-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.

Yeah but...

The label itself will make people run away and deny it no matter if you post his own words explaining he's an anarchist and/or voluntaryist or not :)

Just the way it is.... Most people even in this movement still hold on to those illusions in fear of the unknown.

The problem with anarchism is....

it seems to deny the flawed nature of human beings, so it promotes an imaginary state of existence where no gov't would create a better society. But even indigenous tribes have unwritten codes of conduct that are enforced by elders.

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

Do unalienable rights exist

Do unalienable rights exist now?

I subscribe to Thomas Jefferson's...

concept of unalienable rights, i.e., they exist even if they cannot be exercised under a tyrannical regime. That's why, in the Declaration of Independence, he said governments are instituted by men to "secure" our unalienable rights, and we have the right to abolish a gov't that fails to secure our rights.

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

I agree but that isn't what I

I agree but that isn't what I am asking. I am asking whether our current government protects unalienable rights or has it ever successfully sustained such protections?

It's not a perfect world and....

we have to accept that fact when discussing gov't. Human beings are flawed so the governments they create will be flawed. But in the history of Western civilization, there has not been a form of gov't that has provided more freedom than a Constitutional Republic. It's important not to legitimize the current fascist regime by comparing it with a legitimate representative gov't.

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)

Obviously, but I am just

Obviously, but I am just saying that government hasn't been successful at securing liberty. So, why be worried about how well a voluntary society would secure liberty?

Why did America's founders risk...

everything to establish a limited form of gov't that would secure their rights? I assume they did it mostly out of necessity but they also had a practical plan that had the possibility of success. A practical plan is something anarchists lack. And because of that, there's little or no chance they could generate a ground swell of support like that which made the American Revolution possible. It also has to do with zeitgeist, i.e., there's nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come. The founders had a very powerful idea and it's still alive and kicking today.

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)

Maybe...

Just maybe, anarchism is the next idea whose time has come?

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 Founders did so because

The Founders did so because they were coming from a worldview where governments were the norm - they realized that government at least needed to be limited. They may have not realized that we didn't need it at all.

Planning is completely against anarchism and free-markets. There is no way for anyone to possibly explain to you the plan for how it will work any more than I can guess what are going to be the main means of transportation and communication and the latest tech fads 5-10 years from now.

Start at morality, then work from there

Mark,

This argument over Anarchists vs whatever is really pointless. Many in the RP movement have done a ton of research, but some still haven't read enough. Start out philosophically from a foundation of: The initiation of violence or force on another is wrong (not defense). It's a simple heuristic that I think most people can agree with.

Branching from there, any form of government that violates that principle is morally wrong. So as much as many including me would like to return to the Constitution, you're still on morally shaky ground.

What if people in Idaho want their own system of government, are you going to use force to make them conform to "the system", what about the people of a state county?

Marry this heuristic with the reality of where we really and actually are; we're likely not going to see a reform of the US back to it's constitutional roots. It's awfully late for that. It's far more likely that the US empire will fly apart into a thousand pieces. You can hope the government will come to heel, but that outcome is not very encouraging or likely by looking through history. If history is any guide, we're pretty much f$%*ed already.

I think the best and most realistic we can expect is to try to wake people up to the constitution, and constitutional government, realizing that we're probably not going to return to that, but it could serve to slow the bleeding, cushion the decline before it completely comes apart, and hopefully prevent a hyper-violent outcome, the likes of which seem to be the rule of history. The constitution could break that fall.

I have no idea what tomorrow will bring though, so I could be wrong.

America was founded on....

moral principles and the founders instituted a gov't to codify and support those moral principles.

Other than returning to the moral principles codified in the Constitution, the only options are fascism, which we currently have, or anarchy.

I'm sure many British loyalists tried to discourage the founders from establishing a Constitutional gov't by saying it was hopeless. But the founders knew the price of freedom, i.e., total committment with no guarantee of success.

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

Is Ron Paul an anarchist/voluntarist?

Q: You've described yourself as a voluntarist, can you tell us what that means?

Ron Paul: Voluntary means no coercion. You can use force only when someone uses force against you. Voluntaryism is the best way to go.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjzQU4G8PVE#t=15m30s

Q: What do you say to people who advocate for self-government rather than a return to the constitution?

Ron Paul: I think that's really what my goal is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFYRHZpavX4#t=3m55s

Ron Paul: I want to repeal the whole government
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDRfjsKkft0#t=7m52s

Ron Paul is a voluntaryist:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoUrrlbDoVs

So are you saying...

Ron Paul is an anarchist?

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

No.

Ron is saying that he's an anarchist.

Has he ever used the word "anarchist"....

to describe himself? If so, he should've been open about it when he campaigned for President, because not being honest about it demonstrates the one of the needs for government, i.e., human beings have a tendency to not be honest, which leads to fraud and other problems.

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

Yep.

In a free market, wouldn't people naturally develop drone technology to protect their own homes? That is what I mean't when I 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."
No part of that implies that a state needs drones, or that we should pay taxes to help develop drones. It simply states that free market citizens see the value of drone technology for their own personal use, and thus, we should not be limiting drone technology, rather using it for our own personal use to defend ourselves against anyone who wishes to invade our privacy, wether robbers, or governments.

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

No one is saying...

we should not use drone technology. The debate is whether or not it is Constitutional for people in government to use drones to spy on and kill Americans. In your sentence from the post on drones, you say the free market, not the Constitution should define the parameters of drone use.

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

makes sense.

Remember, I am a not a huge fan of the Constitution, more a fan of free market capitalism. For that article, my point was simply that drones aren't bad. They can be used and supported by the 2nd ammendment. However, as a free market dude, my idea about the "parameters of drone use" come from the idea that I should have the right to use drones to protect my individual property. The Constitution supports that, so in my article, I was appealing to the Constitutionalists in here, however, nowhere did I say the Constition, nor free market capitalism, support government use of drones. If anything, my view is that free people should be using drones to help protect themselves from the government. And I made that comment in the article.

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

In a previous conversation...

you acknowledged that markets are subordinate to the law. The Constitution is the law of the land. So you can't have it both ways, i.e., the free market defining the parameters of drone use and the Constitution defining the parameters of drone use, it has to be one or the other.

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

as far as the Constitution...

...the 2nd Amendment says I have the right to bear arms, thus, I have the right to develop drones to protect my property. I'm not sure how everyone took that article, but that was the point of the article. We get so many anti-drone articles here, I just wanted to remind everyone that the existence of drones isn't any more of a problem than the existence of assault rifles. Government misuse most technologies, drones are no different. We shouldn't be "hating" on drones, rather, we should be using free markets ant technology to find better ways to protect our individual property. Drones techonlogy has tons of useful applications to the individual, and the ideas of the constitution support that philosophy.

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

Your next big mistake:

The protection of your unalienable rights in the Bill of Rights is from government, not other people.

Your indefatigability is appreciated though.

But government is...

created and run by people. So if not for people, government wouldn't exist. And doesn't history recognize King George III as the tyrant who made the American Revolution, Constitution and Bill of Rights necessary? The Declaration of Independence specifically mentioned the King and lists his crimes against the colonies. So the Bill of Rights protects our unalienable rights from the people who run government.

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)