-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.

You're being evasive

We are talking about tyranny being the "absence of government". Government being that which defines a nation state. Your position on taxes results in the absence of a government.

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

No we aren't, because that doesn't make any sense.

Government is tyranny. How can you say the opposite? You aren't making sense. Me controlling you is tyranny, and government. Absense of government would, by definition, require me not to control you. The second I control you, and become a tyrant, I've created government.

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

As the Declaration of Independence states...

a government's "just powers are derived from the consent of the governed". If people consent to a limited form of government, based on the doctrine of enumerated powers, and a Bill of Rights that restrains government, this government is not tyrannical. But as the Declaration also says, when a government fails to secure our unalienable rights, the people have the right to abolish it.

The real threat to the liberties of anarchists and those who believe in legitimate representative government as described above, is fascism. Lets all work together and defeat fascism and then we can debate which system 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)

I love that you brought that up...

...because the term "consent of the governed" seems like a paradox to me. If I give my consent, than I am not being governed, I am voluntarilly acting in a way the government has proposed. If they are controlling me, which is the definition of "government", than I am not consenting, I am being forced to obey. Consent requires voluntary cooperation. Government is not voluntary cooperation. It is forced obedience. Again, I like the parts of the founding documents which help expand freedom, the idea of the "consent of the governed" is not one of them.

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

An individual can...

give their consent to be governed, just like an individual in an anarchist society can agree to abide by, and be governed by a social consensus.

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

Negative ghost rider, the pattern is full.

An individual in an anarchist society can NOT agree to be governed, because by definition, he is no longer in an anarchist society. Anarchy is the absence of government. When you agree to be governed, there is a presence of government, not an absence. That's like saying a pro-mother can still be pro-life while aborting her baby.

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

Hey Statist! Explain to me

Hey Statist! Explain to me how the absence of somebody telling you how to live your life is tyranny?

Who said...

the absence of somebody telling me how to live my life is tyranny? Not me.

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

You said and I quote, We are

You said and I quote,

We are talking about tyranny being the "absence of government".

Does the government not control -by limiting what is possible- your actions? Are there others which are controlling your actions other than gvernment?


That you can DELEGATE a piece of your authority to another entity.

The RESTRICTION theoretically is that delegated entity cannot act with authority NOT delegated to it.

That's the purpose of a constitution to place those restrictions.

Is that not a "minarchist" form of government? I think it is. That was what the founding fathers set up. I am perfectly fine with that form of government and know of no better save the Kingdom of God returned to earth, which wont happen for a bit.

The false paradigm however is people like Beck criticizing NON-anarchists like me and you, by attempting to label us "anarchists" for no other reason than we oppose the ridiculous federal government acting way beyond their delegated authority and beyond all restriction today.

How in God's name is that "anarchy"? Of course its not. The founding fathers were hardly anarchists. But Beck and other disinformation scumbags want to label us anarchists even just for wanting a return to the limited government of the founding fathers.

Good points.

Beck is just fronting for the fascist regime by leading his sheeple into a dark alley where they will be mugged by the Fed, Wall Street and their bipartisan partners in crime.


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

So how effective has the

So how effective has the "Theoretical Ristriction" been over the last 200+ years? When the government realizes that the people have no ability to control the government -because the government has policing agencies and a standing military at the ready, and the consensus understanding is if you oppose the Government then you oppose the Constitution and therefore are an enemy- then the government will no longer even pretend to take orders from the people -as it currently doesn't; then what is your option for corraling the out-of-control government?

It is not like we don't have enough historical evidence that, no matter what kind of governmnet or what form it takes, no matter how large it is at the beginning or how much power it has, governments always move towards tyranny and the people are always helpless to stop it.

Also, with the obvious election fraud -which should have been evident to anybody paying attention over the last 12 years; how do you exactly expect to fix a government when your vote don't even count?

As with all revolutions...

it takes a ground swell of support for breaking the stranglehold of tyranny, and total committment with no guarantee of success. This is the basic formula for all revolutions, it's relatively simple but difficult to execute.

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

Actually, the only thing a

Actually, the only thing a groundswell on voting day is going ot do is to ligitimize an illigitimate government; they are still goin gto rigg the election, but they will then have the consent of the governed. Currently they only get about 30 to 40 percent of registered voters to participate: thereby making the entire government illigitimate. If, however, you were to increats that number to 51% or more, then there would be no stopping them from doin ganything and everything, because they would then have the consent of the governed.

Also, if you need a revolution to reform the government every so many years, then why have a government; it obviously doesn't work the way people like you think it will. Mr. Franklin said,

... a Republic if you can keep it.

Which basically means if the people don't keep the republic -which I certainly hope you can agree that we no longer have the Republic anymore- then the individuals are screwed. He never said anything about getting the power back if the Republic is lost, because that requires a revolution; since tyrants aren't going to just give-up power because people like you say so.

The Anarchists have convinced me.

I say Ron Paul IS an Anarchist attempting to destroy my country just like his good ole buddy Lew Rockwell.

Lew Rockwell, founder and Chairman of the Mises Institute and executor of Murray Rothbard's estate: "I think it would be a great thing to break up the US, just like it would be a great thing to break up the European Union."

This is the kind of guy Ron Paul hangs out with for 40 years?

When you can't bring yourself to serve justice, than you are WORTHLESS to liberty. When you tell people they should be respectful to carbon taxing mass murderers and fiat slavers, you have NOTHING to do with liberty, because you have NOTHING to do with serving justice.

He should be telling people that the banks and their puppet politicians need to be brought to justice, but he's not. He's asking Ben Bernanke stupid questions like "What is money".

The banks and their politicians won't be phased for one moment by America becoming a pile of rubble, yet Ron Paul looks forward to it and thinks he's going to build on it?

It was their creation, the endgame of their agenda, and I say the Anarchists are right. I say he's just another Anarchist, a user, a liar and a destroyer trying to make that future a reality by denying people justice.

When has he ever demanded justice be served? NEVER. We've seen where Ron Paul goes for his justice; the UN.

What he wants is to watch a bonfire while he runs his mouth telling people the Constitution is dead, yet somehow people keep letting themselves believe he represents them...

Anarchists are WORTHLESS to liberty, just like Ron Paul, and birds of a feather flock together.

The anarchists have convinced me too

Ron Paul has done a good job keeping his anarchist beliefs in the closet. I had my suspicions but wanted to give RP the benefit of the doubt, so I began my post by saying he's not an anarchist. I should probably change the intro to "Is Ron Paul an anarchist? I didn't think so, but the anarchists have convinced me otherwise." Thanks for the idea.

I expected many Ron Paul supporters to defend RP's alleged support for limited gov't. So the overwhelming support of anarchists for RP's anarchism surprised me. I think this indicates that quite a few DPers are anarchists, but I'm glad we have a gov't that protects their right to speak freely about their ideas. It just proves them wrong with regard to their criticism of the timeless, moral principles our country was founded upon, and the unalienable rights they protect.

I've had a similar experience at another online forum called the Thomas Jefferson Hour. I've been permanently banned from that forum just for adovcating what I believe to be Jeffersonian ideals. There's no doubt in my mind that the creators of The Jefferson Hour are anarchists attempting to co-opt Jefferson's ideas of limited gov't for anarchist purposes. And their extreme censorship demonstrates the fascist agenda of 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)

The evidence suggests...

that Ron Paul is an anarchist, but absent an unequivocal statement by Ron saying he's an anarchist, I'm going to retract my previous statement saying I'm convinced he is one.

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

Hang in there.

Hang in there. In the end, these Anarchists aren't even a speed bump. Justice will be served. Never back down from these people because nobody knows better than them that their ideas are indefensible, impossible and undesirable in the real world, because the real world is filled violent liars and covetous people. They know this, yet need to pretend otherwise.

Most of them think they can control the debate with insults and thumbs down. They really don't know what to do when a person won't back down and starts talking about justice, because then they need to start talking about how they're going to serve justice (defend liberty) with "free market solutions" in a free market of collective violence. When you boil down their whole philosophy you get to the truth of the matter, destruction, privately funded goon squads and a world filled with free range warlords all fighting over who can buy the most muscle.

Make no mistake about it; Anarchists are the enemies of liberty, and there's a VERY good reason they sound like liberals running their mouths calling people retards and sheep while they attack people of faith. They're birds of a feather. They just needed try and pander to liberty minded people, and think Anarchism is a means to their ends.

As Anarchists, they can't really get involved in politics for a reason, they have nothing to offer people except destruction, hate, and chaos.

Even here where they think they've found a safe haven, their BS just doesn't really sell. The Daily Paul has become their echo chamber, and the Daily Paul is where their ideas come to die.

Like you said...

the anarchists are but a speed bump, and in your previous comment you said the banks are a major problem. Here's a couple links to my posts on possible solutions to reign in the banks.


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

I'm still waiting for an

I'm still waiting for an answer, as to who is going to be serving out justice? You say that anarchists don't know what to do when someone starts talking about justice; I know what to do. Ask who is going to be handing out justice against those who've taken over your government and rigged the voting of "elected" officials. Somehow, whenever I ask that question to you people, I never get a response; I wonder why?

May I ask, who is going to be

May I ask, who is going to be serving out the justice? Would it be the band of criminals occupying the government? Do you believe that the criminals which have taken over the government are going to be interested in justice, or in what you think? You are dillusional. Like, the criminals are going to imprison themselves for being criminals. That would be the only way it could happen since the criminal government doesn't recognize the authority of the people anymore; and therefore you have no ability to influence the government.

An armed rebellion...

is not a viable option so the only option is grass roots organizing and millions of citizens presenting actionable evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors to local attorneys, Sheriffs, local prosecutors, State Attorneys General and U.S. Attorneys. R.I.C.O. (Racketeering, Influence an Corrupt Organizations) and "honest services" statutes would throw a wide net over public and private sector criminals. For more on this subject go to:


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

You clearly are not paying

You clearly are not paying attention to the legal system. DAs don't even prosecute Cops who murder individuals, and Judges toss out evidence which incriminate police officers. These are the people you think are going to help you; you can't be serious. When was the last time any politician was ever removed from power due to any of the charges you listed there? When was the last time andy politician ever faced charges at all? What about police officers; when was the last time a police officer was treated (via the justice system) the same as if he were a ordinary person?

I'm sorry to tell you, but the entire Justice System protects its own; they are in no way going to do any of the things you think they will do for you. The reason is; because they don't have to. The police officers are not directly hired by the people, the ADAs are not directly hired by the people, and the Judges serve a lifetime commitment in most cases or are appointed by a politician. Very few places are Judges elected by the people. Therefore, there is no Wrath which you -as an ordinary individual- can make them face directly and therefore there is no leverage to force them to do the right thing. So as long as the police, ADAs, Judges, and Politicians look-out for each-other, then there is nothing which you can do about it. There is no one to appeal to who isn't also doing the very same thing to protect themselves.

Therefore, your ideas of a quite revolution are long since over. There are two options left: Violent Revolution, or Leave it Collapse.


look it up. Look up Garet Garett another well known paleoconservative.

I am a paleoconservative. A paleo is NOT an anarchist. Even minarchists would argue that a paleo is not a minarchist, though I do think paleos are minarchists. But whatever.

It would be a LIE to call RP an anarchist.


You've been commenting on this post...

for quite awhile, and the whole time anarchists have been declaring Ron Paul an anarchist. Why are you just now deciding to speak up and say Ron Paul is not an anarchist?

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

statists are worthless to liberty...

Ron paul has done a lot more than ask what is money... you have no idea. Only truth sets you free. I can't speak for ron paul but I do know truth. And facts are facts get over yourself... prove yourself right and go change the world, see how far you get sueing everyone in currupt court. What are you even proposing other than mindless ramble? What are your solutions? The best way to beat the system is to let go of the system, ignore it. The more attention you give it the more it grows. The glen becks of this site are getting pretty annoying...

Doing nothing empowers tyrants

Here are some options:


Who is Glen Beck?

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

Oh really? What else has he

Oh really? What else has he done?

Oh that's right... He ran for President 'not to win' telling his supporters to hide their shows of support, to blend in with the crowd and if they felt the need to speak, to only parrot his talking points. I was even told by his campaign coordinator to pretend to be a Romney supporter.

Do you really think that Americans didn't know about this monetary scam? Did they need him to make the case for liberty? They know. They unjustly want what the scams offer them, plunder, and Ron Paul hasn't made the case for anything.

There's a reason people ridicule him. He's left out one crucial step in the process, justice, and in leaving out that step he's allowed you Anarchists to slowly creep in like a fungus and pretend injustice comes from government rather than our own covetous nature.

Here's my solution, limited and divided Constitutional Government; a Constitutional Republic for as long as you can hold onto it, and when you find that the people have become apathetic and allowed criminals to take control of that government, demand justice be served rather than trying to blame government itself.

I hate to break this to you little Anarchist, but I'm what Ron Paul pretends to be, an advocate for liberty and ready to defend it, a Libertarian, a Republican, and a Constitutionalist.

All you are is a liar and destroyer, so tell me now about your solutions. Tell me about how you want to destroy my country. Tell me about how government is the source of injustice and how a free market of goon squads and warlords are going to serve justice in your naive world. Tell me about how a world filled toll roads, extortion, and self worshiping snakes will lead to peace and enlightenment.

Try. Try T-R-Y.

Just don't pretend you're ever going to get the job done with debate, because you ideas are WORTHLESS to liberty, and in the end you're going to need to find enough people with guns to hide behind and use to do your dirty work, and should you ever pick up a gun yourself, remember, you will face justice.

Why don't you tell us how

Why don't you tell us how your Constitution prevented people in government from utilizing powers not vested in the government by the Constitution?

Why don't you tell us, how with a government in place which doesn't recognize the people's authority -other than platitudes to placate the irrational such as yourself- you plan to return to your Constitution; concidering that the elections are rigged and your vote doesn't count.

Your Statist government has locked you out of the loop; how do you put that genie back in the bottle?

...and when you find that the people have become apathetic and allowed criminals to take control of that government, demand justice be served...

Who are you exactly going to demand justice from? You already stated as when the government has been taken over by criminals; so when that happens who do you demand justice from -the criminals whom taken over your government. Do you really beleive that the criminals who have taken over your governemnt will do what exactly; just say, "Well you got us. We'll leave now. You can have your Republic back."

It's interesting...

that anarchists, who claim to oppose conformity, seem to be the most trigger happy when using the up/down vote to promote conformity. And why would a forum allegedly promoting libertarian values, use such an application which is clearly designed to promote group think? Hmmm?

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