37 votes

Ron Paul Exclusive: I Am Not An Anarcho Capitalist

Ron Paul in a speech at Oberlin College is asked about his thoughts on Anarcho-Capitalism. Ron Paul says that "He is not there yet" And that he supports a more minimalist view of government (minarchist).

See 1:02:35 in this video:


http://youtu.be/W5K_IZTSwHU

Direct link to 1:02:35:
http://youtu.be/W5K_IZTSwHU?t=1h2m35s



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

and.....

I guess because RP is a minarchist we all have to be minarchists now? Lol

Amen

[Ron Paul] supports a more minimalist view of government (minarchist).

Amen.

Just sayin'...


"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."

Minarchism
track

Minarchist A.K.A. Libertarian...

which Dr. Paul was but changed parties to get people to listen. There were other reasons too but he knew the MSM-generated stigma of proclaiming himself Libertarian would never bring him the audience he needed to be effective.

Even now, many can only accept Libertarian views if they can claim them as Republican views.

Just sayin'...

I'm surprised that this clip

I'm surprised that this clip wasn't dug up a long time ago. But I think what he is really saying is that Anarcho-Capitalism is to unrealistic as a goal and he therefore doesn't advocate for it. But he did say that it is a long term goal. So what I get from that is he actually is an Anarcho-capitalist in the sense that he believes that it is the best system. He just avoids the labeling for the reason I just mentioned.

Brad

I hope he never gets there.

And I don't think he ever would either. But many of his followers are anarcho-capitalists; so I think he doesn't want to annoy the anarcho-capitalists who like him. He's answered that way before on other issues.

Clearly, though, Paul is a Taft Republican, which means SMALL government, not no government at all.

I am not a follower ...

There are several people who have been talking about the same crap Ron has for a long time. Some people have sought Ron out for interviews on various things because they knew who he was. Ron ran on a libertarian ticket in 1988. Libertarians have been collaborating for decades to solve the same age old problem ... how do you spread the ideas of liberty and freedom.

Ron knows what libertarian positions and controversies are. He has touched on some of them in interviews or speeches and has stated he believes politics merely reflects the belief of the people. I have a hard time believing over the years Ron hasn't heard the ol "why do you do it Ron, no one in Congress listens and the people don't care?" There can be no doubt that a principled political career choice enabled Ron to be in the right place at the right time in 2007. There can be no doubt that Ron was completely vindicated in 2007 for any flak he has ever received over the years for being Dr. No.

Ron's political career choices causing him to be in the right place at the right time have enabled him to be the most successful marketeer of the liberty message the past century. I suspect for long time libertarians it has little to do with following and more to do with respecting success. When success empirically demonstrates ones opinion of political campaigns has a flaw and that it can be an effective marketing platform for ideas of freedom under the right circumstances, one must consider how that success can be duplicated.

No, I don't "follow" Ron but I damn sure congratulate him for all of his success and encourage, endorse, or condone more of it. During his presidential campaigns I had no problem proselytizing about his constitutional positions despite that is not my ultimate preference. On the other hand I am fairly certain if one asked Ron whether they should believe in anarchy or minarchy Ron would probably tell them that is something they need to figure out for themselves.

Statist...

Statist...

"Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito."

But....

But if we didn't have a group of people stealing from us, who would protect us from people trying to steal from us!?!?!?

lol

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


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

Now we're getting somewhere. He knows what they are.

Ron Paul: "He asked about Anarcho-Capitalism, and the person who's probably written the most about it is Murray Rothbard, and ahh Anarcho means "Anarchist", and ahhh, an they would essentially have no government. All government would be private. I haven't gotten to that point yet.

I would think that ahh maybe that is an ultimate goal but not for a long time to come. We have a bigger job just stopping the slide into tyranny let alone saying that ahh we can accept the notion that no government should exist. So I don't accept that, but I certainly accept the ahh minimalist approach to government with the sole purpose of protecting liberty, property, and contract, ahh today the government interferes with our property, and interferes with our contract, and they're the counterfeiters, so we should hold them accountable, but I am not an Anarcho-Capitalist."

So what is he, a fraud or what I am? I'm not yet an Anarcho-Capitalist because Anarcho-Capitalism is a HORRIBLE idea when you open your eyes to objective reality.

If the world was filled with perfect people, Anarchy would be perfectly fine. It's not.

It's precisely BECAUSE people aren't perfect

that people should not be given this power over others.

The genius of the statist: Some people are BAD. So let's concentrate all the power into one place so it's easy the the BAD people to get hold of it.

That's utopian.

Hey Godless heathen

Hey Godless heathen, that's what justice is all about, defending liberty from covetous people. Ron Paul told you himself Anarchist, the only legitimate purpose of government is to defend liberty, and I don't believe for one second that Anarchists are capable of defending liberty, and should you ever start paying goons to take liberty, I will happily meet them and you with force. I will KILL YOU AND YOUR LITTLE PAY-WHORE MINIONS WHO THOUGHT THEY WERE GOING TO PLAY WARLORD OF THE FLIES.

Understand!?

You don't get to be a tyrant buying and selling power in a free market of violence. You will die ugly and end up were you belong.

No indeed, commie, you want

No indeed, commie, you want fully socialized violence.

But then with all caps threats of violence it would be expected you don't want to perform, or even pay others to perform, your own dirty work.

You want your goons to force us to to pay for your goons. How brave. How noble. How moral.

You start with force and end with force. Can't imagine a voluntary arrangement without a gun waiting to enforce errant behavior.

You start with insisting we pay for your goons or else your goons will cage us or shoot us.

Who is the one trying to "take liberty"?

(FYI this is not an attack on decent intelligent minarchists who understand the discussion and just aren't convinced, it's an attack on commies pretending to be libertarians who threaten violence in all caps)

I have NO PROBLEM taking an Anarchists liberty.

I have NO PROBLEM taking an Anarchists liberty. You wanted a revolution right? You wanted to be an enemy of my country. You wanted to buy collective force in a free market of violence, so screw you, you will face justice Anarchist. Pick up a gun you phony. I dare you to try. All that will happen is you'll get hurt. You won't survive, but government will.

It's not about Communism. It's about justice. A governments ultimate purpose is to keep all the little wannabe Warlords like you in a box where you belong.

People don't want Anarchism. They want government and justice. They want somebody to stomp your Anarchist ass when the time comes.

You have been warned. You never stood ANY chance because you failed to win the public debate. You wanted to use liberty minded people and get them to destroy their own government. It's not going to happen.

Live by destruction and be destroyed.

There's a very good reason you should have chosen to be something other than a freeloader running his mouth attacking people of faith. People of faith don't reject justice. They reject vengeance. The worse things get, and the harder it is to tell the difference, because our choices in how to serve justice become limited.

Of course you have no problem

Of course you have no problem taking anyone's liberty.

Why should you? You start with giving up your own.

I don't want to buy any collective anything. It's you who wants to buy collective force, with money stolen from your fellow countrymen.

You want fully socialized violence. In this sense all statists are socialists.

People do want anarchism. This is tautological. All the state does is force people to do things they don't want to do, or forcibly restrain them from doing things they do want to do.

Everyone wants anarchism. What they fear is anarchism for other people.

You fear anarchism for other people because you know you are evil and think everyone is.

I do not fear anarchism because I know I am not evil and think we good people outnumber you evil people. As such I don't see the benefit of conceding to evil to begin with.

I don't want people to destroy government. I want them to ignore it as one ignores the devil.

We are not violent. It is you who worship the state that are violent.

It is the state, ie Lucifer, that you worship.

Jesus said render unto Caesar. He didn't say become Caesar. You would rule other men. That is not light in your soul my friend. That is something else, from a hotter place, that eats at you.

I would leave you alone.

You can never leave me alone, because you must proselytize your evil.

Christians worship Christ. You worship something much darker.

Yes, I think we have gotten somewhere.

He said according to your quote: "So I don't accept that, but I certainly accept the ahh minimalist approach to government with the sole purpose of protecting liberty, property, and contract, ahh today the government interferes with our property, and interferes with our contract, and they're the counterfeiters, so we should hold them accountable, but I am not an Anarcho-Capitalist."

HE IS A MINIMALIST! What do you think the US Government was after the Constitution was in place? Why do you think he had so much support?

We have a government now that is way outside its bounds in the form of Non Governmental Agencies, Government Agencies and Regulators that are not in the Contitution or have been added afterward, like the Federal Reserve, like the IRS, like taking the State Senators away from State legislature vote to a state wide at large vote.

We HAD a MINIMALIST government...we HAVE a LEVIATHAN OCTOPUS now instead of 3 equal and separate branches there are 8 arms with millions of little suction cups…one attached to just about every person in the country. The Federal Government is not supposed to be sucking our liberty and prosperity…it is supposed to be positioned to defend our God-given inalienable rights. A minimalist government does not steal 60% of the people’s wages nor does it seek to take their personal fire arms

Ron Paul is an honest, decent man who has not changed his tune. You however, I consider to be acting like a fraud because you will not even hear Ron Paul's own words. You seem only to be interested in discrediting him. That is why I consider that perhaps you are a fraud. Why do you insist on discrediting one of the few statesmen who did not play political ball?

"He knows what they are"

Big deal.

I know what a lot of things are for which I won't even say the words they are so shameful.

I think that there are evil anarchist and tht you should be figuring out who they are instead of bad-mouthing a national hero.

...

I'm a fraud aye Bear?

In what way? Did I NOT listen to his words while I was dictating them?

"All government would be private. I haven't gotten to that point yet. I would think that ahh maybe that is an ultimate goal but not for a long time to come."

I would NEVER say that. NEVER!!!

No government would be the ultimate goal if I thought I could get rid of mans covetous nature, but I can't. Our nature can merely be contained by justice. Getting rid of another persons covetous nature is beyond my power. Even if I could "privately owned government" would NOT be my ultimate goal.

I don't covet power, and won't turn a blind eye to those who do.

I also DIDN'T hear him telling people what's wrong with Anarchism. I heard him saying Anarchism is his ultimate goal yet he's not an Anarchist. I heard him saying that a world filled with privately owned armies and goon squads is his ultimate goal.

Sounds like an Anarchist to me...

What I heard was somebody who knows he can't reach his goal anytime soon because Anarchism is a repellent force in politics. Anarchism is a broken idea that fails in the real world for a reason. It's not something I'm working towards for a reason.

"HE IS A MINIMALIST! What do you think the US Government was after the Constitution was in place? Why do you think he had so much support?"

The Constitution is what it is and cedes most authority to states, but it doesn't say anything about a state being 'minimalistic' in their approach. An individual state can become a monstrous statist slum. California is allowed to run all sorts of sick and disgusting Socialist operations should they choose, and to back up their operations with collective force.

The Constitution is what is. The Constitution is what an Anarchist claims to want, local control, but the truth is localists are not minimalistic or Anarchistic in their approach.

The size of the state doesn't matter. Those who offer people the fruits of injustice will end up leading, because people covet what isn't theirs. People want something for nothing and they get the government they deserve for a reason, even with a Constitution saying they deserve better.

PS Ron Paul isn't my hero. You shouldn't hero worship any man or woman, especially a politician. If you find yourself hero worshiping a politician, something is VERY VERY wrong.

Yah, if I hadn't talked to ye so much I wouldn't have felt like

I could suggest it. I didn't say you were a fraud, I said you are acting like a fraud and I consider that perhaps you are a fraud because you are busy calling Ron Paul a fraud when he said he is not an anarchist. I don't see what is wrong with trying to work toward no government. That does not mean that there won't ever not being government but it means that the focus would be less and less government instead of more and more government.

Ron Paul said himself that states could be overbearing. I heard him being interviewed back when all those secede petitions were out saying that he was not in favor of secession and that states could be worse than a Federal Government. That is why we should work toward less government instead of more government. Sure one could have no government as a goal in order to have less government. That does not mean there has to be no government, but minimal government.

I do not worship Ron Paul. He would have to be God, and he is not. He is though a hero as far as I am concerned and that does not mean that I worship him, but I respect him and what he stands for. And he DOES NOT stand for Anarchy.

What do you think about this site? http://www.thecomingattack.com/obama-operatives-will-commit-... it was linked on the DP and I am wondering if it is legit.

And I have a big problem with Rand right now saying he doesn't care if someone coming out of a liquor store with a gun and $50 is killed by a drone or by the police. What do you think about that?

...

There's NOTHING fraudulent about me or what I want.

I've been completely honest about what I am and want from the beginning. IT hasn't changed. The only thing that's changed is how people perceive Ron Paul. I HAVEN'T always been honest about Ron Paul, sorry. because I know that there are a lot of good and decent liberty minded people who hero worship Ron Paul.

I don't hate Ron Paul. I love him, but that doesn't mean I have to turn a blind eye to his double talk.

I don't need to equivocate like Ron Paul. I don't want to use an Anarchist to serve my purpose. They oppose my purpose. I have no interest in privatizing government and letting those who can pay for it write the rules. I oppose letting Anarchists buy and sell collective force in a free market of violence.

Ron Paul: "All government would be private. I haven't gotten to that point yet. I would think that ahh maybe that is an ultimate goal but not for a long time to come."

I don't need to pretend that Anarchism would be a good thing because it wouldn't be a good thing. Anarchy would only be 'a good thing' if what I saw here were honest, charitable, hard working and productive people who didn't want anything beyond that which they have a right to, but the world is filled with dishonest double dealing con-men. It's filled with a covetous mob of people who want what they don't have a right to.

Such as you. You want to bear false witness and call me a fraud.

I don't need to pretend to be something I'm not. I in no way endorse the idea that Anarchy is good because the world isn't filled with good people. It's filled with people who deserve the government they're going to get.

You see,

you even put words in my mouth and then call me something. I said you are acting like a fraud and that perhaps you are a fraud. You see, I don't know so I say maybe. You said Ron Paul was an Anarchist and a Communist. You seem to call people names and say people are doing things that you have no proof of.

Besides, I asked you some questions and you didn't answer them. Why?

...

I say Ron Paul is a fraud, and he agrees with me.

I say Ron Paul is an Anarchist fraud, and he agrees with me.

In the same breath he'll tell you that he's not an Anarchist, but that Anarchy and privately owned government is his ultimate goal.

That's called being a two faced fraud. He IS an Anarchist, but he doesn't want you to know that or to understand what that really means. I know that Ron Paul can't tell you the truth, and I know why he can't tell you what's wrong with Anarchism.

He can't tell you why it SHOULDN'T be your ultimate goal, because Anarchism is what he wants.

He thinks his message is perfect. A Constitutional Republic is not perfect, and he knows that very well. If it was, he wouldn't call Anarchism his ultimate goal. He would call a Constitutional Republic his ultimate goal.

Those who advocate Anarchism are called Anarchists.

Anarchists are two faced frauds who know what they're offering is FAR from perfect. What they're offering is sure to fail. Let the world around you serve as the evidence. Anarchy has been done to death over and over again. Anarchism SUCKS and gets replaced by something better; government.

Nobody is as stupid as an Anarchist pretends to be, but they SURE DO think everybody else is...

I told you what Anarchists actually are, Communists, and they know damn well that what they're offering is not a solution, but something that fails, and gets replaced by what they actually want. Anarchy is their ONLY HOPE.

Were the Anarchists NOT hanging out in OWS camps with all the rest of the Communists? What they actually want is something they can't explain because it would reveal them as frauds. They need mobs and want to use you to get what they actually want.

They want to use people to destroy what they hate, a Constitutional Republic.

Lew Rockwell (Executor of Murray Rothbards estate and Ron Pauls friend of 40 years): "It would be a great thing to break up the US, just like it would be a great thing to break up the European Union."

Crap like that doesn't come out of my mouth because I'm not a fraud, and I don't serve an Anarchists purpose.

Look I don't think you are being fair in your assessment of

Ron Paul. I don't know anything about Lew Rockwell or Murray Rothbard. All I know is that the Federal Government is overstepping its bounds removing Constitutional Protection from the people in the name of fighting a nebulous war on terror.

I understand your words about promising the moon as a false front and then bringing in an extremely coersive government. I do not think Ron Paul is saying or doing that.

I think the current criminal socialist agenda that is promising people the moon is going to bring in anarchy when the bottom falls out of the dollar and all the freebies that dependant people are used to are removed. There will be anarchy all right. Anarchy in the name of burning and breaking and slashing and it will not be done by people who love Liberty. I think we will be busy protecting ourselves.

As far as the Occupy movement. I think that is being done by the current administration to rabble rouse young people in the wrong direction. Ron Paul is an opposite force and has a different message of personal responsibility as far as I can tell.

Anyways I brought up 2 things I wanted your opinion on and you never answered:

What do you think about this site? http://www.thecomingattack.com/obama-operatives-will-commit-... it was linked on the DP and I am wondering if it is legit.

And I have a big problem with Rand right now saying he doesn't care if someone coming out of a liquor store with a gun and $50 is killed by a drone or by the police. What do you think about that?

...

Lol,

If the world was filled with perfect people, Anarchy would be perfectly fine. It's not.

And this jives with their being a government? The same evil people can get into the institution of government..

And further, anarchy

means no rulers, not no rules.....

I have NO DOUBT that you want to write the rules Anarchist.

"means no rulers, not no rules"

And I have no doubt that you see Anarchy as a chance to write the rules. That's called being covetous, wanting something you don't have a right to.

That's EXACTLY what what I've been saying, Anarchists are frauds. They're two faced liars who know they need to masquerade as something they aren't. Ron Paul just told you himself. Anarcho-Capitalists are just Anarchists.

Tell me about how you're going to write the rules Anarchist, and how you're going to replace government with your own wallet in a free market of collective violence.

Anarchists are just frauds who wannabe be Warlords writing the rules in a free market of violence.

Tell me about how we should be working towards what you want, Anarchism, and how Anarchism represents something good. Anarchists don't share my purpose. They covet power, they want to rule, not over themselves, but over others.

People can see right through Anarchists, and that's why Anarchists always try and masquerade as something they aren't. Without a costume, Anarchists are a repellent force, and nobody knows that better than an Anarchist. (That's why they wear costumes and masquerade as something they aren't.)

The "A" Word

The current issue of The Freeman (from FEE www.fee.org/ - free download available here http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/#axzz2RMU4wjp2 on the right about half-way down) is about the debate between anarchism and minarchism. Jeffrey Tucker has an excellent article on the subject of when/how he became an anarchist, "To Free One's Mind." I'm not quite there, yet, either, but I'm heading that direction. I'd also recommend Gerard Casey's book, Libertarian Anarchy.

No King but Jesus, no President but Ron Paul

Thanks for the vid

Shared on Twitter.

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
http://www.dailypaul.com/203008/south-carolina-battle-of-cow...
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Pretty much how I feel, I'd

Pretty much how I feel, I'd consider myself a minarchist...that being said, I'd never argue with an AnCap because I wouldn't have any legitimate argument against their opinion and I would lose the discussion.

I'd say that Ron Paul is an

I'd say that Ron Paul is an anarchist who realizes that miniarchism is the most that the market can bear. Anarchy may be more principled, but miniarchism is the max the boundary can be pushed without market forces establishing a government.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Market forces can't establish

Market forces can't establish a government. The purpose of government is to vitiate market forces, and protect capital from the market via violence and threat of violence.

The state expands via promises to violate the market and give someone that something someone else owns. Since this is destructive of wealth, some of the primary recipients of that redistribution are the propaganda class, which used to be the clergy, and now is academia and the media. The propaganda class must exist to tell people that freedom is slavery and poverty is caused by freedom and freedom is dangerous.

Violence is a human tendency, but it is not a market tendency, by definition. States may be inevitable, but markets pre-exist the state.

The state only occurs when markets create enough wealth to be worthy of expropriation. The state occurs essentially post agriculture. Once people had more food than they needed to survive, organized crime developed.

Perhaps unlikely in the current environment, but it's at least plausible that men could live without gang predation.