-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.

You have NO IDEA what you're talking about Anarchist.

"The Mobs and Cartels are a direct result of the existence of government"

You have NO IDEA what you're talking about. Mobs and Cartels is ALL you're going get in Anarchy. You oppose the very idea of anything else. Where are you going to get your justice, and remember, it can't sound anything like government. "Evil Governments" and "Statists" are only capable of taking liberty, not defending it right?

It's hard to run a mob or a cartel when you require the consent of it's members, when those members set that mobs mission to defending liberty and serving justice. A mob decides it's own mission and uses collective violence to pursue that mission; extortion, predation, and dominion.

Mobs and cartels will have a field day in Anarchy, and it won't matter one iota that you or your neighbors decide to oppose them. They operate in darkness, and tempting peoples covetous nature in the dark will allow them to fill their ranks with people ready to stomp you out like the subhumans and cowards they see you as.

They won't care that you cry about it. They won't care that everyone knows it's unjust. That's why they need darkness. That's what you want to use to enforce contracts with, and to do it in dark with your own hired goons, because you ultimately want to serve injustice and can't defend your ideas in the light of day. You want to be a mob boss running a cartel with hired goons don't ya?

Want contract law? Opps... Sorry, no law for you Anarchist.

Laws are about ruling you and serving injustice; right? Laws would mean government and deciding who writes those laws. Government would mean deciding what objective those laws serve.

An Anarchists justice comes from mobs, cartels, and warlords. An Anarchists justice comes from gangland government.

You serve one law Anarchist, and that's the law of the jungle, that the strong survive, that the weak will serve the strong, and be fed upon in the dark.

It is funny taht you say that

It is funny taht you say that it is me who wants to be a mob boss, when it is you who have admitted to wanting to control what other people can do.

Sorry, but you have no historical perspective where the mobs came from, nor why they exist. Everything the mob does to make money, was at one time legal; It was only with the government making such things illegal that mobs and cartels were formed. The mobs and cartels which formed out of the illegality had to utilize some form of justice, and since their business itslef was illegal they couldn't exactly turn to the police and courts; now could they?

If voluntaryism is so henous and mobs would form out of it, then why when drugs, alcohol, prostituion, gabling, and other things were legal, there were no mobs? Let alone some monsterous monopolistc tyranical mob killing people in the streets.

There is a saying: the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist. The way I see it it should be stated: the greatest trick that government ever pulled was convincing the general public that it(government) was needed.

Speaking of playing dumb

Your saying that organized crime, and crime in general, exists only because there are laws against it. Right? So if we would just be a bunch of wise guys and get rid of the big bad gubbermint, and get rid of all those silly laws that gubbermint enforces, there would be no crime. Right? All the assassinations, torture, extortion, etc. would all be "legal" in an anarcho-barbarian "free" market. It's no wonder so many people are demanding anarcho-barbarianism. What a wonderful world it would be. Now if you just click your magic red shoes together, you'll wake up in anarcho-Kansans and that mean Wizard of Oz who ran the big bad gubbermint will just be a bad dream.


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

You certainly got the playing

You certainly got the playing dumb thing down pat; well, I hope your only playing.

If I had crack on my person; who is that hurting? If you answered nobody, then you would be correct. So, then might I ask what gives you the authority to outlaw something which isn't hurting anybody?

What about if I had a handgun? Who is that in-of-itself hurting? If you answered nobody, you would correct. So, what gives you the authority to outlaw that which is not violating your rights?

The organize crime started mainly when gambling became illegal. How does your neighbor gambling infringe on your rights? It doesn't; so what gives you the authority to outlaw that which doesn't violate your rights?

Organized crime, then got bigger, when the Government began outlawing drugs and then alcohol. How does your neighbor drinking alcohol infringe on your rights? It doesn't; so what gives you the authority to outlaw that which doesn't infringe upon your rights?

The funny thing about the business of the Mobs and the Cartels is that most of their money is made because the federal or State government banned or outlawed that which they had no authority to do so by either the Federal or State Constitutions. Neither the US Constitution nor any of the State Constitutions authorize either of those governments to be able to outlaw drugs, alcohol, gambling, prostituion, or many other things. Something tells me, you wouldn't like a society where the government adheared to the Constitutions.

As far as the Financial situations such as the S&L and the current situation; those institutions couldn't have existed the way they were or are, because for those institutions to be structured the way they were/are and to be operating without regard for consequences, was do to the fact that most of them are -by goverment saction- unable to face the consequences of their actions.

You keep trying to take our current system and just remove government and say that is how it will be. The people would have to determine if they want to do business with an individual or a company. I know that is just so much responsibility for one person, and the government should just do it; like they have been doing it, because that hasn't caused any problems. People will have to learn that if you leave someone else in charge of your money, the potential for it disappearing is higher than if the individual him/herself looked after it.

Musicians learned this; several of the most popular musicians and bands ended up poor because their financial manager stole the money. There was nothing the government could do to get it back; because the musician or band didn't read the contract and basically gave away the rights to their money. People will continue to try and steal; the government making a law doesn't stop this nor does it even deter it.

There you go again...

defending the Mob but condemning the big bad gubbermint. Because of course, Mob families are so much more moral, decent, and upstanding compared to average citizens who support that horror called limited government and the rule of law.

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

I could have given Al Capone

"I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents." -Smedley Butler

The anarchists love that quote

So Al Capone and Smedley Butler are anarchist heros, that pretty much sums up the "moral" code anarchists claim would guide their anarcho-world from hell. Nice people, and all this time, in hundreds of comments, the anarchists claimed the morals underlying civil society were the same that would guide anarcho-barbarianism. And I don't hear any anarchists saying Al Capone and Snidley Whiplash aren't their models for "moral" behavior.

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

The point being, is: Smedley

The point being, is: Smedley Butler Government Agent(USMC) would be able to tell Al Capone how best to do what Al Capone does; meaning that government is better at being mobsters then the commonly thought of mobsters of the time.

plus one

I don't vote much either up or down---almost not at all, but I gave you +1. You're right:

government = organized crime (+ the myth of "authority" to make matters worse)

Read: "The Most Dangerous Superstition" by Larken Rose

In all fairness

That is crime, mankind acting without moral standing.
We find that avarice in all forms of government, non government or anything else we call it. That is a human condition.

Consider this - one human condition is pedophilia....like this Sandusky guy from Penn State. We can find perverts like this in all cultures, as well as members of a collective covering it up for so called rational reasons. Whats the problem here, Mark....the perverts human kind is stuck with or the collectives that cover it up ?

We must admit our Constitutional government has done little to stop institutional coverup, yet the anarchist dont get a pass on this one either.

Humans are diverse, some are just plain evil. All systems must deal with this......

That's what you gotta love about localboy...

he's all about fairness. Awww, kinda gives you that warm fuzzy feeling.

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


farmer, it appears you suggested in an anarchist system if a contract is defaulted on, oh well.....so in other words the are no contracts and no way to enforce one anyway. Did I miss that ?
Does anarchy confine itself to an agrarian society ? Or will they trade with the nation States next door and not care if contracts are fulfilled ? How will the anarchist find a Statist they can trust ?

Chip and I

Ask and Ye shall receive....I ask for a humbled anarchist and POOF, here you are. I am confident if you studied the entirety of this thread you would see my chip shrinking....I'll leave it in your hands.

Ratings systems is a form of self governance, is it not. As is the majority of the well articulated points in your post. But it is still a form of government with rules and consequences. It is a small city state, a community. It is local, not central. It is, if applied to the US the makings of a confederacy. Unless you have an idea of how an economic powerhouse can defend itself from tyrannical government the world over, with no taxes and no unifying leadership. Our founders faced this problem and like today, their world was full of empires and tyrannies.

Furthermore, the majority of your arguments are related to the current US monetary system and the private corporations corrupting the corruptible. How does an anarchist system stop collectives from forming and using your Non Aggression Zone as a base to plunder and pillage others around the world the way Wall Street has done with our utopia ?

I have plenty of honest relationships, but thanks for the advice anyways.....


Nicely done farmer :)

I'm reaching up and reaching out.
I'm reaching for the random or what ever will bewilder me.
And following our will and wind we may just go where no one's been.
We'll ride the spiral to the end and may just go where no one's been.
Spiral out.


I know I'm rambling, but one further illustration came to mind. (And at least Richelle doesn't seem to mind yet.)

I had a discussion with a young lady once who wanted to get married. After intuiting some of my views on the subject, she emphasized that if she got married and had children she would want "the law for protection."

I didn't say much at the time, but it occurred to me later that, in view of the court system we have and the "help" it could offer me in this regard, if I was going to marry someone and I was counting on that kind of help, I would be much better to not marry. I would want to find someone I trust enough such that any such help would be irrelevant.

Of course marriage is an extreme example. In principle, lots of things can change and go wrong. But for precisely that reason, the level of knowledge, trust, community, commitment or *something* has to be significant and strong. How can anyone go into something like that relying on the state to "help?" That's my view.

And likewise, how can anyone go into life with the view that they plan to proceed relying on the assistance of the state?


You're not rambling at all. You bring up important points that everyone interested in the cause of liberty ought to consider and that I, personally, will never tire of hearing.

At some point people will have to start questioning if the apparatus of government, in and of itself, leads to individuals shirking their moral accountability to one another. If we make decisions based on the thinking that some outside monopolistic force will make things right in the end we lose the moral imperative to do the right thing in the beginning.

I'm reaching up and reaching out.
I'm reaching for the random or what ever will bewilder me.
And following our will and wind we may just go where no one's been.
We'll ride the spiral to the end and may just go where no one's been.
Spiral out.

I appreciate you

Please, ramble on, I appreciate your views.....
Not your assertions of myself but your views on governance.

Marriage is either an act of State or an act of church. Otherwise is an anarchist system the contract can be voided without threat of consequence.

History says church's record of preserving individual liberty has a little to be desired, almost as bad as governments.

I am married, by consent of my State, and have been for over 25 years....I rely on and expect little. I get that point, we agree in the concepts of personal responsibility. I just cant see anarchy in a nation of 300 million sheep being nothing but chaos and destruction. I get its a goal, just dont see how people clamor on like it is obtainable.Not for another 5 generations....if we stopped this madness now. Which we wont.
In the mean time under a restrained authority the anarchist could at least sample their ideas in small towns and counties.....but that would require some sort of alliance with Statist. Most advocates of anarchy dont seem to go for that, building coalitions with immoral Statist.

This guy is an Ayn Rand Objectvist

It funny that he is declaring the “Rights from God” because Ayn Rand was a Antitheist..... but that beside the point. I just want to know. How much of existing government would you repeal? How far would you roll government back? Where your point…..state where you think limited government ends and fascism begins?........Where do you think limited government begins?

And Alan Greespan was an Ayn Rand disciple

And aren't some anarchists Ayn Rand disciples. Do you see where I'm going here? Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve, and anarchists, have much more in common then they would like us to believe. Ayn Rand was at Greenspan's swearing in when he first became Fed chairman. And Greenspan speaks of his devotion to Ayn Rand's ideology in his memoirs.

You can watch footage of Ayn Rand at Greenspan's swearing in and see portions of text from his memoirs in the following video. The video also talks about Greenspan being ideologically opposed to regulating financial fraud, and look where we're at today. We have an economy on the verge of collapse, just what the anarchists are calling for, so their criminal friends at the Fed can implement anarcho-barbarianism and "rule" the world. Here's the link to the video. It's called "The Warning". It should be called "Warning, Anarcho-Barbarianism on the Rise"


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

You’re using Mr. McGoo as your example

You really don’t have a clue as to what you are talking about do you? Greenspan was an advocate for the gold standard until he became the “chairman”. Greenspan and Rand were elitist. Greenspan hide behind “deregulation” all they while knowing the Federal Reserve System was a Cartel……Greenspan was a criminal.

But you didn’t answer any of my questions……so I will repeat them once again and maybe you can reach between your legs and step up and answer the question rather than hide behind your attacks as a shield of ignorance.

1)How much of existing government would you repeal?
2)How far would you roll government back?
3)Where your point…..state where you think limited government ends and fascism begins?
4)Where do you think limited government begins?

You said it yourself, Greenspan is a criminal and...

the same can be said for Bernanke and bipartisan insiders who know the game plan and go along. How do you propose to limit a fascist government run by criminals? My first priority is law enforcement. Clean out the top criminals in the public and private sectors by starting with charges of treason.

Initially, Bradley Manning was facing charges of "aiding the enemy", which carried a death sentence. And there is compelling evidence that business and political leaders are doing just that. Want proof? It will take you five minutes to read the following comment, and another forty minutes to watch all the video links. And the links are not just some youtube conspiracy junk. They present actionable evidence of treason that could lock up CEO's and bipartisan leaders. That's how I propose to begin limiting a fascist government.


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

You are under the illusion

that if we just replace the so called “leaders” (criminals) with “Leaders” of your choosing that everything will be ok, when in reality the “leaders” are not the master of your slavery but you yourself are by way of vague laws of the Constitution.
You need to take a deep breath from your perch and read some books……..not everything comes in a video on Youtube. We will start with a short little book called Hamilton’s Curse, then if you really would like to know the history of this country read Murray Rothabrd’s History of Banking and Money or his masterpiece Conceived in Liberty. You see you don’t really want liberty……..you just want to impose your version of Liberty on the rest of us…….because we just aren’t as smart as you……boy you need to wake up…..you are an elitist.
So for the third time I will ask the questions
1. How much of existing government would you repeal?
2. How far would you roll government back?
3. Where's your point…..state where you think limited government ends and fascism begins?
4. Where do you think limited government begins?

Answer the questions so we can start the a real conversation
because right now your just trying to impress everyone with how smart YOU THINK you are.

For those serious about limiting....

fascist government, check out the sections titled "American and Chinese Communism, a Partnership" and "Closing the Loop on Terrorism". The can be found in the pdf file "Knowledge is Power". Here's the link to the pdf.


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 it again, They

You said it again,

They present actionable evidence of treason that could lock up CEO's and bipartisan leaders.

I'll ask you once again -even though you don't like answering questions which we all know the answer to- why aren't they being locked-up or even tried for that matter?

If there is so much evidence -which I do not doubt for one moment- then why are they not in prison?

You know as well as I do, exactly why they aren't in prison and never will be going to prison.

Also, your Justice system is a closed system including the politicians; none of them will ever do anything of significance to jeapardize the entire system or -most certainly not- themselves for that matter.

I know you want the criminal leaders to go...

untouched to continue preparing the way for anarcho-barbarianism. I get it. But some of us will not roll over just because you think we should. It doesn't matter if I'm the only one on the planet who thinks we have a chance to put the top criminals away. Why? It's a matter of principle. But there is one thing you and your criminal leaders may regret overlooking, and that would be zeitgeist, i.e., there is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come.


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

Obviously you have just as

Obviously you have just as much if not more in common with Greenspan than most anarchists, if you're an Ayn Rand disciple. While it is true that some anarchists are fond of Ayn Rand, I wouldn't consider them deciples of hers. You dislike Rothbard and are a deciple of Ayn Rand, and you worship at the alter of government, you sound just like Alan Greenspan.

Unlike anarchists, I spend a lot of my free time...

working to put people like Greenspan in jail. And my posts and writing prove it. Maybe you should check out my DP post "Obama, Wall Street, and the Federal Reserve, a Fascist Regime". Here's the link:


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

How many of the real

How many of the real criminals like Greenspan has your government put in jail. your government system created the conditions for Madoff to exist and didn't investigate him when they were notified of his acts in the 1990's. Government doesn't work for the individual people.

And your system of anarcho-barbarianism...

would just eliminate law enforcement so like magic, there would be no crime. Lots of indiscriminate killing, torture, exortion, slavery, etc., but no crime. SHAZAM! Golly gee Gomer, isn't that great. Wally go tell the Beaver, no more crime.

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

Your government has killed,

Your government has killed, tortured, extorted, and enslaved more people then all of the otherwise identified criminals put together. So, I got it; we need government.