-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.

Yes, free bird

And the apathetic people allowed it to happen.
Most not only allowed it but willingly took the loot and stood on the sidelines waving pom poms.
The people wont take personal responsibility very well. Not really good candidates for anarchy, huh

That's right

There are plenty bipartisan criminal co-conpirators that we could put in jail as well. R.I.C.O. (Racketeering, Influence, and Corrupt Organizations) and "honest services" statutes could corral the whole bunch. But once again, where are all the moral, upstanding, law abiding anarcho schitizens when you need em. They're waiting for the system to collapse so all the criminals not only get away, they run the fragmented, neo-fuedalistic nightmare, a.k.a. anarcho-barbarianism, that's left behind.

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

To qoute youThere are plenty

To qoute you

There are plenty bipartisan criminal co-conpirators that we could put in jail as well.

How many has your government actually even tried in a Court of Law? How many actually are or are going to be spending any time in jail? The answer is none. The reason none of those people will be spending any time in jail is because their actions were sanctioned by the US Government.

The individual operators of corporations -the executives- cannot be held legally responsible for the actions or resulting consequeses of the businesses actions; neither can the Board of Directors, and the Corporation itself is only liable for a limited amount. These entities(Corporations), and these circumstances are created by governments and are not the product of the Free-Market system.

Our rights come from God, not

Our rights come from God, not government.

Support Rand, Amash & other liberty candidates? Check out: http://www.LibertyConservatives.com/

You've hit the nail on the head

That's what anarchism is all about, subverting unalienable rights given to us by the Creator. Anarchists loathe God and the rational moral principles He set forth in the Ten Commandments. And the amount of time and energy they've wasted in a vain attempt to erase God from the hearts and minds of people, is sad. Yes, it's sad to see anarchists waste their time and talents on such a futile endeavor. But none of us are perfect, we all fall short of our Godly potential, so maybe we can all work together someday and create a truly just and equitable world.

http://www.dailypaul.com/274979
http://www.standupforyourrights.me/?p=1047

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

I think you should rethink

I think you should rethink who is loathing God.

Let us review some facts:
1. Government creates nothing.
2. The citizen title known as American was established and ordained by we the people, whoever that is.
3. All citizen titles are used by a United(6) States(6) Person(6).
4. People use citizen titles because they seek profit.
5. The only reason anyone ever gives for not possessing a government identification is ... "How would I get money?"

If ye seek profit, thou art governed by a love of money and no one can serve two masters. The only reason government exists is for its agents to profit from natures resources given to man by his creator for his use as joint tenants in common. Every single thing about government revolves around a love of money. The object of justice is not grace or mercy.

Why again do men resort to using government marks such as citizen titles to transact commerce? Because they reject God's system which is nature. Men have decided the system of nature is not good enough for commerce (ie. making money) and decided to tweak it a little because they reject God's system.

I find the notion anarchists seek to subvert unalienable rights to be absurd. Who has unalienable rights anyway? Are bodies not comprised of earth? If you are presently occupying some earth you did not create in the form of a body what "rights" do you have to earth you did not create? It seems like you only have a right of use and if God created the earth it is arguable one has a few obligations while using his earth. One the other hand if your creator did not provide a full and honest disclosure of the terms for using his earth how could it be said there are any justly derived obligations? Perhaps it is a gift.

Forgive me your Majesty...

but I respectfully reject all information coming from someone conceited enough to call themself His American Majesty.

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

Since everyone wants to play

Since everyone wants to play the title game I figured that since I can put on any mask I want I might as well pick one I like.

If law divides man by a capacity known as status, condition, standing, title, or rank I figured I might as well pick a rank I like.

How can one support the constitution and not the notion sovereignty and all the powers of the former king devolved on a free and independent people at American Independence?

Are you not an American Majesty? If not you must not believe a man is the king of his own castle. The fact you would make an issue out me making fun of fictional arbitrary titles by using His American Majesty is comical to say the least.

I didn't think you had anything to say. When truth is present it speaks for itself.

P.S. His American Majesty extends his grace and mercy upon you for any transgression. Oh, this title thing can be way to much fun making fun of at times.

Seriously?

Do you even think about what you say before it comes out of your mouth?

Anarcho-capitalism has nothing to do with "subverting unalienable rights" or "erasing god"

I do not loathe God, and how could a philosophy that is premised on moral principles loathe moral principles?

I believe in God and I am an AnCap, I can assure you they are not mutually exclusive.

Secondly, why would an Anarchist believe rights come from government if they believe government us illegitimate because it violates natural rights.

What you are implying makes absolutely no sense.

I am convinced that if stupidity were a sin, you'd burn in hell.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

Whoa boy, you're gitin your buck on

Saying anrachism is based on morality doesn't make it so. And based on the irrational arguments most of you put forth, anarchism seems to be just a phony front for the immoral fascists you claim to oppose. For some real solutions:

http://www.dailypaul.com/274979
http://www.standupforyourrights.me/1047

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

If I payed someone to act this clueless...

they wouldn't be able to replicate your level of idiocy.

If Anarcho-capitalism is based on the moral principle of Non-Aggression, then how is it not based on morality.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

It's real simple

You, Rotbard and the rest of the anarcho barbarians, excluding the unfortunate few who are dupes, are liars.

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

I and every AnCap have no idea what we believe...

But you who have never even read any of our philosophy, or even acquainted yourself with basic tennets of our philosophy, do know what we believe?

You are either too mentally incompetent to be left by yourself or you are a troll.

You aren't even using basic logic, your posts are complete non sequiturs and wholly irrational.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

You know exactly what you believe...

but like I said, you lie about what your beliefs really mean.

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

Lol what?

If it is the principle of non-aggression (a principle founded on the acknowledgment of every person's natural rights) which has led us to the conclusion that anarchism is the only moral option, how exactly is it that we are lying about its morality?

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.

You are a piece of work, buddy.

When someone accuses someone else of being a liar, the burden of proof falls on them to prove their accusation.

So let's have it, what Is your proof that I don't actually believe what I explicitly say I believe?

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

He's a piece of something, alright

He's just going to respond with more garbage and continue to do so, then claim to "win" when people get tired of entertaining his nonsense.

All Anarchists hate everything and want to destroy god and rabble rabble and hate blah blah blah, and whenever one says/does something that contradicts the bullshit I spread about them, they're obviously lying about it. Also, their facts mean nothing, and my opinion means everything. Derp!

Mark Hanson, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume you're trolling, because I really hope for your sake, as well as the sake of those around you that you're not really this stupid.

A signature used to be here!

I hope for his sake that he is just trolling...

because to be that irrational, and devoid of intellect, would be a genuine tragedy.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

More accurately

Our rights come from nature, thus even our non-religious friends can agree, even if they do not believe God created nature and that these rights ultimately come from him.

It is still apparent that by our very nature, human beings have inherent rights, whether someone believes in God or not, there is no conflict.

That's why we refer to them as natural rights.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

An incrementalist anarchist perhaps

He is open to anarcho-capitalism but he has tried to make the best of a bad situation. He has tried to reverse the intensification of fascism that is inherent in all government and if he could get it to zero, it is obvious he would approve. Certainly most anarcho-capitalists don't approve of the compromises he has made, for example supporting the conjob, in order to pursue this goal of incremental movement toward anarchy. There is a range of reactions to these inconsistencies caused by him trying to work within the system. Some ancaps understand his motives are focused on what we approve of- education, and can look past his transgressions of principle, and others cannot.

I think the question is more about what happens now. Will he start endorsing pure freedom or this limited government nonsense, utopian fantasy. If he continues to mislead people in to believe government can be limited, that legalized crime and inequality under the law is containable to a certain level of crime, than he is betraying freedom and doesn't deserve the name anarchist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoUrrlbDoVs

"Show me the government that does not infringe upon anyone's rights, and I will no longer call myself an anarchist." ~Jacob Halbrooks

The idea of unalienable rights...

and the use of limited government to protect those rights, has a proven track record of success. From ancient Greek democracy to today, there is incontrovertible evidence that the evolution of the idea of rights, and limited government to protect them, has greatly improved the human condition. Today, there is universal agreement among nation states that slavery is immoral and illegal. If not for this universal agreement, slavery would be undoubtedly be a legal thriving business in the marketplace. Why wouldn't slavery be a legal, thriving business in an anarcho-capitalist market? Check out this post on morals and ethics in the marketplace

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

For more evidence that capitalism within the moral framework of limited government is not a utopian fantasy, click on this link to a comment or scroll down a ways to find it.

http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2979338

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

limited government is bullshit

limited government is the idea you need a fascist-socialist government in order to "protect" capitalism. Its just brainwashing they taught you. It is a very simple matter to privatize everything and end the state, which is just a legalized, terrorist protection racket. "Pay me whatever I say to protect you, or I will kill you."

No government has EVER been limited for any length of time. They grow.

"Show me the government that does not infringe upon anyone's rights, and I will no longer call myself an anarchist." ~Jacob Halbrooks

You're getting a little viscious there Sid

Limited gov't is based on the consent of the governed, not the Genghis Khan barbarianism that you euphemistically call anarchism.

The final chapter of human history has yet to be written, and I'm betting that the vast majority of the world's people who won't benefit from your perverted view of society, will win.

If you thought you irrational ideology had a chance of succeeding, you wouldn't be hiding behind Ron Paul's libertarian philosophy.

http://www.dailypaul.com/274979
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)

There is no consent.

I didn't sign this mythical contract allowing some bozos I couldn't care less about to "represent" me and enforce their "representations" on me by force. And, again, no government has ever been limited. The continental congress grew in to the Articles of Confederation which grew in to the conjob, which started growing immediately with such thing as Hamilton's tariffs [thefts] and whiskey taxes [theft], alien and sedition acts and on and on to infinity, hence our current police state-evil empire.

You cannot legalize crime, the violation of the non-aggression principle, and then expect it to be limited to what you desire, unless you are brainwashed.

"Show me the government that does not infringe upon anyone's rights, and I will no longer call myself an anarchist." ~Jacob Halbrooks

Sid, you avoided my question...

in an earlier comment. So I'll try it again. In an anarcho-capitalist society, what would prevent slavery from being a legal, thriving busniness in the "free" market? And don't give me some BS that anarchists are all wonderful people who voluntarily reject the idea of slavery.

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

If you really worry about

If you really worry about anarchism because you cannot see how slavery will be prevented; then you must hate the US Constitution for allowing Slavery from its inception. You must also, hate the current US Government because they have turned all inhabitants into slaves. What is to stop slavery under a small government? A peice of paper? That has worked so well so far; hasn't it? Who in their right mind leaves the protection of their life to a peice of paper? Paper is an inanimate object; it is incapable of protecting anything.

Government IS slavery.

And therefore it is unlawful, violates the NAP. Anyone attempting to own slaves would face the entire weight of the social system from private arbitration to private press to private reputation ranking agencies, from business contracted to obey the law [nearly all of them] via contracts ostracizing them from business property, and of course private security and defense when necessary. Remember all property is private. A criminal will suffer reputation ranking losses, raising his charges for aggression-coercion-fraud-arbitration-security insurance, discouraging business owners from allowing them on their roads, sidewalks, in their gas stations and grocery stores, etc. An ancap system has plenty of muscle to enforce the NAP. Capitalism is superior to fascism-socialism in ALL things.

"Show me the government that does not infringe upon anyone's rights, and I will no longer call myself an anarchist." ~Jacob Halbrooks

Baby steps

If what you are saying is workable the USC would work.

A private arbitrator is a form of government, is it not. A private arbitrator can use force, say in the collections of bad debt ?

Is repossession allowed, of course. Is it force, of course it is. Who decides.....a private bureaucracy....

And if the insurance company steals all the capital pools and goes to the next State, does the anarchist send in a private army to another country or do they all line up at their neighbors embassy looking for a personal contract ?

Does an anarchist participate in foreign trade, treaties or border standards......do anarchist have free borders, free in and free out ?

I too would like to know...

where is this contract I supposedly signed?

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

I think too much Rotbard

has rotted your brain. But it's more likely you're just playing dumb. Try reading some John Locke or Montesquieu if you really don't know the answer to your question.

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