-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"

Comment viewing options

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


What you're saying doesn't make sense.

Government doesn't require

Government doesn't require unanimous votes does it? The answer is no. If government does something evil -impose theft on the citizens, as an example; well, 100% of politicians didn't need to approve of that did they? The answer again is no. The actions of government are evil and immoral -due to the fact that the majority of politicians impose their will on all of the people, and a government which takes no actions is not a government at all; therefore, if the only actions government take are evil and immoral then government is evil and immoral, but government doesn't need 100% conformity from all politicians and therefore not all politicians need to, by neccessity, be evil and immoral -only the majority of them.

Philosopher, the reason your

Philosopher, the reason your critique doesn't work is because those minority politicians, who you say could be good guys, are still taxing citizens for their salary and OK with military force if needed. When I say all tax services and all govt in premises 1 and 2 I really mean "all", just like an anarchist does. It's completely inconsistent for someone like Lew Rockwell, an anarchist who says you shouldn't even vote, to love Ron Paul and hope he wins elections.

It is not entirely

It is not entirely inconsistent: (1) RP has the best voting record of anybody in recent memory -if somebody has to occupy that spot why not sombody who will at least vote for Liberty? (2) We were going to be taxed anyway, I would rather my money go to somebody who is at least trying to direct us towards Freedom and Liberty then to be taxed to pay for yet another Statist. So, while you say it is inconsitent in respect to an idealic perspective, we still have to utilize cost/benefit analysis to at least try to increase freedom via the government since we have no choice but to pay for it anyway.

Also, even if those minority politicians were all bad guys guess what? We would still be taxed. If 90% of the Federal politicians were just like RP, guess what? We would still be taxed. The taxes won't be going away anytime soon, so we might as well get something for the money. This in no way suggests that I endorse government, however, right now we have one and I would rather as many people like Dr. Paul occupying those seats than people like Obama or Mcain; wouldn't you?

So actually my critque does work; because we would be taxed anyway. Guess what? It is still immoral and evil, however, I certainly got my money's worth watching Dr. Paul interogate Helicopter Ben and others.

FYI, I'm not an anarchist and

FYI, I'm not an anarchist and am not against taxes absolutely. I'm arguing from anarchist terms to show the absurdity of the position. So far all you've done is make excuses. It's like a Xtian saying pornography is evil and immoral but supporting some obscure porn star that doesn't make many movies. "Well, there's gonna be porn anyway, so even though I don't like it I'm gonna support and applaud Ms. So and So since she really doesn't do much." That is completely inconsistent and counterproductive. You are still supporting someone for doing what you think is inherently evil. Wrong is wrong. If an anarchist wants to justify supporting a politician who forces taxation and propagates the govt's monopoly on justice like Ron Paul then you aren't an anarchist in practice. Please, this is simple logic.

So, your suggestion is that I

So, your suggestion is that I pay taxes to support a Statist? I have no alternative but to pay taxes; so why should I support a Statist with the money Statist like yourself and others force me to pay?

Your argument is this: We make you pay taxes against you will. You would rather not pay taxes, because you would rather not have a government, and because you would rather not have a government or pay taxes you shouldn't support a politician who is Pro Liberty. Thereby making the tax money that you are forced to pay against you will go to fund another Statist like those forcing you to pay taxes against your will.

That is a beautiful argument if I wanted to fund Statists or to propagate Statism, but since I don't; I do not believe it is a very intellecual argument.

Maybe you and those like you should openly admit that you support the current government exactly how it is; considering that the government you supposedly want will in time -as a matter of the nature of government- become nearly indentical to this one anyway.

Um, no, that is NOT my

Um, no, that is NOT my argument. What are you even talking about? Please re-read my original post. My argument is this: Anarchists say all tax-funded services are inherently evil and immoral. This means all tax-funded government is evil and immoral. This includes political representatives, since they are a tax-funded service. Therefore, the office of a political representative is inherently evil and immoral. Therefore, the political office of Ron Paul is evil and immoral. Therefore, anyone who supports his political office is supporting evil and immorality.

This is the essence of what I said in my very first comment here. Now, if you don't agree with any of those premises, you aren't an anarchist. Either that or anarchists all over the web need better communication skills. The problem is that you want it both ways. You want to shout "Anarchy!" while supporting political reps who say things you like. But it doesn't work that way if you want to be a principled person. My suggestion is that you stop being an anarchist. This is just one example of the internal flaws within anarchy. It's an illogical worldview. Support Ron Paul and other reps like him because they are upholding PROPER government. Don't praise them and then condemn the legitimacy of their service at the same time.

Thanks to what you consider...

an evil government, you have the unalienable right to speak freely about your ideology. This demonstrates the moral and timeless nature of the rights protected by our Constitution and Bill of Rights. I don't deny that more and more of our rights are being infringed upon, but rather than give up as you suggest, I'm going to fight for my rights because anarchism doesn't offer a practical alternative.


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

Thanks to what you consider

Thanks to what you consider an non-evil government, we have(had) Slavery, The Alien and Sedition Act, The 1st Bank of the US, The 2nd Bank of the US, The Party System (1854), The Civil War, Government Sponsoured Railroads, The Killing of almost all of the Bison, The Parks department, The Federal Reserve, WWI, WWII, Vaporizing of innocent civilian in Japan, The Cold War, The Instances in Iran, Korea, Vietnam, etc. I seriously hope I don't need to include all of it, because I missed plenty of stuff. I certainly hope you get the idea.

But if you think that it all was worthwile, then that is on you; but seriously -the peice of paper which is called- the Constitution is incapable of focing government to follow it -it is not its fault, it is only a peice of paper- and the people had and have no interest in forcing the government to abide by the Constitution with the ultimate threat being death, so the Government realized it could do whatever the hell it wanted and nobody would do anything. Now, that the voting is nearly 100% controlled, the people don't even have voting as an option, but the government still has authority to do whatever the hell it wants while the people have no recourse what so ever.

Since we know that in time people will quite voting for one reason or another, it is evil to saddle them with a government which will eventually enslave them. An Anarchist system would force them -think tough love- to take a more hands-on approach to protecting their "rights," and thereby limiting the very need of a government to zero. Obviously this wouldn't be immediately, however, if protecting peoples freedom is what one ultimately wants, then anarchism is the best way to accomplish that.

I understand the point you're making....

about the potential and actualized evil of government. But we live in a world where good and evil exist, so the question is, what form of society has the greatest capability of deterring evil actions and enabling good actions? In spite of all its flaws, I believe capitalism within the moral framework of limited government is the best we can do.

You say government can do anything it wants, but if that were true, we'd all be wearing helmets that moniter our thoughts, and thinking outside the parameters defined by tyrants would result in an electric shock. And there would be armed drones ready to arbitrarily execute those suspected of free thinking. But those conditions don't exist because people support the pieces of paper that make these things illegal in our country.

As for people having no recourse, history is riddled with rebellions that have successfully overthrown tyrannical governments. And not all revolutions have to be violent, I believe the Civil Rights movement was a successful "hands-on", non-violent revolution that protected the rights of citizens. But you seem to be suggesting we need to return to a state of barbarism before citizens will take a hands-on approach to protecting their rights. Here are some more hands-on approaches to protecting our rights.


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

You have yet to explain how

You have yet to explain how giving potentially evil people a vocation wich will allow them direct control over the lives of millions of people is a good idea? You are afraid that an evil person in an anarchist system -who by the very nature of the system would have a limit on his/her potential control over people- will gain control over many people; but somehow an institution which -by its very nature creates such an instance- and you think that is great. I'm sorry but you are illogical, and your fear is incredible.

As far as the Civil Rights are concerened; you do realize that it was the government which you love which made the Civil Rights movement even neccessary?

I suppose illegal wiretaps have never happened? I suppose the NSA facility in Utah isn't going to be monitoring all electronic communications -kind of like reading ones mind.

My right to speak my mind is

My right to speak my mind is inherent in the fact that I'm alive; and not because some people 200+ years ago decided to acknowledge my ability to speak my mind. Also, that 200+ year old document hasn't really done much to protect any of the other 9 amendments in the Bill Of Rights has it?

How are you going to fight in anyway meaningful: you do realize that voting is rigged, right? You also should recognize that the Justice System protects its own, so they aren't going to be removing people from office or positions of power, because you -as and ordinary individual- have zero power over those who would be charged with executing such actions. You do not elect -even if voting wasn't rigged- ADAs, you do not hire police officers, and most judges are either appointed for life, appoint by politicians, or are elected -however the vote would be rigged anyway. Police officers won' arrest County/State/Federal Attorneys, Judges, Politicians, and the Attorneys wont prosecute the Police officers, Judges, or Politicians, and the Judges on the instances where the case was so haneous that it had to go to court, the Judges will throwout vital evidence which would convict the Police officers, Attorneys, Politicians, or Judges.

It is a self contained system, which you have no control over. So, how exactly do you think you are going to change it?

The only thing protecting your right to...

free speech is the vast majority of people in this country who support the piece of paper saying you have the right to free speech. Your refusal to acknowledge this fact demonstrates an unwillingness to engage in intellectually honest dialogue.

The conditions you're complainig about, rigged voting etc., are nothing new and that's why freedom is not free, we must continually work to maintain individual liberties. And another fact you refuse to acknowledge is that in spite of recurring tyranny, history demonstrates that the evolution of rights, and limited government to protect those rights, has greatly improved the human condition.

The human condition will continue to improve because people will continue to rebel against tyranny and proper education will eventually create societies capable of deterring tyranny before it occurs. As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, the long arc of the universe bends toward justice. And based on empirical evidence, this is true.


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

If you all support that peice

If you all support that peice of paper, why have you let them trash it? The only reason there is anything left of that peice of paper has nothing to do with anything other then the fact that people still have guns. However, this will change very soon. Then what will you say? The only reason what? The fact is technically none of your constitution is left including the bill of rights; and there is not a damn thing you can or will do about it. That is some kind of protection you have for that peice of paper.

Government always leads to tyranny, and you support government.

Told ya..

I told ya the label would bring the whole idea down lol

I've seen many sound arguments that point to anarchy/anarcho-capitalism being the best way for humanity in here, but so many people just have it in their head that the word "anarchy" means death, chaos and just a total destruction of everything smfh....

We all still hold on to small ideologies of the past as truth even though we already know we were lied to. It's natural and eventually you grow out of it and learn.. or you just continue walking around with only 1 eye open.

We know we were lied to?

Speak for yourself. I believe certain principles are timeless, so their relevance does not diminish with the passage of time, technology, or the current culture of corruption. In particular, the principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence and codified in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Your suggestion that anyone who doesn't agree with you is a dupe is just another example of the phony liberty promoted by some anarchists.


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

Would you disagree with the guy who wrote that Declaration???

“I am convinced that those societies (as the Indians) which live without government enjoy in their general mass an infinitely greater degree of happiness than those who live under the European governments. Among the former, public opinion is in the place of law, & restrains morals as powerfully as laws ever did anywhere. Among the latter, under pretence of governing they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves & sheep. I do not exaggerate.”

— Thomas Jefferson

Goethe said, "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."

Government is just another form of control, no matter if it's small or big. A person that only owns 1 slave is no better than a person that owns 10,000.

Regarding Native American society....

They did have governments, in fact, the confederation of states that existed before the Constitution was ratified, was modeled, in part, on the Iroquois Confederacy. The Iroquois were a group of tribes with organized government that lived in the northeast.

Those tribes that lived without formal gov't had codes of conduct enforced by elders, which is still a form of government. I would agree with Jefferson in that when it comes to gov't, the smaller and more local the better. In spite of his views on Native American life, he supported the formation of a Constitutional Republic and fought for a small central gov't, states rights and empowerment of the individual citizen. Which is exactly what I'm advocating for.


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

Oh no.

Don't try to flip his words to make your argument lol. Obviously he's saying a government less society is better off then a European like government.. He didn't say small government, he said no government. It's in plain english "without government"..


You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Stop that rhyming. I mean it!

Anybody want a peanut?

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

What do you...

think I think rights mean?

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

But clearly you have...

mastered the art of self promotion on DP.

Self promotion?

I have no interest in promoting myself. I believe in the principles of capitalism within limited government and both are being jepordized by a fascist regime. So it's my duty as a citizen to stand up for the principles that so many have fought and died for. Check out this post on gun control.


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


That's a post you wrote... more self promotion. Not that I'm criticizing, but it is what it is.


Remember, he correctly confessed the Prince of Peace.


Hear, O Israel: YHUH our God YHUH one. And thou shalt love YHUH thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

Check out this video on...

the New World Order, it's only ten minutes long. In the video, Ron Paul, Henry Kissinger, Bush 41, and others talk about the NWO. Near the end, there's an interesting and accurate description of the Fed's fascist scheme. At the very end it makes some Biblical predictions, some of which I don't agree with, but I do agree that Christ will rule with grace and mercy that exceeds anything we can devise. Until then, we have a duty to use the law to govern with as much grace and compassion as humanly possible.


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

The real threat to the liberties of...

anarchists and those who believe in a limited, legitimate representative government, whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed, is fascism.

We should all work together to defeat fascism. Then we can debate which ideology affords the most freedom within a moral framework. For possible solutions to defeat fascism, check out this post.


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


Here are some extremely imporant points about anarchy. By definition, anarchy is both impossible and also the greatest ideal for freedom ever. All the word means is "to be without government". All government means is "control of an individual by another". To truly be an anarchy, a society must be full of individuals who refuse to govern each other. Isn't that liberty? Isn't liberty the idea that I have power over myself, but nobody else? Anarchy is impossible because human nature, and any species' nature in the animal kingdom, is flawed and nature isn't perfect. Some one will always try to govern someone else and abuse their natural right to freedom, wether it is to steal their food, or simply a father governing his son by forcing him to go to sleep early. Anarchy is simply impossibel by definition. However, by defintion, it is not the freak show many of you want it to be. No justice is necessary in an anarchy because for it to be an anarchy in the first place, no individuals will have governed the actions of anyone else by use of force. The minute one individual controls another, by theft, force, etc., they are governing a member of society and thus, creating government.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

Your double talk never ends

One minute you're saying you support the Constitution and the next you're saying something different. I suggest people go to one of my previous posts and read some of snakepits comments. You'll find most of his comments on pages 3&4 of the following link.


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