-23 votes

Is Ron Paul an anarchist? I don't think so, but...

Is Ron Paul an anarchist? I don't think so, but anarchists have provided evidence in their comments to try prove otherwise. And until now, anarchists at DP were hiding behind Ron Paul's belief in capitalism within the moral framework of limited government. Most of the evidence that anarchists use to claim Ron Paul as one of their own can be found on the first two pages. I'm opposed to the anarchist ideology and in spite of what anarchists say about Ron Paul, he's convinced more citizens of the merits of limited Constitutional government than any other politician in my lifetime. I'm not bringing up this topic to condemn anarchists, but to have an honest discussion about the merits of limited government vs. anarchy.

I recently posted a topic at the DP Liberty Forum titled "Can unalienable rights exist in a free market?" By free market, I meant a market operating in a stateless society, a.k.a. anarchy. Even though unalienable rights exist in anarchist societies, there's no agreement on what those rights would be and no mechanism to protect the free exercise of those rights. But I had mistakenly associated the lawlessness of the Fed, Wall Street and Obama with anarchy, and they are not anarchists, they are fascists. So I changed the name of the post to "Obama, Wall Street, and the Federal Reserve, a Fascist Regime" and pointed out how fascism severely restricts our ability to exercise unalienable rights. Fascism occurs when powerful business interests partner with a dictatorial central government and impose severe economic and social repression.

Many of the replies to my post argued that the definition of a free market doesn't mean a stateless society (anarchy), and for the most part they were right. But many advocated for an idealized form of free markets, i.e., no government intervention, taxation, or subsidies of any kind. I argued that this idealized form of a free market can only exist in a stateless society, and the resulting anarchy would eliminate the ability to exercise unalienable rights. Below are a couple quotes from someone promoting the idealized version of free markets. This link is the comment with the quotes. http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2969576

"Mark, do you believe that taxation is theft, and thus morally wrong? I do, and that is an important part of what makes me a free market capitalist..."

"A true free market capitalist would see taxation as theft of an individuals means of production by use of force, and thus, it is morally indefensible."

In my initial reply, I challenged him/her to admit they're an anarchist. Later I responded with the following argument: Ron Paul advocates for capitalism within the moral framework of limited government, and that requires some taxation. And being you oppose all taxes, how can you support this country's founding documents, which created a limited gov't with the power to tax? You obviously want to eliminate our country as founded because it has the power to tax, and that would mean eliminating the second amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights. So why don't you admit you're an anarchist who opposes the founding principles of this country? The links below are the reply to my position stated above, followed by my reply.


The person I quoted above also wrote a post titled "The Constitution supports drones and so do I". In the post he said "Our job as liberty loving citizens is not to repress the development and use of these technologies [drones], rather it is to work within the parameters of a free market in order to use these technologies to enhance freedom and personl liberty." I replied saying the Constitution defines the use of drones, particularly within U.S. borders, not the free market. Here's the link to the post on drones. http://www.dailypaul.com/273257

There were many replies to my post that supported a market completely free from government while saying they supported limited government. This seems to be a contradiction, so I thought it important to talk about the merits of capitalism within the moral framework of limited gov't vs. a completely free market that operates outside of government. If interested, you can read some of the comments yourself, here's the link.

The first reply to this post said the Bill of Rights protects our unalienable rights from government, not people. But governments are created and run by people, so without people government wouldn't exist. And history recognizes King George III as the tyrant that made the Revolution, Constitution and Bill of Rights necessary. Also, the Declaration of Independence specifically mentions the king and lists his crimes against the colonies. So the Bill of Rights protects our unalienable rights from people who run government.

I've read all the comments thus far, and while I support the anarchists idealized vision, i.e., a world where law enforcement by government is virtually obsolete because people are educated to voluntarily make moral choices, there is not one comment that offers practical solutions to get from the current immoral, chaotic state of the world, to a world so voluntarily moral, we no longer need government.

On the contrary, the general consensus among anarchists is that it's hopeless to even try restore a legitimate representative government, so we should all sit back and wait for the global system to collapse and start over. But of course, that's exactly what the tyrants they claim to oppose want us to do. Why? The fascist crony CRAPitalists who control the corrupt system are prepared for a global systemic collapse, at which point, they will control a fragmented neo-fuedalistic totalitarian nightmare. I've spent a lot of time over the years conversing with anarchists, and the plan of INACTION espoused here is a common thread. So I've concluded that the anarchist movement is a front for the very tyrants they claim to oppose.

But to all those who support the practice of capitalism within the moral framework of limited government, don't give up the fight. We can look back on history, from the barbarians to ancient Greek democracy, the Roman Republic before the Roman Empire, the Enlightenment, the Magna Carta, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, and know there are tried and true methods to improve the human condition. Check out this post titled "Morals, Ethics and the Role of Gov't in a Capitalist Economy"

After reading hundreds of comments, most of them from anarchists, there's an important point I need to make. There's compelling evidence demonstrating Wall Street crimes that have not been prosecuted, I'll provide some links below. The one thing that makes me doubt the anarchist claim that their ideology is based on morals that oppose crimes like fraud, is they never call for the law to be enforced. They never point out specific crimes that could be prosecuted. They never express moral outrage over the actions of private sector criminals. It's always the big bad gubbermint victimizing the poor private sector. While they condemn all government as evil, they never call for prosecution of criminals in government either.

So think about this, if anarchists have zero interest in holding criminals accountable now, why would they want a moral standard applied in a privatized world with no government? They argue that having laws against crime is the only reason crime exists, so if we just get rid of government law enforcement, no crime would exist. They use this same "logic" to defend Mexican drug cartels and mafia organizations while condemning government laws that criminalize their viscious business practices. Bottom line, we need to take down criminals in the public and private sectors if we're going to be a just, moral society.

Th first link is Neil Barofsky, Special Inspector General for TARP, saying "fraud" by the nine largest banks caused the financial crisis. The second link is William Black. He's former Deputy Director of the Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation. After the 1980's S&L meltdown, he helped obtain 1000 felony convictions of "elite" bankers. In this radio interview, he lays out compelling evidence that could result in criminal convictions of top Wall Street bankers. If millions of citizens emailed these links to local attorneys, Sheriffs, county prosecutors, State Attorneys General, and U.S. Attorneys, it would make a difference. R.I.C.O.(Racketeering, Influence, and Corrupt Organizations) and "honest services" statutes, would corral Wall Street criminals and their bipartisan co-conspirators.


For more info check out this post titled "Crime of the Century"

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Anarchists like The Philistine...

couch their tyrannical ideology in flowery rhetoric designed to appeal to the innate human desire for a more just, equitable society. In reality, the potential for tyranny exists in all societal structures. But only one has proven to provide a logical path to a society that increasingly meets the human desire for a just, equitable society. And that societal structure is a limited government that, when citizens are vigilant, can secure their unalienable rights.


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

Your "logical" path, has been

Your "logical" path, has been shown to be an inate failure. Inate, in the sense that, the design itself is unsustainable. Why do you want future people to be subjugated, looted, enslaved, and murdered just so you can pretend to have what? Security? Peice of mind? You look to experiments which have failed due to their very design, for guidence to build a replica, and you expect a different result. Since the subjugated will -in time- always begin to feel sujugated, they will not continue to participate in legitimizing their subjugation. This leads to further subjugation, looting, enslaving, and murdering. The people in power cannot be trusted, you know this or you wouldn't say that the people must be vigilant. You also know that the people will not always be vigiliant, and therefore by default you know that people will be subjugated, looted, enslaved, and murdered and you think that is a good idea?

The difference between people like you and the socialists, and communists are that the communists look to a failure which was so bad it couldn't even get off the ground, the socialists look to a failure which was only slightly better than the communists, and the "small government" -whatever that means- look to a failure which was only slightly better than that of the socialists. All of you are looking to failures; and the failures weren't due to outsiders overpowering them. The failures were due to the inherent unsustainability of government.

Study feudal Europe to see if

Study feudal Europe to see if the absence of government in early voluntary feudalism led to freedom. Also read the Biblical account of the common-law Anarchy in Ancient Israel and how the people begged for government to achieve more stability.

Ventura 2012

Why don't you look to the

Why don't you look to the Irish; who essentially had no government before the British took it over. They weren't in dissaray. When Pennsylvania quick their government in 1681 they weren't in dissaray. Just think, those whom you claim were causing all of the problems for them in Europe went on to become the government; that works.

The fact is, an individual can only effect the lives of a limited number of people. Government officials are official sactioned to be able to indiscriminately effect the lives of countless people. If someone really wanted to rule over people they would desire for a government of which they could get elected; it would be much easier than any other method of controlling populations. Plus, it has the added bonus of having the enlsaved pay for their own enslavement. But, you and those like you are right; we need to hire people to enslave us so we don't risk the possiblitiy -without being pre-enslaved- of becoming enslaved. People wonder why government can never work; when the enslaved utilize that kind of logic to rationalize their enslavement, of course they are taken advantage of.

LOL look at the failed Irish

LOL look at the failed Irish tribal anarchy for an example of success? Just because it didn't implode doesn't mean it was a success lol. Pennsylvania...ridiculous. Maybe I should cite Kibbutzim and Anarcho-Communist tribes around the world for examples of the success of communism?

Ventura 2012

So, please explain to me how

So, please explain to me how it is that your idea of what is needed is something which always supjugates, loots, enslaves, and murders those who created it to protect them from, being subjugated, looted, enslaved, and murdered? That just sounds like you want to be able to semi-choose who subjugates, loots, enslaves, and murders you; and you call that freedom?

The fact that those societies themselves didn't implode is the exact reason they should be looked to. You suggest looking to known failures -those which imploded- for advice to fuction as a people; no wonder it always falls apart.

The Irish didn't fail as something they inherently did to themselves with the exception of not being better armed. As you pointed out, the Irish didn't implode; so right of the bat, one can look to what they had as a people as something more stable than all of the governments which existed before and after them, since all of the governments -either big or small, either capitalistic, socialistic, communistic, either Monarchial, Repulbican, Oligarchial or whatever- have all failed to be sustainable, they have failed to live upto what they were supposed to do and be.

All of the forms of government, which you desire to look to for guidance as to what kind of govenment to institute, have all failed; and yet you look to failures for guidance. That makes no sense; unless you are either: (1) Hoping to become the government for your own desires of power, or (2) You what it to fail, or (3) You are incapable of recognizing the obsurdity of looking to failed experiments for guidence for what to do. Following in the footsteps of failure will only bring more failure.

You are rationalizing away the main point

Irish were ok in anarchy until...what?

A more organized armed force came and ended it.

Do I need to bold that? Or would it make any difference it I did...

Humans are tribal. Like dogs. Dogs using tools that run in packs and prey on sheep.

Sheep in the field standing all alone expecting to be left there in peace make the best meal.

But again, debates like these with True Believers are a kind of pointless. You will refuse to acknowledge that - or account for it when called on it.

Its a fundamental blind spot.

Seriously, he completely

Seriously, he completely ignored what I said. Furthermore, plenty of things take away what they portend to give, notably insurance policies. Im so sick of writing the same things over and over again sheesh.

Ventura 2012

A blind spot, or are they covering their eyes, ears, and mouths?

IMO, it's Because they're wolves, and Judas Goats.

"Than all possible forms of

"Than all possible forms of human organization lead to tyranny."

I would like to see some evidence all possible voluntary forms of human organization lead to tyranny.

Voluntarism explicitly means...

that complying with a behavioral code like the NAP, is voluntary. So in a voluntarist society, some, most, or all could voluntarily decide that initiating force is acceptable. The only way for the Non-Aggression Principle to have the effect anarchists claim, is to remove aggression from human nature, and that will never happen. That's why limited government, although flawed because the humans who create them are flawed, has proven to be the most effective means to mitigate innate human aggression.


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

Actually it doesn't, and if

Actually it doesn't, and if you read the replies to your bizzar assertions you would know that; however I imagine that you are just like FreedomsRiegning -he admitted to not actually reading the replies. So then, one might ask why would you or he continually post nonsense and not read the replies you get back?

I definitely read your replies.

That's why I'm able to successfully refute your illogical arguments. And I'm confident that anyone with a little common sense will agree with me. So keep putting your anarcho-barbarian nonsense out there so all can see it for what it is, evil.

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

The Anarchist’s Constitution

1. There is no Sovereign Immunity. Any Person (or Persons) who commits force, fraud, or trespass against any other Person’s life, body, or property is liable for restitution to repair the victim to their original condition.
2. The Right to be left alone is Absolute. Any Person (or Persons) may deny the use of their life, body, or property to anyone else without any necessity to justify the reasons for their denial.
3. There are no exceptions to these 4 rules.
4. These rules being observed,… do whatever you will.

Is this sufficient for an Anarchist society? Probably not,... but I do believe these four rules are necessary for any such society to work. Ayn Rand, and others, have insisted that there are no unchosen duties, except the duty to leave others alone. Progressives insist that this duty alone is not sufficient for any civil society to function. I think most people would agree. The way I would suggest to resolve this conundrum is that when a person reaches an age where they want to be regarded as an adult, they would sign a contract specifying under what standards of criminal and civil law they would agree to be bound by. Also consider that many problems of arbitraging trade agreements and conflicts largely go away today in the face of the Internet and our ubiquitous communication devices.

Try this experiment with a group of people (think of it as a new party game for political junkies). It would help to have a fairly wide diversity of opinions, but this needs some Liberals/Progressives to really spark. Get a White Board and put the suggested Anarchist Constitution on it. Of course there will be objections it can't work. Good! Now you have all you need to get a very interesting discussion going.

Have your Liberal/Progressives participates put up whatever additional duties they believe should be required. Strongly suggest these additional rules should be universal and timeless; ie., not dependent on current circumstances, but, instead, these rules should be reasonable, understandable, and enforceable at any time and place in history. Now here is where it gets fun to be a Libertarian. Remind your audience that these additional rules/duties are only enforceable under THREAT OF VIOLENCE. I know this is always uppermost on Libertarians' minds, but EVERYONE else tends to run past this real fast, pretending it's not important. We know better. Remind folks that they are not going to be the ones enforcing the rules, but instead, it will most often be people they don't know, don't trust, and don't even like. To really clarify this, you might like to explicitly state that it will ALWAYS be those people your audience is most suspicious of who will be enforcing these given rules. You might think of this as a Libertarian thought experiment to put beside (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Theory_of_Justice).

I have always found that reminding people that, first, society's rules require violence to enforce them (Government ain't Santa Clause, it's Freddy Kruger!), and second, they don't get to personally pick who is running their government (often, if not usually, or even always, it will be people you really don't want to be making decisions for you, your family, or anyone else you genuinely care about).

Anyway, I offer this thought experiment for your examination. It's purpose is to help you get the Liberal/Progressive advocate away from simply answering all questions with the maxim, "Sovereignty should be based upon Good Intentions, and that's all you need"! Have Fun! Remember to play nice!

Here is the killer come back... a Libertarian will NEVER initiate violence to get their way; every other political ideology HAS to initiate violence to get their way.

"The dearest ambition of a slave is not liberty, but to have a slave of his own."
Sir Richard Burton

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Anarchists and Ayn Rand, hmmm?

Apparently, the anarchist ideology has a lot in common with the ideology of former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan, who was an Ayn Rand devotee. Ayn Rand stood with Alan Greenspan while he was being sworn in as Fed Chairman. Greenspan's memoirs openly express his devotion to Ayn Rand's ideology. Do you see where I'm going with this? Anarchists are just a pack of barbarians fronting for tyrants like Greenspan.

In the video below, you can watch Ayn Rand at Greespan's swearing in, see video footage of Greenspan's memoirs with narration regarding his devotion to Rand. And hear about Greenspan's ideological opposition to regulating financial fraud. Look where that got us, an economy on the verge of collapse, just like the anarchists want. Then the tyrants they claim to oppose, who are prepared for a collapse, can impose global fascism and punch the welfare ticket of all their anarchist minions. Here's the video.


And let's look at #1 of the Anarchist Constitution. What? Now the anarchists who say all gov't is evil have Constitution? And it keeps getting weirder, No.1 says violaters of the rules (anarchists have rules now?) will be "liable for restitution". Who or what will determine if restitution is warranted, and who or what will force the payment of restitution? Sounds a lot like COERCION. SHAZAM! Anarchists are for Big Government!

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

Like it was said when it was

Like it was said when it was revealed that you're a Rand follower; you have more in common with Greenspan than any volutaryist does.

You still have yet to ellaborate on your particular ideal government.

While that idividual called it an Anarchist Constitution; he could hav ejust as well called it Guiding Principles. However, I've never seen them in such a manner before, but they seem to stem from NAP meaning for you individuals who do not know is the Princcple Against the Initiating of Force; it doesn't refer to there being no appropriat time to use force. It just states that one cannot initiate force.

But why would I expect you to understand; you think the US Constituion grants government the power to enforce behavior laws.

Oh yeah, the fabled Non-Aggression Principle

Anarchist/voluntaryist societies have no mechanism to enforce the NAP, so in order for it to have the effect you claim, you would have remove all aggression from human nature. Another fizzled fantasy.

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

Private arbitration and

Private arbitration and contract laws as well as possibly common laws. You don't understand voluntaryism. As stated several times now, a voluntaryist system, doesn't necessarily mean that their would be zero laws. I don't know why you keep trying to push that nonsense, when you've been informed several times; unless you just intentionally like misrepresenting facts.

Just pointing out the contradictions that...

nullify your arguments. For example, how can a law be law, if compliance with the "law" is voluntary? No mechanism for law enforcement exists in a voluntarist society, if it did, it would be a form of government.


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

Because the area, group, town

Because the area, group, town or watever Voluntarily to decide to make a law. You assume, that a voluntaryist system would be without laws. You have been told time and time again that your assertion is not neccessarily accurate; and yet you continuosly make the same assertion. Do you read any of the replies?

Voluntary -without coerscion- meaning that my community can do what it whants and your community can do what it wants, and my community cannot tell your community what to do and vise versa; does that make sense?
On the individual level: The community voluntarily decides how the cummunity will operate. While this could endup with a form of government it doesn't have to. This is the difference between minarchists(government has to exist at all levels) and volutaryists(government doesn't have to exist at any level). Yes, in a voluntaryist system it is quite possible for parts to have something akin to government or even government; however, in a minarchist system, it is impossible for any part to not have government.

Philistine, You need to read my comments....

if you wish to make rational responses to them. What I said was, and very succinctly, laws devised by humans, by their very nature, require an enforcement mechanism to be laws. If a voluntarist society agrees to enforce laws, then it becomes a form of limited government like our Republic, which is based on the voluntary consent of the governed.

http://www.standupforyourrights.me/?p=1026 (pdf, Knowledge is Power)

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

Anarchists love to talk about....

free markets being arbiter of all things good and evil. So why can't they compete in the free market of ideas? What percentage of the electorate would vote for someone who espouses the illogical nonsense called anarchism? Can you imagine the public's response to someone saying eliminating all law enforcement would reduce crime because all crime would be "legal". Or how about an anarchist rally full of black masked juvenile delinquents banging heads in a mosh pit. After all the anarchist talk about markets, they fall flat on their face when trying to compete in the free market of ideas. Oh the delicious irony.


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

Let's review a couple more

Let's review a couple more facts:

1. Anarchists, voluntaryists, or libertarians have been marketing evolving ideas of individual liberty and free markets for centuries.

2. You are talking about free markets.

3. You wrote many people on this site support free markets.

I therefore must conclude ideas are being successfully marketed. By framing the problem as a marketing problem is to miss the mark.

This is not rocket science. Hey big corporations that have thrived due to a heavy government regulated environment excluding competition, I have a new idea ... freedom. You may not make as much money in this new environment where you will have to honestly compete but trust me ... you will love it. So how about diverting some of your profits into this new idea which may yield less returns?

When people use a phrase like "grass roots" or "bottom up" it is likely just a catch phrase for many and not a realization that corporate America has little use for ideas which may diminish its profits. It is not a realization freedom is not going to have big corporate donors because companies have not figured out a way to achieve guaranteed profits in an environment of freedom.

You are really brain dead

You are really brain dead aren't you? A true to form Voluntaryist/Anarchist wouldn't run for office; so how is someone going to vote for an Anarchist?

There are no free markets; not even for ideas. You do realize what makes a free market don't you; of cource not.

All crime wouldn't be legal; this just further proves that you are a bafoon.

So, when does the croocked justice system start indicting people for you?

Speaking of brain dead...

it's the anarchists who say Ron Paul, a government employee and Presidential candidate, "is an anarchist". And you say all government is evil and should be eliminated, so who or what is going to define what crime is? And if like magic, markets define crime, are criminals going to voluntarily admit they've commited a crime? And if they voluntarily admit to committing a crime, who or what will enforce conseqences? And if "the market" imposes consequences, isn't that coercion, the anarchist's cardinal sin? Anarchists tell so many lies they can't keep their story straight.

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

I barely even said anything

I barely even said anything about Ron Paul throughout this entire thread; and I certainly didn't say that he was an Anarchists.

If their was a cardinal sin in voluntaryism it would be, the initiating of force this is different than the type of coercion you are talking about as consequences of actions.

Example: If you are watering your lawn and your neighbor walks over and starts hitting you with a baseball bat. Your neighbor just initiated force agianst you. A voluntayist doesn't have a problem with you then defending yourself against the transgression. A voluntaryist wouldn't have a problem with you trying to take him to a private arbiter, for pain and suffering due to the transgression he/she perpatrated against you.

If you are concerned in a particular neigborhood about crime -which would be mostly nonexistent- then the city or town or township you are in could get together and hire a security force; however, you would not be able to pass that cost on to people outside the security force's coverage zone, like is done today with government owned police forces.

As someon esle pointed out, if you have a town which wants laws then you all could get together and create your own laws for that particular area, and have a security force and either have a town arbiter or allow outside abiters to operate there under liscense by the town or whatever.

You try to make it sound like there would be zero laws everywhere one goes. I'm sure that in certain areas Communism would try to start -it wouldn't work, but it might be tried. In certain areas they may try to cary on without laws at all. If one area does soemthing you don't like, you don't have the authority to force them to change for no other reason than you don't like it.

Voluntaryism explicitly means...

that following some code of behavior is voluntary. But you keep suggesting that, like magic, people will voluntarily agree that initiating force is wrong. But what if a majority of people voluntarily believe that initiating violence is acceptable? You're good at double speak but even that's not enough to disguise the illogical nature of voluntaryism.

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

It means interactions between

It means interactions between individuals is not Forced. If an area all got together and wanted their area to have a miriad of laws, that would be up to them -to pay for and to secure their way of life- in a voluntaryist system; however, they have no influence outside of their particular area. Why do you keep misrepresenting facts which have been stated to you over and over and over again?

But at anytime...

those same people could change their minds and voluntarily decide to enslave others and run an anarcho-barbarian welfare society subsidized by slaves. That's why we need limited government that has already achieved universal abolition 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)

Anytime they voluntarily

Anytime they voluntarily decide to enslave others, the laws of economics will bankrupt their efforts; because unlike with government all people won't be forced to pay for economically costly bad policies -because people believe that government is legitimate so they pay for it and then it gets so big that the people have no choice, where as the mob has not the benefit of being considered legitimate so not as many people will fund that program. It only gets bigger by actually doing something making money by utilizing the governments purpensity to outlaw behavior.

Without the government outlawing behavior, then the crime bosses have no way to make quick cash to grow their empire. If growing their empire was as easy as you think it is, then they would have taken over by now; because whithin our current system they would have multiple wasy of collecting revenue. However, the method of revenue collection -which deathly frightens you so much- is not that profitable; they utilize the selling of products your government has banned, to make the bulk of their money. If those products weren't banned then the mob couldn't exist.