Ron Paul & voluntarists

[Conza88]

ADAM KOKESH: So you've described yourself as a voluntarist. Can you tell us what that means for the big picture, and what your ideal society would be, as a voluntarist?

RON PAUL: Voluntary means no coercion. So if you want to change people's habits or change the world you should do it by setting examples and trying to persuade people to do it. You can use force only when somebody uses force against you. So voluntary use of information and persuading people, I think, is the best way to go; and no matter what kind of problem you're looking at.

ADAM KOKESH: Do you think we have a change of achieving a society based on those ideals in America?

RON PAUL: Not soon. We had a relative voluntary society (you know) in our early history, but steadily, even after the Constitution was passed, steadily it was undermined and it systematically grew, it grew certainly through the 20th century; that is the authoritarian approach, which is the opposite. That is: the government tells us everything we can do and can't do.

Hello forum How is everyone?

As some of you may remember.. the above is obviously not anything new. I often made the case on these forums & over here (contains the video where he says he prefers self-government as opposed to a return to the constitution).

Before jumping in (if you are so inclined) I'd suggest you don't assume any positions/strategy I hold because of the above. Simply ask. Cheers!

Edit: (additional video)

No he's not. He has explicitly said he is in favour of self-government INSTEAD of a return to the Constitution.



Ron Paul and Anarcho-Capitalism… Hint: He’s not a statist (4min+ of video).

For a better justification see this Mises thread here and my responses:

Ron Paul’s real goal is self government / anarcho-capitalism, instead of a return to the Constitution. The strategy merely differs. His role is educational, i.e directing folks to Libertarianism and Austrian Economics. He acknowledges that voting (in Congress) won’t change anything.

…

Except he’s never advocated it, when compared to a voluntaryist society. Philosophically, the question you need to ask is “Compared to what?”

COMPARED to what we have now, would you prefer a return to the size of government as outlined in the US Constitution? (Obviously leaving aside the fact that it would only grow in size again).

…

“… In the name of practicality, the opportunist not only loses any chance of advancing others toward the ultimate goal, but he himself gradually loses sight of that goal—as happens with any “sellout” of principle. Thus, suppose that one is writing about taxation. It is not incumbent on the libertarian to always proclaim his full “anarchist” position in whatever he writes; but it is incumbent upon him in no way to praise taxation or condone it; he should simply leave this perhaps glaring vacuum, and wait for the eager reader to begin to question and perhaps come to you for further enlightenment. But if the libertarian says, “Of course, some taxes must be levied,” or something of the sort, he has betrayed the cause.” - Rothbard’s 1961 Confidential Memo to Volker Fund

…

“But one must use democratic means only for defensive purposes; that is, one may use an antidemocratic platform to be elected by an antidemocratic constituency to implement antidemocratic — that is, anti-egalitarian and pro-private property — policies. Or, to put it differently, a person is not honorable because he is democratically elected. If anything, this makes him a suspect. Despite the fact that a person has been elected democratically, he may still be a decent and honorable man; we have heard one before.” - What Must be Done, Hoppe

…

“In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written.” ~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

…

“Ideas are the only things that count, and politicians are, for the most part, pretty much irrelevant,” Ron Paul told the London Independent in December.

If Canada and the United States can be separate nations without being denounced as being in a state of impermissible "anarchy," why may not the South secede from the United States? New York State from the Union? New York City from the state? Why may not Manhattan secede? Each neighborhood? Each block? Each house? Each person? But, of course, if each person may secede from government, we have virtually arrived at the purely free society, where defense is supplied along with all other services by the free market and where the invasive State has ceased to exist. — Murray N. Rothbard

Also check out this amazing thread: Ron Paul and Private Courts, which lays out the case emphatically. In addition to this Ron Paul in his new book, Liberty Defined recommends reading Democracy: The God that Failed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe & Abolish Government by Lysander Spooner. *Check the Democracy section. Two great reads .