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.

IMO your words could use some tighter definitions.

You say: "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."

My questions are:

Which clergy?
Which academia?
Which media?

I think there are difference between true froms and counterfeit forms. Counterfeit forms are enabled, used, and acted out by Criminals.

Should we shoot all the people who wear glasses? /sarc

...

I don't advocate shooting

I don't advocate shooting people for lying.

The 'mainstream' clergy used to propagandize for the Kings.

The 'alternative' clergy were ones who typically agitated at least against the PTB/King and often in favor of a new order. (In the US often the new order was socialist in nature. IE the shakers, Owenites, Oneida community, etc.)

For a long time, the clergy was the media.

The founders admonition against establishment of church, or "the separation of church and state" was really an admonition against state and media. Not everyone read anything other than the bible. But almost everyone went to church.

Possibly partially because of the anti establishment sentiment as codified in the 1st Amendment, and certainly due to technological advance, the propaganda function has been mostly replaced by our modern media and academia.

There will always be a

There will always be a government for a VERY long time in the future.

Govt = power, people are attracted to power, people will always form governments.

True, evil people will always

True, evil people will always form governments until good people learn to say "no, we know where this lie leads".

Governments are inevitable so long as people are stupid, hence public education to ensure this.

Replace the word government with slavery....

and it becomes very apparent why we need to shed the idea of the legitimacy of this belief system of authority as quickly as possible. Just because it is what has been done in the past doesn't mean it is moral. The more people learn what the actual nature of the State is, the quicker it becomes irrelevant to our society. Government is nothing more than a group of people that have a monopoly of violent force in a certain geographic region.

Just because we cannot see how the cotton will be picked when slavery is abolished doesn't mean we should just accept that it is with us to stay.

well, he did say that

"may be that should be the ultimate goal"

Sounds to me like he agrees with Thoreau:

"I heartily accept the motto,—“That government is best which governs least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe,—“That government is best which governs not at all;” and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have."

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus

Aaaaaand...

the Man speaks. :)

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Mises was a statist too.

Doesn't make them bad people, just, as Dr Paul says "not there yet". If he lives long enough he'll get there. In the meantime, "almost there", is better than not even on the road.

Plus he's got a son with presidential ambitions. He can't well toss the A word around.

I have to assume he meant

I have to assume he meant what he said, not what you wanted him to say.

Ron welcomes anarchists, I've heard him say so in person, but that doesn't make him an anarchist. He supports minimal government and a maximum of freedom. I personally don't believe his stance on abortion or border security fits this stance, but we each interpret "freedom" personally.

He said "not there yet". I

He said "not there yet". I assume that meant "not there yet". Three words, with definite meaning. Unlike you, I take him at his word, and it's a positive sign.

"Not there yet"...If he's

"Not there yet"...

If he's not there after a lifetime of living, believe me he won't ever get "there". He doesn't want to go "there", otherwise he would already be "there".

Do you really think he said, "I'm going there"? No.

He used the word "yet"

I don't assume Dr Paul uses words he doesn't mean. Why do you?

Do you think anyone who's hero was Murray hasn't the potential to wake up? That seems a bit absurd.

Will he? Who knows. Would he announce it if he did? Again with Rand in the political arena, I expect maybe not.

"Yet" allows one to assume a

"Yet" allows one to assume a posture of eternally reaching toward something, not arriving.

I don't care what it

I don't care what it 'allows'. Red 'allows' one to assume pink. But it means red:)

Yet means yet. "Not there yet." Simple as that.

He didn't say, "Not going there" he didn't say "not there ever" or "nowhere I'm going".

He said : "Not there yet."

Why do you assume Dr Paul doesn't mean what he says. Have you known him to say things he doesn't mean often?

And did you somehow miss the phrase "maybe that is an ultimate goal"?:D

This certainly sounds like he's "not there yet" to me.

Every anarchist used to be a minarchist. Every minarchist used to be a full blown statist. Smart people tend to learn and grow. Dr Paul is smart. Don't be so pessimistic, he may well get there.

When precisely do you presume

When precisely do you presume he'll "be there"?

You insist Ron was being precise with his words, yet "not there yet" is nothing, if not vague.

Reading comprehension

Reading comprehension issues?

Look up 3 inches. I said he 'may well get there'. I didn't make a prediction.

Dr Paul is very smart. Even old, I don't write him out off for more intellectual growth. Sure most old people are intellectually calcified, but not all. Surely Dr Paul is exceptional.

You are using...

the dishonest revisionist propaganda definition of "statism".

The HONEST and REAL formal definition of "statism" is:

"Statism is a political ideology where the central state, rather than the people, are the ultimate source of authority and power.[1] Statism tends towards increased central planning in the economic sphere and a curtailing of civil liberties, which may be deemed necessary by those in power to achieve social or militaristic goals." - http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Statism

"Minarchism" deemphasizes the central state and central economic planning. or any economic planning at all, and is therefore not statism. Mises himself was a minarchist and used the word "statism" to describe the "total state".

Not even Rothbard used the dishonest pejorative twisting of "statism" that you and so many other revisionist ancaps use to slander minarchists such as Mises, Nozick, Menger, Hayek, Ron Paul and on and on.

I bet you also believe (or knowingly spread) the disinfo that ancaps invented and numerically dominate libertarianism when in fact ancaps are about 10% of those calling themselves libertarian and are relative latecomers.

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

You either believe the state

You either believe the state has more rights and powers than the people or you don't. To me if you think socializing some costs that you want onto other people for things you want is ok, I call you a statist. You've compromised the principle, I only have your assertion that you're willing to aggress on others is limited in some fashion.

If you think in some circumstances the state has moral authority that an individual doesn't have, yes to me you are a statist. You have accepted immorality. And yes even a minimal state will result, must result, and has resulted in tending "towards increased central planning in the economic sphere and a curtailing of civil liberties, which may be deemed necessary by those in power to achieve social or militaristic goals" as you say.

But don't take it personally. Most of my friends are statists. Also it's not incurable you know:D

he def leads on the idea that

he def leads on the idea that it is someday in the future

Anarchy would be a

Anarchy would be a transitional stage away from dictatorship. It isn't how people think and it isn't an end point. People are mentally hard wired for structure and organization. All organization does is relieve the individual of responsibility for every minute detail, aka delegation of responsibility. This is how people function.

Maybe your people, none of my

Maybe your people, none of my peeps want to relieve themselves of responsibility, and put it into the loving arms of a psychopath!

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".
--Voltaire

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

It's a lovely theory, but it

It's a lovely theory, but it has never worked in a permanent state.

Have you ever noticed how

Have you ever noticed how permanent states always morph into terrible tyranny?

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".
--Voltaire

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

"I don't create the news..."

"I don't create the news, I simply report it."

No, you create it. It becomes

No, you create it. It becomes news because people who should know better, don't.

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".
--Voltaire

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

I created human behavior? I

I created human behavior? I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I'm just not that powerful or influential.

Lol

nice question

OMG the Liberty anarchist must be hating Ron Paul?

Hurry start the Ron Paul hatred now? no? that's what i thought.

Ron Paul Rocks!

1st-Ron Paul 2016!

2nd-Rand Paul 2016!

astonishingly myopic.

why fuel the infighting?

Perhaps it will quell infighting

if it inspires solidarity around more immediate issues we can all agree on.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir