The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!
-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.

"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.

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.

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.

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"

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.

For more info check out this post titled "Crime of the Century"

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

I'm not looking for an ideal...

form of government. I want a practical form of government based on universally accepted notions of morality. The moral principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence and codified in the Constitution and Bill of Rights are that government. The combination of the enumerated powers doctrine and Bill of Rights, specifically the tenth amendment, when applied, provide restraints that limit central government and give autonomy to states and individuals. Given the weaknesses in human nature, a morals based limited government is the best we can do for now. (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference) (Fast and Furious hearing)

For the 4th time Mark

1. How much of existing government would you repeal?
2. How far would you roll government back?
3. Where is your point…..state where you think limited government
ends and fascism begins?
4. Where do you think limited government begins?

"Before we can ever ask how things might go wrong; we must first explain how they could ever go right"


The ideal government

as John Locke says in his "Second Treatise of the Government", should protect life, liberty, and property. Anything beyond that is too much government, on the road to an oligarchy.

If you don't like my answer why...

keep asking? Here is my previous answer. It's based on the premise that repealing gov't begins with restoring the rule of law by putting fascist traitors behind bars. (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference) (Fast and Furious hearing)

Those comments of yours don't

Those comments of yours don't answer his questions.

Is the US Constitution too much government, or not enough government for your ideal government?

I agree with the States...

decision not to ratify the Constitution without a Bill of Rights because the Constitution did not provide sufficient restraint on central government. (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference) (Fast and Furious hearing)

Forget the title of "Anarchist..."

It gets people wound up just like other labels.

Just ask yourself this: "Do you support the use of force?"

The "principal of non-aggression" is getting alot of attention these days. And if you don't support the use of force against yourself or against others, then how can you philosophically support taxation?

Let's get right to the bottom of our beliefs, forget the practical implications until you know where you stand.

Whatever you choose to call your...

anarchist society, i.e., stateless, voluntarist, etc., the fact remains there will be no mechanism to enforce the fabled Non-Aggression Principle. So the only way for the Non-Aggression Principle to have the effect you claim it would, is to eliminate aggression from human nature. And that will never happen.

Unfortunately for anarchists, people aren't dumb enough to buy their irrational ideology. Bottom line, it makes absolutely no sense and that's why they keep trying to come up with some other goofy name or explanation for their BS. (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference) (Fast and Furious hearing)

When things are easy by there

When things are easy by there very nature to acquire, why would people aggress to get them. The poor aggress to acquire what they need. In a voluntaryist system it is easier to acquire by ligitimate means that illigitimate, therefore by its very nature a voluntaryist system reduces act of aggression.

The wealthy aggress, because they can and its cheep. In both instances, the one concerning the poor and the instance concerning the wealthy, they both have shown do shoose to aggress due to its easier and less costly than do accomplish or acquire what they want ligitimately.

Most people don't want to steal, they do it because it is easier to go and steal from somebody else then to find a job and earn it. It takes very little time to steal, it takes quite a bit of time to find a job and work for it. In a voluntaryist system, there is an abundence and the potential for unlimited competition, therefore the price on items goes down. Thereby making the items more easy to afford, and easier to acquire than in the current system. The vast majority of those who steal will in a voluntaryist system work for the moeny instead of steal things. For the risk of getting caught would potentially be more costly in a voluntaryist system then in our current system. With drug not being illegal, the drug gangs would seece to exist, the price would plummet, and those who steal for drug money won't have to anymore.

Prostitutes would be legal, in a voluntaryist system. This would lower the price and risk of using one and therefore reduce the likely hood of rapes for sex. The rapes based on power, may still be around for awhile, but in a voluntaryist system, the woman wouldn't have to worry about going to jail if she harmed her attacker; like any potential victim does in our current system.

On to the wealthy. You and your friends seem to be affraid of the wealthy, in a voluntaryist system. The wealthy seek power and prestige; in a voluntaryist system they can earn it or go bankrupt trying to steal it. People think tha tthe wealthy will be highering mercenaries and then it is all over. There are two main parts to this: (1)the waelthy will still have to earn money. In our current system the vast majority of the wealthy individual's money is stored in paper assets, stock, bonds, etc. When the government goes away, those corporations which the wealthy have their wealth stored in won't beable to maintain their dominance in their markets because the government won't be ther to block new companies from joining. The wealthy will lose most of their paper assests value. (2)As companies are reconfiguring themselves in an environment without government protection, the private security professional, will quickly diminish. Most military and police join the private security because the salary is extrememly high -$100k plus for a new hire- as the other corporations start hemoraging money, they will not be so keen to be spending exhorbatent amounts of money on bodyguards and such unless they absolutley have to. Without the government to contract some of the war out to these security companies, and the corporations limiting how much they spend on this kind of stuff, the private security will diminish.

So with a severely hampered account, and possibly a company having to fight for every customer, and profession security on a decline; it becomes intirely impossible for someone to try and take over anything, but maybe a mini-mart. The costs of those kinds of excursions sky-rocket as the time increases. To try and lay seige against the market, the single individual or even a coalition of extremely wealthy individuals will work themselves bankrupt.

This is one of countless explantaitons of why utilizing aggression in a voluntaryist system will not work in the long run.

"eliminate unalienable

"eliminate unalienable rights"

This is an oxymoron.


By the very definition of unalienable, these Rights are not "given" and shall not be "taken", or in your words "eliminated".

The only way to remove an individual's Rights is to remove the individual, typically by violence. Unacceptable.

Until this fundamental "cornerstone" is fully grasped and owned, you will never understand the more complex topics, which are built upon it.

You're right.

Unalienable rights cannot be eliminated, but the ability to exercise those rights can be eliminated until action is taken to once again secure those rights. I did make that clear in a previous post but forgot to do so in this post. I will do it now. Thanks for pointing that out.

In an anarchist society, the existence of unalienable is not acknowledged, so the ability to exercise of those rights will be eliminated until the anarchist society is eliminated. (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference) (Fast and Furious hearing)

You have clearly shown that

You have clearly shown that you have no idea what you are talking about;

In an anarchist society, the existence of unalienable is not acknowledged

The voluntaryist system is the only system which allows individuals to be free of violence and theft; free to do as they want without violating the rights of others. So exactly how is that anti-rights, I'm not entirely sure.

I'm sure though that you got some kind of magical answer how people are able to violate economic laws without going broke to be able to force others to do things -even though when huge government try these very same acts they inturn go bankrupt; but these magic individuals never go bankrupt. They are free to loot and enslave and murder everybody somehow. But, you never actually explain how that would be possible except proclaiming that it will happen without a government doing it to us first.

Philistine, you say in a....

voluntaryist system, individuals are "free to do as they want without violating the rights of others." First of all, voluntaryist systems by definition make the acknowledgement of others rights voluntary, meaning individuals can voluntarily reject the whole notion of rights. And even if some individuals voluntarily acknowledge the right of others, there is no mechanism to prevent others from voluntarily violating the rights of others. (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference) (Fast and Furious hearing)

Voluntaryist system is base

Voluntaryist system is base on -get this- voluntary actions. OMG; who would have thought that?

If a town, want to setup rules of acknowledgement then that is the towns perogative? Nobody is forced participation; however, the town may have to buy the houses of those who don't want to participate, so they could move somewhere else.

Voluntary actions of individuals are hard to pinpoint; so some not nice things may happen in the beginning and from time to time. What you and those like you have to reconcile is that under government bad things are guaranteed to happen to many people -and in some cases(taxes) to everybody- and most of it will be from government itself. I suppose the government system is fine if you're not one of the people bad things are going to happen to. However, in a voluntaryist system, there is no such guarantee that bad things will happen to as many people as under a government system or at all, though, there is no guarantee that no bad things will happen either.

Seeing as how you have no

Seeing as how you have no arguement left -not like you really started out with an actual arguement- you should probably just pack it in. You have displayed your statist tendencies -as have your friends- and now you are relegated to complaining about how and why people vote down your comments. I know this thought never crossed your mind, but, maybe people just didn't like your comments; hense the down votes.

Anyway hopefully you decide to answer some -if not all- of the questions the voluntaryists have posed to you throughout this thread; I would be happy to look at them. I'm sure they'll be very inciteful.

ROFL! No argument left?

ROFL! No argument left? I've all but BEGGED you to try and explain your nonsense, and got nothing in return other than the same kind of tripe you just posted. That's all that happens talking to you Anarchists. You run away, spitting some insult out the side of your mouth after you realize you have no answers.

Now you're attempting to imply you've asked some question that can't be answered or debated. I've been demanding an answer from you Anarchists for months. You have no answers. You have no understanding. You have no solutions. All you have is the belief that you're surrounded by sheep and retards, and that you know better.

You don't. You're the problem, not the solution.

Anarchists are like an open book, a transparent fraud, and here you are trying to declare yourself the winner of something. Trust me Anarchist; you lose. The entire planet agrees, government is better than Anarchy, and even here at the Daily Paul, your garbage just doesn't really sell. In fact, you Anarchists are the best advertisement governments ever had. You're akin to Obama in many ways. You won't destroy government. You will sell people on big government. You'll end up creating a police state, that or a Marxist revolution, either way, you're worthless to liberty.

You are your own worst enemies. You make people want to serve justice; ON YOU. Anarchists are no friends to liberty. They're mostly just Communists and useful followers wearing masks, throwing rocks through windows trying to destroy something, but in the end, it's the Anarchist who faces justice.

You do realize that there is

You do realize that there is an actual record of what has been posted right?
I said that because your comment makes it sound like you don't know what had been written previously; and I wouldn't want people to think that you are misrepresenting reality.

You have yet to answer, why you are a Constitutionalist when adherence to the Constitution won't grant you the ability to control the behavior of the people; which you and Mark and some of the others want. That is a simple question which you and Mark have deflected.

Here, I'll give you one more of the questions with a follow through posed to you and/or Mark earlier in the thread: How are you guys going to get a system of corrupt individuals to help you end the corruption? Judges, ADAs, Police Officers, and Politicians are all tied together; they all protect eachother, and none of them are going to incriminate anybody involved because it would by default incriminate themselves. So how are you going to change the system?

I read your diatribe and shockingly there were no answers in there. What should I expect from a Statist.

Point me towards where you asked me that

"You have yet to answer, why you are a Constitutionalist when adherence to the Constitution won't grant you the ability to control the behavior of the people"

(Point me towards where you asked me that since you wanted to bring up "the record". It might even be there... I haven't read all your comments, because I've yet to find one worth reading.)

Oh really? The Constitution now says there can be no law, or law enforcement? Point me towards that enumerated power. If that's true, why did they write the Constitution? What would it create, what powers would it define? IF what you say is true, it would be pointless right? There would be no government and nobody writing or enforcing the law, but there is. You just don't like that fact. You oppose all the principles any law would be used to defend, including liberty.

It's not that you LIKE rapists, slavers, and murderers. You just don't like anybody doing anything to stop them.

"How are you guys going to get a system of corrupt individuals to help you end the corruption?"

I could ask you the same thing? Why do you think it's only a few corrupt individuals? It's the people begging them for corruption and injustice as well.

Your solution is to remove the constraints they face, while I know any solutions to THAT problem needs to start at the bottom and go all the way to top. You need to win from the bottom up. You can only lead people as a corrupt thief, slaver, and butcher when what the people want is plunder, slaves, an butchery.

Why do people take each others liberty?

Why do they beg Obama for plunder?

Why will a free market of violence be used to take peoples liberty just as easily as any government? (it'll be even easier)

Why do people want slaves?

Why do they butcher each other?

Because they have a covetous nature, and I've been talking about it for so long that sometimes I make MYSELF sick, and know I should just give up. I sound like a fricken recording, but when nobody is left talking about it, any chance to overcome your question disappears.

You, as a nihilist, are worthless in answering that question or understanding the problem. Pretending you can get rid of injustice and corruption by throwing out your leaders in simplistic. They're leaders for a reason. Like I've said many times; Anarchists are victims of causality. They don't know what it is that causes injustice, and try to blame injustice on government and a few corrupt leaders, but if what the people want is to use collective force to serve injustice, that's what they're going to get. Justice will be served.

Getting rid of the government won't get rid of our covetous nature. It won't get rid of collective force. It won't get rid of people forming collectives. It won't get rid of corrupt leaders. It won't get rid injustice. It will simply unleash all of that in a free market of violence, selling violence to the most covetous and greedy, while you sit on your hands, turning a blind eye, and enjoying what you've created.

"I read your diatribe and shockingly there were no answers in there. What should I expect from a Statist."

Now, I've answered questions, and proved you a liar who has yet to answer a single of mine, and there's a reason for that; YOU CAN'T.

All you can do is what Anarchists do, blather on, peppering their verbal vomit with "statist", "idiot", "sheep", and "retard".

You need to be on your best behavior here, true, because you're trying to peddle influence, but most people have read enough AnBard rants to know how they REALLY feel about people AND he who has dominion over them.

You certainly are an idiot.

You certainly are an idiot. Since there is no authority granted to the federal government in the Constitution to do what you want it to do, the federal government is not authorized to do it. Is that clear. There is no place in the Constitution which charges the Federal government to setup a police force; so guess what; the federal government doesn't have the authority to have a national police force -this would include FBI, DHS, DEA, ATF, etc.

If the entire people in one congressional district were corrupt, they would vote for a corrupt Congressperson. If there was no such occupation, then what would they do? No matter what they did, it wouldn't have the power that the Congressperson has over millions of people. The mob which you are deathly afraid of, only have a limite range of influence; but government officials influence the lives of all of us. It is easier to get a corrupt politicial to hand you other people's money. Try getting the mob to do that; even if they wanted to, the people -at least some- would make it not worth the effort.

You keep saying that a free market will make it easier to take peoples rights and enslave everybody with one giant mob. Two things: (1)You never elaborate on this -you just decree it. I'm sorry but if I would even entertain such a frivolous idea, I would at least need some elaboration. (2)You've never answered why it what you assert is true, is it that those areas with limited or no government aren't taken over by huge corporations with their mercenaries? The only people who do such nonsense are government and that is because they got an infinite source of money and it doesn't matter if they waste it. The people will always pay their taxes like good sheep and the government could always pass any debt on to future generations. Companies cannot do things like that, and that is why companies don't hire mercenaries to take over countries or land areas with limited or no government.

I'm sorry you are incapable of thought outside of your fear of freedom; it is sad.

Philistine, there is a difference....

between complaining (which you continually do about gov't) and pointing out the hypocrisy of anarcho-control freaks who claim to oppose coercion, but use the up/down vote as a coercive tool to promote group think. And given the comments are about 50 to 1 in favor of anarcho-barbarians, it's safe to assume I'm right. (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference) (Fast and Furious hearing)

So now answering questions

So now answering questions truthfully is complaining? If you don't want truthful answers then you shouldn't ask the questions. If you didn't know the answer then you shouldn't complain about what the answer entails; and if you did know the answer then you shouldn't haven asked the question instead of complaing about the answer. I can't help it that government is the cause of illegal activity; or that government is the cause of the corporations enslaving people. I can't help it that government agents are ruthless thugs. These are just facts. If you don't like facts then I don't know what to tell you other than don't ask questions.

As far as people down voting you; again volutaryists don't necessarily believe in control over the actions of people who aren't infringing on the rights of others. If Michael didn't want us to use the vote up/down on comments then he and the other mods wouldn't have installed it. If Michael made rules to use the up/down vote, then we would adhere to it.

It is not a coordinated effort to downvote your comments; it is just the free market giving you feedback.

You don't actually believe this...

"I can't help it that government is the cause of illegal activity; or that government is the cause of the corporations enslaving people."

Like I've said, Anarchists claim they can get rid of injustice by getting rid of government. They don't actually believe this, but they DO want to get rid of government because it's standing between them and something they want; free reign to use collective violence to unjustly take what isn't theirs.

What they really want and NEED is a mob. They're users and liars.

You don't need government or corporations to enslave people, and getting rid of government won't stop people from incorporating, collectivizing, and monopolizing the free market, including whatever kind of collective violence you think you're going to buy in a free market.

Anarchists fall into two categorize, Fascists who want to run the world with corporate armies, and Communists, who want to be able claim ownership over EVERYTHING using collective violence to take what isn't theirs.

PS Keep hitting that downvote if you want. It means nothing to me. Your computer is now a Skinner Box. With as many Anarchists that plague the DP, I'm surprised you don't have a +20 next to all your comments. What are you doing wrong?

Is your snake oil not selling like you thought it would?

Why would voluntaryists want

Why would voluntaryists want or need a mob? We are trying to get rid of the one we already have, you call it goverment. You are absolutley obsested with violence. How many body gurads do you have around you at all times? What about Police Officers? With none of either of them around you at all times, how many times has somebody tried to kill you, enslave you, or steal from you? None. Why would you think it would be that much different?

You are just trying to scare people into being a cowering statist who needs a mob to subjugate him/her to ensure that nobody else will do it.

That is what is so funny; everything that you and Mark are afraid of happening to you without a government, is happening to you by your government and you like it.

It's interesting that....

anarchists who claim to support "free" thinking, cannot control their compulsion to promote group think with the up/down vote. They love using peer pressure to coerce conformity with their "free" thinking ideology. Kind of like the Communist Chinese referenced in this link. Oops! (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference) (Fast and Furious hearing)

I would not have voted for Doc Paul If I didn't think he had

a dose of anarchy in him.
What other word would acurately describe Jesus Christ?
Libertarianism would not exist without an understanding of Anarchy.
This article is a must read for anyone who wants to learn how to live as good fair loving, Christian, libertarian, anarchist.
It's the only chance for the golden rule to survive..

A patriot must always be prepared to defend his country from his government.

Here we go again...

Jesus Christ is an anarchist. But as I pointed out earlier, Christ said not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law, the law shall be fulfilled. And what did Christ say about taxes? Give unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's. And what did Christ do to those who disrespected God's Law by using the Temple as a "free" market? He made a whip and drove them out. So I humbly suggest that anarchists stop trying to pervert Christ's message and submit themselves to the King of kings, while they still can. (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference) (Fast and Furious hearing)

You really don't know much do

You really don't know much do you? The "law" you talk about is 'God's' law; who is supposed to judge those for violating 'God's' law/ Why 'God' of course. When does one get judged by 'God' for violating 'God's' law; after death of course.

I'm sorry, but humans where never given the authority to enforce 'God's' law.

Those which 'Jesus' cast from the temple were money changers, which would be similar if not identical to bankers today.

Also, that give unto ceaser quote is getting old; yes it is about taxes, however, he was saying that for the people to avoid the wrath of Rome. Not because he actually believed taxes were just.

judge not lest ye be judged

sound familiar?
What about,

love the sinner, not the sin

, this one was from 'Jesus.' He didn't say anything about creating man's law to pervert 'God's' law and then judging other men by that perversion; did he?

I'm not saying 'Jesus' was an anarchist, but he wasn't the tyrant which you are making him out to be either.

Philistine, you must be kidding...

because Christ was executed for allegedly violating Jewish law, which was/is used to enforce God's Commandments, i.e., God's Law.

Regarding the anti-Christ moneychangers, you and your anarcho-barbarian comrades in Occupy Wall Street are fronting for the socialist/fascist moneychangers. While anarcho-occupiers push for more socialism on the street, their Nazi leaders are sipping cocktails in Wall Street penthouses and collecting gov't subsidies. In reality, anarchists are socialist fascists because the end result of anarcho-barbarism will be an anarcho-welfare economy supported by slaves.

Check out this post "Occupy Wall Street". It demonstrates the shared values of fascist Wall Street moneychangers and anarcho-occupiers. (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference) (Fast and Furious hearing)

You do realize that by

You do realize that by continueing to comment on here, more people will be reading your nonsense; and while you think that may be a good thing for you, it is not. You should really read you comments; the are horrendous and getting worse. You just prove everybody's point; you have no idea what you are talking about. Saying that voluntaryism is social fascism, couldn't be further from the truth. It is government which has created the dependency mentality in the people not voluntary action in the absence of government; and the dependency mentality is wellfarism. So, once again, I'm sorry but it is your beloved government which created wellfarism; it wasn't voluntary action of individuals in the absence of government.

My purpose for commenting...

is not to impress or dissuade anarchists. It's to let them know that Ron Paul's Constitutionalist idea's, which I support, are winning. Anarchism is doomed to fail, always has been, always will be. And there will always be Constitutionalists like me who will never let the irrational arguments of anarcho-barbarians go unchallenged.

Futhermore, anarchism epitomizes a welfare economy because slavery would be a "legal" thriving business in a stateless society. And dependency on slaves is the ultimate form of welfare, just look at what happened to the economies of the states that lost the Civil War. Having to give up their dependency on slavery led to a huge economic contraction that forced them to build a new economy based on personal responsibility. Anarcho-barbarism would just create a slave based anarcho-welfare economy. (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference) (Fast and Furious hearing)