-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.

http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2976341
http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2976503

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.
http://www.dailypaul.com/275602

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"
http://www.standupforyourrights.me/?p=917

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.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/3343248
http://onpoint.wbur.org/2011/10/18/prosecuting-wall-street/p...

For more info check out this post titled "Crime of the Century"
http://www.standupforyourrights.me/?p=697



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Misquoted him out of context

Misquoted him out of context again and again...hilarious. Get back to me when he calls for abolishing government, and stop retroactively applying Molyneux's phraseology to someone who probably does not even know who Molyneux is.

Ventura 2012

roflol... get back to me when

roflol... get back to me when Ron says he did not mean anything he has said. Misquoted? roflol... one can not misquote out of context an exact quote and provide a source. Ya really gotta love a foolish comment.

Voluntarist and voluntaryism are words coined by anarcho capitalists. It is hilarious to argue anarcho capitalist coined terms can be used in any context other than their intended meaning. What is even more hilarious is why would anyone trust your interpretation of original intent to discern terms as used or understood two centuries ago if you are going to misrepresent terms coined this decade.

Obviously you did not watch part two of the interview with Lew. If you had you would have picked up the remarks at ~3:00:

"... a very simple argument, despite everything, being an anarchist doesn't mean you necessarily don't have society to be organized without a state, doesn't mean you don't have roads gonna be built or whatever ... all you have to know it is never acceptable to use violence or threaten violence against the innocent ..."

or ~5:36:

"we argue the moral law applies to them (people in government suits) too"

So when Ron Paul says early on it was relatively voluntary it means the innocent were relatively threatened with violence or had violence relatively used against them. Are you suggesting the Whiskey Rebellion or other events where the innocent were threatened with or had violence used against them did not happen? Are you suggesting slaves are not innocent? Ya get real with your out of context BS. When Ron said relatively voluntary that is precisely what he meant.

Give me direct evidence not

Give me direct evidence not circumstantial...our evidence makes yours laughable. Oh, Thomas Jefferson was anti-slavery :/

Ventura 2012

A jury determines a fact by

A jury determines a fact by listening to testimony of one who possesses first hand knowledge of something seen or heard.

In order for a judge to render any opinion or make any determination they must rely upon facts derived from first hand knowledge of something seen or heard.

I have provided several sources of statements made by Ron Paul which can be heard by anyone so they can formulate their own facts:

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?

Great fine and uh I think that is really what my goal is ..." -Ron Paul

"You have to read one textbook called the American Great Depression by Murray Rothbard, because he turned me around because, I was raised to believe exactly as your question implied is that capitalism and the gold standard caused the great depression ..." -Ron Paul

"I suggest you read Murray Rothbard, it's a great book and I am convinced he will convert you as he converted me." -Ron Paul

"I don't like the use of force, I like voluntaryism" -Ron Paul

Question: So you have described yourself as a voluntaryist, can you tell us what that means for the big picture and what your ideal society would be as a voluntarist?

"Voluntary means no coercion, so if you want to change peoples habits or change the world you should do it by setting examples and trying to persuade people to do it, you can use force only when someone uses force against you ..." -Ron Paul

Question: Do you think we have a chance of achieving a society based on those ideals in America?

"Not soon, we had a relative voluntary society in our early history but steadily even after the Constitution was passed it was undermined ... " -Ron Paul

There is nothing indirect or circumstantial about a direct statement by Ron Paul. If your evidence makes Ron Paul's own statements laughable perhaps you should actually present some evidence of something that can be seen or heard by others such as Ron Paul stating he is not also a self described voluntarist which is a term coined by anarcho capitalists in addition to being a congressman, doctor, champion of the constitution, father, grandfather, or any other title.

"... a very simple argument, despite everything, being an anarchist doesn't mean you necessarily don't have society to be organized without a state, doesn't mean you don't have roads gonna be built or whatever ... all you have to know it is never acceptable to use violence or threaten violence against the innocent ..." -Lew Rockwell

"We argue the moral law applies to them (people in government suits) too." -Lew Rockwell

I'm dishonest?

In the very first paragraph of my post I said a lot of anarchists are hiding behind Ron Paul's ideas of limited government, and the comments on this post have proven me right. I ended the paragraph saying I didn't want to condemn anarchists but wanted to have an honest discussion about the merits of limited government vs. anarchism. But after trying to have an honest discussion with anarchists about some illogical aspects of anarchism, I realized they were unwilling to be honest about its inherent flaws. The main flaw being their claim that markets would magically create a moral society when the only rule is the strong dominate the weak.

When I realized anarchists didn't want to have an intellectually honest dialogue, I decided to use sarcasm to continue making my points.

http://www.standupforyourrights.me

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

Violence exists in nature.

Violence exists in nature.

A free market is by definition is a market absent violence which implies no state monopoly on violence legislated by a majority.

I completely fail to see where the dishonesty is on the part of anarchists. The dishonesty is with minarchists because limited government or any other man made system of human organization is subject to the exact same flaw that it will only work if people believe in it.

The exact dishonesty is that minarchists say anarchy won't work because it requires to believe in it but limited government will work yet limited government also requires people to believe in it.

If whatever the system is requires people to believe in it I prefer a market absent violence to majority decrees for the use of violence. If whatever the system is requires people to believe in it a market absent violence > limited violence. If whatever the system is requires people to believe in it I see no good reason to shoot for second best.

Provide a good reason why I would set my goal at second place which is limited violence instead of first place which is no violence? This is the precise dishonesty of minarchists.

If anarchy and minarchy are both going to eventually lead to tyranny anyway because of the "nature of man" why spot the ball on the minarchy 20 yard line instead of the anarchy 1 yard line?

Furthermore if Ron is on record stating he was turned around by Murray and educated by anarchists I fail to see how the following statement can possibly be true under any circumstances:

"... a lot of anarchists are hiding behind Ron Paul's ideas of limited government"

Violence exists in nature, what a revelation.

Humans have violent tendencies whether government exists or not. And violence is violence whether government exists or not, so why make a distinction? Are you suggesting there would be less violence without government?

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

When you say "self government"....

do you mean an anarchist society? Like my previous question asking if you believe RP is an anarchist, this is a yes or no question, so just answer the question instead of restating a comment.

If by "self government" you mean anarchy, Constitutionalists want a return to limited government not anarchy. And by limited government, we mean strict adherence to the enumerated powers doctrine and the tenth amendment, which gives autonomy to states and individuals.

http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2974976 (evidence of treason)
http://www.dailypaul.com/274979 (solutions to limit fascist gov't)
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)

/crickets

He's afraid to answer. It's a no win situation for him, and nobody knows that better than himself.

I am afraid to answer

I am afraid to answer nothing. I wasn't aware self government required a definition. Is there some confusion what "self" or "government" means?

These two short comments....

perfectly sum up all the comments on this post. Here are the links:

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

Undoubtedly, the anarchists will continue (as my grandfather used to say, "like cats trying to bury their duty on a concrete floor") to pretend they're something other than a pack of barbarians fronting for tyrants, so I will continue to point out otherwise.

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 ...

My clarity regarding the....

unsurpassed merits of capitalism within the moral framework of limited government, is not derived from the use of drugs, it's the result of critical thinking and empirical observation. Unlike the anarcho-barbarian ideology which is a baseless, lame attack on unalienable rights and limited government that have greatly improved the human condition.

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)

When you get done

When you get done hallucinating feel free to respond to using the mark or citizen title of a United(6) States(6) Person(6) for any reason other than making money. I am still waiting for a response to do you have a government identification for any reason other than to make money? After all you did want to bring God into the conversation and the Lord works in mysterious ways. Ask and ye shall receive. Seek and ye shall find. So ... do you have a government identification for any reason other than to make money?

Second, when are you reforming Citizen grand juries or starting the violent militia rebellion? Limited constitutional government is the notion of well armed people using violence against government agents who abuse their discretion or exceed their jurisdiction. You have used the word treason. You have acknowledged government has exceeded powers delegated in the constitution and its agents are tyrants. When do you plan on asserting rights enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, guaranteed in the Constitution to use violence against your own government so constitutional order will be restored?

Get back to me when you have an answer responsive to critical thinking or empirical observation to evidence I am conversing with intelligent life and not some barbaric mindless animal drone.

I believe...

we are endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights. And while I avoid getting caught up in the end times metaphors described in Revelations, I do use the prophecy in Daniel Chapter 7 to frame world events. My understanding of Daniel 7 starts with the Garden of Eden when humans chose to experience duality, as a result, we live in the land of the knowledge of good and evil.

Those who reject God use government and law to enslave others rather than create, as God intended, just equitable societies. Daniel 7 says governments, for a time, will be controlled by those with evil intentions. And during that time, Godly people will endure great oppression. But the Book of Law will be opened by the Ancient of Days and Godly people will be given dominion over all governments, forever.

So do I believe government ID's are being used for evil purposes? Yes. Do I believe citizens have the right to use force to abolish governments that fail to secure their unalienable rights? Yes. But given the existence of the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, Homeland Security, NDAA, etc., I don't believe armed rebellion is a viable option. So like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., I advocate for a non-violent revolution that promotes the use law and government as God intended.

We must educate our fellow citizens about the need to enforce the enumerated powers doctrine and tenth amemdment, which limit the power of central government and give autonomy to states and individuals. The following links suggest possible solutions for restoring the rule of law.

http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2981371
http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2981600
http://www.standupforyourrights.me/?p=1026 (more possible solutions)

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

Anarchism is as academic and utopian

... as communism.

In the sense that they are both:

1) Intellectual mental masturbation and theorycrafting that has never - and will never - work in practice.

Because they both completely fail to take real world human nature into account. And ..

2) Have always and will always devolve back into a form of tyranny, when an organized group of oppressors use force and violence to take control.

I've read enough, and pondered enough, and seen enough of these posters and conversations that at this point I am absolutely positive of that.

It's a complete waste of time. It will never happen.

And if it does, god help us all.

I will add that communism IS

I will add that communism IS anarchism except it recognizes a need to fundamentally change human nature before no government is possible. In other words, anarchism with a plan.

Ventura 2012

Could not agree more

Could not agree more

Ventura 2012

Ah yes,Intellectual

Ah yes,

Intellectual masturbation is not taking into account that virtually every government known to man throughout history has evolved into tyranny but somehow limited constitutional government is not immune to "real world human nature."

Intellectual masturbation is not recognizing America is another example in a long list of examples of governments throughout history usurping powers but if we just keep on believing other people will protect us out of their abundant benevolence limited government can work despite "real world human nature."

But if we can just get back to limited government it will work this time ... I promise ... "real world human nature" will prevent it from growing into tyranny again.

But if we can just find some other people willing to stand up to the people we trusted to protect us and get back to limited government we can finally have the courage to form our own militias to prevent it doesn't grow into tyranny again.

If statists want to prove limited government and violence works then impress us by reconvening grand juries of the people, Citizen militias, and start hanging government officials who abuse their discretion or exceed their jurisdiction. If minarchists are unwilling to organize to defend themselves I refuse to even listen to their lunacy.

But ... its a peaceful revolution ... no voluntaryism is a peaceful revolution for the ideas of freedom. Limited constitutional government is about the people using violence against their own government when it becomes tyranny which is a right enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment. So please ... shut the hell up and go demonstrate violence works to defend yourselves from your own government and prove you actually believe in that. Anyone who advocates limited constitutional government and unwilling to rise up against their own government when it exceeds the constitution is not even worth listening to because they don't actually believe what they preach.

The Majestic Masterbator...

suggests that Constitutionalists believe Constitutional government is immune from "real world human nature". If the Majestic Masterbator had been born yesterday, we could understand his absurd comment. But he's been commenting on this post for a couple days now so.... And anyone who spends five minutes at DP, which is dedicated to restoring Constitutional government, knows that those most concerned about the effects of flawed human nature on Constitutional government, are Constitutionalists. So His American Majesty is another example of the compulsive mental masterbation practiced by anarchists.

http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2974976 (evidence of treason)
http://www.dailypaul.com/274979 (solutions to limit fascist gov't)
http://www.standupforyourrights.me/?p=1026 (more evidence of treason)

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

@$$#*!{$ who

@$$#*!{$ who advocate the use of violence by majority decree motivate me to insure that notion finds an eternal resting place in the graveyard of ideas.

While you may say that; we

While you may say that; we all know that the idea of a small limited government is an abismal failure and only leads to tyranny and oppression. But, by all means lets go with the tyranny and oppression which is guaranteed; that sounds wonderful. Also, we know that communism like limited government leads to tyranny and oppression; and they both have something else in common, and that is, the path to tyranny and oppression which is through individuals who are granted special power over large masses of other people. This is not mandatory in a voluntaryist system; however, it is mandatory in any form of government, which is why all kinds of governments lead to tyranny and oppression.

Philistine, living in a bubble does not....

help your cause. History demonstrates that the evolution of rights, and limited government to protect those rights, has greatly improved the human condition. No one denies the ups and downs in the struggle to secure unalienable rights, but the fact that all nation states have outlawed slavery is one example of the gradual improvement that limited government has provided. If those who made the Civil Rights movement possible had listened to anarcho-barbarians like you, they would still be living under Jim Crow.

http://www.standupforyourrights.me

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

Interesting

Because this cuts right to the heart of it:

If any government always leads to tyranny.

And absence of government, also leads to tyranny.

Than all possible forms of human organization lead to tyranny.

Why?

The problem of tribal dynamics and submission / dominance is so deep in the DNA of humans, that small groups people will always (always) organize to steal and control everything, and oppress everyone else.

Always.

And there are always much, much greater masses of people who are useful tools and fodder to submit to the plans of the manipulative and aggressive minority. They will actively side with them, and aid them for status .. scraps from the table .. or (what they believe is) immunity from the theft and violence.

There is humanity in a nutshell.

Sorry, but anarchy is not the answer to this. We aren't even close enough to being able to handle that state of affairs. Its the most unstable one.

No - the best we can hope for is a cycle, where tyranny is like a balloon that inflates and deflates over a period of time.

The inevitable tyranny grows (inflates) ... there is resistance (the inflation is slowed) ... to a crisis (revolution) ... and - if we are lucky - a reversion back to some state of acceptable liberty (deflation).

There is no resting point. There won't be for a very long, long time imo - if we even make it the next 50 years - human beings might have thousands of years before we could ever make complete absence of social contracts enforced by some delegated authority work.

We're living in a country that is the most high profile political system that had enormous success (relatively speaking) where the average individual has been free to pursue their goals (relatively) free from interference for ~230 years.

The constitutional, decentralized republic with checks and balances has the best shot at organizing people and keeping the vast majority of them (relatively) free and prosperous for the longest amount of time before the balloon inflates and needs to be deflated.

Anything less than that - a vaccuum develops - the wolfpacks rush in to take control, and the sheep suddenly cower and hand everything over to them at once.

See just about any 'revolution' around the world in the past 100 years for reference.

Your nutshell analysis denies...

the existence of revolution, the reasons for revolution, and the outcomes of revolution that prove your nutshell analysis wrong. The outcomes of revolution being universally accepted notions of morality and individual rights that are protected by limited government.

It's only a tiny minority that benefit from tyranny, and that tiny minority can only achieve and maintain control via deception, like that practiced by anarcho-propagandists. The truth is, the tiny minority that controls today's fascist regime, is far more vulnerable than people believe. And as the Great Awakening continues, the power of propaganda will diminish along with the fascist elite's ability to maintain control.

http://www.standupforyourrights.me/?p=1264 (gun control)
http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2974976 (evidence of treason)
http://www.dailypaul.com/274979 (solutions to limit fascist gov't)

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

You said somehting I could

You said somehting I could agree with:

It's only a tiny minority that benefit from tyranny

and these limited few are government and there friends in business. All of which are only possible because of the existence of government to dole out favours via create favorable conditions for their friends in business trhough tax loopholes and regulations to limit competition.

I prefer to take my chances with....

limited government rather your anarcho-barbarism that would lead to Genghis Khan style tyrants.

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

Who said the absences of

Who said the absences of government leads to tyranny?

Every indication points to the opposite. Without government to protect(force cooperation and enforcement) then the individuals have to figure out a way to work together. Depending on the dynamics of the system at the time and the era in wich it was to take place will depend on whether their in violence at all or not. However, even in Somalia it was shown that while it started in violence, it bagan to become peaceful until outside interference propped up the few warlords and convinced Ethopia to star a war with with Somalia.

The other instances show that either life without goverment is relatively peaceful or started out with some violence and over time became more peaceful.

Government works the opposite way; it starts out peaceful and grows into tyranny, as every case of government has ever shown. No matter how large or small the government started out, and no matter wether it was a monarchy, republic, oligarchy, or democracy, and no matter if it was capitalistic, socialistic, or communistic; they have all turned into tyrannical, governments looting, enslaving, and murdering their own people.

You point to an argument that

You point to an argument that I just don’t think is a very good one. But before I proceed, I want to make it crystal clear: I’m not necessarily attacking your goal, but think the argument for it is insufficient. The argument is a typical one I hear: every limited state has extended itself. (Let’s leave aside for simplicity sake the various degrees of extension.) But if this argument works against limited states, surely it would cut against anarchism. After all, every anarchistic society has evolved into states! This seems to suggest that anarchistic societies are at least as unstable as limited states.

Again, maybe anarchism is the way to go (I'm not quite sure it is), but if it is, this argument will not do.

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

I am an aristocrat. I love liberty; I hate equality. - John Randolph of Roanoke

We need look no farther...

than Genghis Khan to know where anarcho-barbarism would lead us. Like you, I started out with an open mind, but have yet to hear an argument for anarchism that seemed rational or feasible in terms of accomplishing anarchists goals.

http://www.standupforyourrights.me

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