-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.

Here's an analogy for you

"Candles are like dolphins. This proves that the sky is green"

"Well, no actually. They aren't very much like each other, they are totally different materials. And the sky isn't green, it's blue, as you can see above. Moreover, these two (invalid) conclusions have nothing to do with one another."

"DOWNVOTE HIM!!!!!!!!1111one"

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

You are being purposely obtuse.

It doesn't matter if you voluntarily bought the item, the act of a third party demanding additional payment from the seller with the threat of force is not voluntary, it is coercive.

If you don't have the right to demand a percentage of a businesses sales and threaten the use of force if they don't comply, then the state does not have that right either.

It is theft.

If I walked into a supermarket and threatened the owner to give me 10% of all sales, would I not be stealing?

The owner would tack on the additional 10% to the price of his goods, and you may voluntarily pay for these goods, but I would still be coercing the owner to pay me the "tax".

It is theft.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


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

No, actually I'm not. I'm

No, actually I'm not. I'm just trying to explain to you why your analogy does not defeat anything I said. I feel your arguments continue to be very weak and not really address my core point. I would address the reasons why, but last time I did that you completely disregarded my logic and continued to insult me and bypass all of my points.

At the end of the day it boils down to the fact that, to you, all tax is theft. That means that you are an anarchist. You are not a libertarian. You believe in NO government. Our philosophies will never align, because I place too high a value on peoples' freedoms to simply sit back and allow others to violate them.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

How

How is the government forcing a business to pay them sales taxes not theft?

It is not voluntary, if the business owner refuses to pay they will arrested.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


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

I have said many times I do

I have said many times I do not advocate the current tax system. This is a total straw man argument. You won't pay attention to any of my arguments, instead you come up with some absurd and illogical situation that has nothing to do with what I am saying and insist that it's a bad thing, therefore I am wrong. It's very liberal-like.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

It's not a strawman...

If the government is going to demand a tax, it has to be enforced.

You can't possibly create a tax that won't be enforced, it would cease to be a tax.

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

Please do explain.

"You won't pay attention to any of my arguments"

I think you just described what you are doing, I'm still making my original point.

You didn't like the original example, so I rephrased it.

I ignored all your gibberish about me being a scary anarchist, because its completely irrelevant.

But, you have neglected to answer any of the questions posed, you just try to weasel out of answering them.

So, please answer the above questions.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


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

Your scenario makes NO SENSE.

Your scenario makes NO SENSE. I am NOT advocating the tax system you are describing. It IS a straw man, because it has NOTHING to do with my points or the discussion at hand. Basically I made a bunch of points, you completely ignored them and went off making your own points that made no sense, and then when I refused to address them you insist I'm the one who's misdirecting. Goodbye.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

Maybe some clarification ...

Your argument is that sales tax cannot be theft because the purchaser is voluntarily engaging in a transaction.

What Josh is trying to point out is that the seller has no choice in whether or not they can charge this tax. The government will demand what they see as "their cut" either way.

You may see this as acceptable because that's just a requirement for anyone who wants to do business. The question is, what makes this valid? Why should the government get to determine that because I have produced a good or service I must charge my customer a percentage of the purchase to give to them?

If the seller refuses to charge the tax, it comes out of his bottom line. If he doesn't like it his only other option is to stop doing business. The business owner has no choice but to comply. It's coercion.

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.

The seller does have a choice

The seller does have a choice though. They have several, actually. It is absolutely a losing argument to try to construe running a business as something that is required. That's just silly.

1. Choose not to run a business. Running a business requires many logistics, it is not an absolute right. You have to be able and willing to support it.

2. Choose to sell used products. As I said, used products would be exempt.

3. Choose to sell food items. As I said, perishable items would be exempt.

4. Choose to sell on a small enough scale that taxes are not required.

5. Choose to move somewhere without a sales tax. Tax is and would continue to be a part of the agreement of living in a country, these agreements that the majority of people deem necessary to avoid chaos.

I am a proponent of limited government, not anarchy. In order to fund the protection of peoples' rights and liberty, some form of taxation is necessary. This is the best method I have come across, I am perfectly open to any ideas to improve upon or completely replace it. However I feel that it is an improvement on what we have, and regardless of whether you agree with it or not, it does avoid theft.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

Just to let you know

I used to hold the same view as you do. Not necessarily in a national sales tax, but that sales tax was valid for the purpose of protection. I'm not telling you this as a way of saying that I made the leap so you must do the same, but just to let you know I understand what your argument is.

Think for a moment though about the service that your taxes are paying for. Has the government used this money effectively to protect your rights? It certainly doesn't appear to be the case. Instead, the fact that it holds a monopoly over the use of force has attracted those who want to abuse that power. You're left trying to work through a corrupt system to try to fix the corruption. You aren't given the option to go to a competing agency or opt out and assert your right to protect yourself.

You may say, "Well, you can always move to another country." But why should I have to? Why does the government have authority over me? Why must I submit to the collective idea of a "nation" with arbitrary borders. If our natural right is for every person to live their life as they see fit, which presupposes that no man may do harm to another, then no man, or group of men, can claim to have authority over another.

I had to come to accept that there are no guarantees in this life that my right to life and liberty will be protected. That was a very difficult thing to accept, but once I did I understood how the government itself is an affront to my liberty.

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.

The thing you keep dodging

Is that holding this view, that all taxation is theft, undeniably makes you an anarchist. I do not agree with anarchy. I think we've seen its effects, and I don't think they are good. We're never going to agree because of this core difference in our philosophies.

Again, I am open to alternative ideas that are better. I am not saying I WANT to pay money to the government under any circumstances. But I do see the need for it. And if you do not, that's a fundamental, un-crossable gap between our viewpoints.

Liberty is the rejection of the initiation of violence.
Anarchy attempts, and in my opinion fails, to reject violence itself.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

I never

dodged being an anarchist. I AM a Libertarian anarcho-capitalist, or voluntaryist.

Does it necessarily follow that I should have to be beholden to a government just because you see the need for it? Would you mind explaining your argument for how anarchism fails to reject violence?

I still have the same question, though. Why should I be forced to pay for a service I did not ask for, have no option to opt out of, and for which there is no competing agency for me to choose from? Why do I have to be forced to be part of a collective just because the collective has determined it would be better for everyone that way? Isn't that... well, collectivism? Obama made his argument for the individual mandate in Obamacare in the same fashion. Why do you find that all other areas should offer a free market, but not this one?

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.

Apply that argument

to income tax and you could justify it the same way.

Don't want to pay income tax? Well then don't work.

If everyone-- no, not even that, just a sizable number of people did what you suggest to avoid sales tax the tax laws would be rewritten to include all those things.

The main point is this. I am coerced into paying for a service that I did not ask for and for which there is no competitor that I might choose to do business with.

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.

Um, no. That's not valid in

Um, no. That's not valid in any way. Are you seriously blind to the absolute failure of your attempt to apply this logic to income tax? You can't "not work". That's not a serious viable option at all. Are you kidding me?!

There is absolutely no coercion forcing you to buy new items from large companies. There are PLENTY of alternative choices that are actually viable!

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

They don't have to be large companies

to have to charge sales tax. The government could charge you sales tax if they determine you've held too many garage sales in a year. If they find that you are making a financial gain they will consider your activity as "running a business" and they will come to collect sales tax.

Someone can not have a job and still support themselves. Granted, it would be a very meager life. Own a small parcel of land, grow/raise your own food, forgo electricity, barter for the things you need, make small sales of your produce or animals for cash for the things you cannot barter for.

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.

Would he argue...

that if a woman was raped while walking through a park at night, that she consented, because she could've chosen not to walk through the park?

Or

If a shop owners store window was smashed by the Mafia for refusal to pay protection money, that he consented, because he could've moved somewhere else?

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


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

Your arguments are getting

Your arguments are getting more and more full of fallacy.

These are completely unrelated issues. There are factors involved which have nothing to do with the issue of taxation.

Allow me to play your game.

Would you get rid of taxation and allow the country to descend into anarchistic mobs? And then allow anyone who cared to, to go rape and/or murder anyone they wished, with no fear of repercussion because no one is paid to stop them because doing so would inherently (according to you) be theft?

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

If someone tried

to rape me, I would shoot them. That is my answer regardless of whether there were a government in place or not.

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.

It's the same logical framework...

You claim with a sales tax, the victim is consenting because they own a business.

As if the victim has the obligation to get out of the criminals way, and if they don't they consent.

But you still haven't answered my questions:

If you advocate a national sales tax, how will the national sales tax be enforced?

What happens to a business that refuses to comply?

How are you going to collect a national sales tax, without forcing
businesses to collect and pay the tax?

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


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

When you boil it down

that's basically the same line of thought.

"You don't like our criminal actions? Too bad, that's your problem. You should stay out of our way."

I think it's a combination of normalcy bias, top down thinking, and the inundation of nationalistic propaganda from an early age that makes it so hard for people to let go of the concept of government and a piece of paper "protecting" us. Though I can hardly blame them as I used to cling to the same thing. At least some are open to conversation even if they can't get over the fear of there not being the illusion of safety. That Mark though, man that dude is a jerk!

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.

I think it's more just the

I think it's more just the ability to look at reality instead of trying to tie every single decision to some artificial "principle" that was invented without actually examining said reality. I suffer much less than the average person from normalcy bias, top-down thinking, or believe nationalistic propaganda. I have never been subject to the mainstream media environment. Liberty since birth. Your arguments are poor and unbased.

Come on, argue with my actual point instead of trying to sum up my character when you clearly don't even know me. Show me a society that has no taxation that has worked.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

I wasn't referring

to you specifically. I'm sorry if you felt I was. You might notice I mentioned that some folks are at least willing to have a discussion and it is there I was specifically referring to you. Josh and I have been debating with a couple other guys who have done little more than resort to vitriol and that's who I had in mind when talking about the patterns of thought.

Could you elaborate more on what you consider to be the "artificial principle" we hold and how it is you determined it to be artificial?

I'm not saying that everyone has to be an anarchist, but shouldn't I be able to succeed from my government? Do you not feel I have the right of free association?

If 65%, or even 95%, of residents in a city decide that they want Walmart to be the only retail store in town should all other retailers be barred from doing business in that city and all residents be required to buy from Walmart?

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.

These guys are walking contradictions,...

Mark especially, and anytime someone points it out, they just simply ignore it, I can't get either of them to even answer a single question I pose.

I don't understand how Telfire can approve sales taxes using the same metric he rejects income taxes on, I mean its just basic logic, but I believe he is genuinely confused.

Mark on the other hand, I am 75% convinced is a very committed troll with lots of time on his hands.

If we were to assume that is correct, then I couldn't even begin to speculate his reasons.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


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

I feel like it is pretty

I feel like it is pretty clear to someone who reads this objectively that you are the one who is dodging me. I'm simply not answering your questions because they are so unbelievably out of whack with what I am saying. I already gave you a perfect example of why it is actually IMPOSSIBLE for me to answer your questions! Because all of your questions pre-suppose that I believe certain things, when in fact I do not! They are loaded and designed to paint me as the bad guy. It's very off-putting. It would be nice to just have a serious conversation, without people like you who just want to "win" the argument. I've explained over and over again that I'm not an anarchist, you completely ignore that point but it's all that matters. You are an anarchist, I am not, end of story. It is not reconcilable from there. I do not respect the right to murder. Sorry.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

How can we know what exactly

How can we know what exactly it is you believe if you won't tell us? You say your answer is a national sales tax and claim it will be fair, but are we to just believe this because you say so? Shouldn't you be able to articulate a few details about the program you advocate so we can determine for ourselves if it is fair?

Josh asked the following:

"If you advocate a national sales tax, how will the national sales tax be enforced?

What happens to a business that refuses to comply?

How are you going to collect a national sales tax, without forcing
businesses to collect and pay the tax?"

Why are these questions impossible, as you say, to answer? If you state that you advocate national sales tax shouldn't these questions be valid?

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.

I have actually answered that

I have actually answered that question DIRECTLY a couple of times now. You keep repeating it. I'm sorry if you don't like my answer.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

You said you advocate a

You said you advocate a national sales tax, but that's about all you've said. I haven't seen any other explanation from you about this sales tax. You mention "large companies" a lot, but exactly what constitutes "large"? Would raw materials be taxed? What about services? You claim this tax system will be fair, so shouldn't you be able to demonstrate how so? Would you mind directing me to your comment where you specifically answered Josh's questions about how this tax would be enforced and the penalties for not complying? If I missed them I apologize, some of these threads have become pretty long, but I don't recall seeing your answers to these questions.

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.

If you aren't dodging...

then why can't you answer these questions?

If you advocate a national sales tax, how will the national sales tax be enforced?

What happens to a business that refuses to comply?

How are you going to collect a national sales tax, without forcing
businesses to collect and pay the tax?

"I already gave you a perfect example of why it is actually IMPOSSIBLE for me to answer your questions! Because all of your questions pre-suppose that I believe certain things, when in fact I do not! "

So you don't believe that taxes are enforced?

Then how do they collect tax money, through magic?

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


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

I'm sorry, but I'm done.

I'm sorry, but I'm done. You're being absurd. There's no logic to this discussion. It's entirely pointless. You want to talk about things that have no relevance to the topic I was discussing or the thing I was advocating. This conversation has wandered so far away from what I came here to discuss, it's completely ridiculous at this point.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

?

Sorry Telfire, but I'm confused. Are you saying you don't advocate a national sales tax?

If you do, I don't see how Josh's questions are not valid.

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.