-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.

Sinc eyou are fighting for a

Since you are fighting for a "small" government, we may turn your argument agaisnt you by saying, we have impirical evidence that you cannot guarantee a small government so why try?

You are just a scared individual; who will thow any argument agaisnt voluntaryism no matter how bad it is, because you don't want to let go of the fantasy of a controllable government.

There is no such thing as a controllable government, there never has been and never can be. It is one of the greatest con-jobs to ever be perpatrated.

From the founders to the framers to...

today's Constitutionalists, we've all acknowledged the dangers of government. That's why we say freedom isn't free and why I'm a political activist working for a return to strict adherence to the enumerated power doctrine and tenth amendment, which restrain central gov't and empower states and individuals.


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

I am a voluntaryist.

I am a voluntaryist.

You certainly don't sound

You certainly don't sound like it. Your writings on this thread imply that you are a minarchist pretending to be a volutaryist switching to minarchism for security; which would make the whole thing one big act.

I am simply pointing-out a

I am simply pointing-out a potential problem with market-anarchism:

Majority views are going to have the most power in the system and if they don't agree with NAP, they can actually use the market to effectively and efficiently quash those who they don't agree with (unlike government which attempts to do so in an ineffective and inefficient manner while having to maintain some form of legitimacy by claiming adherence to a Constitution or laws even if it isn't adhering). In anarchy, the agents contracted with for the enforcing of "rights" will enforce those "rights" which the majority claims and not some NAP or individual rights or Bill of Rights or otherwise. All things become subjective under the market and thus with market-anarchy.

Hence, why a social contract is still necessary... a social contract which requires ALL businesses to operate on the non-aggression principle.

What kind of business do you

What kind of business do you see creating as a product limited freedom? I already covered why every possible goup you can think of will not exist under market anarchy; I even whent so far as to why -even if they start out- those groups and such would not last. Those things WASTE too much money. People will only tolerate that when there is a Government to force the tax on everybody including the future. Without shifting the cost burdon from those who want it to everybody, those who want it will not want to pay for it, and it will end.

So, no; the things you keep throwing up to try and scare people, cannot be sustained within a voluntaryist system.

But lets just look at simple

But lets just look at simple arbitration. There may be one person claiming that something was unfair... well if the majority of people agreed then it is more likely that the arbiters are going to agree it is unfair and/or damaging, even though it may not violate NAP. It doesn't have to be an extreme example like I gave regarding environmentalism.

Obviously, our current courts aren't perfect either but at least a general standard exists. In the market, the standard is what the majority says it is, the standard becomes subjective, just as value is subjective.

Arbiters and defense or contract enforcement agencies will promote themselves by proving to the market that "we have been shown to get 15% more damages from cases involving misogynists" or something like that. The majority, not liking misogynists, will voluntarily support those services over those which claim to collect equal damages and they will dominate the market.

All I am saying is that the market is going to reflect the views of the majority in every way. It isn't going to necessarily follow NAP. Unlike government which does the same, it will do so extremely well. Although it may be less likely to descend into complete tyranny, it could be more "civilly" abusive than government because of this.

You argument now is similar

You argument now is similar to the race argument. Sure they can discriminate, but the misogynist will just move. Maybe they all congregate in one area. This particular area is not going to adhere to such nonsense; now will they? Companies will always be striving for more sales -especially in a voluntaryist system- how many companies do you think are going to boycot selling to the misogynist area?

This is not going to be, the eniter US follows the same set of Rules -with the hopeful exception of the NAP. There will be different areas doing different things. People will move to an area more applicable to their views; and all of the companies will have no choice but to be tolerant of everybody if they want to compete with everybody else -this isn't a rule, but more a fact of reality.

So, no matter what scheme or potential problem or control mechanism you can concoct if it is started at all it will not last because it will be costing sombody a lot of money to continue their nonsensical policy.

But any court, defense system

But any court, defense system will favor the majority view. So, if you take our current situation with a very liberal-minded populace they may support courts and defense systems which will proactively go after people for "environmental" concerns. Even if you didn't harm anyone or violate the NAP, those firms would be trying to satisfy their market, a market which may not believe in limiting themselves to the NAP. So, you would find yourself being prosecuted even though you did no harm. Even if you had a defense agency, they may be in the minority.

At least now, although it is imperfect, there are some socially engrained restrictions (due process) on what the courts are allowed to do - albeit, that is eroding away every day.

But it goes both ways. You cannot guarantee that everyone is going to agree with NAP, whenever the majority does not, the minority could be totally screwed. There would not even be a piece of paper to point to - it would just be mob-rule with the power of the market behind it even without the "war-lord", or "take-over-the-world" stuff. At least with a Constitution, although it can't act on its own, it is at least something solid that has to be refuted or argued around.

Well said

How would a voluntaryist market differ from an anarchist market?

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

I can sense the fear in your

I can sense the fear in your posts now. Before the government created the police and the court system how many private security agencies and arbitors where there? The reason I ask is because, that is only a slightly smaller number than what will result in a modern version of a governmentless system.

You see, the Constitution either State or Federal, didn't actually authorize the creation of police. OMG, what did everybody do then; there must have been blood in the streets. Actually, as historical documents of my area -I'm sure your area would aslo have confirming documentation- crime wasn't what it is today. The per capita of the crimes -murder, and other assaults- were an extremely small number in comparison to todays numbers per capita.

Individual people will have to look after themselves and protect themselves, their liberty, and their property. If people are unwilling to protect that which should be of utmost importance to them, then I'm sorry but whatever system one creates to do that protection will be corruptable and in time will take advantage of the people and will eventually subjugate them, enslave them, and murder them.

As the saying goes, "If you want something done right, do it yourself."

I'm not scared at all, in

I'm not scared at all, in fact, I would consider myself favorable to an AnCap system.

I totally agree regarding crime - crime is due mainly to socioeconomic factors. But I am not talking about crime. People are going to have ideologies and views. Not everyone is going to limit themselves to NAP. Some of them are going to hate guns, crime or no crime...some are going to be environmentalists, etc. They are going to support arbiters who agree with them. Those arbiters will enforce "rules" which are in contradiction with NAP and the logic which it relies on because they have no other standard except for market demand.

Suppose 70% of those occupying the market are environmentalists... they are going to have anyone who they deem to be violating their views up before their arbiters. Various companies will spring-up to bring you in-line with their views as well. But unlike now, this will be done with the efficiency and swiftness of the market. It won't be some incapable government bureaucracy. It will be an entire market energized and focused on meeting that environmentalist demand.

If we could get everyone to agree with NAP and live by it, that would be one thing, but that is unlikely to ever happen. You must have some kind of social contract - one which everyone within the boundary of that system voluntarily agrees to. It could be as simple as "We agree that all disputes shall be settled through the non-aggression principle."

I'm sorry but after reading

I'm sorry but after reading your argument; you are scared.

Frivolous lawsuits aren't going to happen. How much will a private arbiter cost? Plus the arbiter will only be settleing contract disputes. The major corporations would not exist as they currently do. If anybody would be scared of private arbitration it would be the corporations. Secondly; so what if my naeighbor hates guns. If he/she has no hard evidence that I violated her rights, there is nothing he/she can do about it.

Due to the fact that any legal action would be farely expensive, most of the real disputes will be akin to class action lawsuits and not private sigle party lawsuits.

As far as breaching contracts go, it would depend on what the contract had in writing on what the course of action would be and what type of abitration would be used.

I highly doubt that you will have people sign contracts to step on your property. However, they also would not be able to sue you if they fell on your property.

Everything which you are afraid of happening through private arbitration -which would be that big of a market- are already happening now; and you have no ability to stop them.

So, tell me: the UN owns the Smokey Mountain Park; how did you stop that from happening -you didn't. How are you going ot return it back to the State from the UN; you can't. The UN is trying to pass in the US Congress a small arms treaty; is that going to pass -maybe not this time, but eventually it will. How can you stop that from happening with your small government; you can't. The votes are rigged and the politicians don't work for the slaves. The anti-gun people are already getting anti-gun legilslation passed -at the state level- how are you stopping this; you aren't.

You don't get what I am

You don't get what I am saying. The arbiters and other businesses are not going to be forced to settle disputes based upon right violations or NAP. They are going to enforce whatever views the majority has. Unless you have everyone agree from the beginning that all disputes and all arbitration and all exchange must be in accordance with NAP. Even then that will only slow the transition.

[quote]Everything which you are afraid of happening through private arbitration -which would be that big of a market- are already happening now; and you have no ability to stop them.[/quote]
I agree but the various views of due process and property rights are engrained through the constitution, court decisions, etc. and although they were gradually eroding and now quickly vanishing it at least slowed the digression. If you just say "OK, from now on we just let people do what they want through contract so long as they don't violate rights", it will only be a matter of time before you have a much more dangerous system even if it remains market-based because most people aren't going to hold to a ideological standard. Especially if it remains market-based...

In a market system it will happen quickly if everyone doesn't at first agree with NAP. And not on an intermittent basis but system-wide.

Didn't I tell you, that you

Didn't I tell you, that you weren't a voluntaryist?

How would you take me to court? Would you hire a private security company to come and get me? How much would that cost? How much will your arbiter cost?

I don't think you get it at all. A large majority of the people in th eprivate security business wouldn't stay there without a government. They are able to charge astronomica sums of money, and the only people who can afford such prices are people/companies heavily dependent on the gvernment to ensure the high profits and limited compitition. The individual Security specialists make from $100k and up, withou the huge corporations or the US government to higher them; how many of those security personnel are going to stay working for a lot less money? Do you really think they are going ot want to get shot at for $20-30k? Unlike our currently police which get all kinds of percs, these would also be gone without a government. So who exactly is going to be doing that job?

If you don't have private security to apprehend me illegally then how do you plan on getting me or anybody else to 'court,' to have a private arbiter magically remove my rights which they have no ability to do?

I really don't think you have any idea what a society without government would look like.

I've already told you how. We

You can't tell me what I am. I have told you I am for ending government and allowing the market to meet demands. But...

I've already told you how. We have 70% of the population who is paying to end what we see as environmental destruction by you. That is our cause, that is what we believe in. We don't care if you didn't violate our rights, we want to rid the earth of people like you and your pollution and we are going to fund any business which can achieve that. The arbiters are going to favor us because it caters to our dollars, the "security" firms are going to open "environmental security" divisions which get paid to go after you and bring you to our arbiters. We are the majority who controls the market and we don't care if people die in the process. Our members own the most productive businesses in our society. We have plenty of money to pay for it and you can't keep up because those who agree with you only make-up 30% of the market.

I told you; ANARCHIST DESTROYERS. Coalition? Nope...

"You can't tell me what I am. I have told you I am for ending government and allowing the market to meet demands. But...

I've already told you how. We have 70% of the population who is paying to end what we see as environmental destruction by you. That is our cause, that is what we believe in. We don't care if you didn't violate our rights, we want to rid the earth of people like you and your pollution and we are going to fund any business which can achieve that."

Spoken like a good Anarchist. These people care less than nothing for your liberty. Anarchists are WORTHLESS to liberty; a detriment.

Its a complete hypothetical

Its a complete hypothetical scenario...

Hey wacko; he was posing a

Hey wacko; he was posing a hypothetical of if 70% of the population want to impose something on the other 30% in a voluntaryist system.

Maybe you should make sure you know what you are commenting on before you actually comment.

The 70% that you are so

The 70% that you are so scared of -which doesn't actually exist for any one thing -whith the exception of NOT voting- will go broke trying to force something on other who want nothing to do with it.

So they prosecute the 30%, well the 30% don't pay; then what. Do you really think that locking-up 30% of the population is going to be cheep? They will bankrupt themsleves.

As I stated before. It cost the Federal government several million dollars at Ruby Ridge? How many anti-gun nuts are going to be willing to fund that kind of nonsense out of their own pocket? Each incarcerated person costs the taxpayers $30K and up to keep them; sure in a free market this would be less, but how much less. Would the same amount of people still be in prison?

Without the ability to pass these costs onto everybody including future generations, these things will not happen. The cost is too much to made to manifest in a free market.

You are making a good point

You are making a good point about cost. I guess they could just kill them off - that would be cheap.

I totally agree with the arguments against some super greedy businessman who tries to take everything over - that I think will not end well for him and likely not be attempted in any aggressive manner.

And I am hearing you regarding majorities but still kinda on the fence about it. Now, I am not opposed to anarchism because of it.

I would seriously hope the,

I would seriously hope the, "they could just kill them" comment was you being sarcastic. If it isn't, you should really thing of the implications of killing thirty percent of the people.

How many of those 30% are productive? Probably most if not all. What kind of economical ramifications would result of the killing of a large percent of productive people? Probably something huge. Even if they thought they could just import more labor via Mexico or wherever; that labor isn't going to be skilled with experience, so the usefullness of anybody new taking over those jobs would be miniscule for at least three years time. DO you really think they woul dbe willing to sacrifice 3 years of prosperity for some nonsense which still wouldn't have accomplished anything because they would then have more people doing nearly the very same thing as the people they killed.

So, while killing people seems like a very cheep alternative, it is quite costly in the short run(3 years) and has nearly zero net effect in the long run. If, the new people aren't doing the exact same thing that the previous people were doin gthen it would cost the other 70% even more, because the long run would not have a near zero net effect, but it would have a negative net effect.

No matter how one wants to look at it; in a voluntaryist system, if bad policies are supported, they won't be supported for very long -not once its time to pay the bill for such policies.

I want to hear from a God

I want to hear from a God fearing non hypocrite minarchist by responding to the following. That would be one who does NOT possess a government identification.

1. What is Ceasar's exactly?
2. Whose inscription is on a government identification?
3. Did Jesus possess a government identification of any kind?

I also want to hear from a God fearing minarchist who does possess a government identification by responding yes or no to:

4. Do you possess a government identification for any reason other than to obtain money?

If yes, feel free to elaborate with a miraculous explanation.

Bonus question ...

"Every five years, each male Roman citizen had to register in Rome for the census. In this he had to declare his family, wife, children, slaves and riches. Should he fail to do this, his possessions would be confiscated and he would be sold into slavery."

Source: http://www.roman-empire.net/society/society.html

5. Was Jesus registered or counted?

And the number of children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which shall neither be measured nor counted. -Hosea 2:1

Anyone as close to Murray

Anyone as close to Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell as Ron Paul is probably is an anarchist.

If so, why does Ron Paul hide behind...

the rule of law, and limited constitutional government rather than being honest about his anarchist ideology? Could it be that the anarchist ideology cannot compete in the market of ideas, and like anarchism, Ron Paul would relegated to the dust bin of history if he were honest?


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

Can free-markets be "run" by committee better than by consumers

or to what percentage might this be true (example: we can have 70% free markets the rest must be managed) and who gets to decide?

If you build a communist area

If you build a communist area with others who ageed with that, nobody would interfere; as long as you weren't push that on those ouside of the communist town. If a business was built in that town, then technically that business would have to follow the rules imposed on it by the town. However, I would expect that if a business did emerge in a coummunist or sociallist town that the business would quickly leave.

As far as contolling the market; how would you? There would be no central control. There would be no government to force businesses to do anything; so how would you gain the ability to control that which you didn't own?

You either mis-interpreted me or are being deliberately obtuse.

I never suggested we try to control the market nor am I in favor of communism, for god-sake, hahahaha.

I was asking the question: "how does one 'control' the market, by what percentage of 'liberty' do we live [sic sarcasm], and 'just whom' would decide -- voters, the elected, the wizened unknown?"

How would I? I would tempt weak and covetous people.

"As far as contolling the market; how would you? There would be no central control."

Nonsense. Do you really believe that the only central control can come from government? Who's going to control the markets?

Anybody willing to use violence to take what isn't theirs, and they will use extortion to extract protection money. They will control the markets with authoritarianism rather than the rule of law. The Authoritarian crooks will line up fighting for dominion over peaceful people who just want to live an honest and productive life. The cartels will use collective violence to regulate the markets however they chose.

Your only hope was to use government, but you've decided government is bad, so what you'll get is gangland authoritarianism. What you want is mob justice, and mob justice is the antithesis of what you claim to support.

The question is, how do you want to serve justice.

Remember, don't try and start telling me about something that sounds like government you evil statist. Government can only serve injustice right?

I'm a Libertarian, a Republican, and a Constitutionalist; what are you? Tell me about your gangland government and how you think you're going to serve justice from behind closed doors Anarchist. Tell me about how 'he who can buy the most muscle' is going to serve justice while declaring dominion; controlling and extorting value from your "free market".

Anarchist are WORTHLESS to liberty. They should just call themselves what they are; Feudalists.

Fear mongering...

it's near the top of the list, in the book "How To Be A Successful Tyrant." These guys really play it by the book.