial
before the Chief Justice of the United States — John Marshall — the man
who, as Secretary of State, prepared most of the disputed commissions, even
while serving as Chief Justice. Among the witnesses offering testimony on
disputed facts — the existence of the commissions, the failure of delivery, and
the reasons for failure — was James Marshall, brother of the Chief Justice.
Never has such judicial greatness come from so petty a partisan squabble and
so obvious a conflict of interest.
While the case of William Marbury hibernated on the docket of John
Marshall’s Court for almost two years, Thomas Jefferson and his allies did all
they could to undermine the independent judiciary. The Jeffersonians sought
to repeal the legislation that had created many of the judicial positions
assumed by Federalists just before Adams left the presidency. The
Jeffersonians succeeded, and Congress passed the repeal act just before the
Marbury decision was announced. All believed that a conflict between the
two Virginians, President Jefferson and Chief Justice Marshall, was imminent.
When a unanimous Court decided Marbury v. Madison, the Court ruled that
it lacked jurisdiction. It sounds like an anticlimax. Court watchers had
expected the Chief Justice to order the Secretary of State to deliver the
commissions. He did not. Instead, Marshall ruled that the Court could not
order the Secretary to do his duty because the Court lacked jurisdiction to do
so. With this resolution, the Chief Justice carefully reached conclusions that
avoided conflict between the executive and judicial branches.
Marshall admitted that some duties entrusted to the chief executive are
political, and the decision of the President in the performance of such
functions is conclusive. But Marshall took an opportunity to wag his finger
at the President. The Chief Justice held the President in minimum high
regard. And so he could not resist the temptation to declare that the
President broke the law and violated Marbury’s rights, before he declared he
had no jurisdiction and, thus, no power in the case. Today, we might say that
the Chief Justice was full of dicta. Professor Robert McCloskey has offered
a more sophisticated view. Marbury was “a masterwork of indirection, a
brilliant example of Marshall’s capacity to sidestep danger while seeming to
court it, to advance in one direction while his opponents are looking in
another.” The Court was “in the delightful position . . . of rejecting and
assuming power in a single breath.”
To avoid conflict with the President — or, more precisely, to avoid giving
the President the opportunity to strike a fatal blow at the Supreme Court by disobeying its ruling — the Chief Justice manipulated the issues, or at least
many analysts so believe. Marshall examined the statute, which declared
that the Court could issue writs when it had jurisdiction, and presumed that the
statute increased the Court’s jurisdiction whenever someone asked for a writ.
Using this less-than-compelling interpretation of the statute to create an
unnecessary and unlikely constitutional issue, Marshall then interpreted the
vague words of Article III to hold that Congress could not add to the Court’s
original jurisdiction.
Having found — or manufactured — a conflict between statute and
Constitution, the Chief Justice was ready to reach for the prize: the power to
define constitutional law. For, of course, the issue for which Marbury is
remembered is not whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction in cases in
which a person sought a writ of mandamus. Rather, Marbury is remembered for a more fundamental, more indispensable issue: “whether an act, repugnant
to the constitution, can become the law of the land.
It has become fashionable to discount John Marshall’s case for judicial
review. At one time, admirers and critics of the Chief Justice described his
opinion as a coup, in all senses of the word: a usurpation and an
achievement, a foundation for constitutional nationalism and a bedrock of law in a democratic republic.
Thomas Jefferson did not like the concept of Judicial Review; He believed that it turned all the power over to a panel of judges with lifetime appointments, therefore no accountability to the people. In a case for Liberty, I think I would have to agree. Let’s just look at Roe v Wade. Most people at the time it was RULED upon didn’t think that it should be the law of the land and their elected official agreed. There was no legislation ever introduced to make it legal. A lawsuit was filed and RULED upon by the Supreme Court and basically wrote the legislation from the bench. (Personally I think that it should be legal but not as a form of contraception, therefore in a case of rape, incest and birth defects…….but birth defects for the quality of life for the baby not the parents.) Of course people will bring up slavery as the law of the land and it was bad law, a bad natural law. But it was being abolished through a sea change of mindset prior to the Civil War and the war was not about slavery.
Judicial review was being purposed and argued before the Constitution was ever ratified and therefore I believe the “intent” in the acquisition of power is established.
The most extensive discussion of judicial review was in Federalist No. 78, written by Alexander Hamilton, which clearly explained that the federal courts would have the power of judicial review. Hamilton stated that under the Constitution, the federal judiciary would have the power to declare laws unconstitutional. Hamilton asserted that this was appropriate because it would protect the people against abuse of power by Congress:
“ [T]he courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.
Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental....
[A]ccordingly, whenever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the Judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former....
[T]he courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments.[27]

In Federalist No. 80, Hamilton rejected the idea that the power to decide the constitutionality of an act of Congress should lie with each of the states: "The mere necessity of uniformity in the interpretation of the national laws, decides the question. Thirteen independent courts of final jurisdiction over the same causes, arising upon the same laws, is a hydra in government, from which nothing but contradiction and confusion can proceed."[28] Consistent with the need for uniformity in interpretation of the Constitution, Hamilton explained in Federalist No. 82 that the Supreme Court has authority to hear appeals from the state courts in cases relating to the Constitution.

.The arguments against ratification by the Anti-Federalists agreed that the federal courts would have the power of judicial review, though the Anti-Federalists viewed this negatively. Robert Yates, writing under the pseudonym "Brutus", stated:

The judges under this constitution will control the legislature, for the supreme court are authorized in the last resort, to determine what is the extent of the powers of the Congress. They are to give the constitution an explanation, and there is no power above them to set aside their judgment. . . . The supreme court then have a right, independent of the legislature, to give a construction to the constitution and every part of it, and there is no power provided in this system to correct their construction or do it away. If, therefore, the legislature pass any laws, inconsistent with the sense the judges put upon the constitution, they will declare it void.

The United States Constitution does not explicitly establish the power of judicial review. Rather, the power of judicial review has been inferred from the structure, provisions, and history of the Constitution.
So how did the Federalist get around the fact that the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself didn’t explicitly define the Supreme Courts role in deciding the constitutionally of the laws of the land……. by deceit……by ill intent. Ratify the constitution and then we will “interpret” what it “really “means after we have control. What was it Nancy Peliso said during the health care debate” We won’t know what’s in the Bill until we pass it”. Isn’t this how we ended up with the Federal Reserve? I am not willing to turn over my natural rights (including intelligential rights)over to this kind of nonsense.

From Reassessing the Presidency:
Jefferson quickly denounced it as un-republican and contrary to the intent of the framers and the state ratifying conventions. Jefferson argued that such power would violate the separation of powers and make the least republic of the three branches of government the most powerful, thus striking a blow against “the vital principle of republics” which was “absolute acquiescence in the decision of the majority” on all matters entrusted to them by the Constitution.
Chief Justice Marshall asserted in his Marbury decision that the federal courts had the final right to decide questions of disputed constitutionality and the authority to set aside federal laws which they thought contrary to the Constitution. Jefferson argued that an alternative doctrine “concurrent review” was closer to the intentions of the framers and the ratifying convention. According to Jefferson, each branch of the federal government plus the states governments had the right to interpret the Constitution for itself and none had the right to bind the others by its decision.
And this is where I couldn’t agree more with Jefferson. Because of the ability to “bind the others to the decision” States can pass laws that have to be recognized by other States, such as gay marriage. I don’t have an opinion on this matter what so ever, but I don’t what one state to tell my state that I have to live with a law you created. Such as Usury laws….. in the late 1970’s. When Minnesota passed legislation that allowed credit card companies to charge whatever interest rates they wanted, all credit card companies moved to Minnesota and starting handing out credit cards to EVERYONE, playing the odds that more people will pay higher rates than people will default. I don’t really care about the concept except it was one of the kernels is the seeds of destruction of a much bigger credit crisis. It was the first blow to the breaking down the restriction of credit creation inside a cartel, this is something that I do care deeply about. So in the case of Liberty I would have to agree with Jefferson.
In 1820, Thomas Jefferson expressed his deep reservations about the doctrine of judicial review:
You seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It is wiser to make all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.[55]
Some have argued that judicial review is unconstitutional.[citation needed] This is generally based on two grounds. First, the power of judicial review is not expressly delegated to the courts in the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment reserves to the states (or to the people) those powers not delegated to the federal government. The second argument is that the states alone have the power to ratify changes to the "supreme law" (the U.S. Constitution), and that the states should play some role in interpreting its meaning. Under this theory, allowing only federal courts to definitively conduct judicial review of federal law allows the national government to interpret its own restrictions as it sees fit, with no meaningful input from the ratifying power. ( with no input from creator himself)
I now will mention the book “Original Intent”. I have not read this book. It didn’t interest me because it comes from the perspective that the founding father were all Godly men and if we were all just like them then the county wouldn’t have the problems it has. Don’t get me wrong I believe that a relationship with God it one of the most worthy endeavors in life……..but I don’t think the government should be telling ANYONE that…….. governments are just men…….not gods, but the “Intent” of the Federalist is very clear……Mercantilism!
Mercantilism which reached its height in the Europe of the seventeen and eighteen centuries was a system which employed economic fallacy to build up a structure of Imperial state power as well as special subsidy and monopolistic privilege to individual or group favored by the state.
And this is government that was started by Hamilton and completed by Lincoln and is a philosophy of Statism. The divergence between these two conceptions of the federal relationship, in conjunction with the ultimate identification of each of them with a great sectional political party, formed the constitutional predicate for the Civil War. With the triumph of the Republican Union in 1865, The doctrine of enumerated powers went into eclipse. It still figured in constitutional argumentation, but the main line of constitutional reasoning came to hold that the federal government had essentially all powers that were not explicitly denied it by the constitution. This conception was precisely that which Hamilton had offered in cabinet debate in the 1790s.

Thomas Jefferson
“Our country is too large to have all its affairs directed by a single government and if ever the powers of the state government should become concentrated in the general government it would become the most corrupt government on the earth.

And now we see what it has become……. exactly what Thomas Jefferson told us it would become and exactly what we didn’t want. The Constitution was not the beginning; the Constitution was the beginning of the end.

"Before we can ever ask how things might go wrong; we must first explain how they could ever go right"


That was a lot of words.

That was a lot of words. I am curious, if it is as you say and enumerated powers originate and derive from the people following American independence...

1. Do you have any inherent power that can be delegated to steal or murder?

2. Do you have any inherent power over other men or women that can be delegated to make them objects of any of your delegated enumerated power?

3. Who does the constitution apply to exactly and what is the source of authority to delegate any power to exercise any dominion over another man or woman?

4. Does any man or woman have any duty or obligation to statutes or codes originating from powers delegated by other people?

5. Does any government have any justly derived obligation from any man or women which can be used to compel or coerce them without their consent?

6. Does a group of men or women have some inherent power over certain territory of the earth which can be used to exclude others with threats of force whether said territory is being used or not?

This is quite an essay--

and I will try to read it. I skimmed over a few of the posts/comments--

Are *you* who are so strenuously objecting to 'anarchists' (I don't see any; I don't even know how to identify *them*) . . .
certain that this isn't just a knee jerk response to the frustration *you* feel over how out of control *our* present (in this nation/world) situation is?

Just one question: Do you honestly believe that anarchists are behind:

The Federal Reserve
The wars in the middle east
banker bail-outs

All of the presidents/both political parties--

the CIA, etc.

and, if so, who are they?

If the global elite who are managing the current scam on the American people--

are anarchists, then--

I might read your essay.

They are oligarchs. Or so I have always believed them to be. Are oligarchs and anarchists the same thing?

It seems to me that this discussion is like a dog chasing its tail; it goes around and around, and everybody is the villain.

I know there is a lot of angst 'out there'. Is this how it is diffused?

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

1988vote, I wrote this post as a...

follow up to my last post, which had prompted many comments advocating for an idealized free market that could only exist in a stateless society. I suspected many of those comments were made by anarchists who were hiding behind Ron Paul's ideas of limited government. But I was surprised at the number of anarchists who commented on this post claiming Ron Paul is an anarchist, and the relatively few who said he wasn't. Of the over 800 comments, I think fewer than 10 said Ron Paul is what he claims to be, i.e., a Constitutionalist who believes in the rule of law and limited government.

When responding to the comments on this post, initially I kept an open mind about the anarchist ideology, but eventually I came to the conclusion that anarchism is just another front for fascist elites intent on subverting legitimate representative government. So are the Fed, CIA, leaders of both political parties, and global elites all anarchists? No. They are fascists who are supported by various ism's (anarchism, communism, voluntaryism, barbarism) all of which, in my opinion, are designed to subvert representative government of, by, and for the people. One thing these ism's have in common is they pander to the human desire for a just, equitable society but lead to an ideological dead end. For my brief summary of the comments, check out this link: http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2983675

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

Thank you for being so reasonable. I will check this out--

I do need to learn about these 'isms'--

I have invested a lot of time trying to find out what has been going on historically--

and haven't really studied the various political ideologies. Frankly, I find them boring. LOL!

But I will force myself to try.

I am afraid I responded to you in the same vein as to another poster, who made me a bit gun shy about entering this discussion.

I thought you'd shoot me. LOL!

I was, ahem, 'accused' of being an anarchist. I just need to remember that some people on DP are, possibly, young and, definitely, very passionate.

Hey, I want to know the truth, and nothing but the truth, about what happened in WWII (and before) and Viet Nam and Korea, etc. Those are the kinds of things I study when I have the stomach for them.

I am trying to tie everything together; I've been studying these things (minus the 'isms') for decades.

Maybe it's time to care about something besides truth and liberty--


(and the gardens)

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

During a discussion of morality...

in a different post, I made an attempt to tie things together. It has some c-span links that back up my assertions. Here's the link to the comment, it only takes about five minutes to read.

For more detail on the assertions in the comment, check out the sections "American and Chinese Communism, a Partnership" and "Closing the Loop on Terrorism" in the following pdf file "Knowledge is Power"

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

thank you--

this is going to take time, but I will save these--

I'm trying to see both 'sides' of this issue--

What little I read of the first link . . . you are convinced that Islam is behind the 'evil'.

I am quite convinced that there isn't just one group--

I think there are small networks of design and collusion from every culture/nation.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

I don't recall saying Islam is...

behind the evil. If you're refering to the comment on morality which included info on the radical Islamic sect Wahhabism, I said Islam is being perverted by immoral Saudi leaders who want to create terrorism as pretext for global tyranny. U.S. and Israeli leaders also pervert their respective religions for the same purpose. War is big business and false religious teachings are used to create a clash of civilizations, perpetual war, and revenue for war profiteers. This evil use of religion also benefits tyrants by dividing people who then can easily be conquered.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

I agree, and you are correct--

that was a mistaken assumption I made. I'm sorry it sounded accusative. You do seem to be a reasonable, thinking person.

I agree about all three religions being used to manipulate political and cultural systems.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

I did not write this post for the purpose of...

proving or disproving that Ron Paul is an anarchist. I wrote the post to expose the large number of anarchists at DP who believe RP is one of their own and get a better understanding of anarchism. Irregardless of what anarchists say about Ron Paul, he has convinced more citizens of the merits of a limited Constitutional government than any politician in my lifetime. And that's what matters to Constitutionalists like me who want strict adherence to the Constitution's enumerated powers doctrine and tenth amendment, which restrain central government and give more autonomy to states and individuals.


http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

How can Ron Paul be an anarchist...

when he supports the small yet strong model of government laid out in the Constitution?

I don't play, I commission the league.

Anarchists masquarade as something they aren't.

I think somebody touched on it when they said Anarchists can't seem to get elected and the honest ones don't even run for office. They need to put on a costume and masquerade as something they aren't. Nobody knows better than an Anarchist that they can't win the debate as an Anarchist, and certainly not from "within" government.

A real Anarchist is loading his gun and searching for useful followers. They covet power, but not to free people; to lord over them, because they see THAT as the only purpose of collective force.

Is he supporting the model of limited and divided Constitutional government, or does he want you to stick to his talking points while declaring himself defeated and the Constitution dead?

you know, I don't really trust anyone either--

not implicitly, not without caution.

I know that there is no such thing as a perfect human being, and Ron Paul is certainly no exception, but the idea of classifying him as a fraud (in another discussion) seems a little extreme.

Though I know it is important not to trust without reservation, there has to be a little bit of hope, doesn't there, that now and again someone actually means what he/she says. Where do you draw the line?

Why even try to restore government or *whatever will work to make the world a better place* (I am almost afraid I'll use the wrong words by *your* definition and be accused of being an anarchist, again)--

if you can't even try to trust someone a little?

I guess that I am afraid ("concerned" would be a better word) that this could lead to a free-for-all like the French Revolution where "Kill the aristocrats" includes anyone that those doing the killing believe is an aristocrat or an evil person, whether they are or not.

Where does it end? "We lose, you lose" on another discussion called anarchists a 'cancer'--

and that cancer needs to be removed--

well, how? With the guillotine? Are you willing to go the way McCarthy did? He did lose his credibility, even if he might have been right about some communists. And yet, there were those who spent a lot of time in fear, because they weren't communists, but were suspected. Or they were just naive people or open-minded people who knew some communists and didn't join the 'witch hunt'. There's nothing good about witch hunts. Generally, those who are real witches are never found anyway (symbolically speaking)--

Good becomes bad, and bad becomes good when *we* call for destruction of anyone for their beliefs.

That frightens me. Witch hunts are serious business and not a good thing to find on Daily Paul.

Rand Paul is filibustering right now. Do you think he's an anarchist? He's talking about unlawful hunts for terrorists (among regular Americans); is it wrong that he's concerned about drones? Did his 'anarchist' father teach him that?

Could it be that all of *us* make mistakes, and that sometimes we say or do things that don't please other people, but that doesn't make *us* (Ron Paul and me) anarchists?

Well, I've found this discussion interesting, and I think I'll go back to trying to get people to not collectivize. I can get yelled at for that, too--



even to those who want to hunt down the anarchists and destroy them. (or anyone else for that matter)

Peace, eventually--

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

The issue of trust is an important one.

But for me, whether or not to trust Ron Paul is relatively unimportant. What's far more important is that fascist elites use media to break down trust as a means to divide and conquer. They've saturated the media with lies and distortions that keep citizens divided instead of united. Why? A vast majority of the world's people do not benefit from fascism, so dividing people via lies and distortions is the only way fascist elites can achieve and maintain control. George Orwell said, in a time of great deception the truth is revolutionary, and we are living in a time of great deception.

http://www.standupforyourrights.me/?p=1026 (pdf: Knowledge is Power)
http://www.standupforyourrights.me/?p=1264 (Gun Control Policy)
http://www.standupforyourrights.me/?p=1047 (Fraud and the Federal debt)

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

I can agree with that--

And you are correct, Ron Paul isn't the issue. So . . . why 'defame' him?

He's just a man, after all, but he has awakened many of *us*.

I have no issue with the other things you are saying.


I am just uncomfortable with all the labeling that is taking place on some of these 'anarchist'-related threads.

I will respond to the other person, but at least one has accused me of being an anarchist, because I have asked questions.

I admit that I am more interested in social/political history than in economic/political history, and there is a difference.

I want to know about what has happened to human beings, not about the rise and fall of markets--

In my *own* life I am frugal and hard-working, and I produce. I prefer being a producer to being a consumer, though nobody living in the 21st century can keep from consuming; everyone consumes, but I am not the kind of consumer that most of the people I live around are.

I buy local, support local farm families and grow as much of my own food as possible--

I walk, rather than drive/ride, as much as possible--

I don't use the medical system, etc.--

Pay my own way--

so when I come on a discussion and try to learn (yes, I'm in my 60s, but I haven't really ever studied anarchism; I have studied libertarianism a little more)--

and get 'shot' because I came on someone else's property--LOL!

. . . I feel a bit dazed about it.

There are some people discussing these topics who are trigger happy--

maybe they are young and passionate. And that is good. But most humans, IF they get older, become more . . . peaceable. *We* still have our principles, but we don't want to shoot everyone in sight.


That's possibly why I feel defensive of Dr. Paul. He's a few years older than I, and he's tired. I "get" that.

I am only assuming the really zealous are much younger than I, because usually zealots are.

Truth is important, and even old(er) people can seek it.

That's all I try to do wherever I am, even here on DP. But I do have my opinions, too, and one of them is that shooting first and asking questions later isn't a good idea.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

I've said nothing to defame Ron Paul...

to the contrary, I support RP's idea's of limited government and credit him for awakening more people to the merits of limited Constitutional government than any politician in my lifetime. That's why the debate over Ron Paul's alleged anarchist leanings is not very important to me. But if the anarchists are right about Mr. Paul, it demonstrates the deceptive practices of those promoting anarchy, and that is important.


http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

I understand that you are not crossing the line--

there are others whose . . . perspectives seem a little more inflammatory.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

FreedomsReigning, maybe you could...

point out Ron Paul's connections with Rothbard and Lew, who are continually cited by anarchists as architects of their ideology.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

The anarchists commenting on this post...

have provided video of Ron Paul commenting on his vision for complete "self government", and other comments they believe demonstrate RP's anarchist leanings. So many of them conclude that Ron Paul is a closet anarchist and claim him as one of their own.

http://www.standupforyourrights.me/?p=1264 (Gun control policy)

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

I think this guy should have

I think this guy should have payed more attention to an English language instructor. Let's look at another Ron Paul statement:


"... I am not overly rigid, I think the Constitution is good ..." (:29)

Constitution = Good

Self Government = Ultimate goal

In context:

Ultimate Goal = Libertarian heart and soul of a conservative.

Good = Plan of action to work toward the ultimate goal.

American Majesty, do you think Ron Paul...

is an anarchist?

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

Mark Hanson, like I said before ...

I will re-post a previous comment:

"I have yet to meet one single statist or minarchist answer this question:

I know you stand for the constituton but what do you say to people who advocate for self government rather than a return to the constitution is?

Like this:

Great fine and uh I think that is really what my goal is ...


In the words of Ron Paul what would I say to people who advocate for self government rather than a return to the constituton is?

My answer:

Great fine and uh I think that is really what my goal is!

Like I said before, if I did drugs I would want some of whatever you are smoking or snorting.

I do not know any normal people who repeatedly fail to answer any legitimate questions and respond to questions with insane questions which are clearly evidenced and answered by Ron Paul's own statements. I have heard only crazy, incoherent, illogical, and irrational people behave like that.

Feel free to answer any of the questions already posed ...

Actually I've answered this

Actually I've answered this same idiotic post hundreds of times on this site...I think everyone on this site is for even more self government than the framework of the Constitution requires, anarchist or not.

Ventura 2012

So if you are in agreement

So if you are in agreement with the goal of self government why is the notion idiotic?

Let's reflect Hanson's stated agenda in the comment above:

"I did not write this post for the purpose of proving or disproving that Ron Paul is an anarchist. I wrote the post to expose the large number of anarchists at DP who believe RP is one of their own."

That is why I am commenting in this thread because people such as Hanson are dishonest. They are the Southern Poverty Law Center of the liberty movement. They are the cancer. Always trying to put a wedge in it. Who started this thread with this agenda? Perhaps a review of threads of this same type should be undertaken to see if it is so called anarchists continually introducing these type of threads.

Sure Ron Paul talks about the constitution. He is even on record stating why he likes using the constitution as a tool to bring for the message of liberty. However Ron does not stop there as he also gives regular praise to free markets and we all know what constitutes a free market by definition.

Would you like to know who turned Ron Paul around on some issues? Heck, lets ask Ron who states Rothbard at 1:00...


So what is this guy trying to expose exactly? Ron is a Murray fan?

Its idiotic to interpret that

Its idiotic to interpret that comment to mean that Ron Paul is an anarchist in light of its ambiguity and Ron Paul's lengthy government service and writings. Just like it would be idiotic to interpret the 2nd Amendment to mean the right to not have your literal arms severed. Maybe the OP is being divisive but there are HUNDREDS more threads like this from anarchists here. Consider it blowback.

Ventura 2012

I might agree but the fact

I might agree but the fact remains that Ron has stated the goal is self government. The goal of a minarchist is limited government, end of story. It is a defining belief which separates minarchists and anarchists. Minarchists agree the bus ends at limited government whereas anarchists agree the next stop after limtied government is free markets. There is a radical and fundamental difference between a goal of self government and a goal of limited government.

Just because Ron has associated with anarchists for decades and subscribes to a goal of self government or free markets does not mean Ron is disingenuous about advocating for limited government.

Sheesh how is it more anarchists were familiar with Ron in 2007? Because Ron has been a friend of Lew and the Mises Institute. Anarchists knew who the hell Ron Paul was before Aaron Russo interviewed him in his IRS film. Anarchists appreciate Ron and his work in Congress. The reason there are so many anarchist leaning Ron Paul supporters is because many of the initial supporters were studied libertarians who exposed the ideas of freedom to a new generation. If the minarchists had been doing anything the past several decades to perfect their statist philosophy perhaps it would not be the case.

Ron and Lew represent a divide among libertarians over strategy. Libertarians agree the goal is self government and free markets. What libertarians do not agree on is how to get from point A to point B. Lew embodies a strategic line of thought which believes that since we can only get their by educating people lets focus on that and eventually people will opt out. Ron embodies the strategic notion that it will take more than mere education, it will take people actively reducing the size and scope of government in order to reach self government incrementally. The Free State Project embodies a strategic decision to geographically organize.

Since Ron has chosen a political path the Constitution IS the tool in his arsenal. Let's take Ron's stance on immigration. We know what Ron believes and he believes in free markets and open borders. Go back and look at his 1988 interviews. However what prompted a change in his position? Political effectiveness. Lew would simply state there can be no free market without open borders and he would be correct. Ron who clearly believes in open borders does not believe a free market can be achieved overnight in the same way the fed can not be ended overnight. Therefore Ron has modified his position to open borders are not likely to be achieved until the welfare state is reduced. It is a strategic political argument, not a philosophical one because the goal is ... open borders.

It is a strategic decision whether or not to use the ring of power and Ron chose to use it to do good. Like hobbits, he has shown tremendous resistance to the influence of the ring's power. Ultimately though, the ring of power must be destroyed. Political savior's sure can make us feel good but it is not a viable model for humans to organize society upon. Unfortunately there may never be a perfect viable model but despite that I will always prefer less violence.

The founders would not blame others for their own failures to organize and rise up against tyranny or oppression. They would look in the mirror so that blame could be correctly assigned for their own fear and failure to organize or act.

I credit the Ron's and the Lew's. It is credit deserved because despite any strategic difference they have both chosen to act.

You jumped the shark again on

You jumped the shark again on that quote, you really did. Also, the anarchists at Mises are the only hard money people left. I assure you Lew Rockwell was not an anarchist when he was Ron Paul's chief of staff, nor was Ron Paul's closest mentor Hans Sennholz or his ideological the influence Mises.

Honestly you guys juey make yourself look worse when you twist things, just stick to the facts.

Ventura 2012

No one started out as an

No one started out as an anarchist although Ron has stated he believes some people are born libertarian. Most of the anarchists are former constitutionalists. Regarding Lew's history he discusses it at the beginning of part 1 (~1:30):


In part 2 Lew talks a lot about Ron and some about Murry coining anarcho-capitalist to make a distinction between the left wing socialist anarchists who do not respect property rights:


There is no way to jump the shark on a sourced exact quote of a question and response. Let us review some more of Ron's thoughts in an interview with ABC.


Or this interview "I don't like the use of force, I like voluntaryism":


Or this interview "... so you have described yourself as a voluntaryist ... we had a relative voluntary society in our early history":


A return to relative voluntary society would certainly be a lot better than we have now but I prefer voluntary society.