-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.

Let there be light

One example of government working was the creation of the Bill of Rights and the balance of powers in the original U.S. Constitution. Ron Paul pledges more allegiance to the Rothschild-founded Austrian School than he does to the Founding Fathers.

The Constitution: A Success Story?

The Constitution succeeded in preventing the growth of the state into a leviathan?

"Rothschild-founded Austrian School"

Also, there is something called the burden of proof, it generally falls upon the person making a claim, would you happen to have any proof?

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


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

Ship went off course

You are correct that our Constitution failed to prevent the enemy combatants of We the People from hijacking our federal government, but that is because the Constitution wasn't followed. For instance, the Constitution authorizes a Navy but prohibits a standing Army. In other words, the U.S. military is supposed to be relegated to floating islands (ships), and never touch U.S. soil. Compare and contrast this to Bilderberg Steering Committee member and Ron Paul bankroller Peter Thiel who says that libertarians should be relegated to man-made floating islands. The Marines were created as a subdivision of the Navy to worm around the prohibition of ground troops. The reference to the militia in the Second Amendment is because there is not supposed to be a standing Army. Nobody is going to invade a nation of 300 million gun owners, and the Founding Fathers were way ahead of President Eisenhower in realizing the dangers of the military-industrial complex. The Constitution gives Congress, NOT the so-called "free" market of Ron Paul, the sole power to issue money and credit. The Federal Reserve Act took that power away from Congress and gave it to privately-owned foreign banks.

If the Constitution was unable to limit government....

then how can it be an example of limited government working?

If you response is "Well, it limited it for a little while", then that would be like me saying I created an unsinkable boat because it stayed afloat for a few minutes before it started taking on water.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


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

The Curse of the Black Pearl Bailey

The Constitution sank because its captain and crew started drilling holes in its hull as soon as it left port. The compromise on slavery was a cancer. Had the slaves been given their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, slavery would not have lasted very long. But then "Doctor" Lincoln came along with a "cure" that killed the patient -- conscription (involuntary servitude to the State), the income tax, and the obliteration of State sovereignty. The first Supreme Court Chief Justice, John Jay, acknowledged the right of a jury to nullify any law their Representatives passed, thus completing the circle of the balance of power. But today if you mention jury nullification, the judge will not let you serve as a juror. So all governments have failed. Why then 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?

You do realise that this was

You do realise that this was under your "Constitution." So your solution is to, do the same thing all over again? The people have NO authority over the government, the vote are rigged. How do you suppose: (1) to -in a method other than violence- force our government back to adhering to the constitution? (2) Keep government from following the same path? Isn't it immoral to know the negative outcome of an action and yet advize people to take that action?

Government grows, it subjegates, loots, and eventually enslaves and kills its people; and your answer is that we need a small government because our originally small government grew to be a tyrannical oppressive, enslaving and killing government.

You cite Murray Rothbard...

"The State is a gang of theives writ large". Do you think the founders and framers were a gang of thieves for throwing off the king's yoke of tyranny?

Your argument that the Constitution only worked temporarily ignores Western civilization's long struggle to establish individual rights. Over the span of history, there have been great strides that have been sustained. There have been many ups and downs but over time, the establishment of rights has greatly improved the human condition and will continue to do so. Here are some possible solutions to our current problems.

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)

Your argument that the

Your argument that the Constitution only worked temporarily ignores Western civilization's long struggle to establish individual rights. Over the span of history, there have been great strides that have been sustained. There have been many ups and downs but over time, the establishment of rights has greatly improved the human condition and will continue to do so. Here are some possible solutions to our current problems.

Only if your concept of rights is only based on the biblical notion of civilization, I wonder if Hobbes would have thought differently had he studied true hunter-gatherer societies that were not domesticated or agriculurally based. But, to consider hunter-gatherer societies would require re-examining your bias against evolution. Would God have created people with more rights than others?

Apparently,

anarchists believe they can make up their own version of history to suit whatever argument they happen to be making. Which is just another reason why you have no credibility.

http://www.dailypaul.com/274979

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

All of history is made up...

All of history is made up... of other people's accounts. It comes down to whose version you believe.

Your argument is a cop out.

In my experience, when reality conflicts with the anarchist ideology, most anarchists resort to this same tactic, i.e., insist that nobody can know nuthin so everyone is free to conjure up their own version of reality.

I agree there are blatant biases in many history books, but that doesn't negate the incontrovertible evidence that the evolution of rights, and limited government to secure those rights, has greatly improved the human condition.

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)

Already answered this before, you never bothered to reply.

""The State is a gang of theives writ large". Do you think the founders and framers were a gang of thieves for throwing off the king's yoke of tyranny?"

They threw off one form of tyranny and instituted a new one, the same people who fought the British, a few short years later instituted the alien and sedition acts, instituted taxes more egregious than those instituted by King George and Parliament, and put down the Whiskey Rebellion.

The War of Independence was one of very few just wars in US history, but the formation of the state, which by its very nature must deprive people of their rights to life, liberty, and property, would in the very least qualify those who established it as a gang of thieves.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


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

Once again you deny the reality...

that slavery was abolished, women achieved the right to vote, the Civil Rights movement procured more rights for African Americans, and workers rights were established as a result of the protections afforded by a representative government. And the aspirational, moral principles codified in the founding documents have also inspired countless millions around the world to stand up for their rights. But if they'd listened to someone like you, they'd still be in chains.

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'd say quit while you are ahead, but you were never there.

Who legally allowed slavery, prohibited women and African Americans from voting, and enforced Jim Crow laws in the first place?

The same state you worship today.

It's like praising someone for fixing a problem they created.

Ya what great accomplishments...

"But if they'd listened to someone like you, they'd still be in chains."

OMFG lol

I advocate strict adherence to the Non-Aggression Principle, so if people listened to me there would still be slavery?

What a joke!

Do you even think about what you are saying before you hamfistedly type it out?

It was people like you who believed in statism that allowed it to happen in the first place.

Also, I see you are still opting to post unrelated longwinded tirades instead of adressing the subject matter of my comments.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


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

You may be a strict adherent...

to the Non-Aggression Principle, but anarchists reject the use of force when applying this principle, so an anarchist society could be dominated by a majority who don't believe in the Non-Aggression Principle, let alone be strict adherents to it. In that scenario, you would likely be someone's slave.

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)

What you just said...

made absolutely zero sense.

Which makes me feel the need to ask, do you know what a coherent argument is?

You don't even understand what the Non-Aggression Principle is.

It is the rejection of the Initiation of force, you are well within your rights to use defensive force.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


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

Can a slave act in self defense?

Of course, but not successfully. So self defense does not address the problem that would exist in an anarchist society, i.e., a majority of people may reject the Non-Aggression Principle and therefore have the ability to enslave others. You may want to rethink your definition of a coherent argument.

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

Congratulations, you have constructed a strawman...

Try building with facts next time, they are a much sturdier building material.

The funny thing is the scenario you just described is what you are currently living under with democracy.

Oh, sweet irony.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


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

Just take a look at history....

and you'll see the ancient Greek democracy, Roman Republic, Magna Carta, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, just to name a few examples of human progress via the establishment of rights. There's always push back from those who prefer tyranny and that's why we say freedom isn't free. So do your part and stand up for your rights.
Please and thank you.

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)

Each one of your examples

Each one of your examples does the same thing, moves steadfast into tyranny and the governed have no ability to stop it. So your solution to this detrimental problem is to just continue doing the same thing and pretend that the natural tendency of government doesn't exist.

In an anarchist system one individual can never have the power to detrimentally effect the lives of millions of people; but our current governors, our President, our Secretary of State, our Secretary of Treasury, our Secretary of Defense, and the FED Chairmen amongst many others have the power to effect the lives of millions of people each with a single act. So, again I question: you say that people have an ability to do bad things to other people, and yet you desire a system where single individuals have nearly complete control over millions of people each. Does that really seem to be logically consistent to you? If people have tendency to do bad things and we acknowledge that, then wouldn't it stand to reason that individuals should not be granted power over millions of people?

I think it's illogical to assume...

that in an anarchist system, one person couldn't have control over millions of people, because one of the flaws of human nature is the lust for power.

And like I said, freedom isn't free. After every revolution, eternal vigilance is the price of freedom. But people get complacent and the cycle repeats itself. But the fact is, in spite of recurring tyranny, the establishment of rights has over time, improved the human condition, and will continue to do so. As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, the long arc of the universe bends toward justice.

If you think you have it bad, consider the long struggle African Americans have endured, but their position in society has gradually improved. Their experience is a metaphor for the human race, i.e., over time, the establishment of rights improves the human condition. But if African Americans had listened to someone like you instead of Dr. King, they'd still be second class citizens.

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)

I think it's illogical to

I think it's illogical to assume that in an anarchist system, one person couldn't have control over millions of people, because one of the flaws of human nature is the lust for power.

While you may think it is illogical to assume that one person cannot have power over millions of people, a government guarantees that select individuals will have power over millions of people; there is no assumption there.

So, I find it incredulous that you would throwout a system because under it a person might be able to have power over millions of people; but you advocate for a system wich will guarantee that select invidiauls will have power over millions of people. It would seem that you desire a system where some people definitely have control over millions of others, as apposed to a system where it is only a slight possibility that someone may have control over others.

Personally there is no indication throughout history that in the absence of a cooperative government that a company would ever be able to monopolize anything. It didn't happen during the anarchism in Pennsylvania, it didn't happen early on in the US history or the history of the individual States with limited governments. Monopolies and huge businesses/corporations where only possible in the presence of a very cooperative Government. In time even the best intentioned governments become very cooperative governments; which is why it is better to not have a government.

I almost forgot. As far as Africans go; you do realize that the Irish were slaves for a longer period of time then the Africans, there were more Irish slaves then Africans, and the Irish were treated worse and sold for less then the Africans, and that the government which you love so much enabled slavery. So, please don't talk about slavery if all you are going to do is spout the BS history which is propagated by the Government in the public indoctrination stations called schools.

You said, "Personally there is no...

indication throughout history..." Where can I get one of your "personally" authored history books so I can know which imaginary source you're talking about?

And as far as the Irish go, they're doing even better than African Americans, which only proves my point about the establishment of rights under a representative gov't improving the human condition over time. Thanks for making my point. And like I said, if the Irish and African Americans had listened to someone like you, who says it's hopeless to stand up for their rights, they'd still be in chains

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)

Personally: as in -in my

Personally: as in -in my experience; further defined -in my studies of the economics of government and business throughout history from about 1100 CE or AD to the Present. This is not typically found in history books; mostly -especially- concerning American economics of the early period you could try your local historical society or even the courthouse which will have records. You expect that if something is worth knowing that someone else has already done it -you must or you wouldn't be demanding a 'History Book' as apposed to asking where one could find such information.

I'm sorry but if you actually want to know something as apposed to just parroting what others have said, then you are going to actually do some work.

Ron Paul is NOT an anarchist.

Ron Paul is NOT an anarchist. Even if he said he wants society to be voluntary, voluntarism does not necessarily rule out tax-funded services. But there's an even deeper issue here. Let's consider a syllogism from the anarchist point of view:

1. All tax-funded services are inherently evil and immoral.
2. Therefore, all government is inherently evil and immoral.
3. If all government is inherently evil and immoral, then the politicians who make up the government and keep it functioning are evil and immoral.
4. Therefore, Ron Paul is evil and immoral.

Now, maybe some anarchists agree with this syllogism. But anarchists at the DP and LRC are severely inconsistent for condemning all government while at the same time praising and supporting Ron Paul. If anarchy is true, then Ron Paul is an evil, murderous crook. Remember, his salary was paid by tax dollars and he voted to send troops to Afghanistan to kill Osama. Doesn't sound like an anarchist, does it?

So, no, Ron Paul is certainly NOT an anarchist and those who say he is are being delusional. If Ron is an anarchist, he is the most contradictory anarchist alive.

Excellent points

Probably the most rational comment on the subject, however, if there's one thing I've learned about anarchist's, they thrive on contradiction. It seems to be a clever tool for chipping away at definitions and breaking down the process of forming agreements that are necessary for a functioning government and society.

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)

Not so much...

Ron Paul may be accused of some contradictions, but in view of your comments you should consider the following which Dr. Paul has said many many times:

1: His greatest fear in running for public office is that he might win.

2: He has not accomplished anything as a politician in the conventional sense.

3: His main objective is to be a part of and contribute to a general revolution of thought among the people.

I understand why/how you can say he's not an anarchist. Fine. But in a practical sense, you should be able to understand why we appreciate him too.

In my previous comment....

I was implying that, in spite of contradictions that seem to disqualify RP as an anarchist, he probably is an anarchist. But I'm glad we have a government that protects the right of anarchists to speak freely about their ideology.

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)

Actually, number 3 is not

Actually, number 3 is not neccessarily correct. All politicians don't need to be evil and immoral for all government to be evil and immoral. The government in DC is a small form of Democracy where the the majority wins; therfore only the majority of politicians need to be evil and immoral for all government to be evil and immoral. Government is a concentration of power, therfore those mostlikely to be drawn to government positions are drawn to the power; that by its very nature makes government evil and immoral; and that fact that it attracts -in large part- the worst of society to it.

Um, no. If #1 and #2 are

Um, no. If #1 and #2 are correct, then #3 has to be correct. You can't go from all government being evil and immoral to it only depending upon the "majority" of politicians. Government is people. Government is not an abstract, impersonal idea. It is people who make up the government. So when we critique government, we are critiquing people. If only the majority of politicians need to be critiqued, then you need to be a minarchist like the rest of us!