Is Ron Paul an anarchist? I don't think so, but...
Submitted by Mark Hanson on Thu, 02/28/2013 - 16:23Is 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
How many....
How many of those Greenspan dollars did you use ?
Well, considering that at the
Well, considering that at the time nobody would pay me in silver, and nobody would accept payment in anything but Dollars(FRNs); I suppose I used quite a few. However, I would note that it was entirely under duress. I had no choice in the matter, due to -you guessed it, I'm sure- government. Since the government made the funny money -known as Federal Reserve Notes or Dollars- Legal Tender, very few people would except much else. However, that is changing and it couldn't happen soon enough.
Need help from the anarchists to understand this
If all governments are doomed to failure, then why are corporations so successful? Many corporations are richer than many nations. They have a charter, their shareholders elect a Board of Directors, who elect a CEO and a President and Vice-President, who appoint officers. If an anarchist holds that governments should be banned, then does an anarchist also hold that corporations should be banned?
Symbiotic
Without a State there would be no corporations. Without an unjust State there would not be corporations that can dominate others.
The government created the corporations that corrupt the government.
Basically; yes. Governments
Basically; yes. Governments sanction the corporations via decree or law. The government -via bribes or infiltration- influence the government to write favorable laws and regulations to limit the number of competitive corporations could exist.
It was the government which sanctioned the LLC, was it not? This is similar -but on a much smaller scale than a traditional corporation- it is similar in the fact that it is a Limited Liability Company; meaning insomuch that the company can only be sued for a limited amount of money and the owner cannot be sued. Without the government to create this special class of business, then if the business would have done something horendous, the company and the owner could have been sued out of existence. The businesses are protected by the government. This is similar to the protection of the Corporations; in the sense that not only can the Corporation only be sued for a limited amount, but the operators -CEO, CFO, COO, etc- cannot be sued and the Board Of Directors cannot be sued for any wrong doing of the corporation. This can only happen with a government explicitly protecting these entities.
Sure
Me and you agree we have a terrible system, we agree Wall Street is a function of government. We agree government is a thief magnet.....but that is not the point.
In what court, under what authority, is this corporation going to get sued out of existence......when you have NO form of government ?
How does a private arbitrator get the authority to remedy civil cases ?
Is there some sort of implied consent when a person enters into an anarchist zone or is their some sort of requirement to have private insurance, remedy, to enter ?
It will obviously depend, on
It will obviously depend, on a number of different things. Some towns may have a private arbitrator as natural course. Some businesses would probably have a contract with one or more arbitrators for dealing with individuals and other businesses. Some individuals, may decide they want a private arbitrator on retainer.
Yes it will be up to the individual to ensure that things are to their likeing or the individual risks the possiblity of being scammed. Just like when you look for a builder or roofer or something, you make sure they are bonded and insured.
It really wouldn't be that different. You may be thinkin gof other kinds of businesses, say an electric company. Electric companies are heavily vested in the existence of government -especially Nuclear Plants. Without the government, prices would come down on some forms of energy while they may sky rocket on others. There are already several different independient labs working on small-scale energy generating systems for 3rd world countries. Those very same small scale facilities or units could be utilized in villages, towns, or even for individual buildings. Thereby, cutting the dependency of the energy conglomerate and the government which the company is dependent on.
Internet would be a unique solution. Currently it appears that it would be a nearly infinite series of ad-hoc mesh networks. This would have been a natural way for the Universities to have developed it in the first place -had the design not been for government systems.
Also, satellites will become cheaper and geting things into space would no longer be regulated; so it is quite possible that there would be several communications satellites explicitely for the interent itself.
There are countless possibilities on how a completely free market would hand such things. It realy depends on where we are technologically when the collapse happens. Obviously, the solutions we would have today are different then if we were living in the 1920's; and so whatever we conceve as solutions today might be overshadowed by better solutions tomorrow.
I can appreciate your picture
I like your story.
It appears this anarchy you advocate is a conglomeration of city states, each creating their own form of self governance.
I can see in your picture how a man may travel from one city to another and on the borders of each one would be posted the rules of area......
Seems as time goes by these little communities would thrive economically and begin to pose a threat to the nation state next door. How would these small communities of productive freemen defend themselves from nation states stealing an army, etc.....
Would they eventually gang up under security agreements that would require funding ? If so could we call it the United Nations of small anarchist States confederating for common security.......Just kidding
While I wouldn't call it a
While I wouldn't call it a series of Nation States; the point is, it very well could end-up that way. Maybe NYC would become a City State -I doubt it due the amount of debt they currently have- or LA. Anything is possible.
I do not believe that we would have ot worry about any single or multiple Nation States attacking a single Nation State -if that is what they decided to create- because why would they and how would they. Most large scale attacks would leave the loot -in most instances- destroyed or in a negative state whereby it would cost more to take it by war and utilize it then then it would have cost to just buy it.
Also, there is a reason that nobody attacks Switzerland; and it has nothing to do with the UN or NATO. What Switzerland has of value would need to be exctracted by people, which meens that there wouldn't be the heavy utilization of bombs. The swiss people are very heavily armed, therefore any land campaign to take Switzerland will neccessarily fail due to this.
The people -as individual, not just as a collective- are going ot have to take responsibility for their lives and their other 'rights.' Even in a limited government scenario, this is going ot have to be a main tennet; the government cannot protect everybody -or even a majority of the people- and still maintain a small size and small tax burden.
I would hope that if there is one thing we could agree on it would be that people do have to start looking to themselves and their family, friends, and neighbors for help rather than the government. The government cannot be all things to all people; so to prevent a conflict from arising, it(government) shouldn't be anything to anybody.
Philosopher....
You would be surprised as to how much we agree.
But, I work in shadows as the lone wolf and you sley dragons.
I also intend to leave my posterity a fighting chance, not use them as fodder for MY revolution. Self reliance is not monopolized by the anarchist, nor can reach my goals without building coalitions, can you ?
Where is Mark and what does the official record look like now......
I respect your community, but defend the locals first.
I shall always be pushing for
I shall always be pushing for freedom; if in the course of these events I shall so happen to stumble upon those traveling an indentical path, but with a much shorter destination it would behoove me to align myself with such a person or persons and take the alliance as far as their final destination before I departed once again on my way towards the prospects of ever greater bastions of freedom.
We once traveled together....
We traveled once, I stopped at Indiana and you went a little further out. We meet again more than two hundred years later.
Without the existence of a
Without the existence of a State to limit competion for the corporations, then the corporations would never get nearly as large as they currently are.
Corporations need not be banned; because they couldn't exist without government to make -artificially via violence and force- favorable conditions for the corporations to exist.
It currently costs about $1 million dollars to make a legal moonshine business -due to rules and regulations imposed by the government. Costs are similar for other hard alcohol businesses as well. If those costs didn't exist, then it is logical to posit that there would be more alcohol businesses then there currently are. This would create greater compitition, which would inturn bring the cost down and the quality would have to go higher or one would risk closing-up shop, because compitition would create higher quality products in search of greater profits.
That's the theory.
And in a free market you are right. However, lay on top of what you said that corporations are LEGAL people. Of course, they are not in fact people, but they are LEGALLY people and have the rights of a person.
Think through that. It can live forever in theory with the rights of a person at law.
The Corporations are LEGAL
The Corporations are LEGAL people because your government made them that way. Without the government to uphold that status, then corporations are no longer LEGAL people.
Also, it is not just theory. Look into this. You don't have to take Rothbards word for it; you can do your own independent research into this matter. Obviously, it is easier if you live in Pennsylvania; but none-the-less, the information does exist.
Penn's land
It had government, it had aggression against freedoms and it squatted on the lands of Penn......It lasted less than 100 years and had its own problems.
They did purchases lands, voluntarily, with the natives and create a benevolent, collectivist society with an absence of a formal central government.....electing instead for local governments that were ordained to use force and coercion against its people.
Is that it, the anarchist model for a nation of 300 million sheep ?
Seems to me anarchy is neither ideologically pure or without avarice, and are by nature collectives.
When you read the article
When you read the article then you can come back and ask questions. From what you have stated in your comment I know you haven't read it. You really should learn some actual history, but if you are satisfied with the MSM version of events then that is your choice.
Dodge and strawman
Nice dodge and straw man excuse.
Was any of this anarchy done on Penns land ?
Did they have local crimes based on religion ?
Was force used by the local councils ?
I could be wrong but it not appear to meet the criteria for anarchy as described on this thread.
Of course, I will now go back to my original post....anarchy results after tyrannical governments are ousted and dont last long, they are the foundation of self government.
But hey, why let facts get in the way of a good inquisition.....
Anarchy is local........
Seems to me what is being advocated would best summed up as microanarchism......
Why don't you read the
Why don't you read the article? Are you afraid of something? Why would you debate the points of an article which you didn't read? I cannot reply to you on this matter because you are making accusations of a situation which wasn't happening at the time.
Either read the article or don't, but you cannot say that anarchy leads to government, when the best case shows that it was tyranny which enslaved and anarchist people to impose tyranny(government) on them.
How long you been beating your dog....
Fan of Rothbard and his history lessons.
As to your response, which I appreciate, it is proven that anarchy leads to government. Unless you have an anarchist system thats been around for more than 245 years.History is filled with anarchist, and derivatives of it. None last long and all ends with government. But few has ended with a government as restrained as our was, as our anarchist had a better moral base than most.
I dont profess to know all, do you know of any anarchist societies that have not ended in government and was able to sustain itself over the long haul ?
The modern US society is nowhere near ready for anarchy. The anarchist only hope is a total destruction of society or using force to instill anarchy in the US. Of course they could work with the "Statist"....but thats not an option. Even though Rothbards Quakers did just that.
You do realize that the story
You do realize that the story of William Penn is evidence on why there should be no government; don't you?
Probably the most anti-statist person in England at the time gets a large amount of land to create his society, and once there becomes a tyrant. The people refuse to collect his taxes for him or rule over the other inhabitants, so the good wannabe tyrant turns to the tyrannical government -which he condemed for years- to force the people to do as he said.
Also, I shall say it again; it wasn't do to the society itself that the anarchist experiment in Pennsylvania ended. It is not like it got so bad that there was blood in the streets and death everywhere. That type of stuff which you are afraid of isn't what caused it to end. It was due to a wannabe dictator and a loving tyrannical government willing to kill people to force its will on people, which caused it to end.
Calling that BS
"It is not like it got so bad that there was blood in the streets and death everywhere. That type of stuff which you are afraid of isn't what caused it to end"
I have never suggested anything of the sort nor have I expressed fear of anarchy, total BS
Read the post....strawman
I still believe that you,
I still believe that you, like many others, are afraid of what you think would happen were there to be zero government.
I still
I still know the truth. If you saw my life, my acts and understood the sacrifices I have made you would sing a different tune. I am the lone wolf.......
LocalBoy is not my God given name.......
Who in our history demanded local ?
Two points and you win
1) The society could not protect itself from nation states. Do you believe if left alone it would still exist ? Anarchy has flaws, one is the human race.
2) Yes, Penns land obtained through contract with a tyrannical king and his empire. Yes, a strong example of self government....with a small sample size. By a people who had a recent history of severe restraint and a strong moral base. Hardly wealthy in the big picture. Wealth as me and would relate but hardly the wealth required to sustain a large diverse society with open borders.
As I recall Rothbard participated in the American system, as well as Spooner. Both paid lip service to our Constitution and advocated fidelity. Especially Spooner
Spooner also advocated for war, albeit not the one we got.
It is quite possible for that
It is quite possible for that society to be still in existence today had it not been for Penn getting the King of England involved.
The reason I believe this is because Pennsylvania due to its very nature of being was a different kind of place. Even whith Penn's taxes -which would be considered rediculously low, by today's stadards- Philadelphia was the merchants place. It has been said that Philadelphia had everything which was available from both the old world and the new world. Philadelphia also had the first stockmarket. The prices of goods and services where adjusted regularly as needed. Things functioned. Yes, Pennsylvania also had the first Prison. But it also had the first of many other things -which did unfortunately utilize the government to minimize the time it would take to acquire the funds needed. However, and this is in no way acquiesce to idea of the involvement of government in these matters, but unlike today, the government involvement really was just in the begining to get the project started. Afterwards they would operate entirely by their own ability to generate resources; these things included: a University, The First Hospital(in the New World), the First Zoo(in the New World), Library, and Bank. The bank was the only thing which constatnly maintained State involvement.
None-the-less, the people at the time were merchants and farmers of a different breed. If you look into the early Pennsylvanian argricultural methods, they were the rebels of their day; and they were dispized for it. Ben Franklin eventually using his influence changed it to a more modern style; which is funny because the newer "in" thing is the old style that the Pennsylvanians were utilizing back then; because the industrail method of farming including -mono-crop farming- are depleating the nutrients out of the soil and are extremely expensive to maintain year after year.
I do believe that with their unique method of farming and the "free-market" spirit that many of the people had back then that they would have shaped the New World much differently. The only reason Philadelphia lost the stature of being the financial capital of the New World was because England dumpt large amounts of money into New York City. NYC seemed to be the darling of England from the very begining. They sunk so much money into -their centraly planned city- that when Philadelphia started surpasing it; the Brits sunk more money into it. Then as time when on, being supported by the Bank of England, NYC continued to draw wealthy people to it; and with some laws being implemented in Philadelphia making business slightly more difficult, NYC was able to maintain it's supposed financial superiority.
I think that hadn't Penn got England involved at that time, Pennsylvania may have been involved with a war with England much earlier than the American Revolution. Not sure if any of the other Colonies would have helped at all, but they would have all bared witness to what would happen to them if they ever tried to be their own rulers. This may have even prevented the American Revolution from every happening; or it may have incuraged it to happen that much earlier. There is more than one reason that the Continental Congress was in Philadelphia. The most common reason was that it was nearly equal distance between the two farthest places of the colonies. The other reason was that Philadelphia and Pennsylvaina had less british involvement and less british quartered there; due to the nature of the contract/deal between England and William Penn. It was therefore a safer place to chart their own destiny even before talks of revolution.
With all of the things going for it(Philadelphia and Pennsylvania) I do think that it would have worked out. I believe that the prosperity difference between the different places would have caused more towns and cities to function more like the anarchism of Pennsylvania at the time; and this would have put serious pressure on England. England would have over-reacted and eventually they would have failed even worse than they did.
Who knows....
Good points....I think you are being fair with this summary in that you recognize this idea has problems. Not so much from those who volunteer for this style but from those on the outside.
I would think the anarchist would build coalitions with restrained government advocates. Seems as though that was an important ingredient to the Pennsylvania experiment.
I live in Indiana and see religious anarchist fitting in. They dont have the purity they seek but have enough to prove their system viable.
Seems like a better way than calling out all advocates of restrained government as supporting tyranny. It is my view we need each other, but at the end of the day one cant win without the other. The US is too big for anarchy, in my view. Only the Constitutionalists will give you your own area to experiment with your philosophy........In my View
For What Its Worth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gp5JCrSXkJY&list=FLUCPaIm7u7-...
Which is it
Without a State there would be no corporations.....
Without a State how would the anarchist enforce contracts ?
There's compelling evidence demonstrating....
Wall Street crimes that have not been prosecuted, and I'll provide some links below. The one thing that makes me doubt the anarchist claim that their ideology is based on morals that preclude 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.
The first link is Neil Barofsky, the 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.
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
And to all moral, upstanding, law abiding anarchist citizens, don't worry, I will put this comment in my post, word for word.
http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.standupforyourrights.me/?p=1264 (Resist gun control)
just sayin
Asking the same question over and over will get you the same answer over and over...
The government has enabled those wallstreet cats to the tune of trillions.