-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.


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.

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.

You can find it...

Here's a start:


"Anti-Federalism refers to a movement that opposed the creation of a stronger U.S. federal government and which later opposed the ratification of the Constitution of 1787. The previous constitution, called the Articles of Confederation, gave state governments more authority. Led by Patrick Henry of Virginia, Anti-Federalists worried, among other things, that the position of president, then a novelty, might evolve into a monarchy."

Fine but that isn't quite

Fine but that isn't quite what you were saying... you were talking about the anti-federalist starting because they were worried of some specific issue of the federal government enforcing taxes with an army - as if Jefferson and the rest said "We are against this federal government because it will enforce taxes with an army." There was never an argument in such clear terms as that to my understanding. They certainly were worried that the federal government would engulf the states and all the things that that implies but...

I don't know, maybe I am being too picky about your wording.

It does take some reading...

Or I see that you can even listen now:


If you check out 26 Brutus VI and 27 Brutus VII, you will find he essentially predicts the Whiskey Rebellion of 1791, which was the first use of the army to collect excise taxes on alcohol.

What he says is pretty clear, I would say. And there are other references. However, it is true that the entire debate did involve other (broader) issues and I am isolating that particular one. In particular, many of the anti-federalist arguments were cast in the context of the abolishing of powers in the state governments. For some, like the writer above, that was apparently an important issue. For others, I think there was some motivation due to the fact that it was a popular issue, and they were trying to stop the Constitution that had been proposed.

And it should be added that they did mostly see some difficulties with the Articles of Confederation. It is in this context, I think, that Jefferson made his famous remark that he would rather deal with the difficulties attendant on too much liberty than too little.

And that was really my main point: There were not two groups arguing over having the Constitution with and without the amendments we have. There was a group (very organized) arguing for the Constitution, and a group (very much more diverse and disorganized) arguing that the outcome would be undesirable. I think it's in Brutus IV that he alleges the Constitution to be a work of a few elites. In any case, one of their main points (pursued from many different points of view) was that by giving the central government power to collect taxes (as opposed to the power to only *request* taxes claimed by the Articles of Confederation) would lead to the growth of the central government to be involved in and dominate every aspect of the lives of individuals---what we have today. Different writers saw different aspects clearly, but when you put it all together, it is clear that their concerns were well founded. And in retrospect, I think it's fair to synthesize their argument. Coercive taxation seems to be the line.

But it's also fair for you to be picky. Perhaps you will read (or listen to) what they had to say, and become convinced of my conclusion. Perhaps you will find a different one. Perhaps I will find a better reference, but I don't have one immediately. I didn't memorize their writings.

Also, I'm trying to take into account how difficult it must have been for them to try to predict the outcome. They even talk about this many times at length. It's not so difficult for us to see and point out the main issue now. But I think they basically had it right, but they still lost the debate.

Alright, I'm with you. I

Alright, I'm with you. I guess I was just being a prick about it, really.

You can always look into the

You can always look into the anti-federalist papers? Farmer did say that the link was a start.

Uh, I've already read the

Uh, I've already read the Federalist papers. The anti-federalists had no one concern over a government coming for taxes with an army. Their concern was a general one regarding a national government. I just felt he was being too specific.

It would be like me saying "the reason for the revolution was the quartering of troops..." Its sounds as though that is the only reason when it was just a particular one.

Your criticism is fair

but I wouldn't say "their concern was a general one regarding a national government." Rather, they had many specific concerns, one of which was the one I pointed out. That it was not *the* main concern or not the most significant concern they had is perhaps a fair assessment. It is one whose relevance stands out to me, and their concern about it strikes me as quite visionary for the time.


The town crier is in place and shouting from the town square…..


Thank you farmer (your name is not lost on me) for bringing the attention to the true Patriots……
the ANTI-FEDERALISTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No mechanism for protecting

No mechanism for protecting right? I guess only government can run police and courts? I think not my friend. There are plenty of private security agencies that could run it better, and arbitrators that could handle court room style disputes.

Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto. - T. Jefferson rЭVO˩ution

"Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone.” - BASTIAT

Look here Richelle

Here's what I was warning you about; a Fascist masquerading as an Anarchist.

Once you accept that the

Once you accept that the market can meet demand more effectively and efficiently than any central planner then you must also acknowledge there is no need at all for a central planner.

If government can provide security, crime enforcement, courts, etc. then the market can do it better.

Although I can see a tendency

Although I can see a tendency in a market-based system to favor the views of the majority.

Anarcho-Capitalism is

Anarcho-Capitalism is Economic Democracy. I'm not sure what you think will happen in that scenario. Insurance didn't exist -other than life and catastrophic health- before the government forced them into being. The police itself was a government created need; the people weren't clammering for it. The idea that a security service will run everything is highly unlikely because most people won't even ascribe to the utilization of a security service, or an arbitor.

So the views of the majority become limited to nonsensical products. Once the majority try to utilize a Free-Market wealfare system via insurance companies or such, it would be far to costly to maintain. The only way they could even try to maintain it would be through violence; which I don't think they would be able to accomplish.

So, while I do see Anarcho-Capitalism as it truely is Economic Democracy; it isn't as threatening to me or anybody else as having a government aparachik in place.

There is going to have to be

There is going to have to be a fairly prevalent system to hear disputes. It seems this system will always favor the majority because that is how it gets paid.

What disputes are you talking

What disputes are you talking about? You do realize that there will be very few regulations but the basic violation of other peoples rights? To even go to an abiter over something is going to require evidence; not just some yahoo's say so.

The majority is going to

The majority is going to establish regulations within their own minds and thus they will manifest in the market and they will try to enforce them on others.

The arbiters are going to do whatever the market is telling them to do, they aren't going to care about standards or principles.

If a an AnCap system is essentially Economic Democracy it is going to be subject to all the problems of a Democracy but only magnified ten fold through the market.

Economic Democracy: Ipad vs

Economic Democracy: Ipad vs Android vs Independent manufaturer - the majority chooses Ipad. Sure Ipad sucks but that is what the majority chose.

I don't get how you think there is going to be a business which has as a product the limiting of freedoms. What do you think a private arbiter is actually going to be presiding over; rules and regulations? How would that even be possible? What 300 million people say they don't like guns, so somehow a private arbiter rules on what exactly to take awy the right to own gun? You are making no sence.

Yes we would probably move away from fossil fules; without government subsidizing them they are fairly expensive. Maybe you think that is the Environmentalists twisting the market to push their ideal? With an unlimited potential for competition and for businesses in any one sector; it is mathematically impossible for a vibrant healthy market to be controlled. There would be just to many places they would have to put money and pressure to accomplish anything. They can do it now because there is only one area to apply both money and pressure and that is on the government; this is what makes it so easy to get bad policy through via government but nearly -if not completely- impossible in a voluntaryist system.

See below, I am not talking

See below, I am not talking about products. I am talking about the majority using the market to create services to satisfy their wants in regards to social/economic/environmental situations.

Think about a market-based NAACP or EPA or etc. They could have a lot of influence if the majority supported them over a non-aggression principle.

The NAACP and the EPA will

The NAACP and the EPA will not exist in a free market; because the people who believe in such nonsense only do so now because they don't have to suffer the costs for such nonsense. Do you understand that EPA is payed for by everybody's taxes? Without madatory taxes imposed on everybody, then where is that money going to come from? The people who desire such nonsense will have to pay the Full cost of such nonsense. Do you really think the people who are spending their hard earned money on that are going to tolerate the wast that the current EPA incures? Do you think that the frivolousness of going haphazardly to is going to cost those people -who fund it- a lot more money then they think it is worth? Don't forget, if they put somebody in jail; they are going to have to pay for that too.

You say that you are not talkin gabout products, but everything on the market is a product. The product you are talking about is some kind of freedom limity service? The EPA, NAACP, and everything else would die without government. Without the donation loophole in the taxes, most of the people which donate to nonsensical things such as NAACP, the Rockafeller Foundation and things like that, would no longer donate to those things, becasue they wouldn't get their kickback. Yes, when a person donates to a charity, the vast majority of that money gets returned to them at the end of the year; sometimes the secondary deduction is even great enough to negate the entire donation itself.

The point being, those institution -which are actually a waste of money- would never last without government protecting them. Nothing you claim to worry about can actually happen without government. Without government protection, and subsidization those instituitons hemorouge money; no people who are forced to pay for that out their own pockets will tolerate it. It would make them poor.

Alright, you may have a point

Alright, you may have a point with that. It would have to be a very determined majority that had an issue which surpassed the monetary cost.

That is a good point and I

That is a good point and I agree that it is Economic Democracy. I guess I was thinking more along the lines of the arbiters. I am thinking that you may find yourself before one who is trying to please their particular market and maybe for purposes for which you did not violate NAP because the majority doesn't believe in NAP. You could see fairly consistent injustice favoring a majority view.

Now, you may have a point that it won't be any worse than it is now but....

I do not think this whole

I do not think this whole idea of private security and private arbiters is actually going to be that big of a deal. You sound like a minachist trying ot hide your fear. How many people does the US government kill every year? How many people to the composition of the different policing agencies kill every year in the US? How many inocent people are railroaded by the court system every year? Your afraid of private arbiters? What you are supposedly afraid of already exists; and your answer is that if we didn't have a government to ensure our subjugation then we might not be subjugated, that's why we need government.

The funny thing is the Founders though it better that a criminal be freed because of the court system then for an innocent person to ever be imprisoned. How many innocesnt people are you willing to have imprisoned just so you may have a false idol called government?

Now, you may have a point that it won't be any worse than it is now but....

Oh please, spare me. Why didn't you just say, "But it's for the children?"

People like you, and Mark, and FreeedomsReigning are sickening. You are so afraid of what might happen, that you find it completely acceptable that the very same stuff -which you are afraid of happening without a government- is happening as a direct result of the government which you support.

I agree with you. You aren't

I agree with you. You aren't really grasping what I am saying regarding the majority.

Your argument is incoherent.

Your argument is incoherent. There can be no business which has as a product the limiting of freedoms. How would that work? Private arbiters aren't there or even capable of enforcing things not under some kind of contract. So how can they limit your freedoms -or anybody elses for that matter- unless you and everybody else allowed them to place a clause within the contract enabling them to take your freedoms away. I don't think you actually grasp what private arbiters will actually be able to do.

Yes there can. You are

Yes there can. You are underestimating what an arbiter or other business can do. You are assuming that they are going to limit themselves to contracts and NAP... they are not, they will only be limited by the demands of the market.

I don't need to have a contract with you to claim you are causing global warming anymore than to claim you stole my TV. I tell my "Global-Warming Defense Corp" (supported monetarily by 70% of the population) that you are expelling too much CO2. They come to your house and say "You are expelling too much CO2 because my clients say you are" "Pay us $10,000 or we will imprison you and take everything you own". You say, "I am not, prove it." You get placed before an arbiter who is trying to please his market and are concluded guilty just like 70% of the other cases brought up with regards to global warming. Why? Not because there is irrefutable evidence of breaking a contract or NAP but because that is what the majority of the market wants. They get paid to put people like you out of business. Since 70% of the market supports them you are unlikely to counter it. You may get lucky and go to a good arbiter but you only have a 30% chance of that.

With a social contract the politicians at first adhere to it and then as the public shifts, the politicians partly adhere and then only pretend to adhere. In a market, there is no standard to adhere or pretend to adhere to except the market.

If you are not under contract

If you are not under contract then the abiter has no control over your private actions; unless you infringe on somebody else's rights. If they try to impose something above their pervue then just don't go to the 'court' to even hear the argument.

Frivolous lawsuits are not going to fly; how are you going to pay for them? The security companies will not be as large as they are now, because they dpend on government to protect the corporations which higher the security companies for astronomical sums of money. Without the government, the other corporations have NO protection from competition. Therefore, they won't be able to afford the huge prices of private securety and the private security will have to lower their prices. Many of the security professionals are not going to be doing the same job for much less money. So with a major section of private security taken out of the picture, who is going to be hauling people unjustly to an arbiter to preside over a case unjustly and to rule unjustly against an innocent person?

You can claim I'm causing global warming all you want; it isn't going ot do jack. You will need to get me to the arbiter; won't you? I don't think you understand the total cost of the current justice system; what you are supposing is going to cost nearly as much. I'm sure as hell not going ot be paying some fine for not doing anything; so what are you going to do, pay thousands of dollars per year to lock me up. That is the whole point why your government is so out of control; the difference being is that under the current system everybody is foced to pay for that kind of nonsense. In a voluntaryist system, not everybody is going to be willing to be spending thousands upon thousands of dollars for nothing.

Look at Ruby Ride; a $200 tax stamp cost the USG a few million dollars. Do you really think it would even take one of those instances before your hypothetical majority realized that it was a waste of money?

How about those tyrants who believe in locking people up because of drugs or guns. Do you really think that they are going ot wan to pay around $30k per year to imprison somebody because they buy/sell/use drugs or guns; especially since the cost will only be placed on those who have wanted that kind of law? Hell people don't even want to accept the burdon of paying their childs education cost without pushing it onto everybody else; and you think they are going to pay for all of these other things by themselves.

Maybe they would try to force everybody to pay these costs, but most people will not pay them; and then what?

The only things which will end-up going to court will be serious but limited, not frivolous nonsense like what you're talking about.

We are going to fund huge

We are going to fund huge environmental enforcement agencies. We have 70% of the population on our side and 70% of the wealth. We are going to force you into the court through physical or harassment. We are going to sabotage your production, block your roads. We are the majority and the market caters to our demands. We will get our money back by taking from you and the arbiters aren't going to care because we control them - they went into business to cater to us.

In the vast majority of scenarios anarchism will work awesome. I am just saying that in the case of extreme majority ideological views, the minority is going to pay the price and possibly a significant one. Those ideological views may be around for a while, we aren't talking about some transitory phenomenon or some lone-nut business man who wants to take-over the world, we are talking about a population majority.

Like I have said over and

Like I have said over and oaver and oaver again, the costs will bankrupt those who try this in a free market. Without a government, they will not be able to control the market, the most they could do is create some kind of business with anti-freedom as its product. This product which people like you, Mark, and FreedomsReigning would like to enforce on the rest of us, will cost you a lot of money -since without government you have no way of taking the money right out of people's paychecks- when you begin to see the actual cost, that will be the end of it.

You are going to have to make money in that system; with nearly unlimited competition -or the potential thereof- you won't be so eager to frivolously waste your money on nonsense because you will be spending more money then you would be earning. Therefore you -and those like you- would be heading directly into bankruptcy just like governments do. The only difference is that government have a special ability to pass the costs onto everybody including those who aren't even born; which is why they can continue nonsensical projects -like found in your nonsensical arguments- for much longer than they could ever be maintained in a voluntaryist system.

As an anarcho-capitalist

As an anarcho-capitalist libertarian... that maybe the best statement I have ever heard against Anarchism. I will continue to ponder this sentence. However, my first thoughts think of fast food and how we can take off the onions. Of course, I want to preserve the individual and I believe private law would do better at that.

There isn't any way to

There isn't any way to guarantee anarchism anyway. There will be some segment of the population which desires government in some form. They will have the right to contract and union and many will do so. The only place it will be guaranteed is whatever space you occupy.