I've never seen this video before: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQWz2zQ9OmI
At least he has considered it. Some claim that Ron is an anti-statist that just (as he says in the video) "works with what he has". Of course, there is much argument of whether or not political action is actually productive to the cause, but it can be argued that he's done more than anyone in the mainstream to veer people toward our direction.
He could be. I know I never would have become interested in this stuff if it wasn't for him taking libertarianism and all it's variants to the mainstream. I know back in Revolutionary Spain there were anarchist politicians convincing people that government sucks by using the political system as a means to tell this to them, so he could be doing that, in a sense.
He is a jeffersonian, but I believe he sees the state as an unnecessary evil just like I do. He has tried to educate, but he realizes that Human Action may prevent a zero world govt and that it may even prevent a zero national govt. Culture and tradition have helped people to think that the state is a necessary evil even though the only constant is change.
It is hard to say, but in my opinion, I would guess he is a closet anarchist. You cannot be that smart, that dedicated to liberty, and hang out with Murray Rothbard that much, and not be one.
"If men are not angels, then who shall run the state?"
Here's something of interest that relates here:
Someone should really just ask him. Oh wait, someone already did: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFYRHZpavX4#t=4m6s
Q: "I know you stand for the Constitution, but what do you say to people who advocate self-government, rather than a return to the Constitution?"
Ron Paul: "Great. Fine. I think that's really what my goal is."
More evidence:
Government Explained 2: The Special Piece of Paper
Law without Government
And this.
Many people, blinded by their ignorance, have fallen into the Stockholm Effect and embrace their captors (the State) as a necessary part of life.
What about his position on borders? Not very anarcho-capitalistic, is it?
He's probably in favor of an anarcho-capitalist society in theory but doesn't openly advocate for the complete abolishment of the state because practicality.
SkepticalMetal:What about his position on borders? Not very anarcho-capitalistic, is it?
I believe his position is essentially the same as Rothbard's.
Rothbard didn't believe in the state, thus the only borders would be property lines. Ron Paul however has stated many times that he'd like to see more government enforcement of our borders, which is contrary to the "purist" libertarian advocacy of completely open borders.
Yes, but we don't live in a country where all is private, our country is essentially government run.
I think that ron paul is a closeted anarchist.
Remember guys, ron paul is a political animal human, and as such he may say things that he needs to say to align to republican party (enforcing borders).
But if you dig deep enough, he combats illegal immigration by cutting off the welfare state. He hates amnesty.
he doesnt agree with purist libertarian open borders but also does not like berlin walls around mexico (in that case they will be mexican walls).
So he kinda teeters on the middle ground, because remember if they find out hes an anarchist, his political carreer is screwed.
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
SkepticalMetal: Rothbard didn't believe in the state, thus the only borders would be property lines. Ron Paul however has stated many times that he'd like to see more government enforcement of our borders, which is contrary to the "purist" libertarian advocacy of completely open borders.
The question being put to Ron Paul is essentially: "Given that the state monopolises security, should the state borders be open or closed?". This question is equivalent to: "Given that the state monopolises schooling, should the state schools teach X?".
There is no libertarian answer to either one of these questions, because the premise is incompatible with libertarianism. The only libertarian position is to dispute the premises. Paul doesn't fall into the trap of the answering the second question with a yes or no: he simply disagrees with the premise. But since Paul is basically undercover when it comes to how thinks security should really be provided, he can't publicly disagree with the premise of the first question, so he needs to give an opinion one way or the other about what the policy should be. Answering the question in favor of open borders is no more libertarian than answering in favor of closed borders. There is no libertarian answer.
The position that Paul takes is the same as the one Hoppe talks about here. Essentially, private owners / security firms would almost certainly have a 'closed border' policy, so given the premise that the state exists, it should have a closed border policy as well. Agree or disagree with this reasoning, it cannot be said that one position on the borders question is libertarian while the other is not.
"What about his position on borders? Not very anarcho-capitalistic, is it?"
He wants to turn all government owned land over to private owners. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=td9eG8ElUms