-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

Comment viewing options

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

More dishonesty.

Your suggestion that the American Revolution was intended to create an anarchist society is dishonest because it was used to create a Republic. And Jefferson fully supported the creation of a Republic because it codified the moral principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence.

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)

Jefferson in no way supported

Jefferson in no way supported it. In fact Franklin knew that if Jefferson or Adams were around when they were to amend the Articles of Confederation that they never would end up with the Constitution -which, by the way, they were never supposted to be writing. This is why, it was made sure that Adams was in the Netherlands and Jefferson was in France.

Adams and Jefferson didn't agree one was a anti-federalist and the other (Adams) was a Federalist. However, they each wieled great power with the other delegates and the people at atlarge which was why neither of them would be able to be present when they met to amend the Articles of Conferation.

To suggest that Jefferson supported the Constituion because it "formed" a Republic is entirely false. At the time, the Anti-Federalists had -for the most part- lost the battle. They would only be able ot hold out for so long before more people just agreed due to attrition; so Jefferson through his friends like Henry agreed to it(the Cosntitution) if it included the Bill of Rights. But they all knew that it would fail.

Philistine, Jefferson, like the states...

disapproved of the Constitution because it lacked a Bill of Rights. And just what do your think Jefferson was referring to in the Declaration of Independence when he wrote "governments" are instituted by men to secure their unalienable rights? I don't think he was referring to anarcho-barbarism. And if Jefferson was opposed to a Republic, why did he run for and become President?

You seem to be confusing the Federalists with those, like Jefferson, who opposed a strong central government. Hamilton was a leader of the Federalists, and he not only wanted a strong central government, he wanted to create a prototype of the Federal Reserve, which Jefferson also adamantly opposed. And it was the Federalists who wanted the Constitution ratified without a Bill of Rights. Fortunately, the states refused to do so.

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)

What did Jefferson mean?

As I've described below and Jefferson explained himself pretty clearly, he meant something along the lines of the government created by the Articles of Confederation---which didn't claim the immoral power to collect taxes by force.

Why don't you like the government created by the Articles of Confederation? The superiority of that government should be easy to see, especially in view of the outcome of the Constitution. This is the lesson of history. The anti-federalists were correct.

It's misleading to suggest that Jefferson...

believed a confederation of states could exist without some power to tax, particularly at the state and local level. And I've never said I'm opposed to the Articles of Confederation, but that's not what we have. Given this reality, I believe the enumerated powers doctrine and Bill of Rights, when applied as Jefferson intended, provide similar restrants as the Articles of Confederation.

You like to talk of personal responsibility, and it's our responsibility and duty as as citizens to do what we can to keep the power of central government in check, even if it seems hopeless. That's life, there are no guarantees against tyranny, whether it be imposed by the public or private sector, and I accept the challenge that entails.

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)

More differences...

I can understand your distinction between the acts of evil leaders and the principle of government you espouse. The question is: Are the acts anomalous, or are those acts the *result* of the principles you espouse?

My view is that they are the result of your principles.

I hope you can see that I also make a distinction between the legitimate actions/practices of the mafia in providing goods and services which, though possibly illegal, are not immoral, and the acts of mafia in coercion and the initiation of force for the extraction of resources (lives) from those that should rightly possess them.

In point of fact, I have no direct dealings with the mafia, and I have no intention of legitimizing anything they do. I can see that some of it is legitimate and some of it is not.

I simply do not see anything that government does as legitimate because I view the particular portion of what Jefferson wrote, and you referenced above, as contradictory. If there is something which government forces someone to do, they obviously do not consent. If there is something someone thinks they should do already, they do not need government help. The idea of consent to be coerced by government is self-contradictory.

Farmer, if I go into someone's home...

and they explain the rules they would like me to follow while in their home, and I consent to follow the rules, but later break the rules and am forcibly removed from the home, was not the use of force legititmate? In my opinion, this is analagous to voluntarily becoming a U.S. citizen, i.e., I consent to follow the rules, be subject to enforcement of the rules, and suffer the consequences if I violate the rules. And I'm free, at any time, to opt out by renouncing my U.S. citizenship.

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)

very poor analogy

I did not "come into someone's house." I did not voluntarily become a U.S. citizen. As the apostle Paul said, "I was born with it."

So what you're saying is nonsense. I did not, and do not, consent. Your "U.S. citizenship" is your own fantasy. I do not need to renounce it. I am connected to my land, this is *my* home, and woe to the tyrant who tries to remove me from it. Your popular Constitutional government means nothing to me. Your "renouncing" structure is just more of the same propaganda.

Unless...

The consent of the "governed" is contradictory unless the government is voluntary. And it is clear that Jefferson was a proponent of the notion that a government should be limited to the extent that if someone simply wants to be left alone, they should have that option. At least he said things in harmony with that idea. (He also said some things which probably are properly understood to contradict that idea.) Nevertheless, this is certainly a moral principle upon which the true revolution was founded. The "colonies" (i.e., some of the people in those colonies) claimed the right to be left alone.

Thus rules out involuntary taxation, by the way.

Some of those colonists like Alexander Hamilton who wrote most of the Federalist Papers (taking up your side) claimed the right to impose back on the colonies the same tyranny.

Actually, I'm not against "government" in that sense. I'm not even particularly enamored of the term "anarchy." But I am certainly an anti-federalist. And the anti-federalists were correct incidentally. They argued that the Constitution would end us up right where we are.

It's time to rekindle the revolution in the hearts and minds.

Farmer, from the beginning of my post...

and throughout all my comments, I've consistently advocated for limited govenrment, and against a strong central government. The Federalists advocated for a strong central government, which Jefferson opposed and so do I, so I'm certainly not a Federalist. Like me, Jefferson wanted strict adherence to the enumerated powers doctrine that limited the power of the central government and gave the states and individuals most of the decision making authority.

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)

Give me a break. You are a

Give me a break. You are a damn wannabe tyrant; and you dare compare yourself to Jefferson. He said

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg.
Thomas Jefferson

You do not believe that the only legitimate powers of government extend to physical acts against ones person. So, you should pedal your BS somewhere else.

Jefferson only truly tolerated the smallest possible government the people would accept at the time.

TLDR

Ron Paul wants the 50 states to decide their own rules and wants the big government out of everyone's business, he does not stand for anarchy. Things should be regulated BUT on a local instead of a global level, different states will have different ways of ruling let each state experiment and then states can compare which way is the better way to govern. Let each state decide has always been his motto. In anarchy there are no leaders and no authority.

Welcome to the anarcho-house of mirrors

Your the second of almost 450 comments that has stuck up for Ron Paul as someone who believes in limited government, rather than anarchy. I'm beginning to wonder if DP isn't just an anarchist play ground. I always liked RP's position on limited government but most of the people commenting here are anarchists who claim Ron Paul as one of their own. Glad to have you aboard as a fellow supporter of our country as it was founded.

http://www.standupforyourrights.me
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)

That's what I used to think too.

Now, I'm not so sure.

He's a voluntarist who thinks you can opt out of the society you live in while living under the umbrella of security it provides. That's called being a free loader, living in a free society while others pay your way.

Not all taxation is theft, that is if you're willing to pay to defend people's liberty. Some aren't, and consider that theft, but until we live in a world filled with perfect people who all agree on what a perfect world is, justice will be served.

Some just don't want to pay for it, and some can't win the debate when it comes to defining justice. They give up, throw up their hands and try to blame injustice on government rather than those who beat them in the debate.

Eventually they end up filling their time by calling people retards and idiots rather than winning the debate against all those "retards and idiots", imaging how they're going to opt out or destroy the people they hate.

It takes eternal vigilance, yet each of us is only afforded a short time to try. Is Ron Paul keeping the peace, serving justice, and defending liberty, or trying to opt out...

Like I said; I'm just not sure anymore.

Philosopher

You, sir, are a treasure.
I appreciate you and your anarchist buddies. This is an important issue.

Freedom Unites

Localboy, so now you're going to pretend...

not to be an anarchist so you can manufacture a phony dialogue that attempts to frame anarchists as kind, sincere seekers of truth, freedom and oops, anarcho-barbarism that frees Mexican drug cartels, and mafia organizations from the shackles of big bad gubbermint law enforcement? This should be good.

And don't forget "farmer". Yep, he's just a good ole boy, down to earth, just tryin to figer out a peaceful sustainable way to save the earth from the scourge of humanity. Hey farmer, just get your buddies at Black Water, or some other private mercenary group, to release some bio-weaponry into the water supplies of the world's largest cities, that should take care of a few billion of those people you consider human refuse. But don't kill too many so you run short of slaves to prop up your non-productive anarcho-welfare economy. Been fun chattin with yall. See ya tomorrow.

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

No, Mark

Hyperbole is not my cup of tea.....
Anarchist and Voluntaryism has value.
I need coalitions, do you ?

With those who oppose everything I represent?

I don't form coalitions with those who oppose everything I represent, peace, justice, and liberty, but I will try and help them, because if I was an Anarchist, that's what I would be praying for every night.

Do unto others as you'd have done to you, and as an Anarchist, I would be looking for someone to help me defend what I know to be right and good, to make sense of all the evil I see around me, and to do something about it without becoming part of that evil, and that's what justice is. Justice is not about declaring yourself another persons master or ruler. Justice is about defending liberty, not taking it.

I'll try and help them, but I WON'T let them say they're Libertarians, and to do so is like forming a coalition with a cancerous tumor. It does you nothing but harm unless it can be cured.

Yes localboy, I need coalitions and.....

no, my previous comment was not hyperbole. It was a literal description of your relationship with the anarchists that you now claim you're not one of.

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

anarcho-barbarism

ROFL Nice.

Anarcho-Barbarian: "That's a STRAW ARGUMENT!!! Quick somebody define that as a straw argument! He's killing us!"

You're killing Anarcho-Warlordism just fine all on your own. It's nice to see somebody with their eyes open.

FreedomsReigning, thanks for pointing out...

the correct terminology, i.e., I was saying anarcho-barbarianism and should've been saying anarcho-barbarism.

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)

There's one thing that makes me doubt...

the anarchists claim that their ideology is based on morals that oppose crimes like financial fraud, among others. It's that 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. And their mantra is to eliminate the gubbermint and let private markets run everything. So give this a little thought, if they show zero concern for holding private sector criminals accountable now, why would they care about limiting crime in an anarchist society? Answer. They obviously wouldn't. They are sociopathic liars and will say anything to promote anarcho-barbarianism.

Here are some examples of crime that one might think a moral, upstanding, law abiding anarchist schitizen would care about. The first link is Neil Barofsky, Inspector General of TARP saying "fraud" by the nine largest banks caused the financial crisis. The second link is William Black, 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 interview, he lays out compelling evidence for criminal prosecution 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.

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

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

.

"if they show zero concern for holding private sector criminals accountable now..."

And we're the liars?

I have brought up the example of Haliburton destroying the lives of people by pumping dangerous chemicals under pressure into the ground until it destroys the wells---and thereby the lives of those who depend on those wells. I have brought up this example several times on this very forum.

Now the details of how dependent these people are on their wells, I do not know, but I know how dependent I am on my well, and I know the response/structure I would like in place if they did that to me. It's simple:

I would like one individual who was responsible, and I would like a responsible community around me that would back me up when I found that individual and killed him, or that would help me in the necessary action.

Put another way, I would not like it if someone took it upon themselves to destroy my well, and thereby agress against my life by pumping dangerous chemicals into the ground under pressure.

But you prefer to have a government created and protected entity: Haliburton. And let's see, what can I do (what can those people do who are affected by this)? They can pay their taxes for the government to hire an army of academics (I know of specific postdocs who are employed for this very purpose) to figure out better ways for Haliburton to carry on their destructive antisocial behavior. And there's no single person responsible. In fact, there's *limited liability.* Do you even know what that means? It means the government is there to provide enforcement to shield these entities in their actions which destroy the lives of others.

I don't know what else to say. If you can't open your eyes on this kind of corporate crime, and you don't care to do anything about it, I don't think you have much ground to stand on and point a finger at me.

Bringing up Halliburton is one thing...

demanding accountability is another, which I've not heard from you or any other anarchist. But not only do anarchists refuse to demand accountability for private sector criminals, they NEVER demand prosecution of the criminals who run the evil government they claim to despise. Hmmm?

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

Not listening?

I said I would *kill* a person who did such a thing to my well. Do you understand the words I am using. That is accountability. That is prosecution. That is justice, and it is prevented (as almost all forms of justice) by government.

Yes. I demand prosecution. Now are you willing to get your government out of the way so I can have it?

Appearently you do not

Appearently you do not realize that under Voluntaryism Halliburton would never have gotten the special treatment that it got from Government. Hell, Halliburton would have had a damn hard time staying in existence without the force of government keeping other businesses out from competing with Halliburton.

Anarchy

On this thread it appears we have a choice....we are either an immoral Statist or a believer in a concept a common man cant talk about.

I will ask again of the advocates of anarchy.....
Does an anarchist society believe in contracts and if so how is it enforced ?

I did get one response that basically suggested a contract is worhtless and powerless, one has no moral obligation to honor his word.....this cant be right. Any humbled anarchist out there that might take a few minutes to defend what they believe instead of attacking those who dont ?

Always willing...

I'm not planning to attack you, but it seems like you've got quite a chip in your shoulder there.

In my view, we would do well to introduce greater familiarity into society. I understand that, as argued by Hayek, the level of wealth modern society has generated is partially due to the shift toward providing services and having interactions with unknown people instead of known people. But I think this is one of the main shortcomings of economists. They have decided that the ultimate objective is "maximum production." And part of the problem is that people don't agree on the definition of maximum production. But if you can set that aside for a moment, and allow that sustainability, community, and health are higher goals than any notion of maximum production, then the stability and other benefits which come from known interactions become very attractive.

How does that relate to contracts? In this way: My view is generally that I only wish to consent to contracts with those I trust. That is to say I trust their word. In my community, I view it as my responsibility to interact and make agreements with parties who have proven themselves trustworthy. I do not expect any outside entity to help me in this regard. Of course, I have to find some things out by experimentation, and I have to expect to get burned sometimes. That's part of the responsibility of life.

Even with "contracts" and all that BS in place, I still get burned. Just drive an old car and have someone wreck it. It would be reasonable to have the car fixed, but the insurance company with their contract in hand is going to total it, and I'm stuck having to either fix it mostly on my own nickel or figure out a way to purchase a vehicle that is 30 times the cost. (Thirty times the cost!) It has happened to me. What's my view? 1. It's my responsibility for being on the road in a dangerous situation. I've taken my life in my hands without regard to sustainability, community, and health. 2. The BS system we have in place which is involuntarily forced on this society is counterproductive and of no use to me.

Now I understand that we have been born and raised in this counterproductive and insane system. But the great question is not how to justify it, if one is honest, but how to find something better---and especially for future generations.

There could, of course, be many helpful (voluntary) structures to help in the natural responsibility of determining viable partners for "anarchist contracts," i.e., contracts which do not rely on a coercive state for enforcement---rating systems with competition for example. And there are lots of others, but they're not so common because people trust what we've got. When they actually experience the outcomes from what we've got, they almost universally complain. But they don't usually see how to improve the situation. Taking personal responsibility is, I think, one way.

And speaking more broadly, you are welcome to set up any kind of "enforcement" you might want, as long as you leave me the opportunity to opt out.

I think one problem with those who oppose voluntarism is that they can't get their mind around anything that does not dominate and permeate everything in a society. They require some sort of absolute monopoly thinking it's going to help. I don't think it helps. Life involves risks. You need to develop relationships with people you can trust.

There's already lots of "anarchist contracts" in play so

there's no need to pretend it's a great mystery how they're enforced. Just look at how Mexican drug cartels, Russian mafia, Italian mafia, etc. handle their contracts. Assassination, torture, extortion, and maybe even a little, do I dare say it around tenderhearted anarchists, COERCION. That's right "anarchist contracts" have been around for millenia, so let's quit the BS and call it what it is, organized crime.

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)

The reason those forms of

The reason those forms of contracts exist -and dare I say those institutions themselves- is due ot government. That's right; I said it. The Mobs and Cartels are a direct result of the existence of government; and the enforcement of those contracts is also a result of the existence of government. Don't play dumb.

An illegal business can't utilize private arbitors for contract disputes; can they? No. Why? Because they are illegal businesses. Why are they illegal businesses? Because the government decided to outlaw plants and products made from plants. Yes, that's right; your small government is outlawing nature itself. That is like trying to out-rank God. This should infuriate you; unless you don't actually believe in God, that is.

The only BS is the fact that the biggest gang of organized criminals is government, and you try and push it onto everybody else.

I don't like organized crime of any nature; especially the organized gang of criminals which creates the rest of the criminals. If one thinks about it; the only thing which government does create is criminals.