-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.

Philistine, the Constitutionalists I know...

are hard working realists who have learned to use common sense to get things done. So they understand that the practical ideas this country was founded upon, when used as intended, will result in a better world. Anarcho-barbarians on the other hand live in a theoretical world that has yet to produce any practical results.

http://www.standupforyourrights.me/?p=115 (Communist China Tortures Religious and Free Speech Advocates)

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

No ... it is Ron Paul who

No ... it is Ron Paul who stated in an interview he believes his ultimate goal to be self government. Get your facts straight.

He didn't elaborate on the point. He didn't say whether it would be achieved in his lifetime or if ever. He simply acknowledged he believes his ideal preference to be self government.

"A true to form Voluntaryist/Anarchist wouldn't run for office"

They try, but nobody bothers to elect them. That's why they need to pretend to be something else (like a Libertarian, a Republican, and a Constitutionalist).

Just ask Adam Kokesh. He had NO CHANCE. It was bad enough that he's an Anarcho-Barbarian, but he also thinks people of faith don't have the ability to reason or use logic and thinks he's surrounded by soulless animals.

(Here's a hint if you want to represent people. Most people don't want you taking part in any serious decision making [beyond your own life] if you think you're surrounded by stupid retards and soulless animals.)

"There are no free markets; not even for ideas."

Is there something preventing you from trying to sell your ideas (Snake oil)? Bad product sits on the shelf in a free market of ideas. Being an Anarcho-Barbarian is like being a beached whale floundering at the fringe of a sea of ideas, dying under the weight of their own blubber.

You have free speech. You just aren't capable of communicating or defending your ideas, because they're doomed to die in the light of day. Don't blame me. I tried to wave you off. I did unto you as I would hope somebody would do to me. I tried to warn you about Anarchism.

Now you're dying under the weight of 20 million you-stupid-retarded-sheeps, and you-really-are-brain-deads.

I can't actually tell you why

I can't actually tell you why adam didn't win; I never followed his candidacy.

Seriously, you think that people being bombarded with nonsence on radio, tv, and internet is conducive to a free market of ideas?

You complaind about voluntaryism not having a big following; considering it has only been around for 30 to 40 years now it is quite large. The Constitution has been around for how many years(224) and how large is the support for the actual Constitution; probably even less then there is for Voluntaryism. Why? Because, to many of the people who claim to support the Constitution don't even know what it says; nor do they know what the powers are that it(the Constitution) granted to the Federal Government. So, I imagine if someone sat down with some of those would be Constitutionalists, and actually explained it to them, most of them wouldn't want the Constitution either.

Voluntaryism's following is quite large?

What percentage of Americans have heard of voluntaryism? And who would want the Constitution if it was explained to them by an anarcho-voluntaryist? Your twisted explanations are enough to make the average person catatonic.

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

You and FreedomsReigning must

You and FreedomsReigning must have both been dropped on your heads several times as children.

What powers don the US Constitution grant to the Federal Government? Please tell us; we all need a laugh.

"Seriously, you think that

"Seriously, you think that people being bombarded with nonsence on radio, tv, and internet is conducive to a free market of ideas?"

When did I say that? Oh that's right... Truth has no objective basis in your world.

The MSM is not the only conduit for ideas. You can say anything you'd like here. When are you going to start selling me on Anarchism? Here's a hint for next time conman, find some humility. Stop pretending the only reason people don't agree with you is because they're stupid or dumb. It leaves them wanting to serve justice on the whole lot of ya.

You aren't any smarter than most if not all the posters in this forum, nor in your community. I see a regular cross section of life. I make a point to. I get them alone and talk to them, and most are as smart or smarter than you and they have a sense of dignity and equality an Anarchist is lacking.

Is that because they're smarter than you? No. It's because they have a wisdom you've lost or failed to ever acquire.

Did you have a father? Don't take it personal. I'm just trying to figure what happened to Anarchists and what made you into what you are.

"considering it has only been around for 30 to 40 years now it is quite large."

Anarchy is the oldest of all systems. Anarchy is why we have governments. It doesn't work. Sorry. There's nothing new under the sun, least of all Anarchy.

You are mental, aren't you.

You are mental, aren't you. Being bambarded by nonsense about the fake left and right, does infact manipulate the market for ideas.

You do realize that while you may and try and bash voluntaryism; you have never actually tried to sell your beloved ideal government to anybody; I wonder why?

The reason would probaly be that you insist that the US Constition would grant you authority to legislate and incarcerate for behavior alone; because you don't like what somebody is doing.

You seriously are getting to be a riot. Do you just cut and paste? Because you haven't actually said anything original since Sunday.

Is nobody allowed to influence the market of ideas except you?

"You are mental, aren't you. Being bambarded by nonsense about the fake left and right, does infact manipulate the market for ideas."

Manipulate the market? Is nobody allowed to influence the market of ideas except you? I thought you wanted a free market of ideas?

Nobody is being forced to buy into the left right paradigm, it's a free market of ideas, and there are plenty of ideas based on lies and fraud, including Anarchism. Don't try and blame the left right paradigm for your failures. People reject Anarchism within that structure anyway.

"You do realize that while you may and try and bash voluntaryism(lol); you have never actually tried to sell your beloved ideal government to anybody; I wonder why?"

Because I've already won. You're the person who needs to destroy something. Like I said, the whole world agrees with me, government is better than Anarchism, and Anarchism is why governments exist. They don't even see you as an option, unless what it is they want is to destroy one government and replace it with another.

I don't need to destroy anything. You do.

"The reason would probaly(lol) be that you insist that the US Constition(lol) would grant you authority to legislate and incarcerate for behavior alone; because you don't like what somebody is doing."

That's right. I don't like injustice. I choose justice. I choose to defend liberty, a principle within my moral code, the principle of self ownership.

For you, that's immoral, and it's because the only principle you believe in is that there are no principles or any moral code worthy of defending. Anarchists are less than worthless to Liberty, and you're touching on why.

"You seriously are getting to be a riot. Do you just cut and paste? Because you haven't actually said anything original since Sunday."

Actually, I enjoy watching Anarchists blather on, failing to explain their broken ideas. I enjoy listening to you bitching and moaning about how the reason Anarchism is hated and rejected is because you live in a manipulated market of ideas rather than the truth: YOUR IDEAS ARE UNDESIRABLE, IMPOSSIBLE, AND INDEFENSIBLE.

Every meaningless word and insult you puke out reinforces that simple and objective truth.

Well Said

I believe in limited government, the ends of which are to preserve life, liberty, and property. Anything the government does beyond that should be unconstitutional.

Here is plenty of government

Follow the link to the Georgia Constitution......By the way the protections from the government is Article One......Bill of Rights.
You see we had limited government under the Articles of Confederation.....but that wasn't good enough for Alexander Hamilton.

http://mises.org/daily/3167

want more? Here is the WHY Lincoln had to complete the process of Limited government by invading the South and killing 500,000 Americans.

Contrary to the impression one gets from reading popular historical accounts of Lincoln as a statesmen and constitutional philosopher he spent virtually his entire political career prior to 1860 engulfed in the dirty works of party politics. Lincoln was not a guileless naïve and unsophisticated backwoodsman and rail splitter. He was a shrewd cynical manipulative politician who was not above playing dirty trick such as writing anonymous letters to the editor of newspapers denouncing his political opponents.
From the moment Lincoln first entered political life as a candidate for the state legislature during the 1832 presidential election “writes historian Robert Johannes” he had demonstrated an unwavering fidelity to Henry Clay and “The American System”.
By 1838 Lincoln had worked his way up to the position of leader of the Illinois Whig party. Lincoln spent nearly three decades preceding his election as president working tirelessly in the trenches of the Whig and (after 1856 the Republican parties) to organize voters in Illinois and other states of the Whigs mercantilist agenda.
Mercantilism which reached its height in the Europe of the seventeen and eighteen centuries was a system which employed economic fallacy to build up a structure of Imperial state power as well as special subsidy and monopolistic privilege to individual or group favored by the state.
This is what the Whigs stood for: the acquisition of political power through the dispensation of patronage. They had no grand philosophy or ideology; they wanted political power and private riches and had no qualms about using taxpayer’s money as the mechanism for acquiring these things.
Clay was the champion of that political system (the Whigs) which doles out favors to the strong in order to win and keep their adherence to the government. His system offered shelter to devious schemes and corrupt enterprises. He was the beloved son (figuratively speaking) of Alexander Hamilton with his corrupt funding schemes, his superstitions concerning the advantage of a public debt and a tax to make certain corporation profitable when they cannot stand alone.
Lincoln understood that patronage was the route to political power and potentially to personal wealth. In 1859 Lincoln declared that he was always a Whig in his politics. And indeed he was. Both he and his wife were ardent admirers of Henry Clay the leader of the Whigs. In his 1852 eulogy to Clay, Lincoln declared Henry Clay as the undisputed leader of the Whigs and “The American System” and Lincoln professed Clay as his idol and role model.
The American Whig party was founded in 1832 as a reaction to President Andrew Jackson abolition in 1832 of the Second Bank of the United States. The name “Whigs” was chosen to imply that these men were opposed to despotism and centralized government tyranny as were the American Whigs of 1776 and earlier the British Whigs who advocated Classical Liberalism ( today refer as Libertarian).
But the vary name Whig was a cleverly contrived deception. The nineteenth century American Whigs were in face the champion of centralized consolidated government and all students of political philosophy understood at the time (Much better than they do today) that centralization of political power was destructive to liberty.
Mercantilism relies crucially on the spreading of economic fallacies. Lincoln also believed in a crude version of the Marxian labor theory of value. Announcing that “free trade perpetuated a system whereby some have labored and others have without labor enjoyed a larger portion of the fruits. To secure to each laborer the whole product of his labor or as nearly as possible is a most worthy object of any good government.”
Like all Whigs Lincoln was in favor of inflationary finance through the printing of paper money by a central bank or if need be by state government banks and was an ardent opponent of a monetary system based on gold or any other precious metal.
Lincoln was always a Whig and was almost single mindedly devoted to the Whig agenda of protectionism, central banking and corporate welfare for the railroads and shipping industries –euphemistically referred to as “Internal Improvements”, Lincoln was such a blind follower of the Whig party line that many of his economic policy speeches were embarrassingly illogical and sounded dumb and foolish.
He was influential in passing legislation with regard to the third major element of Whigs corporate welfare or internal improvements. At the time the use of federal funds for so called internal improvement, such as subsidies to the railroad industry were widely unconstitutional. But thanks to Lincoln’s political skills, Illinois was a leader in using state tax revenue for such purposes. The Illinois experience in government funded: internal Improvement, under Lincoln political leadership provided a case study of why such uses of tax dollars were viewed with great suspicion. The internal improvement system that was an adoption of which Lincoln had played such a prominent part had collapsed with the result that Illinois was left an enormous debt and an empty treasury.
The battle with Andrew Jackson over the recharting of the Second bank of the United States is what ignited the creation for the Whig party in the North. The Whig political strategy was as simple as it was corrupt; promise to plunder the taxpayers for the benefit of corporations and banks in return for the everlasting financial support ( and kickback) from those same entities all the while drowning the public in the false rhetoric opposing executive tyranny, championing the small family farm.
A central bank and high protectionist tariff were the key stones to the Whigs plan for political plunder for that’s how the massive internal improvements schemes were to be funded and monopolies created. Jackson was the mortal political enemy, for he regarded the bank as dangerous to liberty of the American People because it represented a fantastic centralization of economic and political power under private control. Jackson understood the implication of a politicized money supply as well as the Whigs did. The difference between them was that Jackson thought the results would be unequivocally bad for the country; the Whigs understood that a politicized money supply was a key to their personal advancement and wealth accumulation. Jackson condemned the bank as a vast electioneering engine which had the power control the government and change its character. That’s exactly what they wanted and have done……..they won the war.

Whatever authority the Constitution has was derived from the states, for it were the states conventions which adopted the Constitution in the first place.

Thus in 1860 the Whigs and their successors the republicans had been waging war on the Constitution for nearly three decades. The purpose of the war was to adopt the Mercantilism ......a system of centralized state power and special interest subsidies and monopolistic privileges for the indivuals and groups favored by the state at the expense of the general public. That is why Lincoln was just the man in 1860. He quickly demonstrated that he had little regard, if not outright contempt of Constitution's restriction on governmental power.
Once the republicans were confident that Lincoln would win the 1860 election and especially once the southern democrats began leaving the US congress the Rep. did what they had been dreaming of doing for decades. They went on a protectionist frenzy that lasted for decades after the war.

The Republican's openly admitted that the purpose of their protectionist policy was not necessarily to raise money to finance the war but to pay back the northern manufacturers for their political support.

In his first inaugural address Lincoln promised over and over again that he had no intention to disturb Southern slavery and that even if he did it would be wise to do so in light of Dred Scott decision. But he also issued a promise that he would launch an invasion of any state that failed to collect it shares of tariff revenues. To Lincoln southern slavery was perfectly tolerable but free trade was not, the power confided in me will be used to hold, occupy and process the property and places belonging to the government, Lincoln announced. “And to collect the duties and impost but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion.
If he was to succeed politically Lincoln has to start a war (by maneuvering the south in to firing the first shot……study fort Sumter). The Confederate Constitution outlawed protective tariff altogether.Ever since the nullification crisis of the 1820 southerners had been threatening nullification and secession because they viewed protectionist tariff as a tool of political plunder whereby southerners paid the lion’s share of the tariff (because they relied so heavily on northern and European manufacturers for their manufactured goods, but the bulk of the tariff revenues were spent in the north. Free trade would put an end to this plunder which was simply insurable to the Republicans.
The fifty year debate over constitutionality of spending federal tax revenues on “internal improvements or corporate welfare was ended once and for all by force of arms.
General welfare clause of the U.S. Constitution was another reason why the Republicans had to go to war if they were to finally implement the Whig agenda.
The military industrial congressional complex was invented during the War Between the States as hundreds of northern business developed “partnerships” with federal government and fleeced the taxpayers in the process.
Government subsidized industries will evitable become corrupt and inefficient. Surely the Republican Party understood this in light of their pervious experiences with government subsidized “internal improvements by the state government.
Once the floodgates were open corporate welfare, graft and corruption inevitably took control.
The Whig dream of a central bank was also realized during the war. The national currency acts of 1863 and 1864 created a network of nationally charted banks that issued national banks notes supplied to them by the comptroller of the currency.
The nation’s monetary system was finally nationalized as the constitutional roadblock that previously been laid in place by Jacksonian Democrats were removed the southern Democrats left congress during the war( and for years thereafter) One lone dissenter was Representative Lazarus Powell of Kentucky, who presciently forecast that the central banking would enable the national Congress to destroy every institution of the States and will cause all power to be consolidated and concentrated in Washington DC. The Clay-Lincoln American System was complete.

AND YOU JUST SHOT YOURSELF IN THE FOOT

And there's the point........the constitution doesn't do ANY of these things.

I believe in limited government, the ends of which are to preserve life, liberty, and property. Anything the government does beyond that should be unconstitutional.

I not opposed to limited government.....I am just opposed to this form of limited government. The Constitution does not provide any protection from the government....the Constitution was the creaction of a government......and not a better form of government........JUST MORE GOVERNMENT.......YOU HAVE PROVEN OUR POINT......YOU ARE NOT FOR LIMITED GOVERNMENT.......YOU ARE JUST FOR YOUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT.....WHICH IS MORE.....AND MORE.....MORE.

Goldspan, madness is not becoming

What about the enumerated powers doctrine and the Bill of Rights? Specifically the tenth amendment. If enforced as intended, we would have a limited central government and considerable autonomy for states and individuals within the states. And let's not forget that the Revolution was fought against the king AND his private sector cronies, i.e., the British East Indies Company. That's why the framers limited the power of private companies/corporations.

After the Revolution, corporations remained small institutions chartered at the state level for specific purposes. By law, corporations could not make political contributions, could not own stock in other companies, were required to serve the public interest, and could only exist for a limited time. Owners were responsible for crinminal acts committed by the corporation and the doctrine of limited liability (shielding investors from responsibility for harm and loss caused by the corporation) did not yet exist.

For more on this subject check out the pdf "Knowledge is Power"
http://www.standupforyourrights.me/?p=1026

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

You see Mark here's the thing

You have all this information at your fingertips but you have NO KNOWLEDGE or ability to think. My “MADNESS” as you call it……. is called “cognitive thought process”. Allow me to introduce you to it.
1. The Constitution was ratified and went into effect on March 4, 1789. Article 1 Section 8 is a list of power that the Congress shall have. These “enumerated powers” are not a list of what they couldn’t do……but is a list of what they could do. The powers not enumerated…. not listed…… went to the Executive Branch and the Judicial Branch.

2.The Bill of Right were not part of the Constitution……but Amendments….
from Wikipedia The amendments were introduced by James Madison to the 1st United States Congress as a series of legislative articles. They were adopted by the House of Representatives on August 21, 1789,[1][2] formally proposed by joint resolution of Congress on September 25, 1789, and came into effect as Constitutional Amendments on December 15, 1791, through the process of ratification by three-fourths of the States.

So your analysis is flawed and false. The “protections” you love to speak of was not even a consideration in the drafting, discussion or writing of this great piece of paper you have based your whole life around.

The Revolutionary War was not fought for the benefit of the East India Company. The Revolutionary War was fought over the fact that the Whig party of Britain was in control from 1700 to about 1750. They took a laissez faire attitude towards the Colonies and they flourished. Then in 1750’s the French and Indian war broke out here (it was called the seven years’ war in Europe) The King had to send all these troops and supplies to America to protect their own interest. Up until that time the colonies used their own militia and formed assemblies, governors were appointed and taxes (import duties) were paid…….to local government. The colonies used paper money and inflated it until it became worthless. The colonies also tried to pay their import tariff taxes with this worthless paper but it would not be accepted (I mean why would they……ship the worthless paper colonial money to Britain and use it there…..that would be like Iraq sending us their paper money for the “Democracy” we imposed in their country instead of OIL)…….. So anyway the war ends but the King leaves 8000 troops in America to protect their interest….the Whigs lose power and the mercantilists gain the ear of the king and convinces him to leave the troops in America and tax the colonies to pay for the services of protection. (this plan was called the Grand Design) He did this along with all the other things finally listed in the Declaration. He also cut off the settlement of the Ohio Valley in the Proclamation of 1763. This hacked off the Ohio Company that had been formed in Virginia by none other then the Washington family ( oh my god the Washington’s own a company). Well they owned 200,000 acres in Ohio that was worthless unless…….by God we've go to war.( Who do we send.......lets send George.)

You don’t understand the “Narrative” of the history, you only list information that is separated by 20 years, 40years…….230 years but never any understanding of what really happened.

Like I said….You see “cognitive thought process” you are just throwing around “information” and espousing that you have “knowledge”…….when in fact you don’t process the tools for thought and therefore will never have “knowledge” and you will never allow yourself to gain the “wisdom” to know the difference.
Ps
I read your “Knowledge is Power”…….and that is a piece of crap too!

My "Knowledge is Power" is a piece of crap.

Considering the source of that comment, I take it as a compliment. Thank you.

And as far as the enumerated powers doctrine defining what government can do, conversely, it defines what government cannot do. See how simple things can be if you allow a little logic to creep into your thought process.

You completely avoided the tenth amendment. And why would anyone think the Revolutionary War was fought for the benefit of the East India Company? The Boston Tea Party was a response to the East India Company's monopoly on the tea trade and resulting confiscatory tax policy implemented by the king and his East India cronies.

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

you just don't get it do ya

The 10th admendment wasn't even around for two years after the constitution was ratified.
The Boston tea party.........you think that was relevelant.
man you just don't get it.......you are as hopeless as Ayn Rand and as irrational.

And yes your knowledge is power was dates and information but no thought ...piece of crap

Thanks again...

for the compliment.

http://www.standupforyourrights.me/?p=1026 (Knowledge is Power)

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

You don't even know what the

You don't even know what the powers the Constitution granted the Federal Government. By the way: the word Regulate as of the 1789 Dictionary is: to make regular -and when you look that up, the word regular meant to be uniform or constant.

So, the Federal government has no authoity to actually Control anything including the Banks. The only thing dealing with money the federal government has any authority over would be to create the money and make sure the value is constant or uniform.

The US Constitution also did not grant the Federal Government power to legislate individual behavior.

I seriously do not believe that you know what the Constitution actually says; and if you do, then you certainly don't know what it means.

The problem with this OP is

The problem with this OP is that he believes in legislating behavior, and he calls himself a Constitutionalist; but there are a couple like that here.

Anarchists aren't Libertarians. They're Libertines.

I believe in using force to stop people from taking your liberty (serving justice), and as an Anarchist, you don't.

Justice is something you oppose and try to pass off as "legislating morality", and in that, you become worthless to liberty; less than worthless actually, because you won't defend it and condemn anyone who does.

You condemn the very idea of defending a principle, and try to blame injustice on government. You are unprincipled.

The NAP is just a tool you use to try and hide within a liberty minded crowd, which is required, because you're a user who needs a mob to destroy what's standing in your way; government. In an Anarchists world, the NAP needs to replace the golden rule, because the person who brought it up in the first place (/psst it wasn't Ron Paul) told you to pay your taxes.

Most Anarchists are just nihilists, liars, and frauds and the only principle they serve is that there are no principles worth defending, nor any objective basis for truth. They get off trying to destroy peoples principles, and here we have one, trying to call defending liberty "legislating morality".

If you understand liberty, you understand the bases for justice, and the difference between what a phony like "The Philosopher" wants you to think of when he says "legislating morality" and what a Libertarian is doing when serving justice.

In the end, Anarchists aren't Libertarians. They're Libertines. I hope some of you are starting to see that.

Do you have to work at being

Do you have to work at being this dumb or does it just come naturally to you?

Voluntaryists do believe in initiating force. Do you understand what that means? It means that we don't believe in using force against you unless you are already in the process of using force against us. If people are doing things which we don't personally like, but which are not infringing on our rights, then we as voluntaryists don't believe in using force against that person or persons to make them stop. You do; as does Mark. You have both confirmed it throught this thread that morallity needs to be protected by government.

One can only have justice served on their behalf if ones liberty was actually transgressed. Justice has nothing to do with forcing people to stop doing things you don't want them to do; even if it is not infringing on your rights.

Maybe you should read the US Constituion which you say you support. It never granted the Federal government power to control immoral behavior.

"Voluntaryists do believe in initiating force" lol

"Do you have to work at being this dumb or does it just come naturally to you?"

Like I said, this is all an Anarchist can do, and there's a VERY good reason you don't believe that there's a free market in ideas, because yours don't sell.

"Voluntaryists(lol) do believe in initiating force. Do you understand what that means? It means that we don't believe in using force against you unless you are already in the process of using force against us."

You're losing it.

"If people are doing things which we don't personally like, but which are not infringing on our rights, then we as voluntaryists(lol) don't believe in using force against that person or persons to make them stop."

Like I said, you're worthless to liberty, because you won't serve justice. Justice in my country begins by initiating force against an innocent person: Innocent until proven guilty.

You want your own liberty. You just don't know what it is that threatens your liberty, nor will you defend anybody elses.

"One can only have justice served on their behalf if ones liberty was actually transgressed. Justice has nothing to do with forcing people to stop doing things you don't want them to do; even if it is not infringing on your rights."

ROFL. Didn't you just get done telling me that you're going to use force against me if I'm in the process of taking your liberty? So all I need to do to take your liberty with impunity is get a few friends together and do it while nobody is looking? You won't do anything to stop me? You won't take my liberty?

Sorry. Americans are interested in defending more than just their own liberty, and you may have noticed, we have no problem taking peoples liberty to serve justice. Like I said, you have NO IDEA why people gang up on each and take each others liberty, and you're useless in the fight against them. You aren't interested in stopping them.

I'll serve justice, you won't, and if you won't serve justice, you're worthless against that which threatens liberty.

If you a re in the process of

If you a re in the process of takin gmy liberty, then yes you ar etransgressing against me; and as a voluntaryist I would be able to use force against you. It is the initiation of force voluntaryists appose. Can you understand that. It ahas only been said quite a few times here in this thread, but you just don't seem to understand the differnce between using force and initiating force.

You said,

Like I said, you're worthless to liberty, because you won't serve justice.

Because I said that volutaryists wouldn't use force to make people stop behavior we didn't like; and you think the US Constitution would sanction your actions?

I certainly hope you didn't mean to tyoe this,

Justice in my country begins by initiating force against an innocent person

You say I'm loosing it. I think you better take a break for a while, or indefinitely, because you certainly have nothing left to post on this thread.

Ron Paul is definitely not the antichrist,

too short, too old, and lacks the necessary charisma.
All of my sources tell me that Satan is in fact, a populist.

πολλα γαρ πταιομεν απαντες ει τις εν λογω ου πταιει ουτος τελειος ανηρ δυνατος χαλιναγωγησαι και ολον το σωμα

Truth to an anarchist is like light to dracula.

And the truth is, Ron Paul's success is based entirely on the fact that he purports to stand for the values of Constitutionalists, not anarchists. If he ever described his ideology as anarchism, he would never be heard from again. Over, done, finito, into the dust bin of history faster than you can say anarchy. And this proves that Constitutionalists are gaining ground while anarchism picks up speed on its way to the museum for irrational ideologies.

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)

If Dr. Paul is an

If Dr. Paul is an anarchist/voluntaryist, then it just makes your whole assursion that much more funny. Constitutionalists needed an Anarchyst to teach them how to be Constitutionalists. Boy, you guys are a sad bunch.

Nice try Philistine, you're catching on.

I gave you an up vote on that one just for effort. Unfortunately, all you've done is reinforce my point. Because you see, it doesn't matter if Ron Paul is an anarchist, what matters is he can't be honest about it. So he uses ideas that have mass appeal, like capitalism within a limited Constitutional government and unalienable rights.

If RP is an anarchist, he will go down in anarchist history as the biggest traitor to your cause. Why? Because he's been able to convince more people of the merits of limited Constitutional government than any politician in modern history. Oh the delicious irony.

http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2974976 (evidence of treason)
http://www.dailypaul.com/274979 (solutions to limit fascist gov't)
http://www.standupforyourrights.me/?p=1026 (more evidence of treason)

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

Do you even know what you are

Do you even know what you are talking about; because I'm not sure you do. He was always pushing for the most limited government possible. If the situation would have been so, do you really think he wouldn't have been pushing for less government then the Constitution?

Just because people aren't ready to leave other people alone, meaning the liberals aren't ready to leave ones money in their own pocket, and the conservatives aren't ready to stay out of peoples private lives, doesn't mean anything. Oooh people arn't ready to expereince freedom; thats a shocker.

Most people have a problem with basic logic skills; like trying to get a corrupt institution to indict itself, or supposedly advocating for a Constitution which doesn't allow one to legislate behavior like one wants.

However, hopefully in time things will be better.

Philistine, I can't think of another...

politician who has done more to legitimize the Constitution than Ron Paul. You must really like the smell of urine because you keep pissing into the wind.

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)

Considering that the

Considering that the Constition doesn't grant 99.99% of what currently is known as the Federal Government; advocating for the Constitution as a Politician is great. However, if it would have been achieved he most likely would not have stopped there.

I am still waiting to hear what your ideal government would look like; becasue you say your a Constitutionalist, but we have discussed how what you think the Constituion allows the Federal Government to do, isn't actually acurate. What human behavior do you want to criminalize?