Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Ron Paul and anarcho-capitalism?

This post has 139 Replies | 22 Followers

Top 500 Contributor
Posts 108
Points 2,600
MarketFundamentalist Posted: Wed, Feb 17 2010 7:31 PM

I am a HUUGGEE fan of Ron Paul. But I cannot seem to continue supporting him, because of my recent interest in anarcho capitalism. According to ancap, all government is equally evil. No government can be pro-capitalist at all.In such a case, how can ancaps continue to support Dr Paul. By voting for Dr Paul, I almost feel that I am legitimizing the socialist American state and I cannot see how minarchists such as Dr Paul can ever give up their power and allow a transition to a fully capitalist system. How can socialist statism lead to capitalism?

Not offices and bureaucrats, but big business deserves credit for the fact that most of the families in the United States own a motorcar and a radio set.Ludwig von Mises

  • | Post Points: 200
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 418
Points 7,525

So don't vote for him. He's an enemy in his position (being a politician), but a friend to the cause, having almost single-handedly introduced large new groups of people to the concept of liberty. (Regardless of whether he's sympathetic to voluntaryism.)

Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.Ludwig von Mises

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 144
Points 2,230
Josh replied on Wed, Feb 17 2010 8:52 PM

I'm pretty sure Ron Paul is against all forms of aggression, which wouldn't make him a statist.

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,939
Points 49,110
Conza88 replied on Wed, Feb 17 2010 8:53 PM

... 4min+

MarketFundamentalist:
I am a HUUGGEE fan of Ron Paul.

That's good, because Ron Paul's real goal is self government / anarcho-capitalism, instead of a return to the Constitution. The strategy merely differs. His role is educational, i.e directing folks to Libertarianism and Austrian Economics. He acknowledges that voting (in Congress) won't change anything.

Read this & this.

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 108
Points 2,600

Josh :

I'm pretty sure Ron Paul is against all forms of aggression, which wouldn't make him a statist.

 

Actually a state monopoly on defense and law, which he advocates, is a form of aggression. If he's in favor of private defense contractors, that's great, but I haven't heard anything like that so far.

Not offices and bureaucrats, but big business deserves credit for the fact that most of the families in the United States own a motorcar and a radio set.Ludwig von Mises

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,939
Points 49,110
Conza88 replied on Wed, Feb 17 2010 8:58 PM

MarketFundamentalist:
Actually a state monopoly on defense and law, which he advocates, is a form of aggression.

Except he's never advocated it, when compared to a voluntaryist society. So you'd be erecting a strawman. Philosophically, the question you need to ask is "Compared to what?"

COMPARED to what we have now, would you prefer a return to the size of government as outlined in the US Constitution? (Obviously leaving aside the fact that it would only grow in size again).

MarketFundamentalist:
If he's in favor of private defense contractors, that's great, but I haven't heard anything like that so far.

He's in favour of self government, the reason you've never heard that is because every single question he gets asked comes from a statist perspective.

When he was asked from a stateless society perspective, he agreed. Now watch the video.

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 28
Points 1,010
slugmises replied on Wed, Feb 17 2010 9:02 PM

Ron Paul.. isn't he the guy with the picture of Rothbard hanging in his office? Wink

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 144
Points 2,230
Josh replied on Wed, Feb 17 2010 9:05 PM

MarketFundamentalist:
Actually a state monopoly on defense and law, which he advocates, is a form of aggression.

Nevermind, for some reason I read something he wrote and interpreted it as him being against all forms of taxation. Apparently I was wrong.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,055
Points 41,895

Josh :
Nevermind, for some reason I read something he wrote and interpreted it as him being against all forms of taxation.

He was asked on Fox during the GOP race whether he was against all taxes.  He said yes.

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 144
Points 2,230
Josh replied on Thu, Feb 18 2010 2:22 PM

Caley McKibbin:
He was asked on Fox during the GOP race whether he was against all taxes.  He said yes

 

lol,  I'll go ahead and retract my previous statement then.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 166
Points 2,875
Beefheart replied on Thu, Feb 18 2010 5:20 PM

Caley McKibbin:

Josh :
Nevermind, for some reason I read something he wrote and interpreted it as him being against all forms of taxation.

He was asked on Fox during the GOP race whether he was against all taxes.  He said yes.

Do you have a source or video available? I believe you, but I'd like to see it myself. Thanks.

My personal Anarcho-Capitalist flag. The symbol in the center stands for "harmony" and "protection"-- I'm hoping to illustrate the bond between order/justice and anarchy.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 108
Points 2,600

He may theoretically be against all taxes but he will still continue the welfare and entitlements systems till the people are "cured" of it. Well hopefully they will be one day after Ron Paul gets into office.

Not offices and bureaucrats, but big business deserves credit for the fact that most of the families in the United States own a motorcar and a radio set.Ludwig von Mises

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 212
Points 4,330
Aquila replied on Thu, Feb 18 2010 7:57 PM

Ron Paul's value lies in his ability to educate the general public. He is an outsider working within the establishment not necessarily for power, but rather to direct people to Austrian economics and libertarian political philosophy. Introducing people to anarcho-capitalism requires low doses of truth. Disillusionment with the state (or with anything for that matter) is not something that can happen quickly. If someone had attempted to introduce me to Hoppe back when I was an establishment conservative, I would have been revolted and refused to hear any more of it. Ron Paul helped me bridge the gap between my initial support of the "mixed" economy and my current advocacy of unhampered free markets. It is necessary for many people, myself included, to have intermediary steps between the common left/right paradigm and a philosophy of voluntarism.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 1
Points 35

I think Ron Paul probably is about as close as you can get to ancap and still be a politician who gets elected. He is on the national stage and getting people interested in libertarian/ancap ideas. Vote for him anyway.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 244
Points 3,785
Pablo replied on Thu, Feb 18 2010 8:24 PM

MarketFundamentalist:
Actually a state monopoly on defense and law, which he advocates, is a form of aggression. If he's in favor of private defense contractors, that's great, but I haven't heard anything like that so far.

Likely because it is not something which can be said in under 20 seconds, and thus, would be misconstrued. People need a primer to learn about anarchism. We have been entrenched in statism since we are born. We are taught to reject anarchism out of hand. Ron Paul was/is trying to spark the fire of liberty for those who have never heard of it. His books are a clear indication that he is urging others to find their own way to freedom. He is not suggesting his way is the way, or that it is even a way at all.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 144
Points 2,230
Josh replied on Thu, Feb 18 2010 11:40 PM

MarketFundamentalist:
He may theoretically be against all taxes but he will still continue the welfare and entitlements systems till the people are "cured" of it.

 

How do you continue to welfare and entitlements without taxes?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,850
Points 85,810

youneverheard:

I think Ron Paul probably is about as close as you can get to ancap and still be a politician who gets elected. He is on the national stage and getting people interested in libertarian/ancap ideas. Vote for him anyway.

No, Ron Paul is getting people interested in Constitutionalism. Which is an improvement but its not the full realization of libertarianism.

'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael

 

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 108
Points 2,600

Josh :

How do you continue to welfare and entitlements without taxes?

Is he going to abolish all taxes immediately? If that's the case, I agree there can be no more welfare for social parasites. However in a realistic scenario, he'd have to continue taxes for a few more decades at least I think.

Not offices and bureaucrats, but big business deserves credit for the fact that most of the families in the United States own a motorcar and a radio set.Ludwig von Mises

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,939
Points 49,110
Conza88 replied on Fri, Feb 19 2010 1:00 AM

Andrew Cain:
Ron Paul is getting people interested in Constitutionalism.

No, Ron Paul is getting people interested in getting the government & state out of our lives. In an age of manufactured consent, he uses the constitution as a rhetorical tool.

He pimps Austrian Economics and Libertarianism. Those who are interested begin the journey and if they are logically and principally consistent - they make it to voluntarism. He gets the ball rolling.

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,850
Points 85,810

Conza88:
No, Ron Paul is getting people interested in getting the government & state out of our lives. In an age of manufactured consent, he uses the constitution as a rhetorical tool.

Eh, to a degree. He isn't calling for privatization of legal services or defense or roads for that matter. Has anyone given him Walter Block's book? Stick out tongue

Conza88:
He pimps Austrian Economics and Libertarianism. Those who are interested begin the journey and if they are logically and principally consistent - they make it to voluntarism. He gets the ball rolling.

Well I never denied that. A lot of people got started on Ron Paul. I did too. However, where he stops isn't really a stop or at least its not a coherent stop. You talk to constitutionalists and they just arbitrarily announce where government stops as if they can sustain in a static vacuum. Their theory necessitates a uniform cultural outlook concerning the role of government which could never actually be obtained.

'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael

 

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,939
Points 49,110
Conza88 replied on Fri, Feb 19 2010 1:52 AM

Andrew Cain:

Conza88:
No, Ron Paul is getting people interested in getting the government & state out of our lives. In an age of manufactured consent, he uses the constitution as a rhetorical tool.

Eh, to a degree. He isn't calling for privatization of legal services or defense or roads for that matter. Has anyone given him Walter Block's book? Stick out tongue

"... In the name of practicality, the opportunist not only loses any chance of advancing others toward the ultimate goal, but he himself gradually loses sight of that goal—as happens with any “sellout” of principle. Thus, suppose that one is writing about taxation. It is not incumbent on the libertarian to always proclaim his full “anarchist” position in whatever he writes; but it is incumbent upon him in no way to praise taxation or condone it; he should simply leave this perhaps glaring vacuum, and wait for the eager reader to begin to question and perhaps come to you for further enlightenment. But if the libertarian says, “Of course, some taxes must be levied,” or something of the sort, he has betrayed the cause." 

- Rothbard's 1961 Confidential Memo to Volker Fund

Wink

Andrew Cain:

Conza88:
He pimps Austrian Economics and Libertarianism. Those who are interested begin the journey and if they are logically and principally consistent - they make it to voluntarism. He gets the ball rolling.

Well I never denied that. A lot of people got started on Ron Paul. I did too. However, where he stops isn't really a stop or at least its not a coherent stop.

It's a coherent stop in terms of strategy / tactics. He is as radical as possible, and he is able to get away with calling for the abolition of the IRS, CIA, FBI, Dept of Education, Dept of Homeland Security, Dept of Labor, the FED in the national mainstream debates- and remains credible, sane - and not laughed at as a joke, whilst being instead considered principled - because he uses the simple sound bite, "the constitution".

Andrew Cain:

You talk to constitutionalists and they just arbitrarily announce where government stops as if they can sustain in a static vacuum. Their theory necessitates a uniform cultural outlook concerning the role of government which could never actually be obtained.

Absolutely right. But that's the fault of constitutionalists, who are utopians. Ron uses the appeal as a means, it's not an end goal... the fact that supporters of his don't realise this is sad, but some what understandable. In fact... continually trying to point this out to them - gets you perm banned from RPF. ;p

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,850
Points 85,810

Conza88:
It's a coherent stop in terms of strategy / tactics. He is as radical as possible, and he is able to get away with calling for the abolition of the IRS, CIA, FBI, Dept of Education, Dept of Homeland Security, Dept of Labor, the FED in the national mainstream debates- and remains credible, sane - and not laughed at as a joke, whilst being instead considered principled - because he uses the simple sound bite, "the constitution".

Well I think that Ron Paul is laughed at [ not to infer that I condone it ] by certain mainstream pundits.

Conza88:
Absolutely right. But that's the fault of constitutionalists, who are utopians. Ron uses the appeal as a means, it's not an end goal... the fact that supporters of his don't realise this is sad, but some what understandable. In fact... continually trying to point this out to them - gets you perm banned from RPF. ;p

Well its possible he feels this way. Honestly, I would need to talk to the guy in person to figure this out but that is probably asking too much. You have these 'individuals' at Glenn Beck forums, Sean Hannity forums and Ron Paul forms who are committing what can only be called idolatry over this Constitutional document. They are so incensed with this premise that the Constitution is a small government document which was made up by the 'founding fathers' that they fail to question what was going in within the 'United States' before the Constitution that required this document? Was the nearly non-existent federal government actually infringing upon people's religion? What was the fault present in the Articles of Confederation that demanded this 'small government' legislation which  basically created the framework of government we have today? But your right, it is at about this point where one is banned from the Beck or Paul forums for being 'trollish.'  And don't even get me started on these boobs who think the Constitution is a social contract that we are all bound by.

'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael

 

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 282
Points 6,595
nandnor replied on Fri, Feb 19 2010 9:17 AM
No, Ron Paul is getting people interested in Constitutionalism. Which is an improvement but its not the full realization of libertarianism.
I think the role the constitution plays in his strategy is sort of an appeal to authority. You see, to the general populus, arguments from raw logic and strict economics do not appeal fully. A sort of authority that they already trust that would appeal to them, is necessary to feel secure about their beliefs, to not get the feeling that it is weird and socially unacceptable.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,914
Points 70,630

nandnor:
No, Ron Paul is getting people interested in Constitutionalism. Which is an improvement but its not the full realization of libertarianism.
I think the role the constitution plays in his strategy is sort of an appeal to authority. You see, to the general populus, arguments from raw logic and strict economics do not appeal fully. A sort of authority that they already trust that would appeal to them, is necessary to feel secure about their beliefs, to not get the feeling that it is weird and socially unacceptable.

I agree.  I do the same.  I also mention, as Ron does, the Declaration of Ind. and how this country is founded upon the very initial concept and action of succession.  Without succession there would be no U.S.  And succession isn't of institutions but of the various individuals who argued it out in Philadelphia and then across the region, one person at a time.

 

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,365
Points 30,945

youneverheard:

I think Ron Paul probably is about as close as you can get to ancap and still be a politician who gets elected. He is on the national stage and getting people interested in libertarian/ancap ideas. Vote for him anyway.

No, don't vote.

Get out of the political process, start enterprising, start voluntarily lending a hand, and start educating people to make your own small community a slightly better place. That's all you can do and all you should do; it counts for far more than a vote.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,939
Points 49,110
Conza88 replied on Fri, Feb 19 2010 8:57 PM

Andrew Cain:
Well I think that Ron Paul is laughed at [ not to infer that I condone it ] by certain mainstream pundits.

Yeah it was much easier to dismiss him then, than it is now - after all of what he said would happen, did.

Andrew Cain:

Conza88:
Absolutely right. But that's the fault of constitutionalists, who are utopians. Ron uses the appeal as a means, it's not an end goal... the fact that supporters of his don't realise this is sad, but some what understandable. In fact... continually trying to point this out to them - gets you perm banned from RPF. ;p

Well its possible he feels this way. Honestly, I would need to talk to the guy in person to figure this out but that is probably asking too much.

That's what I thought I'd have to do. But then there is the motorhome diaries video interview above I linked, which he explicitly states it. So... no need.

Andrew Cain:
You have these 'individuals' at Glenn Beck forums, Sean Hannity forums and Ron Paul forms who are committing what can only be called idolatry over this Constitutional document. They are so incensed with this premise that the Constitution is a small government document which was made up by the 'founding fathers' that they fail to question what was going in within the 'United States' before the Constitution that required this document? Was the nearly non-existent federal government actually infringing upon people's religion? What was the fault present in the Articles of Confederation that demanded this 'small government' legislation which  basically created the framework of government we have today? But your right, it is at about this point where one is banned from the Beck or Paul forums for being 'trollish.'  And don't even get me started on these boobs who think the Constitution is a social contract that we are all bound by.

Yes. I can't speak for anywhere but RPF, but you bring up the Articles of Confederation - some still cling to it. You bring up the Constitution was never signed, only witnessed... same deal. You bring up there was mass opposition in places to the Constitution. You compare the anti-federalists as the Ron Paul supporters of yester-year (obviously not those who cling to the Constitution compared to Aoc). There was an uprising, a march.

There's other arguments as well. "How can you say it protects private property, when it must violate it to exist?" All get blank stares, and when you keep pushing it against the irrationally idiotic mod, you get bs reasons concocted to ban you. Smile

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 23
Points 280

Andrew Cain:
Well I think that Ron Paul is laughed at [ not to infer that I condone it ] by certain mainstream pundits.

I think it's more that they simply ignore him.  Take this recent article in the Guardian, where Dr. Paul is scarcely mentioned despite it being an article about the Southern Republican leadership conference straw poll in which he placed second and missed first place by just one vote.

As for whether an anarcho-capitalist should support a political candidate whose views are close enough to those of freedom, well, I don't, but it's your call.  In the specific case of Dr. Paul, I dislike his illibertarian position on immigration enough not to be tempted, but that's me.

-=Steve=-

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 212
Points 4,330
Aquila replied on Sat, Apr 17 2010 6:24 PM

Immigration is a controversial issue amongst libertarians. There is no real consensus.

Hoppe

Block

Kinsella

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 139
Points 2,270
Orthogonal replied on Sat, Apr 17 2010 10:26 PM
I understand the OP's sentiment since I'm more or less in agreement with your position. However, I still hold Congressman Paul in high esteem. If there's any one person I can point to that directed me to the ancap philosophy it would be him. From the day I heard the name Ron Paul to the time I fully accepted Libertarianism in its true form was about 18 months of introspection and study. If it were not for him, I would not be an ancap today and doubt I would have been otherwise. I think there are many others with a similar story as mine and recognize Ron Paul as the catalyst of their conversion as well.
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 57
Points 1,590
Drace replied on Sat, Apr 17 2010 10:53 PM
The guys a racist. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=de_CSuJCsfY&feature=fvsr
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,939
Points 49,110
Conza88 replied on Sat, Apr 17 2010 11:40 PM

The guys not a racist. www.youtube.com/watch

What an idiotic pathetic "argument". Invalid - try again.

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 57
Points 1,590
Drace replied on Sat, Apr 17 2010 11:42 PM

Interesting. I didn't think so. I really looked very hard to find a counter-source. Thanks

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 282
Points 6,595
nandnor replied on Sun, Apr 18 2010 3:57 AM

MarketFundamentalist:

I am a HUUGGEE fan of Ron Paul. But I cannot seem to continue supporting him, because of my recent interest in anarcho capitalism. According to ancap, all government is equally evil. No government can be pro-capitalist at all.In such a case, how can ancaps continue to support Dr Paul. By voting for Dr Paul, I almost feel that I am legitimizing the socialist American state and I cannot see how minarchists such as Dr Paul can ever give up their power and allow a transition to a fully capitalist system. How can socialist statism lead to capitalism?

 

So give up on your high heels, holier-than-though moral superiority, accept moral relativism. That way, it wont bother you.


  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,939
Points 49,110
Conza88 replied on Sun, Apr 18 2010 4:24 AM

"So give up on your high heels, holier-than-though moral superiority, accept moral relativism. That way, it wont bother you."

Yeah, because giving the moral highground to the socialists & statists is an awesome way to bring about a free society.

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,113
Points 60,515
Esuric replied on Sun, Apr 18 2010 4:48 AM

"Interesting. I didn't think so. I really looked very hard to find a counter-source. Thanks"

 

Do you think it's appropriate to run around making unsubstantiated, and quite frankly, absurd assertions?

"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 23
Points 280

Aquila:
Immigration is a controversial issue amongst libertarians. There is no real consensus.


Uh-uh.  There are those that accept the libertarian position on immigration, and those whose positions on things may be mostly libertarian, but who are not libertarian on this issue, like Dr. Paul.  It's the same thing with drug prohibition -- that there are some self-styled "libertarians" who don't call for the end of drug prohibition doesn't mean it's "controversial" or that their position is somehow potentially libertarian.

Kinsella's argument, for example, seems based on the argument that if the state owns roads, ports, airports, an so forth, then it's not wrong for them as property owners to limit who can use it.  But it seems to me that if we're talking about a scenario where the state not only exists but owns that much property that it means we've already left thelibertarian sphere of things.

And Hoppe seems simply to be saying that in a free society that private property owners can discriminate against those from other lands.  Well, sure.  But that's not an immigration restriction, as such.  I suppose if 100% of people in a large area had the same policy it would be effectively similar, but that means there would be a market that no one was willing to serve, which is extremely difficult to believe.

(Admittedly, they were long, so I skimmed them.  Feel free to point me to a more specific passage if I've missed either of their points.)

-=Steve=-

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 98
Points 1,680
Curtis replied on Sun, Apr 18 2010 11:20 PM

He copy pasted it from over on RevLeft, where I assume he usually spends his time.
In the thread over there it is just accepted as fact by everyone without question.

Visit Us For Your Daily Market Madness Recaps! Market Madness -- http://financeandopportunity.blogspot.com/
  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Female
Posts 7
Points 95
Stacy Litz replied on Tue, May 25 2010 12:45 PM

Principled response: Don't vote, don't support politicians, don't get involved in any government.  Check out "How to Withdraw Consent From the State": http://www.wendymcelroy.com/comment.php?comment.news.2767

Unprincipled response:  Ron Paul is a GATEWAY "drug" into anarcho-capitalism/voluntaryism/agorism.  So, support him and hope that others, like you, eventually "evolve" into a higher form of being.  If you think about it, many people take this path of enlightenment.  Also, if Ron Paul is promoting the ideas of liberty, at least he's touching the people who are so plugged into the system that they need to hear it on a political level. 

Everyone has their purpose.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,939
Points 49,110
Conza88 replied on Tue, May 25 2010 12:57 PM

"Principled response: Don't vote, don't support politicians, don't get involved in any government.  Check out "How to Withdraw Consent From the State""

- No, that is the utopian purist deviation response. Use government roads? By lord, so much for withdrawing consent.... lol.

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 796
Points 14,585

According to ancap, all government is equally evil.

Being an anarcho-capitalist doesn't mean you have to be crazy. If you think the government in Switzerland is just as evil as the government in North Korea, you are crazy.

"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay

  • | Post Points: 65
Page 1 of 4 (140 items) 1 2 3 4 Next > | RSS