-23 votes

Is Ron Paul an anarchist? I don't think so, but...

Is Ron Paul an anarchist? I don't think so, but anarchists have provided evidence in their comments to try prove otherwise. And until now, anarchists at DP were hiding behind Ron Paul's belief in capitalism within the moral framework of limited government. Most of the evidence that anarchists use to claim Ron Paul as one of their own can be found on the first two pages. I'm opposed to the anarchist ideology and in spite of what anarchists say about Ron Paul, he's convinced more citizens of the merits of limited Constitutional government than any other politician in my lifetime. I'm not bringing up this topic to condemn anarchists, but to have an honest discussion about the merits of limited government vs. anarchy.

I recently posted a topic at the DP Liberty Forum titled "Can unalienable rights exist in a free market?" By free market, I meant a market operating in a stateless society, a.k.a. anarchy. Even though unalienable rights exist in anarchist societies, there's no agreement on what those rights would be and no mechanism to protect the free exercise of those rights. But I had mistakenly associated the lawlessness of the Fed, Wall Street and Obama with anarchy, and they are not anarchists, they are fascists. So I changed the name of the post to "Obama, Wall Street, and the Federal Reserve, a Fascist Regime" and pointed out how fascism severely restricts our ability to exercise unalienable rights. Fascism occurs when powerful business interests partner with a dictatorial central government and impose severe economic and social repression.

Many of the replies to my post argued that the definition of a free market doesn't mean a stateless society (anarchy), and for the most part they were right. But many advocated for an idealized form of free markets, i.e., no government intervention, taxation, or subsidies of any kind. I argued that this idealized form of a free market can only exist in a stateless society, and the resulting anarchy would eliminate the ability to exercise unalienable rights. Below are a couple quotes from someone promoting the idealized version of free markets. This link is the comment with the quotes. http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2969576

"Mark, do you believe that taxation is theft, and thus morally wrong? I do, and that is an important part of what makes me a free market capitalist..."

"A true free market capitalist would see taxation as theft of an individuals means of production by use of force, and thus, it is morally indefensible."

In my initial reply, I challenged him/her to admit they're an anarchist. Later I responded with the following argument: Ron Paul advocates for capitalism within the moral framework of limited government, and that requires some taxation. And being you oppose all taxes, how can you support this country's founding documents, which created a limited gov't with the power to tax? You obviously want to eliminate our country as founded because it has the power to tax, and that would mean eliminating the second amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights. So why don't you admit you're an anarchist who opposes the founding principles of this country? The links below are the reply to my position stated above, followed by my reply.

http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2976341
http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2976503

The person I quoted above also wrote a post titled "The Constitution supports drones and so do I". In the post he said "Our job as liberty loving citizens is not to repress the development and use of these technologies [drones], rather it is to work within the parameters of a free market in order to use these technologies to enhance freedom and personl liberty." I replied saying the Constitution defines the use of drones, particularly within U.S. borders, not the free market. Here's the link to the post on drones. http://www.dailypaul.com/273257

There were many replies to my post that supported a market completely free from government while saying they supported limited government. This seems to be a contradiction, so I thought it important to talk about the merits of capitalism within the moral framework of limited gov't vs. a completely free market that operates outside of government. If interested, you can read some of the comments yourself, here's the link.
http://www.dailypaul.com/275602

The first reply to this post said the Bill of Rights protects our unalienable rights from government, not people. But governments are created and run by people, so without people government wouldn't exist. And history recognizes King George III as the tyrant that made the Revolution, Constitution and Bill of Rights necessary. Also, the Declaration of Independence specifically mentions the king and lists his crimes against the colonies. So the Bill of Rights protects our unalienable rights from people who run government.

I've read all the comments thus far, and while I support the anarchists idealized vision, i.e., a world where law enforcement by government is virtually obsolete because people are educated to voluntarily make moral choices, there is not one comment that offers practical solutions to get from the current immoral, chaotic state of the world, to a world so voluntarily moral, we no longer need government.

On the contrary, the general consensus among anarchists is that it's hopeless to even try restore a legitimate representative government, so we should all sit back and wait for the global system to collapse and start over. But of course, that's exactly what the tyrants they claim to oppose want us to do. Why? The fascist crony CRAPitalists who control the corrupt system are prepared for a global systemic collapse, at which point, they will control a fragmented neo-fuedalistic totalitarian nightmare. I've spent a lot of time over the years conversing with anarchists, and the plan of INACTION espoused here is a common thread. So I've concluded that the anarchist movement is a front for the very tyrants they claim to oppose.

But to all those who support the practice of capitalism within the moral framework of limited government, don't give up the fight. We can look back on history, from the barbarians to ancient Greek democracy, the Roman Republic before the Roman Empire, the Enlightenment, the Magna Carta, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, and know there are tried and true methods to improve the human condition. Check out this post titled "Morals, Ethics and the Role of Gov't in a Capitalist Economy"
http://www.standupforyourrights.me/?p=917

After reading hundreds of comments, most of them from anarchists, there's an important point I need to make. There's compelling evidence demonstrating Wall Street crimes that have not been prosecuted, I'll provide some links below. The one thing that makes me doubt the anarchist claim that their ideology is based on morals that oppose crimes like fraud, is they never call for the law to be enforced. They never point out specific crimes that could be prosecuted. They never express moral outrage over the actions of private sector criminals. It's always the big bad gubbermint victimizing the poor private sector. While they condemn all government as evil, they never call for prosecution of criminals in government either.

So think about this, if anarchists have zero interest in holding criminals accountable now, why would they want a moral standard applied in a privatized world with no government? They argue that having laws against crime is the only reason crime exists, so if we just get rid of government law enforcement, no crime would exist. They use this same "logic" to defend Mexican drug cartels and mafia organizations while condemning government laws that criminalize their viscious business practices. Bottom line, we need to take down criminals in the public and private sectors if we're going to be a just, moral society.

Th first link is Neil Barofsky, Special Inspector General for TARP, saying "fraud" by the nine largest banks caused the financial crisis. The second link is William Black. He's former Deputy Director of the Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation. After the 1980's S&L meltdown, he helped obtain 1000 felony convictions of "elite" bankers. In this radio interview, he lays out compelling evidence that could result in criminal convictions of top Wall Street bankers. If millions of citizens emailed these links to local attorneys, Sheriffs, county prosecutors, State Attorneys General, and U.S. Attorneys, it would make a difference. R.I.C.O.(Racketeering, Influence, and Corrupt Organizations) and "honest services" statutes, would corral Wall Street criminals and their bipartisan co-conspirators.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/3343248
http://onpoint.wbur.org/2011/10/18/prosecuting-wall-street/p...

For more info check out this post titled "Crime of the Century"
http://www.standupforyourrights.me/?p=697




Comment viewing options

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

Highly unlikely

Highly unlikely

Ventura 2012

Richellion, you're funny

Thanks for making me laugh. Anarcho-moronism is the idea whose time has come? That's a good one. That's why the anarcho-morons in Occupy Wall Street took the world by storm, right? And that's why anarcho-moron punks have to hide behind black masks and break windows like juvenile delinquents. Constitutionalists have a term to describe you, it's "ancapped" (handicapped by anarcho-delusions).

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

Really?

So you're going to call me names and that's all it takes for you to prove your point? I could respond in kind, but I won't because even though I disagree with you I'm not going to resort to petty attempts to disparage you or your ideas.

I understand your concerns with anarchism, Mark. I had to overcome some of my own before I was able to embrace it. For me it came down to the fact that I could not find a moral justification for government monopoly. I believe self determination is as valid for the individual as it is for a community, large or small. If any state has the right to succeed from the nation, then any county has the same right, as does any city, or any community, or any family, or any person.

You take issue with anarchism not being able to make absolute guarantees, but neither can the system we have now, even with the Constitution. The Constitution does not give us our rights, it merely expresses the idea that we have these rights by our very nature of being human. But if people don't believe in the idea then it doesn't really matter that it's written on paper. We can see this plainly today. Even in our Supreme Court.

We have to make people believe in the idea of personal liberty again. It needs to be written in their hearts and minds, not on a piece of paper.

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.

Richellion, If you go to a doctor and...

the doctor diagnoses you as handicapped based persistent delusions that render you incapable of determining what is real and what is not, is the doctor calling you names? No, he's simply using terminology to describe your condition. Likewise, the term moron, or moronism, is not a pejorative, it simply describes a condition that some unfortunate individuals suffer from. I'm sorry if you took it personal. Richellion is a different matter, it's just a laconic way to describe the perverse "morality" underlying anarcho-barbarism. Anyone following the comments on this post, anarchist or not, will understand that I've used Richellion as an adjective, not a personal pronoun. But you're new to this particular anarcho-house of mirrors, so I can understand why it would be confusing.

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

?

Clearly your use of the terms "anarcho-moronism", "anarcho-morons", "ancapped", and ""anarcho-delusions" are pejoratives.

"Richellion, you're funny."

"Richellion, if you go to the doctor and the doctor diagnoses you..."

The way you structured these sentences would certainly indicate that "Richellion" is a proper noun and not an adjective. If "Richellion" is a combination of my name with the word "religion" intended to imply that I hold myself to be the arbiter of absolute truth it's not an accurate portrayal of my beliefs and it's also not an adjective.

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.

For a "free" thinking anarcho-barbarian...

you sure seem attached to grammatical rules. Oops!

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

YOU

are the one who ignored the points I made in my statement and chose to argue semantics over my assertion that you resort to name-calling. Don't get mad at me because I took you to school.

I tried having a reasonable conversation with you, but Josh is right, your only interest is trolling. So troll away, bro. If you want to act like a jerk it only undermines your integrity, not mine.

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.

Oh, so whining about people

Oh, so whining about people down voting your comments wasn't sad enough; now you have to complain about correct grammar?

You should really watch who

You should really watch who you call names. you don't even realize that there is a difference between Anarcho-Communists(OWS) and Anarcho-Capitalists(most here).

So, given that you don't know the differnce between the two -which is huge in comparison; should you even be commenting on the topic of voluntaryism?

Philistine, trying to make distinctions...

between anarcho-this or anarcho-that is nothing more than splitting hairs. All anarchoisms fall under the same heading, anarcho-barbarism.

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

I told him the same thing here:

http://www.dailypaul.com/276369/is-ron-paul-an-anarchist-no-...

But, keep in mind that we aren't dealing with a rational person, or he is a very dedicated troll.

As exhibited by this string of comments: http://www.dailypaul.com/276369/is-ron-paul-an-anarchist-no-...

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


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

Arizoona, I like that string of comments, thanks...

for posting it.

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

After looking at the links, I

After looking at the links, I remember when you posted them. I find it kind of hard to believe that this individual coul dbe this dense and still keep stay on this thread. Most people who actually are true believers usually leave when they realize they aren't gaining any ground. Trolls, ar eht ones that I'ver noticed will stay longer usually.

Philistine, when talking about gaining ground....

you should ask yourself the following question. If Ron Paul is an anarchist, or has anarchist leanings, why has he NEVER used the word "anarchist" describe himself or his ideology? It's because anarchists have no ground to stand on let alone the ability to gain ground. So like all anarchists, you demonstrate symptoms that indicate your're ancapped.

Futhermore, Ron Paul has gained a tremendous amount of ground by promoting the very same Constitutionalist ideas that I'm advocating for. So the fact is, Constitutionalists are gaining vast tracts of ground while anarchism continues to pick up speed as it heads for the historical dust bin 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)

Considering

your vitriol I think it's apparent why he might shy away from the term.

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.

Richellion, the truth is...

if anarcho-barbarians are honest about who they are, they cannot compete in the free market of ideas (oh the delicious irony). Why can't they compete in the free market of ideas? Because the vast majority of the world's people know irrational BS when they hear it.

http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2974976 (evidence of treason)
http://www.dailypaul.com/274979 (solutions to limit fascist gov't)

For more evidence of treasonous US leaders check out the sections "American and Chinese Communism, a Partnership" and "Closing the Loop on Terrorism" in 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)

Mark

I am truly sorry that you are so afraid of an idea that you would become so angry and spiteful.

You call me a liar, but you don't even care to have a respectful conversation with me, even though I have tried to initiate such conversation, to even understand how I came to hold the ideas I have.

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.

That's not true technically.

That's not true technically. If unintelligent people such as yourself, haven't been misrepresenting voluntaryism for decades -for the sole purpose to scare people- then you have no idea if voluntaryism would compete or not. You say it can't compete in a Free Market, the only problem is that it isn't a free market of ideas. It is a controlled market; there is a difference.

The funny thing is, even with the market being heavily controlled Volutaryism is growing as is true Constituionalists. As the walls come down on the contrlled market the number of really small government and voluntaryists grows rapidly.

You're advocating for

You're advocating for Constitutional ideas? Certainly not the Constitutions which already exist within the US; because none of them -either State or Federal- authorize the enforcement of morals on people. So, what Constitution are you advocating for?

I am leaning on the troll option.

He doesn't even attempt to answer any questions, or seriously attempt to refute arguments.

But then again, there is a big possibility that he is genuinely this stupid.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


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

Arizoona, once again you are in danger of....

falling off your anarcho-"moral" high ground. Just relax, take a deep breath, and meditate on your Non-Aggression Principle.

http://www.standupforyourrights.me/?p=1264

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

Anarchism is why governments are created.

Anarchism is why governments are created. It's been done to death. The whole world agrees, government is better than Anarchy.

What's rare and proven to be successful is a Constitutional Republic dedicated to defending liberty and serving justice, but it only works when that's what the people want and deserve.

"Freedom, liberty, and their common defense."

The prosperity we could create is nearly unimaginable, but Anarchists aren't interested in prosperity. This is what they're interested in: destruction.

C'mon

Arguing the practical application of anarchism is one thing, making up absurd accusations about our motives is another.

"... but it only works when that's what the people want and deserve."

Can the same not be said of the pursuit of liberty through anarchism? That if people truly want liberty and fully embrace the concept, anarchism will work?

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.

No, that is not true.

No, that is not true. Governments were created when the violent band of criminals realized that it was much easier to loot, enslave, and murder under the guise of protecting the people which they wanted to loot, enslave, and murder, then it was to just stoll into town and do it the more traditional way. It was so easy in fact, that the victims -not only rarely if ever complain of their victimization- paid to be victimized. It was the ultimate con. Where the criminals get paid by the victims to victimize them.

One could say...

That irrational fear and libido dominandi is why governments are created.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


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

I really don't see how

I really don't see how anarchism is promoting global fascism. That is a bit puzzling. Nor do I understand what anarchism has to do with a cowards way to deal with a revolution.

The anarchism idea is really about trusting the market to achieve those things which we currently entrust to government. The tyrants you speak of are enabled through the illusion of government.

So you are suggesting that

So you are suggesting that the people pressure the police -the people with guns, killing and threating average people- to go after those who are -protecting the police officers- stealing your money to pay the police to protect them? That makes sense. Email is definitely going to work. The FCC -a government entity which cannot exist under the US Constitution is going to comit suicide? You cannot be serious?

How did the founders do it. They had a war.

In my opinion, the first step

In my opinion, the first step in the evolution of man towards freedom is extending grace and mercy which are things absent in law. Love thy neighbor as thy self. Let those who are capable of extending grace or mercy be a good example to those who in their anger seek an eye for an eye.

Since you were kind enough to offer a prayer, I shall also indulge:

Lord,

Let thou be persecuted not by jealous Cain's but rise up thy servants Abel so their good fruit can be exhibited to inspire me to be a better man. If this request be worthy let it be agreed upon. Where two or more gather to ask in the name of Jesus, the son shall do to glorify the father. So it is written, so it shall be. As above, so below.

In the name of Jesus and most certainly not the name of your arrogant, lustful, selfish, greedy, conceited, penitent, unworthy, rebellious servant.

Amen

clarification

A suggestion has arisen in this thread (rather far down there) which should not go unnoticed and should not go without correction.

The fantasy that has been put forward, which is part and parcel of the Hagelian dialectic, is that the anti-federalists were for the Constitution (with amendments) and the federalists were for the Constitution (without amendments); the anti-federalists, we are asked to believe, wanted "limited government with coercive taxation" (as well as the federalists). In accord with the Hagelian dialectic this creates a false dichotomy, by which the argument becomes meaningless.

In point of fact, the federalist/anti-federalist argument was over whether or not it was a good idea to try to legitimize the use of force (i.e., the army) to collect taxes. That argument was won by the federalists, and adding the amendments did play a role. In addition, the federalist papers made it sound like a very good, and even necessary, idea. But make no mistake, the federalist papers were arguing for limited government in accord with the amendments known as the Bill of Rights. Just read them. The anti-federalists were arguing that by legitimizing the use of military force against the people of the united States, the Constitution was creating a tyranny that would result in precisely the situation we observe today.

The anti-federalists were right, but as I said, they/we lost the argument. There was a very small number of people who were not duped until the end, and Patrick Henry was among them.

The argument must now be revisited. These are the proper names, and we anti-federalists are in a much stronger position now, since we have on display the results of the Constitutional tyranny which was chosen by the majority and which they imagine to impose on all. Anyone who is honest now knows the anti-federalists were correct. Calling us "anarchists," as people called Jefferson, is of limited value, and the days of the federalist delusion are numbered.

It should also be remembered that many of those with the potential vision to be anti-federalists had just been through an eight year horrendously taxing war. Many of them were killed, and the others were greatly beaten down. May the debate be revisited in their memory.

I have never heard this thing

I have never heard this thing about the federalist/anti-federalists being at odds over whether the government can enforce taxes with an army. Can you please point to this somewhere? I thought the dispute was over a much more broader application of a national government with unlimited powers and a federal government with limited powers separate from those of the states.