I would like to thank Ron Paul for turning me from a neo/social/theo conservative...

[.Tom]

... to an anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist.

I was a right wing neoconservative/social conservative/theoconservative type until I saw Ron in the debates on, funny enough, Fox News of all places.

I have now made the transition from neo/social/theo-con (before Dr. Paul's campaign) to Constitutionalist (during Dr. Paul's campaign) to Minarchist (after Dr. Paul's campaign) to anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist (where I am now).

Thank you Ron Paul - without you - I would probably still be worshiping Hannity.

[ClayTrainor]

Ron Paul is certainly leading people in the right direction, no matter what conclusion you've come to, as you explore his ideas.

Outside of Rothbard himself, I would argue that Ron Paul is responsible for expanding the Anarcho-Capitalist ideology far more than the likes of Stefan Molyneux and other prominent anarcho capitailsts of today.

[Kotin]

very glad to hear it.. and to know you are a Texan..

[dannno]

Ya it's funny how you can limit people's ideas through a simple psychology that there are only two ways of thinking, and then telling them what those two ways are.

[tremendoustie]

Ya it's funny how you can limit people's ideas through a simple psychology that there are only two ways of thinking, and then telling them what those two ways are.

No kidding. But, you know what I've noticed ... when a guy comes along and points out both sides suck, both sides like it :).

The partisans don't really like their side -- they just hate the other side more. As long as you're trashing the other side too, they'll listen.

Also, I've gone through the same transition as the OP -- and thanks to Dr. Paul, who I consider the most effective voice for liberty of our time.

[inibo]

Ron Paul is certainly leading people in the right direction, no matter what conclusion you've come to, as you explore his ideas.

Outside of Rothbard himself, I would argue that Ron Paul is responsible for expanding the Anarcho-Capitalist ideology far more than the likes of Stefan Molyneux and other prominent anarcho capitailsts of today.

I tend to disagree a little. Ron Paul does not really espouse ancap ideas, per se, but he most definitely promotes Austrian economics. Thing is Austrian economics, if accepted, will lead you to an ancap position if you don't resist it.

For me, Lew Rockwell, or more accurately, LewRockwell.com, got me started by showing me a different way to look at political issues, Ron Paul clarified economics for me--it had always been confusing and boring--and showed me the underlying economic reality of politics, then Stefan Molyneux pushed me over the edge by effectively arguing than government--as tolfa.us (http://www.tolfa.us/L2.htm) defines it: the absence of markets--is violence.

I don't know if Ron Paul is a true subversive, using the cover of government to advocate the destruction of government, but whether he is doing intentionally or not that is the end result of the path he advocates.

Oh, wait. I think I just agreed with you after all. :)

[BuddyRey]

I too have been converted to Voluntaryism through my discovery of Ron Paul. But before my transition, I was a Democratic Socialist Kucinich-ite! :D

How cool is it that the OP and I - who probably would have had very little in common two years ago - have both been brought down the same path of liberty from two entirely different directions, all because of the moral integrity and bulletproof logic of a simple idea, conveyed by one sincere man?

[Romulus]

can someone explain this an-cap thing to me?

[Travlyr]

Ron Paul held the candle for liberty while most elected officials were trying to extinguish the flame for their own selfish desires.

The light was bright enough for the people to see. Now, we have thousands and thousands of candles lit, and the torch of liberty is beginning to glow.


Campaign For Liberty (http://www.campaignforliberty.com/)

Young Americans For Liberty (http://www.yaliberty.org/)

Year of Youth (http://youthlibertyfront.com/)

And on, and on, and on...

Thank you Mr. Ron Paul... Thank you Sir!

[MsDoodahs]

can someone explain this an-cap thing to me?

You know....I don't think anyone can explain it to you, really.

I think it is one of those individual, light bulb moment, AHA! kinds of things....

So while we could explain it to you until we're blue in the face, until your particular brain is ready for it, you won't grasp it.

For some, it does sort of explode most of what they believed, so ... it's not an "easy" transition for lots of people.

I think their brains fight against it or something....

[constituent]

The partisans don't really like their side -- they just hate the other side more. As long as you're trashing the other side too, they'll listen.


exactly. only problem: site jumping right, left to nowhere makes me feel like i'm schizin'


It can be hard at times to argue "all" six sides of an argument, stay on message and keep a straight face...

[georgiaboy]

can someone explain this an-cap thing to me?

you should probably create a new thread (if you haven't already) in the econ section & ask this question.

Regarding the OP, I'm still holding onto my "I'm a small L libertarian/constitutionalist conservative", firmly entrenched in Republicanland, and committed to seeing the party get back to why I joined it.

[Romulus]

certainly there has to be an underlying philosophy. not trying to start a war.. just trying to understand.. I'll research.

[Romulus]

you should probably create a new thread (if you haven't already) in the econ section & ask this question.

Regarding the OP, I'm still holding onto my "I'm a small L libertarian/constitutionalist conservative", firmly entrenched in Republicanland, and committed to seeing the party get back to why I joined it.

thanks. not trying to derail here.

I consider myself the same as you.. however, I dont hold much hope, judging by the beliefs of the majority of Publicans, that our voice of reason will ever dominate... so this has me wondering.

[constituent]

.Tom, I'm interested in how old you were when this transition started.

It seems that I have better luck persuading older "conservatives" and younger "liberals," and would be interested in knowing if that's the case here.

[georgiaboy]

thanks. not trying to derail here.

I consider myself the same as you.. however, I dont hold much hope, judging by the beliefs of the majority of Publicans, that our voice of reason will ever dominate... so this has me wondering.

Right now, hope is frail, that's for sure, but I'm ever optimistic. Anything can happen, and I think the continuing tactics of keeping watch on those currently in office, putting up, supporting, and voting "for" the right candidates - even if it means third party - instead of just against the Dems, educating, fundraising, etc., all are slowly shifting momentum, even if we don't see on the surface. Ron Paul's continuing appearances on the MSM amaze me. Also, the fact that one of the posters on this thread was a former Kucinich-Dem is great to see. If I, R, and D all start getting the message (FTW!), things could domino unpredictably. I keep paddling so I can eventually ride that wave...

[LittleLightShining]

Right now, hope is frail, that's for sure, but I'm ever optimistic. Anything can happen, and I think the continuing tactics of keeping watch on those currently in office, putting up, supporting, and voting "for" the right candidates - even if it means third party - instead of just against the Dems, educating, fundraising, etc., all are slowly shifting momentum, even if we don't see on the surface. Ron Paul's continuing appearances on the MSM amaze me. Also, the fact that one of the posters on this thread was a former Kucinich-Dem is great to see. If I, R, and D all start getting the message (FTW!), things could domino unpredictably. I keep paddling so I can eventually ride that wave...
This is pretty much where I am with a little less optimism. Not a lot less, just a teeny bit.

I don't have the vitriolic disdain for an-caps as others do. I don't understand the haters and why they hate so much.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I'm used to it. Just last night I was debating with 3 people, and it went south in a short period. Doesn't help it was 3 vs 1, but oh well :p (Co-workers mind you)

2 Neo-Cons and one Paleo-ish.

What ended up happening is they said private law and judicial/police would be run like the Mafia, and eventually one company would swallow up all the resources of the entire nation and become one giant monopoly. It was futile to explain to them that monopolies cannot exist in the free-market. One even said, they would just buy up all the roads and land and therefore have a monopoly and could tell you if you don't pay us exorbitant fee you can't leave your house. It got real tiring and frustrating. Let's not even get into the Private Law part....

[constituent]

This is pretty much where I am with a little less optimism. Not a lot less, just a teeny bit.

I don't have the vitriolic disdain for an-caps as others do. I don't understand the haters and why they hate so much.

It's pathological. As there is no real good current reason to hate Afghanis, Iranians or Iraqis, it's an-caps and wetbacks.

Don't worry, their targets will change with the tide.

They're predictable, that much you can say about 'em.

[constituent]

What ended up happening is they said private law and judicial/police would be run like the Mafia, and eventually one company would swallow up all the resources of the entire nation and become one giant monopoly. It was futile to explain to them that monopolies cannot exist in the free-market. One even said, they would just buy up all the roads and land and therefore have a monopoly and could tell you if you don't pay us exorbitant fee you can't leave your house. It got real tiring and frustrating. Let's not even get into the Private Law part....

"Private Law" is the trap. You needn't build a state surrogate to convince these people that their way is wrong. All you do is give them an entire system to tear apart... and that's exactly where the conversation goes.

[Met Income]

I'm used to it. Just last night I was debating with 3 people, and it went south in a short period. Doesn't help it was 3 vs 1, but oh well :p (Co-workers mind you)

2 Neo-Cons and one Paleo-ish.

What ended up happening is they said private law and judicial/police would be run like the Mafia, and eventually one company would swallow up all the resources of the entire nation and become one giant monopoly. It was futile to explain to them that monopolies cannot exist in the free-market. One even said, they would just buy up all the roads and land and therefore have a monopoly and could tell you if you don't pay us exorbitant fee you can't leave your house. It got real tiring and frustrating. Let's not even get into the Private Law part....

That argument doesn't make sense. It's pretending that life exists in a vacuum. How could one company grab all of those resources overnight? They couldn't. If people didn't want them to grow that big and powerful, they wouldn't.

Wal-mart makes more money off of us by selling things to us, not by stealing from us.

[specsaregood]

I tend to disagree a little. Ron Paul does not really espouse ancap ideas, per se, but he most definitely promotes Austrian economics. Thing is Austrian economics, if accepted, will lead you to an ancap position if you don't resist it.


And I would tend to disagree with your analysis. Overall RP promotes "freedom", call it what you want but that is the root of all his arguments. His promotion of Austrian Economics is just the economic portion of his overall freedom message.

[Romulus]

Right now, hope is frail, that's for sure, but I'm ever optimistic. Anything can happen, and I think the continuing tactics of keeping watch on those currently in office, putting up, supporting, and voting "for" the right candidates - even if it means third party - instead of just against the Dems, educating, fundraising, etc., all are slowly shifting momentum, even if we don't see on the surface. Ron Paul's continuing appearances on the MSM amaze me. Also, the fact that one of the posters on this thread was a former Kucinich-Dem is great to see. If I, R, and D all start getting the message (FTW!), things could domino unpredictably. I keep paddling so I can eventually ride that wave...

I'm on board with that... I too am cautiously optimistic will all of RP's media attention, and his willingness to give it. This has made a difference. I am a reformed neocon, so there is hope for us all.. even the lefties, dare I say it.



I don't have the vitriolic disdain for an-caps as others do. I don't understand the haters and why they hate so much.

I dont either... to me its just another collectivist mindset.

[tremendoustie]

can someone explain this an-cap thing to me?

It's quite simple, really -- voluntaryism (and ancap would simply be the economic system in one type of a voluntaryist society), is based on the Non Aggression Principle, which states that aggressive violence is immoral. That is, the only appropriate use of violence is in self defense, or defense of innocents, against another person who is using aggressive violence.

This would not permit forced taxation, for example, which is the extortion of money from peaceful people, by threat of jail or loss of home.

[inibo]

I generally try to avoid debates about Ancapistan on RPF since it doesn't take too long for it to start bumping up against the mission statement. I let myself get carried away from time to time, but I try to keep it out of the "activist" forums. Even though I doubt the efficacy of electoral politics I still donate money from time to time because I really would love to see an Adam Kokesh, Rand Paul or Peter Schiff in DC if only for the monkey wrench factor.

Beside I get all the debate I could want over on livejournal.com. It's kind of fun being an anti-government extremist. It makes some people's heads explode.

[heavenlyboy34]

... to an anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist.

I was a right wing neoconservative/social conservative/theoconservative type until I saw Ron in the debates on, funny enough, Fox News of all places.

I have now made the transition from neo/social/theo-con (before Dr. Paul's campaign) to Constitutionalist (during Dr. Paul's campaign) to Minarchist (after Dr. Paul's campaign) to anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist (where I am now).

Thank you Ron Paul - without you - I would probably still be worshiping Hannity.

I would also like to thank RP for your conversion, as well as all the others he converted to the individual freedom mindset (by whatever name they may call it). :cool:

[LibertyEagle]

I would also like to thank RP for your conversion, as well as all the others he converted to the individual freedom mindset (by whatever name they may call it). :cool:

Ron Paul didn't convert them; otherwise, they would be Constitutionalists, like he is. What they likely did was start investigating Austrian Economics and ran into Rothbard's ancap "ethics".

[Met Income]

I'm on board with that... I too am cautiously optimistic will all of RP's media attention, and his willingness to give it. This has made a difference. I am a reformed neocon, so there is hope for us all.. even the lefties, dare I say it.



I dont either... to me its just another collectivist mindset.

An-Cap is the opposite of collectivism.

[Andrew-Austin]

lol.

[davesxj]

For me:

RP08 -> RPF -> Voluntaryism

I've seen the transition in a few others. Back in the 07 primaries race, I'd constantly hear appeals to the authority of the Constitution, and now I'm hearing that taxation is theft from the very same people.

[tremendoustie]

Ron Paul didn't convert them; otherwise, they would be Constitutionalists, like he is. What they likely did was start investigating Austrian Economics and ran into Rothbard's ancap "ethics".

I never read Rothbard until after I was a voluntaryist. It's not "his" ethics, it's common sense. Theft is wrong, period. Even if a central, coercively funded government were the most effective solution (which it's not), a desire for effective societal organization is no excuse for violating people's rights. Many used to think slavery was necessary for quality society too -- they were wrong, but even if they had been right, it would not have justified stealing a person's life and freedom from them.

[.Tom]

.Tom, I'm interested in how old you were when this transition started.

It seems that I have better luck persuading older "conservatives" and younger "liberals," and would be interested in knowing if that's the case here.

Well, no, it's quite the opposite with me. :)

I was probably 16 or so when the transition started. I'm now 18 and a hardcore Voluntaryist.

I've also converted from Christian religious extremist to atheist during this time. I don't have a problem with religion, I just found it interesting that I converted during this same period.

[constituent]

Well, no, it's quite the opposite with me. :)

I was probably 16 or so when the transition started. I'm now 18 and a hardcore Voluntaryist.

Cool. Encouraging. Thank you for sharing your story.



I've also converted from Christian religious extremist to atheist during this time. I don't have a problem with religion, I just found it interesting that I converted during this same period.

Alright, now you've got me interested. Have you explored others (religions that is), or simply rejected your own? I was in an in between at your age too. Didn't consider myself an "atheist" per se, just certainly not a Christian.

[tremendoustie]

I've also converted from Christian religious extremist to atheist during this time. I don't have a problem with religion, I just found it interesting that I converted during this same period.

If you ever wanted to, I'd be interested in discussing your reasons for giving up faith in God -- perhaps on the religious sub forum.

[MsDoodahs]

I generally try to avoid debates about Ancapistan on RPF since it doesn't take too long for it to start bumping up against the mission statement. I let myself get carried away from time to time, but I try to keep it out of the "activist" forums. Even though I doubt the efficacy of electoral politics I still donate money from time to time because I really would love to see an Adam Kokesh, Rand Paul or Peter Schiff in DC if only for the monkey wrench factor.

Beside I get all the debate I could want over on livejournal.com. It's kind of fun being an anti-government extremist. It makes some people's heads explode.

You're one of my heroes.

:)

[.Tom]

Alright, now you've got me interested. Have you explored others (religions that is), or simply rejected your own? I was in an in between at your age too. Didn't consider myself an "atheist" per se, just certainly not a Christian.

Actually, I hesitate to identify myself as an "atheist" sometimes.

I mean, I suppose it is true in it's basic meaning in that I don't believe in a god, but a lot of atheists I've spoken to have almost a cult mentality that I don't identify with.

I haven't really explored others, because I don't feel a need to. When I started becoming more interested in libertarian ideas, it just didn't make any sense to have an all knowing authority above me at all times. It kind of defeated the purpose of self-ownership. Not to mention I found a lot of the things in religion to be inconsistent, violating the NAP, and downright cruel and unusual.

Consistency and non-hypocrisy is something I value highly, hence another reason I jumped all the way to Voluntaryist, instead of sticking with a more "moderate" position.

[davesxj]

I haven't really explored others, because I don't feel a need to. When I started becoming more interested in libertarian ideas, it just didn't make any sense to have an all knowing authority above me at all times.

Not every view of God is of "an all knowing authority above me at all times."

I'm not advocating for any religion. Only that you should always seek knowledge.

[inibo]

Actually, I hesitate to identify myself as an "atheist" sometimes.

I don't like the word, either. I mean there is no word for people who don't believe in Zeus or Odin, why a special word for people you don't believe in Yahweh?

I also don't like that it also seems to deny spirituality. One can be spiritual without a big daddy (or mommy) in the sky.

YouTube - The Real You - Alan Watts (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KIkWcuhU2k)

[TotalLiberty]

can someone explain this an-cap thing to me?

Well, a good beginner video to watch is this one:

YouTube - True News 13: Statism is Dead - Part 3 - The Matrix (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P772Eb63qIY)

[inibo]

Well, a good beginner video to watch is this one:

YouTube - True News 13: Statism is Dead - Part 3 - The Matrix (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P772Eb63qIY)

That is the one that pushed me over the edge.

[TotalLiberty]

I had the exact same path as the OP, except that I was in the LP camp before RP came along. (enough acronyms?).

It's interesting, once I heard the voluntaryist ideas of no government, I accepted them right away. Yes, I had no idea how the roads would be done in a free society, nor did I think through the collective defense stuff, but later studied these issues and figured them out. Many people cannot let go of minarchism, and I find that interesting. But I find it amazing that so many of us went through the RP campaign and came out as voluntaryists. For that, I thank RP for showing us the light to the tunnel of realizing the folly of "working within the system" to change the system.

Ideas are what matter, and RP would agree with that 100%.

[Icymudpuppy]

can someone explain this an-cap thing to me?

Short for "Andy Capp". It was a comic strip back in the '30s that was often seen in the same funny pages as Little Orphan Annie, etc.

[tremendoustie]

Not to mention I found a lot of the things in religion to be inconsistent, violating the NAP, and downright cruel and unusual.


Like what? Is it possible that you could reject those things, while still believing in God?

[.Tom]

^ The concept of "hell" comes to mind. :rolleyes:

Sure, I could, and I understand why many people do. It's just not for me.

[anaconda]

I would like to thank Alex Jones for letting me know that Ron Paul exists.

[RedStripe]

Next step: Mutualism :D

[__27__]

Next step: Mutualism :D

Except you have no rights in mutualism. Without private property you cannot be free.

[RedStripe]

Except you have no rights in mutualism. Without private property you cannot be free.

Name a single society in the history of the world in which there was not a legal or cultural/normative regime of rules which regulated the rights of use and possession of particular pieces of physical matter with respect to particular individuals.

As with most other things, Anarcho-Capitalists view the world in black and white terms of the absolute. There is no such single thing as "private property" or "rights", it's just a general term to describe a vast array of possible social relations. Saying that you stand for "private property" or "property rights" is essentially meaningless. It's like championing an ideology founded on being "pro-community". Well, society is necessarily composed of communities, so saying that you are "pro-community" is meaningless.

[__27__]

Name a single society in the history of the world in which there was not a legal or cultural/normative regime of rules which regulated the rights of use and possession of particular pieces of physical matter with respect to particular individuals.

As with most other things, Anarcho-Capitalists view the world in black and white terms of the absolute. There is no such single thing as "private property" or "rights", it's just a general term to describe a vast array of possible social relations. Saying that you stand for "private property" or "property rights" is essentially meaningless. It's like championing an ideology founded on being "pro-community". Well, society is necessarily composed of communities, so saying that you are "pro-community" is meaningless.

If I clear a piece of land and use the wood I cleared to build a domicile, then farm the cleared land for my own subsistence there can be no question that the land and the home are my property. If you reject that then there can be no freedom.

[RedStripe]

If I clear a piece of land and use the wood I cleared to build a domicile, then farm the cleared land for my own subsistence there can be no question that the land and the home are my property.

Actually, I do think that whether the land and the home are your property is questionable. What if you did this in your neighbor's back yard? I think he might dispute your claim.

What exactly does it mean for property (personal or real) to be "yours"?