-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.

Can I draw up imaginary contracts too?

I've got one that states you owe me 1 million dollars, you had better pay up!

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


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

Excuse me?The idea of

Excuse me?

The idea of unalienable rights and the use of limited government to protect those rights, has a proven track record of success.

The Greek democracy ended horrifically, as did the Roman Empire as will the American Empire. Where exactly is the proven track-record of success? The only track-record I see is one in which a limited government grows unchecked by the people until such time that the government eventually enslaves the people one-way or another. If you call that success, then I believe you are on the wrong website; you might feel more at home on the Red State, HuffPo, or someother Statist sites.

No one who advocates for limited government...

denies the historical struggle that led to the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. On the other hand, anarchists routinely deny that the evolution of rights, and limited government to protect those rights, has over time improved humanity. All you've got to back up your arguments is the anarcho delusion that government has never advanced the cause of human dignity and freedom. And even though the vast majority of the world rejects the irrational, delusional ideology called anarchism, you cling to your sinking ship.

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

You talk about the stuggle to

You talk about the stuggle to the US Constitution, however you never seem to acklowledge that the system has failed to do what it's intended purpose was.
It's(the US Constitution's) intended purpose wasn't to improve humanity, it was to protect your rights; which it has failed -miserabley- at doing.
You keep sugsesting a utilitaian interpritation of history: well since Progress has happend for most people and society in general, then the subjegation of those is tolerable. You may claim that what I just wrote is not what you believe, however, your very own comment betrays you

anarchists routinely deny that the evolution of rights, and limited government to protect those rights, has over time improved humanity

So then to "improve humanity" is worth the enslavement torture, killing and looting of all of those people along the way? You sound just like Woodrow Wilson. Also, how has your limited government protected your rights? If there ever was a time rights were protected by the US Constitution is was a very long time ago. So then, you may be suggesting that since we have "improved humanity" since the FED came along that we should support that disasterous policy also.

You appearently deny the evolution of government, which is to grow and subjugate, loot, enslave, and eventualy kill those it was supposedly setup to protect. How do I know you deny this? Because, you continously advocate for it.

Without rule.....

Those empires destroyed themselves by lacking rule, not by adhering to rule.
Rome, for example, died a slow death by allowing others to violate rule. It was the absence of rule they suffered from.

A "moral" anarchist is no different than a "moral" statist. Neither are malignant until they fail to follow the rules.

As I read it, anarchist believe in honoring private contracts and penalizing those who infringe upon them. Albeit a different type of enforcement, the principle is the same.

Do anarchist believe in contracts and penalties for infringing upon them ?

Anarchy is the law

Anarchy means no rulers, not no laws. We are anarchists exactly because we believe in law, equality under the law. No one may initiate aggression, coercion or fraud against another, including people who call themseles the state. This is the law. Government violates it, inherently.

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

Yes, but.....

In an anarchist society what happens if you initiate force ?
What is the consequence for violating a contract in an anarchist system ?

In your stateless society...

how do you enforce the Non-Aggression Principle? You're talking nonsense.

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

Capitalism works for all things, including the important stuff

It is irrational to say capitalism only works for the unimportant stuff. Capitalism can provide private roads, private sewage, private power, private arbitration, private security, and private defense. All these things have existed and do exist now. It is only necessary to unleash them by ending the government monopoly on final control in those and all other industries. The NAP is enforced through private contracting, enforced by private arbitration, security and defense. The market can provide all commodities and services desired by consumers, without legalizing crime, without terrorist protection rackets, without some people who "make laws" and others who obey or die.

Limited government, besides being a utopian fantasy never seen successful in history, is an oxymoron. Government, if it exists, claims ultimate control over everything and everyone. It violates everyone's property rights by enforcing its monopoly of ultimate control and preventing voluntary competition for such services from entering the market. It is a robbing, murdering protector, a contradiction in terms. It takes whatever it wants and calls it protection. It is everything you think you fear in anarchy, which is the rule of law, the rule of the NAP.

"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 avoiding the question

If there's no mechanism to enforce the Non-Aggression Principle, why would anarchists, who suffer from the same flaws as the rest of humanity, voluntarily adhere to the Non-Aggression Principle?

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

ancap 101

I answered you above a little. But if you would like to study the mechanics of private aggression-coercion-fraud-arbitration-security-defense-insurance, I can recommend many excellent sources. Which one depends a lot on how much time and effort you are willing to put in to learn how a free society would operate. But here are a few fairly brief options.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uCP0QY8vUo&list=UUMqhQ-Ken7a...

This one is less my style but its Milton Friedman's son David Friedman, so it comes at things from an interesting perspective: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YfgKOnYx5A

This is much more comprehensive and is available in free pdf or free epub if you prefer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGKxp5nc1L8&feature=list_rela...

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

So you're unable...

to, in a few paragraphs, articulate the fundamental tenets of anarcho fascism, I mean anarcho capitalism, that explain how the Non-Aggression Principle would be enforced in an anarchist society? Sounds like a cop out.

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

The difference between a

The difference between a moral statist and a moral anarchist is that the morals of an anarchist do not include stealing, killing, raping, plunder, legislating, violating, molesting, extorting, enslaving, coercing, frauding, and so forth...

More nonsensical blather

The universally accepted notions of morality preclude theft, rape, murder, extortion, fraud, slavery, etc. Proof of this is all nation states have laws against these things. Just because individuals in the public and private sectors violate these laws, it does not affect their meaning or value.

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

You prove my point exactly!

You prove my point exactly! All nations DO have laws against these things and when has that stopped any of it? Tell me what day it was when planet earth and all her nations didn't have one murder, not one theft, or crime. People give what they get.. and unless you allow truth and freedom to the people so they can make honest educated decision on how to act in society... you create this statist utopia of one world governance where people think and act like drugged up psychotic brainwashed delusional idiots. That they have this cloud of false protection from what happens naturally on an everyday basis. Your falling for a ponzi scheme that is robbing you blind!

You people keep asking the same questions over and over...

So your solution is to remove all...

law enforcement mechanisms provided by the State in the belief that this will somehow reduce crime? And thank you for making my point, anarchism will end up in the historical trash bin of irrational ideologies. See, we can have a polite conversation.

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

how will it reduce crime?

Using my brain, along with everyone in the market who benifits from solving this little puzzle could find all sorts of solutions... do you want to hear a few of mine? I don't consider myself an Einstein but here goes...

Arm yourself with a firearm. Do some research and find out what gun you need for your personal defense interests... by the time the police show up it is usually too late, lots of police departments will not respond very fast unless there is a murder.

Another idea would be to hire a private defence force to protect you or come to aid... imagine what competition would do for emergancy response times and trying to deliver the best product to their customer to beat competition. That is the great thing about the market, competition! You could not hire same said company to violate anyones rights or the company would fail in the market place from everyone it's violating. Thus the company going under.

I didn't need my representative's hand to hold to think up just a few market options... im sure there are other choices out there too like self responabilty and avoiding conflict from fear I may end up not so well off if I violate someones rights. The current market doesn't handle it so efficiantly because the monopoly we have sucks at its job and there are no alternatives.

Hire a private defense force...

to protect one's life, family and property? Sounds a lot like taxation except it would be a protection/extortion racket. I can see why so many people are demanding an anarchist society. The lives of organized crime families are so much more moral, decent and free. Right?

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

Extortion racket?

What do you think our present police system is? They operate the same way as the mob.

How is voluntarily choosing to hire a private defense force the same as taxation? If that's the case, wouldn't voluntarily paying anyone for any service be "taxation" by your definition?

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.

Are you really this stupid?

The extortion/protection racket you describe is exactly what you have today, the state forces you to pay for protection even if you don't want it, it also forces you to pay for other people's protection.

A security contractor doesn't force you to use their service, you only pay for it if you want their service, and they don't force you to pay for other people's service.

It is the exact opposite of the statist protection racket you advocate.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


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

double post

double post

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


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

Contracts ?

So one who believes in the State is by default one without respectable morals ? It as if you are saying ANY belief in government is the belief in "stealing, killing, raping, plunder, legislating, violating, molesting, extorting, enslaving, coercing, frauding, and so forth...'

I know of nobody who can argue the acts you wrote are that of a moral person, do you ? Did you just put up a straw man for all those who believe in some form of government ?

Do anarchist believe in contracts and consequences of defaulting on a contract ? If so, can you explain a moral consequence the anarchist would support in the event of a default ?

Nice use of the straw man, establishment, argument........

Contracts? In an anarchist society?

The idea of enforceable contractual obligations is antithetical to anarchism. Unless your talking about the kind of enforcement that means those with the best extra-judicial assassination squad wins.

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

I'll say it again.

You keep demonstrating that you have absolutely no idea whatsoever what Anarcho-Capitalism is.

You just keep making yourself look even more ignorant and uninformed.

I mean how fucking hard is it to pick up a book and actually learn what your opponents believe?

Multiple AnCaps have told you that you are not accurately presenting our views, that means what it means, you have no idea what we actually believe.

You can continue to make an ass of yourself, or you can actually gain an understanding of what we believe.

I urge you to do the latter, here is 'For A New Liberty' by Murray Rothbard, absolutely free, in .pdf format for you to read: http://mises.org/rothbard/foranewlb.pdf

Don't feel like reading? Well here it is in audio format: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10uCz5hhSSw&list=SPBD6EC8BF3...

If you don't feel its worth your time to learn, then please shut the fuck up and refrain from arguing about a subject you have no clue about.

Thank you.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


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

You're in danger of falling....

off your anarcho moral high ground. Just relax, take a deep breath, and meditate on your Non-Aggression Principle. As you're probably begining to realize, I think your anarcho mumbo jumbo is irrational and nothing more than a front for the fascists you claim to oppose. And I'm going to continue to point out why I think it's irrational. So relax, take a deep breath, and mediatate on your Non-Aggression Principle. Is it working yet, I didn't think so, just like your anarcho Alice in Wonderland fairytale doesn't work.

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

In order for a state to exist

In order for a state to exist it must be financed. There is no such thing as a voluntary government. A state must tax to even exist at all, taxation is morally theft. If they cannot tax then they must plunder, pilage, or wage war for funds. What a statist, any statist proposes is violence right off the bat, at that point you have soiled the landscape. You have given man a vehicle for slavery and it grows and grows to defend itself. One who believes in peace believes in the opposite of all those things... this is pretty simple common sense stuff.

Like I have said in previous posts... contracts are nothing more than a partnership that can be voided at any time with no consequences whatsoever. The point of a contract is to create a business partnership where both parties benefit in some way, at any point a contract can be voided if they want out. It is simply you scratch my back ill scratch yours but If your not scratching hard enough then im out. kinda like your job, or anywhere you chose to participate in the market.

State financing.....

The State finances under the terms of the contract. If the State is within the definition within the contract they are not stealing, they are charging just as any other business does. Sure, in the modern day the State violates its contract all the time, and the people can walk and dont.

So which is it, anarchist believe in contracts or they dont ? They believe in consequences or they dont....

As I read your comment it says a man cannot put consequences into the contract in the event of a default. If an anarchist signs a contract, mortgage, and cant pay it back does he give up his property to the bank that owns it ?

Are there banks in an anarchist society ?

LOL

One could say that a "Moral Statist" is a contradiction of terms.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


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

Quick questions; you

Quick questions; you said:

Those empires destroyed themselves by lacking rule

Has our Government followed in these same footsteps? The answer for any honest person would be yes.

Do people stop participating in the process, by becoming complacent or for some other reason? The answer for any honest person , would be yes.

So, what you are supposing is that we just conitnue to follow the very same path, over and over and over again.

So, how exactly did those governments come into being? The reason I ask is because that is the very same method which you are going to have to employ now if you desire to do something other than watch it collapse. Your vote doesn't count. Do you understand what that actually means and the future implications of that reality? It means that you have no peaceful options.

As far as contracts go; people engage in contracts willfully and with control over whether they are involved with a particular contract or not. Being involved in a contract is entirely voluntary in an anarchist system. In your system it is no longer voluntary it is force complience.

Peaceful options......

I have the option to withdraw, to the best of my ability, and live well beneath my means so my posterity has a chance.....a fighting chance.
Apathy is a consequence of the people capitulating their responsibilities as defined in our contract, is it not ?