-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

Comment viewing options

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

But like most comments supporting...

anarchy, you offer no practical solutions, only platitudes. And what's irrational is your suggestion that advocating for limited government and equality before the law is advocating for "a large criminal gang that violates your rights". This kind of ridiculous rhetoric is why anarchism will never be a successful movement. Not that I don't agree with the ideal society that anarchists want, they just don't offer any practical ideas that a large number of people can support. All I hear is let the global system collapse and start over, but that will only empower the tyrants who are prepared for just such a scenario, and that makes me suspicious of the anarchist movement.

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

Does anyone respond to questions these days?

All I get in response to questions are deflections and complete disregard of the questions asked.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


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

If the question you're referring to...

is..."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?" If that's the question, I've answered it, but I'll answer it again. I disagree with your premise, i.e., that my advocating for limited government and equality before the law is as you say, enabling a large criminal gang to violate my rights. So I can only answer your question by pointing the flaw in your premise. If you'd like to reframe the question, I will provide another answer. But as with my previous answer, you may not like the next.

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

Stealing and killing is alright if you have a shiny badge?

What gives the state rights that you and I don't possess?

You should also try answering the multiple questions from my first reply to you, titled "Not True?".

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


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

Well said.

Well said.

I have yet to meet one single

I have yet to meet one single statist or minarchist answer this question:

I know you stand for the constituton but what do you say to people who advocate for self government rather than a return to the constitution is?

Like this:

Great fine and uh I think that is really what my goal is ...

Source:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wOfhejPs08

Furthermore, I do not know one single voluntaryist or anarchist that had a heart attack or any objection to Ron's response.

Oh that was a great interview indeed. Statists and minarchists had to come to terms with the fact that in his philosophy Ron is a voluntaryist at heart who simply views limited constitutional government as a practical way to work towards that goal.

I essentially answered that question in...

a previous comment. Many Enlightenment philosophes shared the anarchist idea that human nature can move toward perfection through education, and thus, make the enforcement of rules nearly obsolete. But if you look at the state of the world, and the fact that the world's most powerful corporations view the corruption of human nature as a business opportunity, it's ridiculous to consider anarchy at this time. The world's largest corporations don't want human nature achieve a state that would allow rules to become obsolete, that would destroy their command/control business model. The more hate, violence, immorality and lack of self control the better for Wall Street and the Fed. They need chaos to sustain their perpetual war machine.

So if anarchists are serious about putting their theory into practice, how do they propose to deal with entities that want perpetual war. The answer isn't just to demilitarize America, because Wall Street and the Fed are already financing the military buildup of China's totalitarian regime. This is part of their plan to bankrupt the U.S. gov't force it to demilitarize. Why? Because in spite of all America's flaws, it was founded on the idea of moral people capable of self governance.

So what practical suggestions do anarchists have? All I hear from anarchists is let the whole global system fail and start over. But do you think the Wall Street cockroaches aren't prepared for that? Of all people, they're the best prepared for just such a scenario, and I believe that's what they want so they can create an neo-fuedalistic totalitarian nightmare. So it's interesting that anarchists support a global collapse that would only empower tyrants.

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

Ancaps aren't agaisnt rules.

They are against the State as a coercive monopoly provider of law.

They believe the same market that provides you with everything else you want, is capable of providing law and security the same way other services are already provided today through free market competition.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


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

That's all good in theory but....

one could argue that multinational corporations are the State. But even if you don't agree with that analysis, let's face it, large corporations are dictatorial, bureaucratic monstrosities that can wield as much, or more coercive power than nation states. And I would like to hear an anarchist offer some suggestions for countering the coercive power of Statist like corporations.

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)

State privelege is not the free market.

Today's corporations operate on state privilege and lobby the state to protect them from competition.

The state is a club with which they can bludgeon their competitors and consumers over the head with, absent of it they are subject to regulatory forces of the market.

It is through the state that they subvert the market process.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


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

The tendency for privileged...

classes to arise is innate to human society, and an anarchist society would be no different.

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

In a stateless society. ..

there is no state to protect business from competition.

You didn't even come close to addressing my reply, you just saw the word "privilege" and went off on a tangent and rambling on about something completely unrelated.

I'm talking about state privilege, meaning grants of monopoly, special favors, cartelization, tariffs, and protectionist regulation provided by the state for business.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


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

I do not think Dr. Paul has

I do not think Dr. Paul has anything against the concept of anarchy in its most benevolent form. However, Dr. Paul is a realist and I believe that he believes what many of the founding fathers and Libertarians believe; that some form of government must protect the interests of maximizing liberty.

Not one anarchist has convinced me that an Anarchist society could protect itself against a totalitarian foreign power with "hired protection."

If you have 3 anarchist societies, lets call them a, b, and c. and the military power(protection power) of a+b is greater than c. A and b decide to combine because of their lack of resources and they intend to take over c because c is abundant in resources.

This is just one scenario that makes the situation unstable let me list a few more dynamics that make anarchy society potentially unstable.

1. regional resources
2. Economic differences
3. cultural differences
4. There will always be those who seek power

So the only conclusion i can come up with is that a total anarchy system will only work if a majority of humans conform to the anarchist philosophy.

But many principles of anarchy can be applied or adhered to in the modern day. As we look to limit the powers of government there would be a threshold of how far you can limit powers without making the system unstable. We have to keep reducing the government with respect and acknowledgement of the human condition.

Switzerland doesn't have a

Switzerland doesn't have a traditional military -so for the purposes of of this arguement may be construed as even worse than an anarchist defense system as very few people are actually on the ready at any given time. Switzerland has lots of money and other valuables, has no real military and yet nobody has taken switzerland over, have they?

Your fear of other countries taking over the US if we didn't have a military are quite clear; however, if the people -ie. the individuals themselves- troubled themselves to be protective of their 'rights' then this wouldn't be a problem. However, since everybody wants to shift the responsibility of protecting their lives and their stuff to someone else, then not only would we never have an anarchist/voluntaryist system, but we couldn't even get close to a Constitutionalist system. The people are just begging to be taken advantage of and enslaved; and that is exactly what is and will continue to happen until they(the individual people) decide to be resonsible for protecting their own 'rights' instead of charging someone else with that duty.

In spite of all the flaws...

we know from history that Constitutional systems have improved the human condition. This cannot be said about anarchism, it's just a theory, albeit a good theory.

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

Really?

"we know from history that Constitutional systems have improved the human condition."

I don't think Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan would agree with that, nor over a hundred years of militarism.

Nor the leviathan state that it was unable to keep from growing.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


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

Ron Paul is a Voluntarist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoUrrlbDoVs

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


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

You cite Murray Rothbard's...

"The State is a gang of thieves writ large". So you believe the founders and framers of our Constitutional government were a gang of thieves? If so, could you explain why?

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

Because Taxation is Theft.

Anytime someone demands your property from you and threatens to use force if you do not comply, they are stealing from you.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


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

Agred

One exception would be if one violated a mutually voluntary, and honest contract.

The creation, production and fair exchange of values is the business of evolving consciousness, love and life.--Craig Johnson

Yes

Consent would be given through the contract.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


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

You need to read

You need to read this!

Pennsylvania's Anarchist Experiment: 1681-1690

You state that an anarchist system couldn't work, however, it already had until William Penn, with the aid of the British Military, FORCED it to end; and no, there wasn't blood in the streets or anything.

Also, you really need to learn what the word income means. The modern use is incorrect lest one be owned by someone else, which would allow their labor's value to be indexed by a third party.

Income only applied to businesses, because businesses had defined costs for manufacturing. An individual could deteremine his/her own price, therefore the individual couldn't have an income. Whatever the cost of the item -made by the individual- was deemed the cost to make the item; the individual didn't make a profit off of the trade -at least not a profit which some third party could determine- because value of labor is/was subjective and therefore defined by the individual whose labor made the item, unless in the employ of someone else or some business. However, even if an individual was in the employ of others, his/her wage was considered -for all intense and purposes- an equal value trade by a third party and therefore was not income and could not be taxed.

Thanks for the link...

it sounds interesting. But even if only one small family existed on earth, there would be some rules for children and adults to abide by, and some way to encourage, if not enforce compliance with the rules. That's the nature of living in the land of the knowledge of good and evil.

But I do agree with the anarchist idea that we could educate ourselves and each other in a way that would make enforcement of rules nearly obsolete. But before we can run free as anarchists, we must first learn to walk with a government crutch. And looking at the world, we're a long way from throwing away our crutches. Just in America, the corruption of children and adults by the media is a multi-billion dollar a year industry.

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

But even if only one small

But even if only one small family existed on earth, there would be some rules for children and adults to abide by, and some way to encourage, if not enforce compliance with the rules.

It really depends on ones outlook. Most people today believe in victimhood, if something happens to an individual or group of individuals, against their wishes, then the individual or group is a victim. This is not believed by me, nor was it believed by those early Pennsylvanians.

If I value my life, then I'm going to do everything in my power to protect it; I'm not going to let somebody do something to me, and then complain that I'm a victim of their wrong doing. If an item of mine gets stolen, then I didn't do my job to protect it; now did I? The concept of victimhood seams to stem from the idea that in what people call society I'm not responsible to protect that which I value; the society is charged with that job. It is my firm belief that if something happens to me or my property then -at least in part- I am responsible for that happening; for not protecting that which I claimed to cherish.

As we can clearly extrapolate from my identified belief then, if someone doesn't protect themselves then that individual really doesn't value their right, which is about to be infringed upon. As we can therefore also see, since most of americans have no self-defense training nor do they carry a gun, those americans indicate verly little value for their very own life; leaving its protection to someone who isn't even present at the time does not indicate an item deemed valuable, now does it?

People have to take responsibility for themselves and their 'rights,' for no government nor any other entity or person can do it, nor do they have the inherent interest to protect something like the individual/owner does. So, if the owner/individual shows no interest in the preservation of their own life or liberty, then why should somebody else really care about the preservation thereof?

"Taxation is Theft"

The argument a lot of people try to echo without fully understanding, in my opinion, is not that all taxation is theft, but income tax is clearly theft. There is no agreement, no authority, no choice made. It is simple, straightforward theft. You make money, they take some of it. How can you define it any other way?

There are types of taxation that are not theft. I do not believe sales tax is theft. The key principle here is that these are voluntary transactions. You go into the purchase knowing that the tax is part of the deal.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

For the record, I advocate a

For the record, I advocate a national sales tax that would replace the income tax entirely and would be applied to new items, not used or perishable items.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

Which is it?

Me: "How would the government institute a national sales tax, without forcing businesses to collect and pay it?

Please do explain."

You: "I am NOT advocating the tax system you are describing."

In this post you say "For the record, I advocate a national sales tax..."

So, which is it?

Are you or are you not advocating a national sales tax?

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


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

Sales Taxes are in fact theft.

If a friend decides to sell you a ham sandwich for $4.00, do I have the right to arbitrarily intervene and demand that you owe me 10% of the cost of the sandwich, and threaten the use of force if you do not pay me?

If I did this wouldn't I be committing theft?

If I was wearing a shiny badge, do I magically gain the right to do this?

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


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

Just bringing it back to the top...

This is your original reply, which sparked all of this. Read what you replied to, and how you replied. See how little it has to do with what we are now discussing?

When we started, you shared a very poor analogy, and I completely refuted it, and all you had to say for that was that I was being obtuse, even though I refused your analogy, you continued to roll with it. This completely derailed everything. You cannot run from a premise I do not accept. Your analogy failed! It was flat out wrong. It proved nothing. you're going to have to start over.

From there on all I was trying to do was bring it back to this: the tax I'm advocating. You want to discuss everything but that!! You completely ignored my questions, and threw random, unrelated questions at me insisting that I was the one ignoring your questions! I wasn't ignoring them, I was explaining exactly why they had nothing to do with anything!

Maybe some day you'll come back here and understand my frustration.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

That is a very poor analogy

That is a very poor analogy with virtually no parallels. You're going to have to do a lot better than that.

First and foremost, that sandwhich is a perishable. There are many tax-free ways to obtain perishables even right now, but I'm advocating a complete and total system change, things like this would obviously need to be adjusted to fit the new policies.

Secondly your buddy sold the sandwhich, there never would have been taxation or government involvement to begin with unless he was a registered business doing a significant number of sales.

Thirdly, the government does not show up at your house and say "you bought this item and didn't pay sales tax!!!" You pay it at the time of transaction, you VOLUNTEER to do so, there is at NO POINT any force or coercion.

The analogy is just bad, no matter which side you're on.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us