Comment: weebles, i'm afraid you are

(See in situ)

In post: Rand Paul...
In reply to comment: You said: (see in situ)

weebles, i'm afraid you are

weebles, i'm afraid you are making several false assumptions about me and my comments and/or reading way too much into them, making them something they aren't. I am NOT the type of "Rand supporter" that says Ron was too idealistic and that he could never win. Hardly. Dude, I write for a blog that consistently defends Ron Paul and tries to let the public know of his efforts. Ron is my political hero, no doubt. So, please, do not make assumptions like that. It's ironic, that your whole dialogue with me has been about you trying to convince me that I'm wrong for making a false generalization about anarchists on the DP, yet you are falsely generalizing me.

You said: "It is perfectly coherent for an anarchist to work with minarchist politicians because minarchism is way closer to their goal of anarchism..."

no, it is not coherent for them to do this. the premise of anarchy is that all govt is *inherently* immoral/evil because all govt supposedly violates the non-aggression principle. thus, to participate in govt in any way whatsoever is to participate in evil. this is why guys like Rockwell say you shouldn't even vote, because you are participating in the evil institution that govt is. IF THAT PREMISE IS TRUE... then it logically follows that ALL govt officials are participating in evil and are endorsing the spread of evil whenever they vote on bills, encourage you to vote, etc. if an anarchist were to be truly consistent within his premises, Ron Paul should be viewed as an evil criminal. it's that simple. yet, guys like Rockwell praise Ron and want guys like him in office. that is a clear contradiction. again, i'm not saying that I wouldn't work alongside an anarchist, i would in a heartbeat. but i'm the consistent one, because I don't believe govt is inherently immoral.