Newbie Has Question For RP Supporters

[romacox]

Originally Posted by romacox View Post
Tell me if I am correct in this, and please expound as I am trying to learn.

1. Mises institute teaches Austrian Economics, and Ron Paul is a proponent of that

2. Austrian economics (as taught in the Mises institute) is about free markets, but there are different schools (depending on who's ideas you study) varying from no government to limited government (like in the Constitution).

3. Ron Paul is for a limited government restrained by the Constitution, but some Austrian economists disagree saying that allowing any government is eventually doomed to failure as per history. Didn't Karl Marx, "in the Communist Manifesto", ultimately seek "no government" via the path of Socialism first?

4. Milton Friedman claimed to promote Austrian economics but his own version which taught the "Trickle Down theory" which is what Ron Paul calls "Corporatism.

I know this sounds pretty elementary to some of you, but I have my areas of expertise, and economics is not one of them. So please educate me. In this thread I know there will be some disagreements, but let us please do that respectfully...no put down of others or their ideas. ..just explain yours. Thank you
__________________________________________________ ______________________________-
UPDATE: Question to anarchists

1. Are some RP supporters simply anarchist. I mean are some of you for no governing power, not even business?

2. For those who are anarchist-capitalist, If I understand, you would have Corporations be the governing power (If I am wrong please correct me). If that is the case, is there any check and balance to keep them from abusing their powers anymore than our present government? If so please explain.

[MRoCkEd]

You are mostly right. There are different views within the Austrian school, but I think they have more to do with economic theory than political theory. It is a separate question whether limited government or no government most allows for capitalism to flourish. Ron Paul is for limited, constitutional government, at least in the short term, while others he closely associates with are for anarcho-capitalism. Milton Friedman is actually from the Chicago School of Economics. He disagrees with the Austrian school in that he believes in a central bank that expands the money supply each year (preferably by computer).

[teamrican1]

Yeah, you're first two points are correct. As to point #3, Ron Paul publicly professes to be a minarchist, but he has lifelong political and personal association with the most prominent anarcho-capitalists in the world, so he's generally welcomed by most anarchists as closet supporter. #4 is just wrong. Friedman was not an Austrian and he is a pretty poor example of what Ron Paul would consider a corporatist too.

[hugolp]

Tell me if I am correct in this, and please expound as I am trying to learn.

1. Mises institute teaches Austrian Economics, and Ron Paul is a proponent of that

Yes.


2. Austrian economics (as taught in the Mises institute) is about free markets, but there are different schools (depending on who's ideas you study) varying from no government to limited government (like in the Constitution).

Austrian economics is about economics and defends the free market as the best system, but for the rest you are confusing economical theory with political theory, wich would be libertarianism. Now, it is true, that most followers of austrian economics are libertarians and most libertarians follow austrian economics, but they are different things. One is economic theory (austrian economics) and the other is political theory (libertarianism). Inside libertarian political theory there are different options, like the ones you said.


3. Ron Paul is for a limited government restrained by the Constitution, but some Austrian economists disagree saying that allowing any government is eventually doomed to failure as per history. Didn't Karl Marx, "in the Communist Manifesto", ultimately seek "no government" via the path of Socialism first?

The no-goverment version that an-caps, mutualist, agorist, etc... (all the libertarians that want no goverment) desire and are looking for is very different than the no-goverment version that Marx advocated for (mainly the difference is private property).


4. Milton Friedman claimed to promote Austrian economics but his own version which taught the "Trickle Down theory" which is what Ron Paul calls "Corporatism.

No. Milton Friedman is a Monetarist, wich is completely different from Austrian economics.


I know this sounds pretty elementary to some of you, but I have my areas of expertise, and economics is not one of them. So please educate me. In this thread I know there will be some disagreements, but let us please do that respectfully...no put down of others or their ideas. ..just explain yours. Thank you

Hope I was clear enough, but ask again if you have more doubts.

[brandon]

I think you guys covered his points pretty well.

Just to reiterate, Friedman followed the chicago school, not Austrian School.

And Paul publicly acts as a minarchist, but many believe he is a closet anarcho-capitalist. This is subject to much debate though.

[romacox]

Thank you everyone. Great and helpful information from all of you.

In brandonyats statement, "Paul publicly acts as a minarchist, but many believe he is a closet anarcho-capitalist. This is subject to much debate though." Are there any linkable statements that leads anyone to believe he is an anarcho-capitalist? Does any have any reason for this conclusion, or is it just a personal decision?

Here is what I found on anarcho-capatilist.
Definition: Anarcho-capitalism is the polar opposite of pure socialism. Instead of having everything under collective ownership, anarcho-capitalism as a system would have everything under private ownership. All military, law enforcement, and social services organizations would be privately owned and operated, and could compete with one another for customers.

Founder: The argument could be made that anarcho-capitalism is the default form of government, arising in any situation where despotism has not arisen or has not yet arisen. The first so-documented historical example of an anarcho-capitalist society might be that of ancient Israel in the years leading up to the monarchy ("In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit." -- Judges 21:25), other examples being medieval Iceland and the American Old West. But the first person to formulate anarcho-capitalism as a political philosophy was the 20th-century Austrian economist Murray Rothbard, who found his inspiration in the pre-Revolutionary but semi-postcolonial, trade-oriented governments of

Advantages of Anarcho-Capitalism: In theory, there's nothing a government can do that a private corporation can't do just as well.

Limitations of Anarcho-Capitalism: In practice, a sufficiently powerful private corporation becomes a government. Panama under Manuel Noriega, in which the government briefly operated as a component of his international drug operation, is a good case in point.

Current Advocates of Anarcho-Capitalism: The Molinari Institute
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/libertarianpolitics/g/Anarcho-Capitalism-Definition.htm

Is that what some think Ron Paul is for?

[constituent]

3. Ron Paul is for a limited government restrained by the Constitution

No he isn't.

He is "for a limited government restrained by the Constitution (in most cases)."

Of course, if he can pick and choose what to keep, add or throw away, what makes it wrong for anyone else to do the same?

[mczerone]

No he isn't.

He is "for a limited government restrained by the Constitution (in most cases)."

Of course, if he can pick and choose what to keep, add or throw away, what makes it wrong for anyone else to do the same?

I'd clarify that he's for govt restrained by some constitution, just not the current incarnation of the U.S. butt-wipe version, in which he has issues with the court's role, the 17th amendment, the 16th amendment, and the Congressional attitude of indifference towards whether their actions are constitutional.

You're right that he picks and chooses, and this should be the perfect illustration that an-cap "governments" are needed to assign a profit-loss structure to what constitutions are the best suited for protecting the rights and welfare of the people which subscribe to it. In this way everyone can pick and choose which constitutional restraints on their protection agencies are valid and useful, and there is no problem.

[fisharmor]

Are there any linkable statements that leads anyone to believe he is an anarcho-capitalist? Does any have any reason for this conclusion, or is it just a personal decision?

No, I don't believe there are any statements that would lead one - at least not one who was being intellectually honest - to believe that RP is an ancap.

He has openly stated that he wants to end all the wars and get rid of the Federal Reserve, the CIA and the Department of Education, and lots of other federal agencies. Those who are not listening closely, and (correctly) see him as a threat to their own statist plans (like for instance, most Republicans), would probably like to accuse him of being an anarchist for this reason. Getting rid of unconstitutional programs, in their mind, is tantamount to anarchy.

Of course, it is not anarchy - he is simply stating what Constitutional government would look like. But most Americans live in a sound-bite world, so I think the anarchy smear sticks.

By the way, the Friedman confusion might be in part caused by the fact that Milton Friedman's son, David Friedman, is a fairly well known author and anarcho-capitalism apologist. I haven't read any of his work yet but I would assume that he is more Austrian than his father was, since anarcho-capitalism and fiat money are mutually exclusive options.

[mczerone]

Thank you everyone. Great and helpful information from all of you.

In brandonyats statement, "Paul publicly acts as a minarchist, but many believe he is a closet anarcho-capitalist. This is subject to much debate though." Are there any linkable statements that leads anyone to believe he is an anarcho-capitalist? Does any have any reason for this conclusion, or is it just a personal decision?

Is that what some think Ron Paul is for?

There is no link, just assumptions based on viewing the company RP keeps.

RP is a political figure, so admitting such an "anarchist" belief (if true) would ruin his career.

[mczerone]

By the way, the Friedman confusion might be in part caused by the fact that Milton Friedman's son, David Friedman, is a fairly well known author and anarcho-capitalism apologist. I haven't read any of his work yet but I would assume that he is more Austrian than his father was, since anarcho-capitalism and fiat money are mutually exclusive options.

Milton also was closely aligned with Hayek, and Hayek with Mises. Unfortunately, many see this as a transitive relationship tying Milton to the classical liberal thinking of Mises, when in fact Hayek was playing both sides of the fence and Hayek's associations with Milton were his furthest deviations from the Austrian Econ tradition.

Further, how would Ron Paul's desire to end the income tax or return Senator voting to State legislatures square with taking a "Constitutional" stance? Aren't amendments to the Constitution constitutional too? Or might it be that he has a political philosophy that goes deeper than "look to the Constitution"?

I'll admit that in most cases you are correct, and the Constitution is the bottom line of Paul's stance - especially in fighting wars, coining money and educating the people. But why is Paul's view of what is constitutional more valid than hundreds of years of judges making those determinations? There must be a more basic philosophical basis for Paul's views, and you are lying to yourself if you claim he doesn't base his views from an ideal "zero aggression" model, which is at heart indistinguishable from ancapism.

Choosing to rely on the Constitution is RP's pragmatic application of his ancap principles in a collectivized, statist world.

[BillyDkid]

No he isn't.

He is "for a limited government restrained by the Constitution (in most cases)."

Of course, if he can pick and choose what to keep, add or throw away, what makes it wrong for anyone else to do the same?I think an important point that many people miss is that Dr. Paul's primary concern is with the rule of law as opposed to the rule of men. His argument is that if we have a Constitution we should follow it and if there are things wrong with it, we should change it, not ignore it. I think the Constitution is a pretty good document, but regardless of how I might feel about it, it's the law of the land and should be followed.

[romacox]

I am enjoying the learning, and thanks to almost all of you for keeping it respectful. When one resorts to insults it is because they can not continue an intelligent presentation.

[mczerone]

I think an important point that many people miss is that Dr. Paul's primary concern is with the rule of law as opposed to the rule of men. His argument is that if we have a Constitution we should follow it and if there are things wrong with it, we should change it, not ignore it. I think the Constitution is a pretty good document, but regardless of how I might feel about it, it's the law of the land and should be followed.

Then how does RP's call for peaceful civil disobedience square with this "law of the land" talk?

"Laws of the land" are unjust if they are not made by the men who own such land - and unless you are willing to concede that Fed and State govts own all of their territory (and you don't own yours), there can be no just laws. It was the law of the land once that first born males should be slaughtered, that all but the first born male was prohibited, that all people who subscribed to certain religious or political beliefs should be killed. Because those too were "laws of the land", should they have then been followed?

[constituent]

I think the Constitution is a pretty good document, but regardless of how I might feel about it, it's the law of the land and should be followed.

I agree...

[low preference guy]

For the record, I believe that Ron Paul is NOT a closet anarchist. I'm guessing that's just anarchist's wishful thinking. It's true that he has many friends that are anarchists, but he also calls Barney Frank a friend. That doesn't mean he is a closet **** or socialist.

There is nothing in his statements that makes me suspect he is an anarchist. From my interpretation he consistently support a small government restrained by a constitution. I think it'd be accurate to say that RP wants the state to protect men against fraud and force, and get rid of everything that's not for that purpose (the Fed, Department of Education, etc...)

[low preference guy]

To reinforce the points made about Friedman: He is a statist on monetary policy. He wants prices to fluctuate freely, except for the most important price: the price of money.

[LibertyMage]

Tell me if I am correct in this, and please expound as I am trying to learn.

3. Ron Paul is for a limited government restrained by the Constitution, but some Austrian economists disagree saying that allowing any government is eventually doomed to failure as per history. Didn't Karl Marx, "in the Communist Manifesto", ultimately seek "no government" via the path of Socialism first?

hugolp addressed your points pretty thoroughly. The only item that can be elaborated on a little more is point three.

When introduced into libertarianism, most people are drawn towards The Constitution as it has great historical appeal and is one of the principle founding documents of this country. It is also a keystone to a Republics, a form of government where rights are guaranteed as opposed to Direct Democracies where everything is up for vote.

As time passes libertarians come to the conclusion that The Constitution has never limited government to the enumerated powers it was initially granted. The "Rule of Law" is ignored and government grows to have power over everything. This is true of our current American government.

This is the minarchism vs. anarchism argument that you find in the libertarian/small government debate. Most libertarians would probably be comfortable with a government that was held to its Constitutional limits. However, this never occurs and some libertarians advocate anarchism as a political absolute. These individuals assert that the only way for society to function properly is through private organizations.

Marxist/Leninist theory asserts that government is illegitimate and that its only function is to facilitate the overthrow of private property rights.

From the Communist Manifesto:


The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

There is also very relevant information in this book but I can't the quote right now.

http://www.amazon.com/Moulding-Communists-Training-Communist-Cadre/dp/B000H5EMC0

[romacox]

Question to anarchists

1. Are some of you simply anarchist. I mean are some of you for no governing power, not even business?

2. For those who are anarchist-capitalist, If I understand, you would have Corporations be the governing power (If I am wrong please correct me). If that is the case, is there any check and balance to keep them from abusing their powers anymore than our present government? If so please explain.

[Epic]

Tell me if I am correct in this, and please expound as I am trying to learn.

1. Mises institute teaches Austrian Economics, and Ron Paul is a proponent of that

2. Austrian economics (as taught in the Mises institute) is about free markets, but there are different schools (depending on who's ideas you study) varying from no government to limited government (like in the Constitution).

3. Ron Paul is for a limited government restrained by the Constitution, but some Austrian economists disagree saying that allowing any government is eventually doomed to failure as per history. Didn't Karl Marx, "in the Communist Manifesto", ultimately seek "no government" via the path of Socialism first?

4. Milton Friedman claimed to promote Austrian economics but his own version which taught the "Trickle Down theory" which is what Ron Paul calls "Corporatism.

I know this sounds pretty elementary to some of you, but I have my areas of expertise, and economics is not one of them. So please educate me. In this thread I know there will be some disagreements, but let us please do that respectfully...no put down of others or their ideas. ..just explain yours. Thank you

1 - correct
2 - there are competing traditions within austrian economics, but they are within the field of economics, not political theory. Economics is not political theory, it is value-free. There is not stateless-society economics and then government-society economics. There is just economics.
3 - correct, though i think ron paul may be cool with voluntarism, but he can't just come out and say it.
4 - totally INCORRECT - milton friedman is generally a free marketer, absolutely nothing to do with "corporatism", absolutely nothing to do with "trickle down" (no one even knows what that means, everybody has a different definition). He was associated with the CHICAGO SCHOOL, not austrian school.

[romacox]

Question to anarchists

1. Are some of you simply anarchist. I mean are some of you for no governing power, not even business?

2. For those who are anarchist-capitalist, If I understand, you would have Corporations be the governing power (If I am wrong please correct me). If that is the case, is there any check and balance to keep them from abusing their powers anymore than our present government? If so please explain.

Can the Anarchists answer this one for me?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Tell me if I am correct in this, and please expound as I am trying to learn.

1. Mises institute teaches Austrian Economics, and Ron Paul is a proponent of that

2. Austrian economics (as taught in the Mises institute) is about free markets, but there are different schools (depending on who's ideas you study) varying from no government to limited government (like in the Constitution).

3. Ron Paul is for a limited government restrained by the Constitution, but some Austrian economists disagree saying that allowing any government is eventually doomed to failure as per history. Didn't Karl Marx, "in the Communist Manifesto", ultimately seek "no government" via the path of Socialism first?

4. Milton Friedman claimed to promote Austrian economics but his own version which taught the "Trickle Down theory" which is what Ron Paul calls "Corporatism.

I know this sounds pretty elementary to some of you, but I have my areas of expertise, and economics is not one of them. So please educate me. In this thread I know there will be some disagreements, but let us please do that respectfully...no put down of others or their ideas. ..just explain yours. Thank you

One needs to understand our Founding Father's intertions in order to differentiate between that of the European economic viewpoint one which is quite sophisticated because it is based on an abyss of varying opinions and that of the American economic viewpoint one that is quite simple in comparison because it is based on a self evident and unalienable Truth. They thought more in terms of a necessary tyranny for the sake of the people than a limited government for the sake of limited government -- limited government for the sake of limited government is no better than excessive government.
Tyranny needs no economy. As the male lion is always the first in line when it comes to eating, tyranny is likewise as well assured and insured. Tyranny won't ever have to worry about its transportation needs. If the auto industry goes out of business, then tyranny will only have to growl and autos will be customized for them When it runs out of money, tyranny can just counterfeit what it needs and then sanction it as official.
The people are the ones who need to economize because they are at a severe disadvantage in relationship to the necessary tyranny our Founding Fathers set up to rule over them. This means controlling the economy.
Most of this sophisticated (as in Sophist), complex opinion on the ecomony is garbage because it is written by those too busy to take a nickels worth of effort to revere a natural law declared by the American Founding Fathers. That natural law established a self evident and unalienable Truth. It is that Truth which created our fabulous economy. If not, then our economy is false.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Can the Anarchists answer this one for me?

A necessary tyranny (government) set up for the sake of the people. This means the intentions of government is to serve the people with the emphasis on the people.
In the age of tyranny, the stark days of pimping and whoring, the people served tyranny for the sake of tyranny.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

You are mostly right. There are different views within the Austrian school, but I think they have more to do with economic theory than political theory. It is a separate question whether limited government or no government most allows for capitalism to flourish. Ron Paul is for limited, constitutional government, at least in the short term, while others he closely associates with are for anarcho-capitalism. Milton Friedman is actually from the Chicago School of Economics. He disagrees with the Austrian school in that he believes in a central bank that expands the money supply each year (preferably by computer).

The people need to control the purse. While tyrants get whatever they want, it is the people who need to establish an economy because they are at a severe disadvantage to the "necessary tyranny" established over them.

[fisharmor]

Question to anarchists

1. Are some of you simply anarchist. I mean are some of you for no governing power, not even business?


I am not self-identifying as an anarchist... yet. Primarily because the ancap literature on my reading list hasn't been read yet.
As has been said, the evidence shows that limited government is a failure... so given that unlimited government doesn't work, and limited government invariably turns into unlimited government, the only logical choice if one wants meaningful change is no government.

I'm not yet "for" this or anything. I simply see the logic.


2. For those who are anarchist-capitalist, If I understand, you would have Corporations be the governing power (If I am wrong please correct me). If that is the case, is there any check and balance to keep them from abusing their powers anymore than our present government? If so please explain.

Corporations only exist because of the state, so your question doesn't make sense.

If there is no state, there is no tax, and there is therefore no tax shelter for corporations.
If there is no state, there is no judiciary, and there is therefore no liability shelter for corporations.

Without the state performing the state's functions, corporations vanish into thin air...

I don't know a lot of how anarchism would work. But it does not bother me.
It doesn't bother me because there was no way I could have thought up most of the things that make my life easier than my parents' was at my age.

That's the point. If we take for granted that thousands of people independently working toward a goal is the most expedient way to advance civilization, it doesn't make any sense to say that that system works for everything except law.

[LibertyMage]

Question to anarchists

1. Are some of you simply anarchist. I mean are some of you for no governing power, not even business?

The level to which an advocate of small government takes this belief to heart depends on how much he is persuaded by the argument that government fails on every account.

Answer for me, romacox, has government managed to keep us out of wars for the last century or has it created war and inflamed hatred toward the U.S.? Has it upheld civil rights and acknowledged the bill of rights or has it institutionalized the abrogation of those rights? Has government action provided us with a higher standard of living and a more stable economy or a lower stndard of living and economic crashes.

I don't know if I consider myself an anarchist. However, the argument is persuasive. I am also not the best person to speak for the merits of anarchism. Look up Walter Block or Tom Woods.


2. For those who are anarchist-capitalist, If I understand, you would have Corporations be the governing power (If I am wrong please correct me). It that is the case, is there any check and balance to keep them from abusing their powers anymore than our present government? If so please explain.

I think the correct term is anarco-capitalist.

The anarco-capitalist view towards economics is that government does nothing but destabilize the economy by distorting market signals. The "check and balance" to prevent the abuse of power is in market forces that bring markets back to equilibrium.

The housing bubble is a good example of how distorted market signals cause economic distortions and malinvestment. In a unregulated free market, floating prices regulate market activity. In a financial market, such as mortgage lending, the market is regulated by interest rates as the interest rate is the price of money. When savings (the supply of capital available for lending) is too scarce the interest rate increases. This higher interest rate increases savings and decreases lending (the demand for lending), bringing the market back to equilibrium. When savings is more abundant than necessary, the interest rate decreases. This lower interest rate decreases savings and increases lending, bringing the market back to equilibrium.

This is just one example of how market forces regulate the economy. It example is also highly relevant. The Austrian Business Cycle describes this phenomenon:


According to the theory, the boom-bust cycle of malinvestment is generated by excessive and unsustainable credit expansion to businesses and individual borrowers by the banks.[14] This credit creation makes it appear as if the supply of "saved funds" ready for investment has increased, for the effect is the same: the supply of funds for investment purposes increases, and the interest rate is lowered.[15] Borrowers, in short, are misled by the bank inflation into believing that the supply of saved funds (the pool of "deferred" funds ready to be invested) is greater than it really is. When the pool of "saved funds" increases, entrepreneurs invest in "longer process of production," i.e., the capital structure is lengthened, especially in the "higher orders", most remote from the consumer. Borrowers take their newly acquired funds and bid up the prices of capital and other producers' goods, stimulating a shift of investment from consumer goods to capital goods industries. The preference by entrepreneurs for longer term investments can be shown graphically by using any discounted cash flow model. Essentially lower interest rates increase the relative value of cash flows that come in the future. When modelling an investment opportunity, if interest rates are artificially low, entrepreneurs are led to believe the income they will receive in the future is sufficient to cover their near term investment costs. In simple terms, investments that would not make sense with a 10% cost of funds become feasible with a prevailing interest rate of 5% (and may become compelling for many entrepreneurs with a prevailing interest rate of 2%).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_business_cycle_theory

It just so happens that the Federal Reserve has holding the federal funds rate at "historic lows", which is a major abrogation of the market signals in the financial industry. These distorted signals caused lenders to over-lend and borrowers to over-borrow. This phenomenon is called malinvestment, as described above.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Yes.



Austrian economics is about economics and defends the free market as the best system, but for the rest you are confusing economical theory with political theory, wich would be libertarianism. Now, it is true, that most followers of austrian economics are libertarians and most libertarians follow austrian economics, but they are different things. One is economic theory (austrian economics) and the other is political theory (libertarianism). Inside libertarian political theory there are different options, like the ones you said.




The no-goverment version that an-caps, mutualist, agorist, etc... (all the libertarians that want no goverment) desire and are looking for is very different than the no-goverment version that Marx advocated for (mainly the difference is private property).



No. Milton Friedman is a Monetarist, wich is completely different from Austrian economics.



Hope I was clear enough, but ask again if you have more doubts.

Our nation's great economy happened as a result of the self evident and unalienable Truth declared by our Founding Fathers, one which was established on a natural law. This natural law established the people's Civil Purpose. Civil purpose trumps legal precedence because the natural law declared by our Founding Fathers is derived from the Almighty while the Constitution, the necessry tyranny they created to rule over the people, is just the supreme law of the land.
Our Civil Purpose sits us as one nation at a single dinner table, not as the three classes of old, these being the master, the slave, and the outcaste, sitting at three.
Therefore, the people must own the purse!

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I think you guys covered his points pretty well.

Just to reiterate, Friedman followed the chicago school, not Austrian School.

And Paul publicly acts as a minarchist, but many believe he is a closet anarcho-capitalist. This is subject to much debate though.

If our great economy is based on a self evident and unalienable Truth, then we the people have no need of an expert economist.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Thank you everyone. Great and helpful information from all of you.

In brandonyats statement, "Paul publicly acts as a minarchist, but many believe he is a closet anarcho-capitalist. This is subject to much debate though." Are there any linkable statements that leads anyone to believe he is an anarcho-capitalist? Does any have any reason for this conclusion, or is it just a personal decision?

Here is what I found on anarcho-capatilist.
Definition: Anarcho-capitalism is the polar opposite of pure socialism. Instead of having everything under collective ownership, anarcho-capitalism as a system would have everything under private ownership. All military, law enforcement, and social services organizations would be privately owned and operated, and could compete with one another for customers.

Founder: The argument could be made that anarcho-capitalism is the default form of government, arising in any situation where despotism has not arisen or has not yet arisen. The first so-documented historical example of an anarcho-capitalist society might be that of ancient Israel in the years leading up to the monarchy ("In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit." -- Judges 21:25), other examples being medieval Iceland and the American Old West. But the first person to formulate anarcho-capitalism as a political philosophy was the 20th-century Austrian economist Murray Rothbard, who found his inspiration in the pre-Revolutionary but semi-postcolonial, trade-oriented governments of

Advantages of Anarcho-Capitalism: In theory, there's nothing a government can do that a private corporation can't do just as well.

Limitations of Anarcho-Capitalism: In practice, a sufficiently powerful private corporation becomes a government. Panama under Manuel Noriega, in which the government briefly operated as a component of his international drug operation, is a good case in point.

Current Advocates of Anarcho-Capitalism: The Molinari Institute
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/libertarianpolitics/g/Anarcho-Capitalism-Definition.htm

Is that what some think Ron Paul is for?

American economy: All men are created equal whether he be a bright faced king sitting on the throne as the owner of everything or she be a dark faced, trespassing prostitute owning nothing. According to natural law, the Truth is self evident and unalienable to the extent that both of these inversions and every human being existing between them were/are born having the same exact business agenda!

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Question to anarchists

1. Are some of you simply anarchist. I mean are some of you for no governing power, not even business?

2. For those who are anarchist-capitalist, If I understand, you would have Corporations be the governing power (If I am wrong please correct me). If that is the case, is there any check and balance to keep them from abusing their powers anymore than our present government? If so please explain.

No, I'm an Anarcho-Capitalist and I haven't seen anyone espousing no Government. Anarcho-Capitalists call for the abolishment of the State, not of Government (Government as understood and defined as law and order)

No. Corporations only exist because of the State. They are a State creation. There undoubtedly would be Joint-Stock companies, and there is nothing wrong with that. The Governing power would be the free-market. I can only imagine the types of judicial systems that would arise (like they did in the Old West). The check and balance is the free-market, your pocket book, and unbridled entreprenuership. Secondly, one major check, is no one would believe in the ultimate legitimacy of law violation by these entities. Not so in the case of the State. People still believe the State is legitimate even though it breaks every law.

Of course, I imagine some would abuse their "power", but it would be short-lived at best. In any event the whole sticking point to Voluntaryism/Anarcho-Capitalism is that you have a society that values private property, and not theft. It will only work in a society who cherishes private property.

[romacox]

When we worked on my fathers cattle ranch in Klondike Arizona, we were 50 miles from any town or city services. We functioned basically without any government. We were our own government... the police, fire fighters etc.

Once we had a big forest fire (fires in Arizona spread like gasoline was poured on them). With no city services we used a phone chain, and Ranchers I had never met, came from everywhere to assist. With no one to govern us, we worked more efficiently than any city service I have ever witnessed. One even had a community water wagon.

We did the same when a prisoner escaped to our area, and kidnapped a Rancher's wife. Much like the old west the ranchers set up a road block, captured the kidnapper (the woman jumped from the speeding car), and beat him up real good. when the sheriff arrived the ranchers said he injured himself trying to get away. The sheriff laughed, and said, "I knew you guys could take care of matters". :)

So I know how beautifully no government works in small groups. The trappers of the old west lived that way.

But my experience as a business owner in the big city has been very different. Granted it is not under the same conditions as an anarco-capitalist describes. Allow me to give you an example (one of many such).

When small companies hired us, they always appreciated us letting them know if they had ordered something that was not in their customers best interest. (small companies are disappearing due to government regulation that favors large corporations) Small local businesses live in the community, and their existence depends on their reputation which they protect.

Very large corporations are different, and see subcontractors and customers as numbers in their bottom line. One large company (unnamed for my protection) that many of you likely shop at hired us to install a sliding glass door. We informed them their salesman had ordered a door that was too tall, and because installing it would require us to cut into the beam of a load bearing wall that held the roof up, we recommended they order the correct size door. They said install it anyway. We refused explaining that it would not only compromise the structure of the home, but within a year the door would no longer operate due to the weight of the roof settling. (You see we are a small company interested in protecting our reputation) They had it installed anyway by another company, and never informed the customer about the consequences.

How would an anarco-capitalist system change that experience with the large company? I am not seeing a check and balance for this sort of thing. How is respect for private property upheld or enforced?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

When we worked on my fathers cattle ranch in Klondike Arizona, we were 50 miles from any town or city services. We functioned basically without any government. We were our own government... the police, fire fighters etc.

Once we had a big forest fire (fires in Arizona spread like gasoline was poured on them). With no city services we used a phone chain, and Ranchers I had never met, came from everywhere to assist. With no one to govern us, we worked more efficiently than any city service I have ever witnessed. One even had a community water wagon.

We did the same when a prisoner escaped to our area, and kidnapped a Rancher's wife. Much like the old west the ranchers set up a road block, captured the kidnapper (the woman jumped from the speeding car), and beat him up real good. when the sheriff arrived the ranchers said he injured himself trying to get away. The sheriff laughed, and said, "I knew you guys could take care of matters". :)

So I know how beautifully no government works in small groups. The trappers of the old west lived that way.

But my experience as a business owner in the big city has been very different. Granted it is not under the same conditions as an anarco-capitalist describes. Allow me to give you an example (one of many such).

When small companies hired us, they always appreciated us letting them know if they had ordered something that was not in their customers best interest. (small companies are disappearing due to government regulation that favors large corporations) Small local businesses live in the community, and their existence depends on their reputation which they protect.

Very large corporations are different, and see subcontractors and customers as numbers in their bottom line. One large company (unnamed for my protection) that many of you likely shop at hired us to install a sliding glass door. We informed them their salesman had ordered a door that was too tall, and because installing it would require us to cut into the beam of a load bearing wall that held the roof up, we recommended they order the correct size door. They said install it anyway. We refused explaining that it would not only compromise the structure of the home, but within a year the door would no longer operate due to the weight of the roof settling. (You see we are a small company interested in protecting our reputation) They had it installed anyway by another company, and never informed the customer about the consequences.

How would an anarco-capitalist system change that experience with the large company? I am not seeing a check and balance for this sort of thing. How is respect for private property upheld or enforced?

You are coming about this all wrong. Why is it expected that An-Cap's solve every little thing in the world, and if we mess up in one area its a failure, yet the State is expected to do nothing right and if it does one thing right it is a success! I do not understand this. Accordingly, even if we did not have a solution (we do) for this problem doesn't disqualify the theory because the State doesn't do anything in that matter either (protection from these damages)!

In any event in the An-Cap society you would simply bring a civil suit against the company for damages. Today, the State protects these corporations and you are not allowed to file suit for restitution of damages. Pretty simple. Besides in an An-Cap society, these large corps. and companies would not exist and in the latter its highly doubted how much influence they would have anyways since the larger a company gets the more bloated and inefficient allowing for local competitors to out compete especially when there is zero additional costs foistered upon them.

[Brett]

2. For those who are anarchist-capitalist, If I understand, you would have Corporations be the governing power (If I am wrong please correct me). If that is the case, is there any check and balance to keep them from abusing their powers anymore than our present government? If so please explain.

If a business starts taking over too much power or abuses its power, people can simply stop buying from them and purchase that product somewhere else. Unlike today's big businesses that get bailouts when the people speak

[romacox]

In any event in the An-Cap society you would simply bring a civil suit against the company for damages. Today, the State protects these corporations and you are not allowed to file suit for restitution of damages. Pretty simple. Besides in an An-Cap society, these large corps. and companies would not exist and in the latter its highly doubted how much influence they would have anyways since the larger a company gets the more bloated and inefficient allowing for local competitors to out compete especially when there is zero additional costs foistered upon them.

So does that mean there would be some of court system, and who organizes that? Small towns during the so called "wild West", organized their own form of law. But that was organized government (on a small scale) just the same. So are you saying people organize separate small governments as the need arises (much like the ranchers did when they paid for a community water wagon, and had one person house and maintain it ?) I know I am probably asking some simple questions, but I am not quite getting the concept.

Brett writes: "If a business starts taking over too much power or abuses its power, people can simply stop buying from them and purchase that product somewhere else. Unlike today's big businesses that get bailouts when the people speak" I see that point

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

So does that mean there would be some of court system, and who organizes that? Small towns during the so called "wild West", organized their own form of law. But that was organized government (on a small scale) just the same. So are you saying people organize separate small governments as the need arises (much like the ranchers did when they paid for a community water wagon, and had one person house and maintain it ?) I know I am probably asking some simple questions, but I am not quite getting the concept.

Brett writes: "If a business starts taking over too much power or abuses its power, people can simply stop buying from them and purchase that product somewhere else. Unlike today's big businesses that get bailouts when the people speak" I see that point

Judicial services would be organized by companies, most likely in some kind of insurance/DRO concept, but no one can adequately know for sure what would arise. This is the beauty of free-markets and spontaneous order.

Yes, there would be courts and law. They would be like any other company providing a good/service. It's not really that complicated.

Romacox please listen to this in full then respond.

YouTube - A Private Law Society (by Hans Hoppe) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzglDS88u50)

[cheapseats]

Yes, there would be courts and law. They would be like any other company providing a good/service. It's not really that complicated.



Indeed it is NOT complicated.

Administering Justice (check out some o' the glee in a thread that addressed not WHETHER but how MUCH punishment to mete out to women) is NOT like any other company making or servicing Widgets.

As capricious and corrupt as is our Legal System has become or always was -- who can tell and who cares? -- the notion of Free Market Justice is quintessentially a case of jumping out of the frying pan into the fire. How much Resolution/Justice can you afford?

Chronic mismanagement of affairs by Government EMPLOYEES speaks directly to our refusal to hold White Collar Criminals AND Podunks accountable. Being a Government Employee means NEVER BEING FIRED FOR DOING A SHITTY JOB.

Chris Dodd, PERFECT example. Skulking off to enjoy ILL-GOTTEN GAINS. Where is the front page story about his "V.I.P. Friend of Anthony" loan? Kent Conrad got one, too -- FOR A VACATION HOME, WHILE HOMELESSNESS SOARS. Conflict of interest, anyone? Trading on one's office?

Prosecute White Collar Criminals -- private AND public. Strip them of pensions and ill-gotten gains. Condemn them to Government Issue instead of Country Club penitentiaries. My contention is that half a dozen of them won't have to be raped before there is a nationwide call for reform of our DRACONIAN prison system.

You'd see Change in Government, mark my words, IF the People would buck up and play Hardball.

Not that we have the balls to go after anyone but punks but, if we did, how would the non-aggression society countermand the INEVITABLE arousal of Ambition unto MIGHT MAKES RIGHT amongst the DRO's? Shop elsewhere, that's it? As though the DRO'S don't become Entities in their own "right," with interests of their OWN to protect?

[Dieseler]

Yar!

[fisharmor]

If a business starts taking over too much power or abuses its power, people can simply stop buying from them and purchase that product somewhere else. Unlike today's big businesses that get bailouts when the people speak

The current example we have to look toward for what businesses would look like in an anarchist society is... pornography.

Porn has a serious social stigma attached to it. Partly because of that, pornographers are generally not the type to go running to the law to settle their problems. There is no copyright enforcement (or even original claim) in most cases.

When someone rips off a porno movie and puts it online, the pornographers who made that movie are faced with a choice: either go to the law and cause a stink, and take the chance that the law will turn on them (they know it will), or, they can make more porn, and therefore more money from a new product. Either gamble with the law, or go and compete.

It is no accident that internet porn is the first industry to adopt new web technology. It is no accident that you probably can't name a single huge porn company, and if you can, I'm pretty sure you can't name any dirty corporate tricks they've pulled (aside from those tricks involved in the business, that is).

Anyone with a camera and a web connection can get into pornography, and large porn companies have to deal with thousands of competitors. If it weren't for state controls, it would be the same way with every other industry: large corporations would be impossible to maintain, because in a business environment which is that cutthroat, anyone with a great idea and some free time can outcompete a large corporation.

Unless, of course, they have violated some bullshit law that the large corporation lobbied for, in which case, they go to jail for basically trying to bring balance to the situation.

[romacox]

I have read every post, but have yet to listen to the video from Austrian Econ Disciple. But I am following you. I will get back with all of you as soon as I get a chance to listen to the video.

[romacox]

I could not hear parts of the video very well, so I did a bit of research on line concerning Hans Hoppe, and found this (among other things) :
"Conflict is not unavoidable but possible. However, it is nonsensical to consider the institution of a state as a solution to the problem of possible conflict, because it is precisely the institution of a state which first makes conflict unavoidable and permanent. " Conflict is not unavoidable but possible. However, it is nonsensical to consider the institution of a state as a solution to the problem of possible conflict, because it is precisely the institution of a state which first makes conflict unavoidable and permanent. " http://mises.org/daily/2075

Please permit me to share my thoughts. I don't expect for you to agree, or to disagree...only to listen as I have to you.


first of all you do have some very good points that I did not previously understand. (Sound bites tend to be more antagonistic {create more conflict} than explanatory which pushes each of us further from our goals rather than closer to them ). Example: Those of us who are for a "limited government" probably think society needs more government services than it truly does. We do not need the City as a "middle man" for our garbage pick up. Communities could deal directly with garbage disposal businesses quite nicely on their own, and unregulated since they are more interested in not polluting the land more than the government seems to be.. They would likely come together forming small community organizations and agreements to deal with those businesses as a community rather than individually...a community government if you will.



However, I would hate to depend on business or even minute men to be prepared to defend this Country against an attack from a foreign invader with a well equipped army like China. Granted the Government is creating more conflict now than it is resolving, but that is the responsibility of the people to keep their feet to the fire, and we failed to do that...the people failed.



The people are so dependent on government services that they are not prepared to immediately return to the Constitution, let alone an An-Cap. a transition is necessary.


But, that being said, I do think we, who are for a Limited Government (as per an amended Constitution), could learn from you, and you from us.

[tremendoustie]

Question to anarchists

1. Are some of you simply anarchist. I mean are some of you for no governing power, not even business?

2. For those who are anarchist-capitalist, If I understand, you would have Corporations be the governing power (If I am wrong please correct me). If that is the case, is there any check and balance to keep them from abusing their powers anymore than our present government? If so please explain.

I think "governing power" is the wrong way to look at it. I'm a voluntaryist, which simply means this: It's wrong to initiate violence. Violence should only be used defensively, to defend self or innocents from from the initiated violence of others.

To put it simply, I believe if any person, group, corporation, or government using such aggressive violence is acting immorally, and I oppose them. I also believe in property rights -- so if you own property, you have a right to set rules for its use.

[tremendoustie]

So does that mean there would be some of court system, and who organizes that? Small towns during the so called "wild West", organized their own form of law. But that was organized government (on a small scale) just the same. So are you saying people organize separate small governments as the need arises (much like the ranchers did when they paid for a community water wagon, and had one person house and maintain it ?) I know I am probably asking some simple questions, but I am not quite getting the concept.


I think people will subscribe to security agencies, which will provide many of the services police do today. If a person is believed to have harmed another, the victim's protection agency will take the alleged perpetrator's protection agency to the court of arbitration designated for disputes between them, which is where the case would be decided (with possible recourse to designated courts of appeal).

[anaconda]

I don't know that "trickle down" would necessarily be "corporatism." I think Ron Paul considers Corporatism to be government favoritism toward firms. Ron Paul has stated that big isn't necessarily bad. And that, presumably, the output and employment from these entities is a good thing, so long as they are not infringing on property rights nor committing fraud.

[BillyDkid]

Then how does RP's call for peaceful civil disobedience square with this "law of the land" talk?

"Laws of the land" are unjust if they are not made by the men who own such land - and unless you are willing to concede that Fed and State govts own all of their territory (and you don't own yours), there can be no just laws. It was the law of the land once that first born males should be slaughtered, that all but the first born male was prohibited, that all people who subscribed to certain religious or political beliefs should be killed. Because those too were "laws of the land", should they have then been followed?The Constitution is about governing the government which is distinctly different from the kind of laws you are talking about. Law of the land refers to over riding laws which determine the way government operates. Laws against personal behaviors or laws restricting behaviors are not "laws of the land". Yes, Dr. Paul has said that unjust laws should be resisted. Has nothing whatsoever with whether or not the government should adhere to its governing document.