Anarcho-capitalist party

[Kraig]

Or maybe just the Anarchy party? What if there was a party dedicated towards the long term goal of anarcho-capitalism? Their platform would basically consist of the slow, well thought out, transition towards privatizing all services offered by government one by one, starting with the easy ones first. What do you guys think? For the statists here, would you ever consider voting for someone who was a self proclaimed anarchist at all? Is it too self-contradicting for an anarchist to run for a government position?

[torchbearer]

In the libertarian party, we often have people who run on the platform of closing down the very office they are running for...
So- I don't see it as a contradiction.
If you have enough people run as anarchist, and people voted them in, then the people vote to shut down the government.

[Imperial]

I would vote for an anarchist depending on their outlook on how to downsize government, how much of a coalition builder they are willing to be, and who else is running.

[Epic]

I bet Ron Paul is secretly an anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist/anarchist, he just can't say it cause it wouldn't work well politically.

Lew Rockwell, Walter Block and most important people at the Mises Institute are voluntaryist.

So is Ernie Hancock, creator of Ron Paul Revolution logo.

[Epic]

I would vote for an anarchist depending on their outlook on how to downsize government, how much of a coalition builder they are willing to be, and who else is running.

Wouldn't it be nice to know that if the person you elect fulfills 90% of his promises, he fulfills 100% of your desires?

[LibertyEagle]

I bet Ron Paul is secretly an anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist/anarchist, he just can't say it cause it wouldn't work well politically.



Well, Lew Rockwell says Ron Paul is a constitutionalist; in addition to Ron himself. I'm not quite sure how that would equate to someone who believes in abolishing all government.

[literatim]

I bet Ron Paul is secretly an anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist/anarchist, he just can't say it cause it wouldn't work well politically.

Except that he isn't because he has said he would vote differently if he was a state legislator.

[Andrew-Austin]

An anarchist's best bet to gain political office, in order to close said office down or whatever, would be running as a Libertarian...

I don't see why you would a make a point of ensuring that it is publicly known you are an anarcho-capitalist in an election, it would just invite all sorts of attacks and negative reactions. If you are running simply to educate / raise questions / and downsize government, rolling under the title of libertarian should be just fine.

[UnReconstructed]

They tried this... it was overtaken by the NEOCONS... It was a failure.

[Epic]

If there were no government, and everything was going swimmingly, do you think Ron Paul would say "you know what we need right now is a government!"

Sure, RP says he might vote differently if he was in state government. That also might just be good politics and incrementalism. He has chosen to work through the political system. It doesn't mean that he wouldn't prefer no government.

[LibertyEagle]

If there were no government, and everything was going swimmingly, do you think Ron Paul would say "you know what we need right now is a government!"

A lot of "ifs" you have there, Eric.

[Kraig]

An anarchist's best bet to gain political office, in order to close said office down or whatever, would be running as a Libertarian...

I don't see why you would a make a point of ensuring that it is publicly known you are an anarcho-capitalist in an election, it would just invite all sorts of attacks and negative reactions. If you are running simply to educate / raise questions / and downsize government, rolling under the title of libertarian should be just fine.

I don't think the Libertarian party is a good example, they don't even seem credible based on their own principles.

The goal for running as a self proclaimed anarchist would be to deal with the negative reactions head on, to get rid of the negative public opinion for the word "anarchy" through public debate, and to win votes to demonstrate how many of the general populace actually support anarchy. Ultimately the end goal would be complete privatization of everything and the end of government, so I don't think it would be good or honest to hide that.

[Andrew-Austin]

I don't think the Libertarian party is a good example, they don't even seem credible based on their own principles.

The goal for running as a self proclaimed anarchist would be to deal with the negative reactions head on, to get rid of the negative public opinion for the word "anarchy" through public debate, and to win votes to demonstrate how many of the general populace actually support anarchy. Ultimately the end goal would be complete privatization of everything and the end of government, so I don't think it would be good or honest to hide that.

The anarchist wouldn't be given the chance to explain his philosophy to the electorate to begin with, to defend that he is not actually for chaos. I didn't say anything about the party, you can run as a libertarian at the local level and not have to comprise your principles. You can refrain form blatantly stating that you are an anarchist, and still be honest about your views and policy of revoking the power of the office you are running for. Its possible people will vote for anarchist ideas properly framed, but they will not vote for the word anarchist because there is too much baggage associated with it.

[Kraig]

The anarchist wouldn't be given the chance to explain his philosophy to the electorate to begin with, to defend that he is not actually for chaos. I didn't say anything about the party, you can run as a libertarian at the local level and not have to comprise your principles. You can refrain form blatantly stating that you are an anarchist, and still be honest about your views and policy of revoking the power of the office you are running for. Its possible people will vote for anarchist ideas properly framed, but they will not vote for the word anarchist because there is too much baggage associated with it.

I think one would be able to explain his philosophy during public speeches and most certainly a detailed campaign website, it would just be hard to get it across to the MSM like anything else. Between youtube and everything else I think there is plenty of room for anarchist to grow in popularity similar to what Ron Paul has done if he really knows his information and is both a skilled speaker and debater.

[heavenlyboy34]

Or maybe just the Anarchy party? What if there was a party dedicated towards the long term goal of anarcho-capitalism? Their platform would basically consist of the slow, well thought out, transition towards privatizing all services offered by government one by one, starting with the easy ones first. What do you guys think? For the statists here, would you ever consider voting for someone who was a self proclaimed anarchist at all? Is it too self-contradicting for an anarchist to run for a government position?

This is a contradiction in terms. No self respecting anarchist or anarcho-capitalist would use force (political or otherwise) against others. Someone who tried to create a party called the "anarchist party" would be shunned as a statist. (and rightfully so)

[torchbearer]

This is a contradiction in terms. No self respecting anarchist or anarcho-capitalist would use force (political or otherwise) against others. Someone who tried to create a party called the "anarchist party" would be shunned as a statist. (and rightfully so)

SO if everyone voted to abolish the government, you would reject that vote because it is an act of force/violence against everyone?

[heavenlyboy34]

SO if everyone voted to abolish the government, you would reject that vote because it is an act of force/violence against everyone?

No, because it is an act of aggression against the State(not "everyone" as you mistakenly claimed). I would celebrate that individuals had become responsible and intelligent enough to throw off the shackles of Statism. :D

[Kraig]

This is a contradiction in terms. No self respecting anarchist or anarcho-capitalist would use force (political or otherwise) against others. Someone who tried to create a party called the "anarchist party" would be shunned as a statist. (and rightfully so)

That is kind of what I was thinking at first, but how are anarchists ever going to hope to transition the idea from the realm of intellectual debate towards reality? Also I don't think you are using force automatically just by holding a political title. Especially if you use that as an opportunity to end the use of force wherever possible and ultimately everywhere. I don't think Ron Paul could be accused of using force because of how he used his power, I'd like to hear more of what you think on this though.

[Andrew-Austin]

This is a contradiction in terms. No self respecting anarchist or anarcho-capitalist would use force (political or otherwise) against others. Someone who tried to create a party called the "anarchist party" would be shunned as a statist. (and rightfully so)

How is it force if your revoking government power, refraining from using it, or abolishing it?

[BeFranklin]

Anarcho-capitalism is in my mind a big failure - the private run prisons and private armies lately is an example.

Someone else on these forums hit the nail right on the head. You need the free market for everything but force - with force you need to democratize it and make sure everyone is part of it - ie local militias, the posse, the hue and cry, etc etc.

[Kraig]

Anarcho-capitalism is in my mind a big failure - the private run prisons and private armies lately is an example.

Someone else on these forums hit the nail right on the head. You need the free market for everything but force - with force you need to democratize it and make sure everyone is part of it - ie local militias, the posse, the hue and cry, etc etc.

Since democratic bodies have been so responsible with their use of force? In anarchy everyone literally has a part of it. I don't understand what you are trying to say.

[literatim]

Since democratic bodies have been so responsible with their use of force? In anarchy everyone literally has a part of it. I don't understand what you are trying to say.

You can't magically will force away. It will always be there. The question is whose hands do you want it in? Anarchy is like a big power gap and those with the most power and determination will fill it.

[Andrew-Austin]

Anarcho-capitalism is in my mind a big failure - the private run prisons and private armies lately is an example.

Those are not examples of Anarcho-capitalism. They are funded by government, with stolen money.

[BeFranklin]

Those are not examples of Anarcho-capitalism. They are funded by government, with stolen money.

What justification could there be to throw another man in prison without a court, a trial by jury, etc etc?

Anarcho-capitalism quickly evolves into mobsters and private hired guns. Under that system, the hundred million obama raised would have been used to hire a mercenary army to make people do what he wanted, instead of an election.

[BeFranklin]

You can't magically will force away. It will always be there. The question is whose hands do you want it in? Anarchy is like a big power gap and those with the most power and determination will do it.

qft.

[heavenlyboy34]

What justification could there be to throw another man in prison without a court, a trial by jury, etc etc?

Anarcho-capitalism quickly evolves into mobsters and private hired guns. Under that system, the hundred million obama raised would have been used to hire a mercenary army to make people do what he wanted, instead of an election.

This myth has been dispelled on multiple occasions in previous threads on Autarchism v. Statism. Please return to those threads and review. :cool:

[torchbearer]

No, because it is an act of aggression against the State(not "everyone" as you mistakenly claimed). I would celebrate that individuals had become responsible and intelligent enough to throw off the shackles of Statism. :D

It would be an act of aggression against those who wanted a government.
You'd be "forcing" your will on others via vote.

[heavenlyboy34]

It would be an act of aggression against those who wanted a government.
You'd be "forcing" your will on others via vote.

They can have their own little government and regulate each other to death, and the non-Statists will have full right to ignore its decrees, taxes, laws, etc-just as anyone can have a club which makes up its own rules. :cool: I fully support your right to be an absolute Statist, so long as you leave me out of it. ;):)

[Kraig]

Anarchy is like a big power gap and those with the most power and determination will fill it.

Seems like a description of government to me as well. The difference between government and anarchy is that those who choose to live as thugs and warlords are not seen as a necessary entity and are not funding through taxing an entire population, so their overall force would be less.

Please everyone if at all possible, can we keep this into a discussion on an anarchists political party and not a government vs. anarchy debate.

[heavenlyboy34]

Seems like a description of government to me as well. The difference between government and anarchy is that those who choose to live as thugs and warlords are not seen as a necessary entity and are not funding through taxing an entire population, so their overall force would be less.

hehe +a bunch :);)

[Kraig]

It would be an act of aggression against those who wanted a government.
You'd be "forcing" your will on others via vote.

I don't think it would be an act of agression against those who wanted government. If anything I think it would be self defense. No one is stopping anyone from choose a government or a leader, they would just stop them from choose for everyone. For example if some guy wants Obama to be his president, fine, just don't make him be mine too. I think people who want government generally want it not just over themselves but over everyone they have any chance of contact with as well.

[UnReconstructed]

What justification could there be to throw another man in prison without a court, a trial by jury, etc etc?

Anarcho-capitalism quickly evolves into mobsters and private hired guns. Under that system, the hundred million obama raised would have been used to hire a mercenary army to make people do what he wanted, instead of an election.

negative, that is what we have now

mobsters in charge funded with stolen money forcing their will on peaceful people calling it "protection"

[torchbearer]

I don't think it would be an act of agression against those who wanted government. If anything I think it would be self defense. No one is stopping anyone from choose a government or a leader, they would just stop them from choose for everyone. For example if some guy wants Obama to be his president, fine, just don't make him be mine too. I think people who want government generally want it not just over themselves but over everyone they have any chance of contact with as well.

tyranny of the majority, is still tyranny of the majority- anarchy will be it's own tyranny. a blackwater/soprano hell hole... a corporatist monarchy/oligarchy will arise because they can pay the most people to do their bidding and force everyone else to participate. Just like we have today. Anarchy solves nothing.
Educating people has a chance to solve it all.
Their is a purpose for government.

[heavenlyboy34]

tyranny of the majority, is still tyranny of the majority- anarchy will be it's own tyranny. a blackwater/soprano hell hole... a corporatist monarchy/oligarchy will arise because they can pay the most people to do their bidding and force everyone else to participate. Just like we have today. Anarchy solves nothing.
Educating people has a chance to solve it all.
Their is a purpose for government.

*FACEPALM* How would a corporatist monarchy/oligarchy arise if the State does not exist to create corporations? Corporations are a creation of government law. There is no LEGITIMATE purpose for the coercive use of force (i.e. government). An-cap FTW. Thou hast been pwned. :cool:

[Kraig]

tyranny of the majority, is still tyranny of the majority- anarchy will be it's own tyranny. a blackwater/soprano hell hole... a corporatist monarchy/oligarchy will arise because they can pay the most people to do their bidding and force everyone else to participate. Just like we have today. Anarchy solves nothing.
Educating people has a chance to solve it all.
Their is a purpose for government.

No of course anarchy does not solve anything, it releases the chains so that people are free to solve things on their own. I live in a government hell hole right now, and despite it's massive flaws, anarchy in Somolia has been a major improvment, night and day comparison. The corporatist monarchy/oligarchy has already come to power here in the US, I really don't see how that point supports your argument. I am not at all saying that these would not arise in anarchy, but they would not be as big and overwhelming. They would not be able to disguise their true nature and win the support of thousands and thousands of otherwise good people as governments do right now and always have done. Furthering education will only lead more people to understand that government isn't necessary.

[heavenlyboy34]

No of course anarchy does not solve anything, it releases the chains so that people are free to solves things on their own. I live in a government hell hole right now, and despite it's massive flaws, anarchy in Somolia has been a major improvment, night and day comparison. The corporatist monarchy/oligarchy has already come to power here in the US, I really don't see how that point supports your argument. I am not at all saying that these would not arise in anarchy, but they would not be has big and overwhelming. They would not be able to disguise their true nature and win the support of thousands and thousands of otherwise good people as governments do right now and always have done. Furthering education will only lead more people to understand that government isn't necessary.

I like the way you said it. You're much more polite than I am! :):cool:

[UnReconstructed]

if education were the answer then no doctors would ever smoke, and no lawyers would ever break the law.

what is the purose of government?

[Kraig]

if education were the answer then no doctors would ever smoke, and no lawyers would ever break the law.

what is the purose of government?

Maybe you shouldn't expect 100% "sucess rate" of people doing what you want them to when dealing with free-willed human beings. Despite it's drawbacks, smoking does have it's benefits, and no one lives forever, to use your own example.

[Conza88]

Market for Liberty by Linda and Morris Tannehil (pdf) (http://mises.org/books/marketforliberty.pdf) (audiobook) (http://freekeene.com/free-audiobook/)

For a New Liberty by Murray N. Rothbard (pdf) (http://mises.org/rothbard/foranewlb.pdf) (text) (http://mises.org/rothbard/newliberty.asp) (audiobook) (http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=87)

Myth of National Defense by Hans-Hermann Hoppe (pdf) (http://mises.org/etexts/defensemyth.pdf)

The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman (pdf) (http://www.4shared.com/file/92922216/dd10024e/David_Friedman_-_The_Machinery_of_Freedom.html)

Read. Listen. Learn.

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. That principle is contempt prior to investigation." ~ Herbert Spencer

Unless you've read the above. Or ANY of these, JUST ONE: Anarcho-Capitalism: An Annotated Bibliography by Hans-Hermann Hoppe (http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe5.html)

You are more than likely profoundly ignorant on non-archy / anarcho-capitalism / voluntaryism. Your opinion means dick. It is exactly like listening to Paul Krugman bash Austrian Economics. He's never read a book on the subject, let alone knows fck all anything about it.

So get your hand of it. The intellectual honesty from some of you is piss weak. Why are you scared of the truth? What's so frightening about picking up and reading a book on the subject? Scared you've wasted 30 years of your life stuck in the same paradigm? Yeah probably.

[sdczen]

I would run for public office as an Anarchist, however, I would fire myself on the first day of the job! :)

[Kraig]

I would run for public office as an Anarchist, however, I would fire myself on the first day of the job! :)

One problem is that a principled anarchist could not accept taxpayers payroll, he would have to return it all to the treasury. That would actually be a big selling point if it was party of the party's plattform.

[klamath]

I bet Ron Paul is secretly an anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist/anarchist, he just can't say it cause it wouldn't work well politically.

Lew Rockwell, Walter Block and most important people at the Mises Institute are voluntaryist.

So is Ernie Hancock, creator of Ron Paul Revolution logo.

Please don't put your own beliefs on RP unless you can point to where he said it. Rp states quite clearly what his beliefs are and he doesn't hold anything back because it isn't politically popular. To say otherwise is to denigrate RP's charactor and his integrity.

[BeFranklin]

negative, that is what we have now

mobsters in charge funded with stolen money forcing their will on peaceful people calling it "protection"

We have a devolving system, because the people are decadent and won't take moral responsibilty for their servants. Adults are like grown children now.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilence. Our form of government only works when the people are moral and take responsibility and an active interest in it. As it is, America rolled over for the biggest theft in history, giving trillions of dollars to cronies and political favorites - without constitutional authority to do so of any kind whatsoever OR oversight. Naked theft. - and the result of that will be consolidated power and facism in the next few years. In the end, it will be total tyranny or a revolution likely - but it could have been stopped before that if the people had done their duty.

[BeFranklin]

This myth has been dispelled on multiple occasions in previous threads on Autarchism v. Statism. Please return to those threads and review. :cool:

Lol. Where in history has this sytem of yours worked? No where, nor should it. The basic principles of limited english government go back more than a thousand years.

It is natural, on the community level at least, for people to organize and take care of criminals. Ie sheriffs, cry and hue, citizens arrest, etc.

Or lets put it this way. You start your system, and I'm still not going to allow my guns to be pried from my fingers. When you do wrong and murder someone, me and the locals are going to round you up.

[Kraig]

When you do wrong and murder someone, me and the locals are going to round you up.

wow no one here is advocating any of that, what are you even talking about?

[UnReconstructed]

wow no one here is advocating any of that, what are you even talking about?

Force Kraig... it's what he knows. Bottom line is that government cannot operate apart from taxes.

Taxes = force

otherwise it would not be a tax but a donation.

[Epic]

What justification could there be to throw another man in prison without a court, a trial by jury, etc etc?

Anarcho-capitalism quickly evolves into mobsters and private hired guns. Under that system, the hundred million obama raised would have been used to hire a mercenary army to make people do what he wanted, instead of an election.

This has been debunked so many times.

In a completely free market, all businesses (including security services) are beholden to market forces.

Somalia is functioning better than the society you described (it is much more prosperous and more secure) than before the state was removed.

[Epic]

Lol. Where in history has this sytem of yours worked? No where, nor should it. The basic principles of limited english government go back more than a thousand years.

It is natural, on the community level at least, for people to organize and take care of criminals. Ie sheriffs, cry and hue, citizens arrest, etc.

Or lets put it this way. You start your system, and I'm still not going to allow my guns to be pried from my fingers. When you do wrong and murder someone, me and the locals are going to round you up.

Never thought I'd see someone be so hostile to freedom. To be uncertain about the logistics of anarchy is one thing - but openly denouncing freedom is another.

There are courts in free market systems, you know.

By the way, the "Wild West" was the safest place to be - and there was no government there.

Go here: http://book.freekeene.com to learn about "The Market For Liberty". It is an audiobook and walks through the logistics of a free society.

[BeFranklin]

wow no one here is advocating any of that, what are you even talking about?

Advocating? I'm pointing out the obvious. How your local community determines how to round up people and try them for crimes like murder is still a governmnet, albeit a very limited one.

[BeFranklin]

Never thought I'd see someone be so hostile to freedom. To be uncertain about the logistics of anarchy is one thing - but openly denouncing freedom is another.

There are courts in free market systems, you know.

By the way, the "Wild West" was the safest place to be - and there was no government there.

Go here: http://book.freekeene.com to learn about "The Market For Liberty". It is an audiobook and walks through the logistics of a free society.

Nothing like an attack when you can't win your position :rolleyes:

There is no one as dedicated to actual historical limited government as me (stealing the history part for myself :D), but anarchy isn't freedom. Its gang rule.

Go look up Alfred the Great and read the original document that started common law to see how it evolved out of private courts in churches. And learn something other than being smug. You don't need to try things in theory that have never been tried. You just need to know our actual history. Anarcho Capitalism has no history of working. Said again.

[sailor]

You can`t have an Anarchist Party. Anarchists taking part in politics is a paradox. Elections are illegitimate. You should be trying to close them down, not trying to motivate people to take part in them. That just makes them seem more legitimate when they are not. And simply from a strategic point of view. You can`t win playing by establishment`s rules.

[Conza88]

Please don't put your own beliefs on RP unless you can point to where he said it. Rp states quite clearly what his beliefs are and he doesn't hold anything back because it isn't politically popular. To say otherwise is to denigrate RP's charactor and his integrity.

'Free market in money.' Gold, Peace, Prosperity pg 44. Is just one.

It's not to denigrate his character at all. When you're running against the system, you have to play it.

He's NOT an idiot, to say OTHERWISE is to DENIGRATE his character. :rolleyes:

He's intelligent and not a retarded fool. He's starting a revolution. His goal is to spread the message. And he's making it as accessible as possible.

He PIMPS the Austrian School of Economics. Hint: EVERYONE THERE IS essentially an anarcho-capitalist. ;) They read Mises, Liberalism etc. Minimal state. Then they progress... Rothbard, Block, Hoppe... etc. :cool:

LvMI strategy is amazing. It's the MISESIAN TRADITION.

Even if I was to run, I'd be doing the exact same thing as Ron Paul.

[Conza88]

Lol. Where in history has this sytem of yours worked? No where, nor should it. The basic principles of limited english government go back more than a thousand years.

It is natural, on the community level at least, for people to organize and take care of criminals. Ie sheriffs, cry and hue, citizens arrest, etc.

Or lets put it this way. You start your system, and I'm still not going to allow my guns to be pried from my fingers. When you do wrong and murder someone, me and the locals are going to round you up.

LMAO. Where is yours? :rolleyes:

A government that has EVER remain limited? 0.

Hilarious!

YouTube - The Proof of Anarchy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIs5r3ujBmw)

[Kraig]

Advocating? I'm pointing out the obvious. How your local community determines how to round up people and try them for crimes like murder is still a governmnet, albeit a very limited one.

No there is a fundamental difference between ONE security service (goverment) that mantains a monopoly on the buisness through force and having several options to go through. The difference isn't only having options, they would be run more efficiently in the light of competition.

[Kraig]

You can`t have an Anarchist Party. Anarchists taking part in politics is a paradox. Elections are illegitimate. You should be trying to close them down, not trying to motivate people to take part in them. That just makes them seem more legitimate when they are not. And simply from a strategic point of view. You can`t win playing by establishment`s rules.

How though? It doesn't seem possible to me. Even if you got 80% of the population to support anarchy and not vote, which is a massive majority, the remaining 20% would still vote for people and run the goverment. The government isn't just going to lay down.

[Andrew-Austin]

He pimps the constitution far more than he pimps the Austrian school. He agrees with their economic theory, only that is clear.


'Free market in money.' Gold, Peace, Prosperity pg 44. Is just one.

It's not to denigrate his character at all. When you're running against the system, you have to play it.

He's NOT an idiot, to say OTHERWISE is to DENIGRATE his character. :rolleyes:

He's intelligent and not a retarded fool. He's starting a revolution. His goal is to spread the message. And he's making it as accessible as possible.

He PIMPS the Austrian School of Economics. Hint: EVERYONE THERE IS essentially an anarcho-capitalist. ;) They read Mises, Liberalism etc. Minimal state. Then they progress... Rothbard, Block, Hoppe... etc. :cool:

LvMI strategy is amazing. It's the MISESIAN TRADITION.

Even if I was to run, I'd be doing the exact same thing as Ron Paul.

[sailor]

How though? It doesn't seem possible to me. Even if you got 80% of the population to support anarchy and not vote, which is a massive majority, the remaining 20% would still vote for people and run the goverment. The government isn't just going to lay down.

If only 20% voted it would be a clear signal that the government does not have a mandate. People would see how weak it is and would ignore it and do things past it, marginalising it. Also knowing they are the stronger party they would not back down in a dispute with the government and would be willing to confront it.

It has been done many time during the era of de-colonialisation. The population of the colonies would make itself un-governable presenting their colonialist overlords with no alternative but to evacuate. India is a good example.

[Conza88]

He pimps the constitution far more than he pimps the Austrian school. He agrees with their economic theory, only that is clear.

He uses the Constitution as a sound bite. Below he states why. :cool:


No he is. Because he acknowledges trying to sell anarcho-capitalism is epically retarded, when the public doesn't even know what the Bill of Rights are.

He's smart enough to use the Constitution as his sound bite & default position, it's awesome rhetorically when you have very little time to make a point.


Speech by US Congressman Ron Paul at the "Prague Spring Lecture", Czech Republic, 29 May 2006

Theme: "Ludwig von Mises and Politics"

Ron Paul is hosted by Czech President Vaclav Klaus at the launch of the "Czech Translation of Human Action" organized by Liberální Institute.

YouTube - (2/5) Ron Paul is hosted by President Klaus in Prague (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55d6nAJoqlo&eu#t=6m45s)

6min45secs - 9min01secs.

:cool: :D

[Kraig]

If only 20% voted it would be a clear signal that the government does not have a mandate. People would see how weak it is and would ignore it and do things past it, marginalising it. Also knowing they are the stronger party they would not back down in a dispute with the government and would be willing to confront it.

It has been done many time during the era of de-colonialisation. The population of the colonies would make itself un-governable presenting their colonialist overlords with no alternative but to evacuate. India is a good example.

Yeah it would be a clear signal my point is that doesn't mean the government will step down. They are still going to try and tax the people who don't vote which would boost their power. I wouldn't even be surprised if the voting population in this country is already close to 20%. Now you could do a massive protest at the captital and try to get the government to step down that way, but there is no guarantee they won't just send the riot police out and try to subdue everyone. At that point you would be limited to the choice of pursuing a violent engagment or just giving up, and our own goverment is far more insideous that people give it credit for, I really think that is the route they would choose at this point in time. I just don't see how you could get rid of government without resorting to a violent conflict unless you destroyed it from within. Please elaborate on India though if you don't mind. What time period in India are you referring to?

[Kraig]

He uses the Constitution as a sound bite. Below he states why. :cool:

For the love of god if you guys want to argue over "what ron paul really thinks behind closed doors" could you please take it to PM or start your own thread?

[UnReconstructed]

people would have to stop working for the government. what are rules without the enforcers?

[Kraig]

people would have to stop working for the government. what are rules without the enforcers?

Private rules? Are there no rules at your job? Did they all come from the government?

[ChaosControl]

Something funny about an Anarchist party...

[UnReconstructed]

Private rules? Are there no rules at your job? Did they all come from the government?

I'm talking about the laws. What would the government's laws be without the government's law enforcers...

[Kraig]

I'm talking about the laws. What would the government's laws be without the government's law enforcers...

...private laws and private enforcers...

I am advocating no government at all. So there would be no government laws or government law enforcers.

I would really suggest you read the links heavenlyboy posted, your questions have already been dealt with in depth by others.

Edit:

Sorry it was Conza who posted the links, check out post #39 on this thread.

Also check this out has it more directly answers your question:
http://mises.org/story/1874

[Conza88]

...private laws and private enforcers...

I am advocating no government at all. So there would be no government laws or government law enforcers.

I would really suggest you read the links heavenlyboy posted, your questions have already been dealt with in depth by others.

Edit:

Sorry it was Conza who posted the links, check out post #39 on this thread.

Also check this out has it more directly answers your question:
http://mises.org/story/1874


Market for Liberty by Linda and Morris Tannehil (pdf) (http://mises.org/books/marketforliberty.pdf) (audiobook) (http://freekeene.com/free-audiobook/)

For a New Liberty by Murray N. Rothbard (pdf) (http://mises.org/rothbard/foranewlb.pdf) (text) (http://mises.org/rothbard/newliberty.asp) (audiobook) (http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=87)

Myth of National Defense by Hans-Hermann Hoppe (pdf) (http://mises.org/etexts/defensemyth.pdf)

The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman (pdf) (http://www.4shared.com/file/92922216/dd10024e/David_Friedman_-_The_Machinery_of_Freedom.html)

Read. Listen. Learn.

:o

[Kraig]

Thanks dude. Nice and convenient. Those links can't get too much exposure as far as I am concerned!

[UnReconstructed]

How though? It doesn't seem possible to me. Even if you got 80% of the population to support anarchy and not vote, which is a massive majority, the remaining 20% would still vote for people and run the goverment. The government isn't just going to lay down.

Did you read your post Kraig? You stated that the government would not lay down even if only 20% voted. I agree. The people of the 80% that did not vote would have to leave their government jobs for the government to be laid to rest. Everyone involved in government, through their jobs, is involved in force. Even, the elderly lady working at the county tax office collecting the money for license plates. She is an enforcer of government laws.

If she were part of the 80% that did not vote but supported the free market, then she would have to leave her job at the tax office for there to be no enforcement at her level. The infrastructure of the government would have to be left vacant.

I am not asking anything about private rules or private business. I am stating that intervention will not stop unless the interventionists stop... that 20% that still supported force.

Would you not agree that the drug war will not end until the police stop enforcing drug laws?

[Kraig]

Yep I agree.

[heavenlyboy34]

Lol. Where in history has this sytem of yours worked? No where, nor should it. The basic principles of limited english government go back more than a thousand years.

It is natural, on the community level at least, for people to organize and take care of criminals. Ie sheriffs, cry and hue, citizens arrest, etc.

Or lets put it this way. You start your system, and I'm still not going to allow my guns to be pried from my fingers. When you do wrong and murder someone, me and the locals are going to round you up.

Anarchy (autarchy) is the original system ("God's system", if you will)-the only one that hasn't been turned to evil. It predates the illegitimate use force known as the State.

As I have said before, you can have all the evil systems in the world you desire, but you must not coerce me into accepting your State. The moment you use force, you lose the argument. Thus far, you've only argued for the evil (the State). I cannot accept such a false argument as truth that I would willingly submit to.

Since when have I advocated "prying guns from your fingers"? You should well know that I wouldn't do such a thing unless you initiated force against me. ~sigh!~ Beating back your fallacious statements is turning into a 3rd job! I may have to hire someone to help me! :eek::p

[heavenlyboy34]

Lol. Where in history has this sytem of yours worked? No where, nor should it. The basic principles of limited english government go back more than a thousand years.

It is natural, on the community level at least, for people to organize and take care of criminals. Ie sheriffs, cry and hue, citizens arrest, etc.

Or lets put it this way. You start your system, and I'm still not going to allow my guns to be pried from my fingers. When you do wrong and murder someone, me and the locals are going to round you up.

You should read the following piece:
Biblical Anarchism (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/carson2.html)

[BeFranklin]

You should read the following piece:
Biblical Anarchism (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/carson2.html)

Ah yes. The same thing I've been posting all along, and you've been accusing me of being a minarchist :rolleyes:

Limited governmnet isn't an anarchy. And the biblical system is the one I've been supporting on here :eek:

[sailor]

Yeah it would be a clear signal my point is that doesn't mean the government will step down. They are still going to try and tax the people who don't vote which would boost their power. I wouldn't even be surprised if the voting population in this country is already close to 20%. Now you could do a massive protest at the captital and try to get the government to step down that way, but there is no guarantee they won't just send the riot police out and try to subdue everyone. At that point you would be limited to the choice of pursuing a violent engagment or just giving up, and our own goverment is far more insideous that people give it credit for, I really think that is the route they would choose at this point in time. I just don't see how you could get rid of government without resorting to a violent conflict unless you destroyed it from within. Please elaborate on India though if you don't mind. What time period in India are you referring to?

When you have 80% the options are virtualy limitless. It is entirely irrelevant wether the government steps down or not. If it is ignored it loses power. Yes by itself ceasing to vote does not accomplish much. But that is not the point, the point is to cease to vote in the context of ignoring and marginalising the government, the point is to accompany the boicott of elections with other boicotts.

They can send the riot police, but if the 80% stoped paying taxes and the police haven`t been paid in months, will the police take the order? And the police are not stupid, they will want to be on the winning side, they won`t go out if they think the government is doomed. With 80% you could go a nation wide strike. Shut down every factory and every road. What are the going to do? Make you work?? If they tried to resort to force it would escalate and backfire on them.


India ejected the British in 1947. The independence movement largely used civil disobediance to make it clear to the British they can not efficiently rule the country and to illustrate to them how pointless it was to continue to hold on to the illusion that they held the power. Also in the background there were also other groups willing to engange in an armed struggle making it very clear to the British any escalation will be met with equal force and will not be successful.


EDIT: election turnout is usually around 50%.

[idiom]

Anarcho-capitalist party

Oh... a political party. I saw the topic and wondered, "Does Rohypnol count as force?"

Its still Oxy-moronic.

[idiom]

Ah yes. The same thing I've been posting all along, and you've been accusing me of being a minarchist :rolleyes:

Limited governmnet isn't an anarchy. And the biblical system is the one I've been supporting on here :eek:

The Biblical system isn't one of limited Government. God set it up with no government and it failed. They Israelites rejected anarchy and went for Monarchy.

For the most part in God's ideal system shown in Judges, "everyone did what was right in his own eyes". Hardly what you advocate Bef.

[Kraig]

When you have 80% the options are virtualy limitless. It is entirely irrelevant wether the government steps down or not. If it is ignored it loses power. Yes by itself ceasing to vote does not accomplish much. But that is not the point, the point is to cease to vote in the context of ignoring and marginalising the government, the point is to accompany the boicott of elections with other boicotts.

They can send the riot police, but if the 80% stoped paying taxes and the police haven`t been paid in months, will the police take the order? And the police are not stupid, they will want to be on the winning side, they won`t go out if they think the government is doomed. With 80% you could go a nation wide strike. Shut down every factory and every road. What are the going to do? Make you work?? If they tried to resort to force it would escalate and backfire on them.


India ejected the British in 1947. The independence movement largely used civil disobediance to make it clear to the British they can not efficiently rule the country and to illustrate to them how pointless it was to continue to hold on to the illusion that they held the power. Also in the background there were also other groups willing to engange in an armed struggle making it very clear to the British any escalation will be met with equal force and will not be successful.


EDIT: election turnout is usually around 50%.

Well it depends what extreme that 80% is willing to go to. It's one thing to just get 80% to stop voting, another entirely to get them to stop paying all taxes and cut all ties with the government, there is too much risk involved for the individual. Especially business owners.

[revolutionisnow]

http://www.crimethinc.com/

[heavenlyboy34]

The Biblical system isn't one of limited Government. God set it up with no government and it failed. They Israelites rejected anarchy and went for Monarchy.

For the most part in God's ideal system shown in Judges, "everyone did what was right in his own eyes". Hardly what you advocate Bef.

False. The Israelites rejected Mosaic law for monarchy. They had a true autarchy, but weren't virtuous enough to maintain it. Nice try, though, dear archist. ;)

[BeFranklin]

The Biblical system isn't one of limited Government. God set it up with no government and it failed. They Israelites rejected anarchy and went for Monarchy.

For the most part in God's ideal system shown in Judges, "everyone did what was right in his own eyes". Hardly what you advocate Bef.

A set of written laws, ways to determine somone is guilty and punishment, and a way to raise an army and judges is limited government.

Hardly true that I haven't been advocating limited government from a biblical perspective :rolleyes:

It definatley wasn't anarchy. God was their king. When they choose another, they rejected him. A lot like this country actually.

[sailor]

Well it depends what extreme that 80% is willing to go to. It's one thing to just get 80% to stop voting, another entirely to get them to stop paying all taxes and cut all ties with the government, there is too much risk involved for the individual. Especially business owners.

People withdraw consent from underneath their governments and crash them down all the time. The trick isn`t to destroy a government, the trick is to prevent a different one from stepping into its tracks. In that context voting is going in the wrong direction.

[Kraig]

In that context voting is going in the wrong direction.

How so? When a government collapses many expect a new one to fill the void. If they government dismantled itself through voting, people would be expecting it and would see it coming ahead of time.