-30 votes

What are the factions at the Daily Paul? Can you name them?

Some of the difficulty with getting a consensus on a site such as this one lies in the major differences between the various factions that call the DP their home.

Can you name them?

For instance:

Some believe the only way toward peace is to brutally dominate. Others believe having understanding and respect for what belongs to someone else fosters peace.

Some think what they've been told to believe in the name of religion is the highest authority. "God told me to kill the enemies of my leaders without question." Others recognize this has been exploited throughout history for reasons of plunder and conquest.

Some believe in a god that hovers exclusively over one country. Others believe infinity cannot be contained.

Some believe unquestionably what they see on TV. Others question everything, no matter the source.

Some are willing to send their children to die in wars to spread "democracy" while others recognize we were warned by our founding fathers of the dangers to a republic from democracy, or "tyranny of the majority."

Some lack the strength to consider they may have been duped by powerful people they trust, because this possibility is just too painful to consider. Others have more of a stomach for it and want the truth no matter how many sacred idols must be thrown in the fire.

Some believe a certain Country That Cannot Be Named is the only place on earth that God Has Chosen, and the rest of the world is damned to eternal hellfire. Others suspect a hidden motive to this "religious" meme.

Some feel the Daily Paul cannot be corrupted or neutralized, while others are more savvy to the games of destroying a particular freedom community through colored revolution tactics.

Some believe personal property rights and the keeping of the fruits of one's own labor is a fallacy, to be surrendered to the state on demand. Others see this as theft by force.

Some believe the way to safety is to surrender all liberty to a protecting state. Others recognize this as the world's oldest struggle against economic slavery.

Some in the DP like to lay blame on one party (Obama, the Fed, Zionists, neocons, bankers, Satan) while others hold all psychopaths and sociopaths equally responsible.

Democratic party = Use force to redistribute the wealth of others.
Republican party = Make war to keep the economy going.
Libertarian party = Pressure valve to harmlessly bleed off America's discontent.
Anarchists = Remove all obstacles to warlords and armed gangs taking over.

Problem is, we've got all these groups under the same tent sometimes. You see many of these present at the DP. Originally, the glue that held all this together was support of Ron Paul as a candidate. That's long gone, and his name is no longer featured on the masthead. Because we no longer have a steady, common touchstone, we drift apart, to be left to attacking each other according to the above differences.

Without a common war cry, I wonder where this is going.

Did I miss any DP factions that deserve recognition?

Please remember to speak with respect while discussing our differences.

While we're at it, let's have fun to see what this diverse group might actually agree on. What would you say on the DP if you just wanted upvotes?



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Good call!

I love those guys!

Where are the An-Caps?

There are more and more of us.

Although I've never thought of there being "factions" on the DP. Collectivism is bad, 'mmkay?

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.

www.simplefactsplainarguments.com

AnCaps Rule!

Because they refuse to rule or be ruled.

I think he meant us

when he said anarchists. At least I don't think there are many ansyns or ansocs running around here:)

Also while I TOTALLY agree collectivism is bad, but mere taxonomy isn't collectivism. People are men and women, black, red, brown, and white, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindi, and Christian. It's not wrong to notice.

Collectivism in the way you mean, and the way I usually mean, has to do with political power and negation of rights of some and arrogation of privilege of others.

Forgive me for leaving out your group sir.

Thats the best I could do in the 10 minutes I allotted to the task.

Perhaps a disclaimer is in order.

This list is provided for discussion purposes only, and is not intended to be exhaustive. While certain descriptions may immediately remind you of specific posters, any similarities are purely coincidental.

Is all good.

I often just use the appellation anarchist unless we're talking to an ancom or ansyn.

When you said anarchist I assumed you meant me:) Although most of us are more interested in economics than survivalism I think.

I understand.

In reverence to the word "anarchist" and what it implies, I refuse to even use it alongside communism or syndicalism. The communists and syndicalists can not explain a system that does not evolve to AnCap unless it violates the NAP.

Naturally

It's why I don't care what they think the ideal system is.

If they repudiate the system of violence I, honestly don't care if their utopia eventuates. If people want that, fine. I don't think it will. But I do repudiate systemic violence to achieve social ends.

But when someone like Peter Joseph spins apologia for the state.. and against the market.. I know what he is. And I know he knows. If he thought his idea would be accepted voluntarily he would not defend the state.

My intuition is that anyone who defends the state, has in their mind a use for it.

Well, I assumed an anarchist would have to know a great deal

about survival. Not sure where I got that notion from. Maybe I confused Anarchism with the movie "Road Warrior".

Well I can see how after admiring Bob Murphy's manly physique

You might think that we're all Mad Max..

Hopefully not

That would be tunnel vision

Yes, very nicely done.

It is all about the ideas, isn't it?

I really enjoyed that. Might have even learned something while LMAO!

Help build the world's best encyclopedia of Liberty - the RonPaulWikiProject
-
“The final test of a leader is that he leaves behind him in other men the conviction and will to carry on.”
-- Walter Lippmann

Nicely done

Nicely done

Anarchists = Remove all obstacles to warlords and armed gangs ta

Anarchists = Remove all obstacles to warlords and armed gangs taking over

Looks like the US constitutional republic has beaten the Anarchists to it.

So it's better to be ruled by sociopath politicians and their psychopath armed thugs? At least with warlords and armed gangs you have a chance to fight them, try to fight the US govt.

In this regard,

I think of anarchism as decentralizing protection. A state would claim authority over all matters of defense and security and most likely limit the ability of the average person to actually defend themselves in any kind of attack. In an anarchist society built on property rights and the NAP, there would be nothing infringing on the potential victim's ability to defend his/her property.

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.

www.simplefactsplainarguments.com

Simple enough.

So I guess for any armed gangs that might head through town looting, you'd have to quickly assemble a fighting force sufficient to safely overpower them?

Or, say your neighbor decides to murder his wife and kids in the privacy of his own home. Is that just the wife's problem?

How would you get your neighbors to help you bring justice? It would take a crapload of pizza. And you'd want to not behave as a mob, but as law enforcement, at least in the way they're supposed to behave, right?

How would you assemble a sufficient force to -- oh wait. Never any force allowed. You'd send him an email or something?

"Please step outside and face trial and punishment, or we'll eat your slice of the pizza."

Help build the world's best encyclopedia of Liberty - the RonPaulWikiProject
-
“The final test of a leader is that he leaves behind him in other men the conviction and will to carry on.”
-- Walter Lippmann

I don't think there'd be any

I don't think there'd be any assembling. People would defend themselves and it wouldn't take much thinking or pizza for them to see that defending their neighbor is in there interest as well, as the looters are obviously there to rape/pillage/burn.

This recent story about the biker gang and the SUV driver in NYC is interesting when you think about how a main criticism of anarchism is how people would defend against "roving gangs" and "marauders," yet the nanny-state in NYC, despite receiving over 200 9-1-1 calls regarding the bikers, was unable to deal with the bikers before several people were injured. Statism and coercion really don't make us safer.

I would imagine that if my neighbor killed his wife and children it would be a problem for myself and my other neighbors. Who would want a clearly unhinged psychopathic murderer living next door? This is where private investigators, private police, and private courts, and insurance companies could come in play. The process might even work similarly to the way it does now, except with the benefit of competition. Private security agencies would have an incentive to be courteous and not engage in police brutality because policemen are not held to a higher legal standard. Private courts would have to justify their proceedings and rulings to customers' sense of justice. Judges would actually be accountable. An example of this is the increasing amount of private arbitration in our own society.

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.

www.simplefactsplainarguments.com

Thanks thenung

for illustrating it that way.

A lot of it makes sense, but I can't picture it all coming together that way in post-collapse America. It would be nice if it did, but that would surely be a turbulent time.

So someone's got to train urban swat teams to rent or lease to neighborhoods that could afford it? Interesting.

Help build the world's best encyclopedia of Liberty - the RonPaulWikiProject
-
“The final test of a leader is that he leaves behind him in other men the conviction and will to carry on.”
-- Walter Lippmann

Liberty

is scary

Scary?

Damn skippy.

Help build the world's best encyclopedia of Liberty - the RonPaulWikiProject
-
“The final test of a leader is that he leaves behind him in other men the conviction and will to carry on.”
-- Walter Lippmann

Good point!

But that's a pretty horrible choice to have to take, isn't it?

My jaw kind of dropped to hear Adam Kokesh forcefully telling Peter Schiff in an interview that government is unnecessary, that the internet has replaced it. So someone's breaking into your home, you call... the internet?

Another country invades, who ya gonna call? The internet.

That's what anarchism sounds like to me. It doesn't seem very well thought out.

Help build the world's best encyclopedia of Liberty - the RonPaulWikiProject
-
“The final test of a leader is that he leaves behind him in other men the conviction and will to carry on.”
-- Walter Lippmann

Why would you call the

Why would you call the internet if you're under attack? Alternatively, are you gonna call the cops and wait 10 minutes for a squad car? If someone breaks into your home, you defend yourself. Maybe your neighbors even help if they happen to be good people or you were smart enough to be friendly to them.

Another country invading? How could they do that? The logistics of a modern superpower invading another, especially America given it's geography, is a major deterrent to any potential invader. Add to that the sheer amount of land that they would need to occupy, and the fact that statistically there is a privately-owned gun for every man, woman, and child in America. Anarchism doesn't prevent individuals from choosing to cooperate together to defend their homes and interests. The potential waste, human rights abuses, and destruction caused by an invading army would be enough incentive for most able-bodied people to choose to help defend without any need for coercion.

Moreover, an anarcho-capitalist society is unconquerable. It's completely decentralized, and this lends itself easily to guerilla tactics, with which even a technologically inferior force with fewer personnel can paralyze a centralized invading army until either the invasion becomes too costly for the invaders to maintain or the defenders are able to muster a sufficient force to confront them.

A government actually makes us more vulnerable to attack because of it's inevitable meddling in international affairs and its claim to represent all people in a given geographical area, which drags people with no interest in the aims of those in power into war. Also, the defending country could lose simply because its resources and soldiers were poorly managed by those to which they granted a monopoly on protecting the country.

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.

www.simplefactsplainarguments.com

I know! I couldn't tell where he was going

with that "no government, the internet is all you need" stuff.

Your points got me to thinking, and I can't disagree with most of what you wrote. Thanks for typing it out clearly.

Do I understand your viewpoint correctly? That government, even constitutional government, will always be incompetent?

I can see how decentralization can be a great strength.

But where is there an example where there is peace, liberty and safety when there is an entire absence of government? Has this worked in any real world scenario?

Help build the world's best encyclopedia of Liberty - the RonPaulWikiProject
-
“The final test of a leader is that he leaves behind him in other men the conviction and will to carry on.”
-- Walter Lippmann

Yes, I think that if the goal

Yes, I think that if the goal of government is to protect our liberties then it's destined to fail because government is coercion and the coerced state is the opposite of freedom. Also, the main problem with constitutions is that people who are drawn to such positions of power will never have a problem rationalizing illegal actions or outright ignoring the limits of the law. A great example of this is our own Constitution and it's mighty "checks-and-balances" that all our high school teachers remind us is the only thing saving us from tyranny. But the reality is that our checks-and-balances simply leave it in the hands of the government to regulate itself, which is obviously doomed to failure.

We started with a very limited government in the Articles of Confederation, which was replaced with the more centralized but still limited Constitution. Now we live in a fascist/corporatist state. Rome had a constitution and became a dictatorship. The Soviets had a constitution. Germany had a constitution and proceeded to elect Hitler and ride the wave of fascism and total war.

The real task would be to point out an example where a constitution has actually remained relevant.

As for any example of AnCap in action, I assume you are asking for a country as an example, and I hear that question almost every time I talk about anarchism. But I'd like to point out that it doesn't really make sense to look for a state that practices anarchism, right? That would be paradoxical. Still, there was an anarchist community in early Pennsylvania, medieval Iceland was anarchic, the American "Wild" West was largely an experiment in anarchy as well, and it actually wasn't that "wild," either.

But that doesn't mean there aren't any better examples of anarchism working in the real world. You seem like a very reasonable, intuitive person, so I assume that you don't resort to violence to get what you want from someone else, whether it's family, friends, or a stranger? Let's say you need to get some help moving into a new house. Chances are you call up a couple of your friends or family and ask them to do you a favor, or you might even throw in pizza and beer to give them extra incentive. Either way, they agree (or don't, in which case you would obviously ask someone else). You didn't barge into your friend's house with a gun and force your friend to help you move (or, as in the case of government, ask a third party to do the same). You found a peaceful solution to get another person to voluntarily give you what you wanted, or at least make a voluntary exchange. That's anarchism in action. Freedom from coercion.

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.

www.simplefactsplainarguments.com

I'm with the Brotherhood of

I'm with the Brotherhood of Nod.
Not even going to lie.

Southern Agrarian

Who cares about factions, or

Who cares about factions, or upvotes?

One of the biggest problems we have is people choosing a label to identify with, and then believing everything under that label without regard for truth!

This is what causes our strife. I have friends like this, and I don't understand it. Constantly seeking to be part of a label or group. Well guess what. Everyone in the world is completely different. So why don't we all just join one group and cast judgement on peoples' ideas instead of on people?

If a hard drive gets dirty, you delete the files, not the computer.

Let's throw this up the flagpole...

How many think we should all just have fun in the DP, and forget about all the agendas and politics?

Help build the world's best encyclopedia of Liberty - the RonPaulWikiProject
-
“The final test of a leader is that he leaves behind him in other men the conviction and will to carry on.”
-- Walter Lippmann

It's hard to say...we'll here are some examples.

Ron Paul supporters (me)

Ron Paul and rand Paul supporters (me)

Moderate anarchists

Complete full blown anarchist

Libertarians

Conservative libertarians

Constitutionalist (me)

Liberals

Truthers 9/11

Preppers

Progressives

Source:various threads and comments.

Michael Nystrom's picture

Don't forget the Merry Pranksters

They know who they are. And they are the ones who are sustaining me at this point.

Darn those merry pranksters...

always up to their tricks.

Daily Paul cured my abibliophobia.