-23 votes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2976341
http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2976503

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

There were many replies to my post that supported a market completely free from government while saying they supported limited government. This seems to be a contradiction, so I thought it important to talk about the merits of capitalism within the moral framework of limited gov't vs. a completely free market that operates outside of government. If interested, you can read some of the comments yourself, here's the link.
http://www.dailypaul.com/275602

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

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

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

But to all those who support the practice of capitalism within the moral framework of limited government, don't give up the fight. We can look back on history, from the barbarians to ancient Greek democracy, the Roman Republic before the Roman Empire, the Enlightenment, the Magna Carta, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, and know there are tried and true methods to improve the human condition. Check out this post titled "Morals, Ethics and the Role of Gov't in a Capitalist Economy"
http://www.standupforyourrights.me/?p=917

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

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

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

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/3343248
http://onpoint.wbur.org/2011/10/18/prosecuting-wall-street/p...

For more info check out this post titled "Crime of the Century"
http://www.standupforyourrights.me/?p=697



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

I'm of the opinion

That some form of government will always form. People will always make promises to other people. All you can do it make it as painless as possible.

No train to Stockholm.

"Is Ron Paul an anarchist? No, but..."

i know this isn't your main point, but:

the fact that he helped create the worlds largest (essentially) anarchist think-tank/school along with the worlds predominate anarchists and who has even gone on record as saying that reaching an entirely voluntary form of self-governance (anarchy) is his goal...

yea, it's safe to say that he is an anarchist. he just knows that people can't digest the term since the media and violent syndicalist have pinned such stigma to it.

I think your cause would be....

better served if you didn't blame media and others for anarchism's lack of appeal. I haven't read one comment from someone supporting anarchy offering any practical ideas that could change the world from it's current chaotic state to the idealized society you say exists at the end of the yellow brick road. Do you think you can click your little red shoes together and wake up back in anarcho Kansas?

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

right.

way to rudely, not address the point i made.

i'm not your tutor. i'm not interested in debating you. the point i made was clear. you dodged it.

At times, sarcasism can be...

a useful tool. If the point you're making is that Ron Paul is an anarchist, then I agree, the evidence seems to point in that direction.

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

Can I play......

First off, I can appreciate your post and have no issue with it. I will take issue with a few of your conclusions though.
1) Tax....Income tax is immoral. It was once unConsitutional and should be again. Income tax stymies capitalism for it taxes the production of the nations wealth....human action. One does have to be anarchist to be against income, human action, tax as immoral.
2) The Bill of Rights protects nothing, it is a negative right. It simply restrains government by prohibiting certain actions. It does not control the people who run government, it prohibits the government from enacting laws. Example - The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. If the people of the federal government want to prohibit speech they can, its just not law.
Just like counterfeit, you can do it but the paper is useless and there may very well be a consequence. Just like counterfeit, some will get duped. Only the duped can petition the Supreme Court....why ?

I agree with your postion on...

income tax and believe most current tax schemes are designed to benefit Wall Street fascists and their bipartisan partners in crime.

As you say, the Bill of Rights restrains government, but then you say it does nothing to control those who govern. This is a contradiction because a restraint is a form of control. And if not for the Bill of Rights, the dead corpse of our unalienable rights would've been twisting in the wind long ago.

If K-12 education taught the basics of natural law, common law, and the Constitution and Bill of Rights, in the context that there will always be enemies, foreign and domestic who will try subvert the law, a legitimate representative gov't would be restored and sustained.

http://www.standupforyourrights.me

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

Education...

A negative restraint, in this case, is the opposite of control. Like I said, the people of government are not restrained, they can write and pass a bill, sign in and call it a law. Its not......its not law for it violates the contract the people have with their central authority.
The force, act of force, is only perpetrated by the free people, when they ignore the fake law as fake law and move on about their business.

Let us assume the federal government passes a bill, calls it a law, and arrest somebody for it......this person then goes to court. If the court convicts he petitions, in this case to the Supreme Court. The court then rules, you are free to go....there is no such law in this land......What they said was there never was a law, just a distortion that required remedy.

My five kids know those things......they learned at the diner table......I dont get the argument it is the States job to teach the children how to rule the State....think about it.

As long as the State requires property owners...

to fund education, why wouldn't we want to get something of value for our money? Especially an educational foundation that provides an antedote to tyranny. I know, we're all supposed to give up and let your tyrannical friends that you purport to oppose, run us into the ground.

Regarding the Bill of Rights providing restraints but no control over those governing, it's a prime example of the perverse nature of most anarchists, i.e., up is down, left is right, restraint means no restraint, etc., etc.....perpetually disagree as a means to break down the underlying agreements that are the foundation of civil society.

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

Come on, man.....

My comment about education had nothing to do with funding, simply common sense. You want the government to teach your child how to restrain the government......that lacks common sense, was my point. My view is to teach that yourself, that way it is done properly.
It could be argued we have a runaway government in part because parents failed to properly teach the art and science of restraining your central authority.....that would be a fair argument, would it not ?

On your second point, did I not give you link to Madison explaining the difference between positive rights and negative rights.....Are you suggesting Madison was a perverse anarchist ? Or do you suggest I ruined Madison's well written essay ?

I want the human beings,

the teachers whose wages I pay, and who may be my neighbors, to teach something that comports with the values I teach at home. And for those children whose parents may be politically illiterate, I definitely want them to be taught the principles of Constitutional gov't.

The "common sense" expressed by anarchists is illogical to most.

It's your interpetation of Madison I disagree with.

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

So, what you are saying is

So, what you are saying is that you want government -made of people, which are possibly bad- to utilize teachers -which are also people, and which might possibly also be bad- to educate your children or other peoples children how to restrain government?

What I'm saying is...

if we look back on history, we can see the progress of humanity from barbarians, to ancient Greek democracy, the Roman Republic before the empire, the Enlightenment, Magna Carta, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, and we can know that commerce practiced within a moral framework of limited government has improved the human condition. The same cannot be said about anarchism, which is just theory, like anthropogenic global warming.

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

What the Greek, Roman,

What the Greek, Roman, British, American and every-other government has shown us throughout the ages is that government always subjegates their people and other people. Governments love war, and the game of empire. What governments throughout history has shown us, is that no matter how limited or benevolent the government starts out, it will continously try to expand and grow -becoming more repressive and oppressive as it does. Sounds like fun.

This may be a bit jumbled but i think you should see this.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/test
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_and_anarcho-capitalism

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/uscivillibertie1/p/libertar...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)
Lincoln, representing the fast-growing western states, won the Republican nomination in 1860 and subsequently won the presidency. The party took on the mission of saving the Union and destroying slavery during the American Civil War and over Reconstruction. In the election of 1864, it united with War Democrats to nominate Lincoln on the National Union Party ticket.
The party's success created factionalism within the party in the 1870s. Those who felt that Reconstruction had been accomplished and was continued mostly to promote the large-scale corruption tolerated by President Ulysses S. Grant ran Horace Greeley for the presidency. The Stalwarts defended Grant and the spoils system; the Half-Breeds pushed for reform of the civil service.
The GOP supported business generally, hard money (i.e., the gold standard), high tariffs to promote economic growth, high wages and high profits, generous pensions for Union veterans, and (after 1893) the annexation of Hawaii. The Republicans supported the pietistic Protestants who demanded Prohibition. As the northern post-bellum economy boomed with heavy and light industry, railroads, mines, fast-growing cities and prosperous agriculture, the Republicans took credit and promoted policies to sustain the fast growth.

Homeland security statement: patriotism is now considered terrorism.
I love www.isidewith.com shared it with everyone I know. If anything they realize its not just a red and blue idiot running for reelection.

This is what Lincoln said...

in a speech about monetary policy:

"The government should create, issue and circulate all the currency. The privilege of creating and issuing money, is not only the supreme prerogative of the government, but it is the governments greatest creative opportunity. By adoption of these principles, the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be the master and become the servant of humanity. Democracy will rise superior to the money power."

Source: U.S. Library of Congress, No.23, 76th Congress, 1st session, p.91

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

So, you're a greenbacker?

That explains a lot.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


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

right on target Mark

And thoughtfully presented. Government is people.

So is...

SOYLENT GREEN

I'm reaching up and reaching out.
I'm reaching for the random or what ever will bewilder me.
And following our will and wind we may just go where no one's been.
We'll ride the spiral to the end and may just go where no one's been.
Spiral out.

Governent is people...

people who are exempted from the same moral constraints as the rest of us and given free reign to kill, enslave, and steal.

But, besides that I guess its accurate to say they are just people.

I wonder how they magically obtain rights that the rest of us don't posses.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


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

Not true. America's founders put...

checks and balances in place for the purpose of placing those who govern under the law. One of the core principles agreed upon by the framers was equality before the law, i.e., we must be a nation of laws, not men, if we are to be a Constitutional Republic and a legitimate representative gov't. But we do not live in a perfect world, so the incremental creep toward tyranny is always present. That's why the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

The Declaration of Independence ends with these words: "And for support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." The founders understood the price of freedom, total committment with no guarantee of success. In sports we teach athletes to compete even if the game appears lost, and our unalienable rights are far more important than a game.

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 likewise tell the

Would you likewise tell the atheletes to compete if the game was rigged? The idea of voting ourselves out of this is long since gone; it is now impossible to vote for a better future. The 'Constitution' is incapable of protecting itself, and votes are rigged; so then what?

In an anarchist system, there is no universally accepted entity with governing powers, therefore it is nearly impossible for anything to assume them(governing powers), because there is no set place or entity to take over to accomplish ones governing power desire.

Due to the potential -nearly infinite- compitition in the marketplace, most -if not all- businesses would not be nearly as big as many of the smaller large businesses are today. Long term R&D would be shelved because the company would need massive liquidity if many competitors suddenly arose overnight; investments in other companies would be limited also, and banks would be less likely to lend to businesses(which would be all businesses) where the potential for competition would be so high, and therefore the possibility of a bankruptcy is a very real possibility no matter how good they(the business) performed at any given time prior.

You said "in an anarchist system...

there is no universally accepted entity with governing powers." You're overlooking one important governing principle that exists in nature, the strong dominate the weak. So if you believe that in a stateless society, we wouldn't have monopolies and cartels with even more power than under a Republic, I've got some subprime loans I'd like to sell you. Call me, and don't worry, the price of houses will never go down.

Anarchists will not acknowledge that in a stateless society, with no agreed upon rules, the strong will collude to dominate the weak, this makes me suspicious of their motives.

I do like the rigged game analogy because your talking about a rules based system. Would I tell them to compete, absolutely, do the best you can while working to restore equal enforcement of the rules. Same with voting, exercise your right to vote while doing everything you can to restore representative gov't. A fatalistic, nothing can be done attitude only empowers the tyrants, so it's interesting that anarchists almost always try convince people to give up. Hmmm?

http://www.standupforyourrights.me

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

Seriously?

"So if you believe that in a stateless society, we wouldn't have monopolies and cartels with even more power than under a Republic, I've got some subprime loans I'd like to sell you. Call me, and don't worry, the price of houses will never go down."

Do you really think the housing bubble was created by a free market?

“It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.” - Murray Rothbard

Come back when you are economically literate.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


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

Speaking of illiteracy...

it seems you're unable to comprehend what I've written. I said nothing about the free market causing the subprime bubble. In fact, I've done quite a bit of research and writing on the subprime bubble and it certainly wasn't caused by free market capitalism. If you're interested, check this post titled "Fraud and the Federal Debt".

http://www.standupforyourrights.me/?p=1047

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

You implied it.

"So if you believe that in a stateless society, we wouldn't have monopolies and cartels with even more power than under a Republic, I've got some subprime loans I'd like to sell you. Call me, and don't worry, the price of houses will never go down."

Citing the housing market crash as a refutation of laissez-faire, certainly implies that you are suggesting the market would be at fault for it.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


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

I invite you to parce my words and...

explain how I implied the free market caused the subprime bubble.

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

Not true?

So government doesn't steal, enslave, and kill?

They don't take my property? They don't enslave me if I refuse to hand over my property? They don't kill me if I defend myself from their attempts to take my property and liberty?

I am not allowed to steal, enslave, or kill, But the state is allowed.

How is this "equality under the law", if some people are allowed to violate the same law I am constrained by?

Are some animals more equal than others?

If the stated function of government is to protect Life, Liberty, and Property.

Then why does it deprive us of Life, Liberty, and Property by it's very nature?

In order for government to function it has to steal my property, If I refuse to hand over my property, it will take my liberty, and If I oppose its attempts to take my liberty, it will take my life.

It has to steal, enslave, and murder just to exist.

How can an organization that violates your rights to Life, Liberty, and Property protect those same rights?

We are afraid that someone might deprive us of our rights to life, liberty, and property, so we created an organization that deprives us of our rights to life, liberty, and property, to protect us from those that would deprive us of our rights to life, liberty, and property?

We need an organization to violate our rights, in order to protect us from those that would violate our rights?

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


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

Your premise is flawed because....

it suggests that in the absence of gov't, stealing, slavery and murder wouldn't exist. This is not true. And the framers did agree on the principle of equality before the law, but that doesn't preclude the rise of a double standard. So rather than advocate for a collapse of the global system that would only empower tyrants, I work to bring those who practice a double standard under the law. Check out this post titled "Crime of the Century".

http://www.standupforyourrights.me/?p=697

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

I don't think you understand my premise...

because I am not assuming that crime would cease to exist in the absence of government.

My point is that a rights protecting rights violator is a contradiction.

Nowhere did I say crime would disappear in the absence of the state.

It's irrational to think you need a large criminal gang that violates your rights in order to protect you from other criminals that would violate your rights.

If you are afraid of criminals violating your rights, then why do you enable a large criminal gang to violate your rights in the first place?

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


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