Comment: I might agree but the fact

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Its idiotic to interpret that (see in situ)

I might agree but the fact

I might agree but the fact remains that Ron has stated the goal is self government. The goal of a minarchist is limited government, end of story. It is a defining belief which separates minarchists and anarchists. Minarchists agree the bus ends at limited government whereas anarchists agree the next stop after limtied government is free markets. There is a radical and fundamental difference between a goal of self government and a goal of limited government.

Just because Ron has associated with anarchists for decades and subscribes to a goal of self government or free markets does not mean Ron is disingenuous about advocating for limited government.

Sheesh how is it more anarchists were familiar with Ron in 2007? Because Ron has been a friend of Lew and the Mises Institute. Anarchists knew who the hell Ron Paul was before Aaron Russo interviewed him in his IRS film. Anarchists appreciate Ron and his work in Congress. The reason there are so many anarchist leaning Ron Paul supporters is because many of the initial supporters were studied libertarians who exposed the ideas of freedom to a new generation. If the minarchists had been doing anything the past several decades to perfect their statist philosophy perhaps it would not be the case.

Ron and Lew represent a divide among libertarians over strategy. Libertarians agree the goal is self government and free markets. What libertarians do not agree on is how to get from point A to point B. Lew embodies a strategic line of thought which believes that since we can only get their by educating people lets focus on that and eventually people will opt out. Ron embodies the strategic notion that it will take more than mere education, it will take people actively reducing the size and scope of government in order to reach self government incrementally. The Free State Project embodies a strategic decision to geographically organize.

Since Ron has chosen a political path the Constitution IS the tool in his arsenal. Let's take Ron's stance on immigration. We know what Ron believes and he believes in free markets and open borders. Go back and look at his 1988 interviews. However what prompted a change in his position? Political effectiveness. Lew would simply state there can be no free market without open borders and he would be correct. Ron who clearly believes in open borders does not believe a free market can be achieved overnight in the same way the fed can not be ended overnight. Therefore Ron has modified his position to open borders are not likely to be achieved until the welfare state is reduced. It is a strategic political argument, not a philosophical one because the goal is ... open borders.

It is a strategic decision whether or not to use the ring of power and Ron chose to use it to do good. Like hobbits, he has shown tremendous resistance to the influence of the ring's power. Ultimately though, the ring of power must be destroyed. Political savior's sure can make us feel good but it is not a viable model for humans to organize society upon. Unfortunately there may never be a perfect viable model but despite that I will always prefer less violence.

The founders would not blame others for their own failures to organize and rise up against tyranny or oppression. They would look in the mirror so that blame could be correctly assigned for their own fear and failure to organize or act.

I credit the Ron's and the Lew's. It is credit deserved because despite any strategic difference they have both chosen to act.