-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.

People are naturally social

People are naturally social animals who live in groups and love to come together. What does this have to do with anarchy? If everyone is moving in the direction of a good idea such as the principle of nonviolence then count me on board.
Anarchy is not about being a goth kid and not conforming to your parents and teachers being a hoodlum or however you see it in your head. There is nothing wrong with conformity or groupthink. What is wrong is when a group thinks they have more rights than another group.

Get it? anarchy is the non aggresion principal.
Society and the market are almost one in the same. Both exist regardless of government. Government just hinders the two. Is it sinking in yet... perhaps give it some more time but don't fight it so hard,


It absolutely causes shark feeding frenzies. I find myself doing it at times. Humans are like that. I try not to but when I am grouchy I do it. We are not trying to stomp out human flaws. I have lots of them. Nobody can fix mine. So I know I can't fix others. I don't think anarchy will necessarily make humans better. But I think government has brought out the worst in us. Guess what the leading cause of human death in the last couple centuries was? Democide. Governments killing innocent civilians.

Governments are created by humans so....

without humans, governments would not exist. You admit that anarchy won't necessarily make humans better, so why would anarchy achieve better results than government? I simply believe that government, in spite of its flaws, has demonstrated more potential to improve the human condition than anarchy. The idea that anarchism is voluntary and a Republic is not, denies reality, because representative gov't explicitly means citizens voluntarily give their consent. We the people just have to continue working to improve the quality of governance. Freedom isn't free.

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

You admit that anarchy won't

You admit that anarchy won't necessarily make humans better, so why would anarchy achieve better results than government?

If in an anarchist system an evil man emerges how many individual lives can he effect in an instant? It depends on his wealth, but that single individual cannot effect as many lives as say the President of The United States can; can he? The Senate is made of 100 Senators, 51 Senators control the lives of 320 million people -technically more because their descisions also effect other people throughout the world. The fact that you think it is a good idea to give that kind of power to such few people, makes one question whether you truly believe man is capable of horrific acts against his/her fellow man. You may say that there is more than just the 51 Senators, and claim that I didn't include the House of Representatives as a Check on the Senate. Even including the House of Representatives(435 member) means that 218 Reps plus 51 Senate plus one President control the lives of 320 million plus the lives of millions if not billions outside of the US; that sounds like a wonderful idea.

Anarchy works because the individual doesn't have as much power, control, or influence over the market as an individual can possibly have in or over a government; therefore one person's mistake effects a limited number of people -preferably only the individual which made the mistake- however, if the POTUS makes a mistake or a Governor, or Defense Secretary or Secretary of State, or Secretary of Treasurey, etc these government individuals effect the lives of most people. The FBI director can effect the lives of many people; much more than an equivilant security individual in an anarchist system could ever possibly effect.

The question is; if people are capable of such horrors which you assert, then why would you want to give any of them(people) the kind of power to be able to severely effect the lives of millions of people?

since when is it a tenet of

since when is it a tenet of anarchism to "oppose conformity"?

I truly think you have no idea what anarchism really is whatsoever.

Also, we dont all wear red masks and throw rocks at Starbucks windows, as that's probably the next strawman in line...

I understand the...

anarchist theory of voluntary conformity, but I think the up/down vote is intended to use peer pressure as a means to coerce conformity. Not that I care, I just think it demonstrates the disingenuous nature of some anarchists. It should be obvious that I don't view political activism a popularity contest. I understand that throughout history, lone voices crying in the wilderness have ultimately contributed to significant change.

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

Watch the anti-semites do it on the "Zionist" threads.

It's a perfect example. They swarm like flies on the up/down votes.

They basically "gangrape" the voting system to make people who dont conform to the thread replies, REGARDLESS OF VERACITY OR VERIFIABILITY OF DATA, in order to either coerce conformity or make non-conformists look like idiots.


http://www.dailypaul.com/276483/is-ron-paul-an-anarchist-yes... I tried to make a good post to respond. at least it will be in the archives for history to see

The fact remains. The

The fact remains. The position you take will always be morrally wrong. For government to exist you must tax. Taxation is theft, a type of violence. You cannot ever morrally defend your position of violence to an educted person. With so much violence on every level you can only expect a society to give what they have been getting.

There has never been a real contitutional republic or a limited goverment because it is not the nature of the state. Imagine a mob trying to bring world peace. People will find truth at some point. Even you and that is why we still love you<3

Stop reading glen beck, jack hunter, and rand paul, garbage...
Instead read some Lew Rockwell, Murray Rothbard, Lysander Spooner, and Ron Paul.

Hope this helps.

You say that....

there has never been real limited gov't, but that's false. For thousands of years indigenous tribes had limited forms of government. And the evolution the republic has demonstrated that limited gov't is possible, but eternal vigilance is necessary to keep a republic. Unlike anarchy, which has not demonstrated to the degree of a republic, the ability to achieve its goals. Glen Beck? Who is that?

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

Indigenous tribes are not

Indigenous tribes are not limited governments, they exist outside the state. Most are truly "cheifdoms" and are more in line with monarchys having a kings rule. They wage war and use violence and even control their own people. Most have killed and used propaganda and religion to stay in line.

The evolution of the republic has demonstrated that limited government is possible? What does that even mean? Look at our own republic which is one of the newest and we have turned out to be one of the worst and in record timing mind you. Its funny because even days after our constitution was signed we had founding fathers persecuting people for making fun of their wasteline. That doesn't sound very liberty like.

Anarchy has not been demonstrated because of a lack of mass awareness. But its methods have proven to be right. Look up private defense forces in africa where there is zero crime, places where governments don't do much are the least currupt, happiest, and most successful. Every time you defend a liberty or free market solution you are advocationg non government non coercion and proving anarchy right. Anarchy is is the next step in our evolution... one thing is for sure if we do not learn from history this planet will be destroyed. We can keep making the same mistakes or we can wake up and have peace. Peace or destruction it pretty much boils down to that at this point and our existance is coming to its climax.


Why are you so intent on a consensus

for all humans living between the arbitrary lines drawn between the Rio Grande and along the lower part of the Northern Territories? You will never meet 99.999% of them. I already told you I am completely fine with you living under communism, socialism, totalitarianism, whatever floats your boat. May you offer me the same respect? I do not believe in aggression against others. Not individually nor collectively. Government can only exist by theft. May I just opt out? If I meet you and we decide to do business we can shake hands or sign a contract. Government is tyranny to me. You want to get everyone to agree to it. So you aid and abet tyranny, imho.

Here is my favorite book again. An audio version!


By choosing to live under a....

Constitutional system, you've voluntarily made a choice to opt in. Opting out has always been difficult, the earliest immigrants to this country were opting out of the tyranny under the British king. And the dangerous journey across the ocean and challenges of establishing a community in the new world did not deter them. If you want to opt out, it's easier today to travel to a place where you can practice the values you espouse. Personally, I would prefer the simple governace practiced by many indigenous tribes, but I choose to stay here and fight for the freedoms afforded by capitalism within the moral framework of limited government.


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


There is not a free square foot of land left on the face of the planet. I could possibly build an igloo in Antarctica and imagine that no one claimed possession of me and never even bump into anyone that thought they did.

But seriously there is no land around without some tyranny claiming sovereignty over the inhabitants.

The earliest immigrants lived under strict British rule as well as Crown chartered corporations that were very tyrannical. They had no religious freedom. If you were not Anglican, did not sign your allegiance to the Church of England, were caught teaching Catholicism to your children, did not attend church twice daily in some cases or weekly in others you could and would be sentenced to draconian punishment including banishment or death. Quakers would sometimes get thrown in prison as soon as the got off the boat and rot until death. Catholics were discriminated against until the mid 20th century. JFK was the first Catholic president.

We completely agree if you say that government is voluntary!!! We agree!

So, what you are saying is

So, what you are saying is that if the entire world is run by tyrants then there is no possibility to opt out, unless we can get off the planet; Are you insane?
Why do you feel the need to control other peoples lives? Why have you not yet recognized the Pennsylvania Anarchist experiment? How many instances would you need to prove that it(anarchism) works? Note, I want the same number of instances showing that government works; at the present time I have shown one instant in which anarchy worked, please show me one instant where government has worked. The anarchism experiment ended because of tyranny and force of government which wasn't pretty, however, when Pennsylvania went from government to psuedo-anarchism there was no violence or threats of violence what-so-ever.

Isn't it funny that going away from government was natural and didn't need threats or force, but going to government required threats and violence and the use of military force; quite a strange phenomenon, whouldn't you agree -especially considering, as you believe, the absolute need for the existence of government.

gunna listen to that audio

gunna listen to that audio for sure, been meaning to listen to more Rothbard.

dducks, this is what Mark is

dducks, this is what Mark is afraid of; this is why anarchism can never be allowed to be acheived. It is horrendous.

No Rules, Baby! Start That Riot!

No one can tell me no!

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com

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

tasmlab's picture

Three cheers for the Land of OOO

If you are interested, look up the Adventure Time wiki and see how creepily the land was created through a great global war. The opening scene in the theme montage shows some of the carnage from their great war.

Currently consuming: Morehouse's "Better off free", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

Why would anyone be afraid of....

the idealized vision that anarchists want to manifest in the world? I'm certainly not afraid of it, I long for it. It's just that anarchists have no practical plan that would get us from the current immoral, chaotic world, to a world where gov't is no longer needed because everyone voluntarily makes moral choices. The anarchist idea that we do nothing and let the system collapse only empowers the tyrants who are prepared for collapse. That makes me suspicious of the anarchists motives.

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

Anarchists don't say that

Anarchists don't say that everybody makes moral choices; but who are you to decide what I should and shouldn't do -if it doesn't harm you in anyway then it is none of you business. If you believe that something -an action of another individual, which doesn't infringe upon you liberties- should be limited or controled by some omnipotent third party called government, then I'm sorry but you are a statist.

As far as doing nothing is concerened; the only purpose of voting at all anymore is to try and get a high enough percentage of participation to ligitimize an illigitimate government. The best thing we could do is to decrease the amount of participation in the sham process to illuminate the illigitamacy of the government and its actions.

Currently in the US there is over 1 billion rules, laws, and regulations; that certainly sounds like the land of the free to me, how about you? By eliminating those -by ending government tyranny- how would a major corporation compete with thousand of others which are no longer shut out or barred from the market by the government? Even if the elites do try to maintain their empire it wouldn't neccessarily last forever -death of a thousand paper cuts?

Also, the majority of the elites wealth is held in stocks, bonds, and other things of such nature. They are currently buying land and minerals to try and have some of their wealth left if a collapse happens; if a collapse does happen the elites will lose most of their power because their 'wealth' is tied-up in paper assets which their value goes to zero in a collapse.

All of your fears are unfounded. You still have yet to point out the horrors which was the Pennsylvania Anarchist Experiment; but one only needs to look at our current government to see the horrors of even a government started with possibly the best chance of success for maintaining liberty -just think what a government not so well designed looks like after 200 years. Our current government is proof that even the most limited government connot be contained by a piece of paper, nor is it reasonble to expect an omnipotent force to impose the 'rule of law' on itself.

LOL. Hilarious!

I must admit that I got it

I must admit that I got it from a post on DP which I saw yesterday titled something like Anarchism through Statists eyes or something like that. I thought it was too damn funny and completely applicable on this particular thread.

You do realize that Ron Paul

You do realize that Ron Paul has admitted to being an anarchist to Pete Eyre of CopBlock.org fame, right?


at 4:11 he admits that "that is what my goal is" in response to pete's question of self government, aka anarchy.


I knew it :)

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

Hi Mark,

I don't think I've participated in this discussion...yet.

Here is a first comment for you: You seem to be confusing the "founding of this nation" with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are not among the founding documents of this nation and contain no reference to the unalienable rights to which you wish to project some attachment. The Declaration of Independence, on the other hand, does introduce the notion of unalienable rights and is among our founding documents. You really need to make a distinction.

I'm not sure your original question "Can unalienable rights exist?" makes any sense. That's one reason I didn't care to participate in the discussion. Unalienable rights is an idea. The idea existed before the Constitution. You seem to conflate the idea of "existence" with "state enforcement." What we are finding (or at least what we should be finding as humans) is that respect to the idea of unalienable rights can probably only exist in a society built on a different foundation than that of slavery and aggression. I know I hammer those unpleasant phrases, but I think that really is the crux of the matter.

Whether or not, or to what extent, Ron Paul has figured this out is not really important. To me, the key thing is that he has actually done nothing against the principle I have just enunciated. And he has done a great deal in harmony with it. So, from that point of view, maybe he is an anarchist in spirit, as was Jefferson. Except Ron Paul was much more successful in living up to his principles in practice than Jefferson.

Finally, I think there's a good deal of confusion on terminology. I can imagine "government" maintained by "taxation" which is completely voluntary. Others can't imagine such a thing. I can imagine a much greater degree of individual responsibility and liberty in our society than we currently have. I think most people can imagine that. Can we agree to do something constructive to work toward that, rather than arguing about our theories that "anarchy can't work" or was "debunked" or some such nonsense?

The key phrase in...

in your comment is "I can imagine". Imagining a better world is great, but then you ask if we can "agree to do something constructive to work toward that". But like all the other comments supporting anarchism, you don't offer a single practical solution that could be used to work toward a better world.

Thomas Jefferson was an anarchist? Then why, in the Declaration of Independence, did he say governments are instituted by men to "secure" their unalienable rights? And why did he then support the creation of a limited government with the power to tax and enforce the moral principles codified in our founding documents? So explain how that qualifies Jefferson as an anarchist? Talk about being confused about definitions, wow, that takes the cake.

And to further demonstrate your confusion, you try equate the moral principles codified in our founding documents with a foundation of slavery and agression. It was those moral principles that led to the abolition of slavery, women's right to vote and the Civil Rights movement. But not only did these moral principles inspire Americans to stand up for their unalienable rights, they've inspired, and continue to inspire, countless millions around the world.


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

Practical suggestion:

Remove your consent. Deny any other human any claim to ownership of your life. Build a community and economy independent of the tyranny around you. Quit initiating violence against others, and quit advocating the same.

I stopped...

giving my consent long ago. That's why I challenge the status quo everyday, if you hadn't noticed.

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