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
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
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.
I'm pretty sure Ron Paul is against all forms of aggression, which wouldn't make him a statist.
... 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.
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.
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.. isn't he the guy with the picture of Rothbard hanging in his office?
Nevermind, for some reason I read something he wrote and interpreted it as him being against all forms of taxation. Apparently I was wrong.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
"... 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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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=-
Immigration is a controversial issue amongst libertarians. There is no real consensus.
Hoppe
Block
Kinsella
The guys not a racist. www.youtube.com/watch
What an idiotic pathetic "argument". Invalid - try again.
Interesting. I didn't think so. I really looked very hard to find a counter-source. Thanks
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."
Yeah, because giving the moral highground to the socialists & statists is an awesome way to bring about a free society.
"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."
Aquila:Immigration is a controversial issue amongst libertarians. There is no real consensus.
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.
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.
"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.
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