Ron Paul & voluntarists

[newbitech]

He isn't coercing anyone. If his actions were coercive, then it would violate Voluntaryist principles.

What is he doing to voters who voted against him? The position is essentially: "I am going to reduce as much coercion as possible. This includes using violence to get people to pay for things that you want".

Someone is trying to take away the power of this criminal organization to initiate violence on my behalf? They are coercing me!

See how that doesn't really work? He is not coercing the people who want other people robbed. He is reducing coercion.

People who gladly pay their taxes don't believe they are being coerced either, but we make the case because we understand that some of us believe in keeping the fruits of our labor. People who gladly vote for anyone but Paul don't believe they are being coerced either, but we make the case that winning 1144 delegates is all that matters.

In both cases, there is coercion by "the state" against those glad people. In the first case, it is we who are forced by the state to do something we don't want. In the second case it is the glad people who are forced by the state to do something they don't want.

Why is one outcome ok for us, but the other is not? How come coercion is only challenged when it is not to our benefit? Is there anything else that it is ok to use "the state" apparatus for? Or is this the exception to the rule?

[newbitech]

In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having ever been asked, a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practise this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defence, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man attempts to take the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot -- which is a mere substitute for a bullet -- because, as his only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency, into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defence offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him.

~Lysander Spooner

right, so if Ron Paul doesn't win, then what? If Ron Paul wins against the last resort of the people who voted against him, then what for them?

[newbitech]

Good idea, BUT... it's just so taboo?

under today's circumstances, I have to work with the best we have.

In Ron Paul's view the best we have is what?

[newbitech]

"I like voluntarism. That's what a free society is supposed to be all about." - Ron Paul

To believe in liberty is not to believe in any particular social and economic outcome (VOLUNTARYISM). It is to trust the spontaneous order that emerges when the state does not intervene in human volition and human cooperation (VOLUNTARYISM). It permits people to work out their problems for themselves, build lives for themselves, take risks and accept responsibility for the results, and make their own decisions(VOLUNTARYISM). - Liberty Defined

A free people do not use force to mold person moral behavoir, but a free people do entrust the management of social norms to the courts of taste and manners that arise spontaneously within civilization (VOLUNTARYISM). - Liberty Defined

We endorse the idea of voluntarism, self-responsibility, family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. - Ron Paul

[x] Spontaneous order
[x] All interactions voluntary
[ ] initiation of coercion

yes, I know. but I don't remember reading (VOLUNTARYISM) in there. Did you receive a different copy?

Yes I get that he endorses the idea of voluntarism. The definition he has consistently used is not the philosophical definition. He is using the root voluntary. I put the definition up there. I don't think the use of that word or the idea of voluntarism is a label for any particular philosophy. I can see how someone would mistakenly draw that conclusion, but once you start digging in to the philosophy vs the action, it's plain to see that philosophical voluntarism is much more than just the idea of a policy or principle based on voluntary actions.

[newbitech]

We endorse the idea of voluntarism, self-responsibility, family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. - Ron Paul

yes I know, but this doesn't mean, "I am a philosophical voluntarist so label me as such."

Ron Paul endorses the idea of riding a bike, so please label him a cyclist from now on.

[newbitech]

http://mises.org/books/paulmises.pdf

Without Austrian economics, I would not have had my political
career. The strongest motivating force in my political activities is to
live free since I was born free. Liberty is my first goal. The free market
is the only result that can be expected from a free society. I do not
accept individual freedom because the market is efficient. Even if the
free market were less “efficient” than central planning, I would still
prefer my personal freedom to coercion.

Thank you. So if Ron Paul's goal is self government and Ron Paul's goal is Liberty, then we can say that Ron Paul believes self government is liberty and liberty is self government. Which means that I can be FOR a limited government and establish a limited government where SOME things are provided by "the state". As long as my "state" isn't coercing others to be a part of it, then their actions can be interpreted as voluntary. Are the people in my "state" voluntaryist/ist?

The answer is, philosophically no they aren't. In practice yes they are.

[noneedtoaggress]

In Ron Paul's view the best we have is what?

Using the constitution as a tool to push for liberty so long as people won't grow up and talk about alternatives to the state like adults because existentially challenging the state is an unthinkable social taboo?

[noneedtoaggress]

Which means that I can be FOR a limited government and establish a limited government where SOME things are provided by "the state". As long as my "state" isn't coercing others to be a part of it, then their actions can be interpreted as voluntary. Are the people in my "state" voluntaryist/ist?

The answer is, philosophically no they aren't. In practice yes they are.

Not sure how you're defining "government" or "state" here...

[noneedtoaggress]

Good reading to get behind RP's mindset on his role in politics and "natural resistance to the state".

Introduction

[U]nder the predominance of interventionist ideas, a political
career is open only to men who identify themselves with the
interests of a pressure group. . . . Service to the short-run interests
of a pressure group is not conducive to the development of those
qualities which make a great statesman. Statesmanship is invariably
long-run policy; pressure groups do not bother about the
long-run.1

I decided to run for Congress because of the disaster of wage and
price controls imposed by the Nixon administration in 1971. When the
stock market responded euphorically to the imposition of these controls
and the closing of the gold window, and the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce and many other big business groups gave enthusiastic
support, I decided that someone in politics had to condemn the controls,
and offer the alternative that could explain the past and give
hope for the future: the Austrian economists’ defense of the free market.
At the time I was convinced, like Ludwig von Mises, that no one
could succeed in politics without serving the special interests of some
politically powerful pressure group.
Although I was eventually elected, in terms of a conventional political
career with real Washington impact, he was absolutely right. I
have not developed legislative influence with the leadership of the
Congress or the administration. Monies are deliberately deleted from
routine water works bills for my district because I do not condone the
system, nor vote for any of the appropriations.
My influence, such as it is, comes only by educating others about
the rightness of the free market. The majority of the voters in my district
have approved, as have those familiar with free-market economics.
And voters in other districts, encouraged by my speaking out for
freedom and sound money, influence their representatives in the
direction of a free market. My influence comes through education, not
the usual techniques of a politician. But the more usual politicians in
Congress will hardly solve our problems. Americans need a better
understanding of Austrian economics. Only then will politicians
become more statesmanlike.
My introduction to Austrian economics came when I was studying
medicine at Duke University and came across a copy of Hayek’s The
Road to Serfdom.2 After devouring this, I was determined to read whatever
I could find on what I thought was this new school of economic
thought—especially the work of Mises. Although the works were
magnificent, and clarified many issues for me, it was more of a revelation
to find intellectuals who could confirm what I “already
knew”—that the free market is superior to a centrally planned economy.
I did not know how a free market accomplished its work, and so
the study of economics showed me this, and how to build a case for
it. But, like many people, I did not need to be convinced of the merits
of individual freedom—for me that came naturally.
For as long as I can remember, I wanted to be free from government
coercion in any form. All my natural instincts toward freedom
were inevitably challenged by the established school system, the
media, and the government. These systems tried to cast doubt on my
conviction that only an unhampered market is consonant with individual
liberty. Although reassured that intellectual giants like Mises
agreed with a laissez-faire system, I was frustrated by knowing what
was right, while watching a disaster developing for our economy. The
better I came to understand how the market worked, the more I saw
the need to implement these ideas through political action.
Political action aimed at change can, of course, take various forms.
In 1776, in America, it was a war for independence from British
oppression. In 1917, in Russia, violence was used to strengthen
oppression.
Fortunately, it is possible to accomplish the proper sort of change
through education, persuasion, and the democratic process. Our
rights of free speech, assembly, religion, petition, and privacy remain
essentially intact. Before our rights are lost, we must work to change
the policies of 70 years of government interventionism. And the
longer we wait the harder it will be.
Because of my interest in individual liberty and the free market, I
became closely associated over the years with friends and students of
Mises, those who knew the greatness of Mises from a long-term personal
friendship with him. My contact, however, was always through
his writings, except on one occasion. In 1971, during a busy day in my
medical office, I took a long lunch to drive 60 miles to the University
of Houston to hear one of the last formal lectures Mises gave—this
one on socialism. Although 90 at the time, he was most impressive,
and his presentation inspired me to more study of Austrian economics.
My subsequent meetings and friendship with the late Leonard
Read and his Foundation for Economic Education also inspired me to
work harder for a society unhampered by government intrusion into
our personal and economic lives. My knowledge has been encouraged
and bolstered through the extraordinary work of the Mises Institute,
with its many publications and conferences, and its inspiring
work among students choosing academic careers.
My friendships with two important students of Mises, Hans Sennholz
and Murray Rothbard, were especially helpful in getting firsthand
explanations of how the market functions. They helped me to
refine my answers to the continual barrage of statist legislation that
dominates the U.S. Congress. Their personal assistance was invaluable
to me in my educational and political endeavors.
Such friendships are valuable, but the reassurance that sound
thinkers were on my side was inspirational. It gave me the confidence
I needed to intellectually defend my political and economic positions
on the campaign trail and on the House floor.

Summary
Austrian economics has provided me with the intellectual ammunition
to support my natural tendency to say “no” to all forms of
government intervention. Mises provides an inspiration to stick to
principle and to argue quietly and confidently in favor of the superiority
of a decentralized, consumer-oriented market, in contrast to a bureaucratic
centrally planned economy.
Mises is clear about the responsibility we all have in establishing a
free society. He concludes Socialism with this advice:

Everyone carries a part of society on his shoulders; no one is
relieved of his share of responsibility by others. And no one can
find a safe way out for himself if society is sweeping towards
destruction. Therefore everyone, in his own interests, must thrust
himself vigorously into the intellectual battle. None can stand
aside with unconcern; the interests of everyone hang on the
result. Whether he chooses or not, every man is drawn into the
great historical struggle, the decisive battle into which our epoch
has plunged us.15

And in Human Action he states:

There is no means by which anyone can evade his personal
responsibility. Whoever neglects to examine to the best of his
abilities all the problems involved voluntarily surrenders his
birthright to a self-appointed elite of supermen. In such vital
matters blind reliance upon “experts” and uncritical acceptance
of popular catchwords and prejudices is tantamount to the abandonment
of self-determination and to yielding to other people’s
domination. As conditions are today, nothing can be more important
to every intelligent man than economics. His own fate and
that of his progeny is at stake.16

I’m convinced, as was Mises, that the solutions to the crisis we face
must be positive (which is just one reason I am so pleased by the
establishment of the Ludwig von Mises Institute). He stated in The
Anti-Capitalistic Mentality that the “anti-movement” has “no chance
whatever to succeed” and that “what alone can prevent the civilized
nations of western Europe, America and Australia from being
enslaved by the barbarism of Moscow is open and unrestricted support
of laissez-faire capitalism.”17
Without Austrian economics, I would not have had my political
career. The strongest motivating force in my political activities is to
live free since I was born free. Liberty is my first goal. The free market
is the only result that can be expected from a free society. I do not
accept individual freedom because the market is efficient. Even if the
free market were less “efficient” than central planning, I would still
prefer my personal freedom to coercion. Fortunately, I don’t need to
make a choice. Austrian economics upholds the market’s efficiency,
and that reinforces my overwhelming desire and right to be free.
If no adequate intellectual explanation existed as to the efficiency
of the free market, no political activism of any sort would be possible
for any pro-freedom person. Our position would only be a theoretical
pipe dream.
I see no conflict however between a utilitarian defense of the market
economy and the argument for a free market as a consequence of a
moral commitment to natural God-given rights, for there is no conflict.
The economist’s approval of the market for purely utilitarian reasons
actually becomes a more “objective” analysis if not approached from a
natural rights standpoint. But when combined with a natural-rights
philosophy, it is even more powerful. No choice must be made. The
utilitarian argument does not exclude the belief that life and liberty
originates with the Creator. When they are added together they
become doubly important.When one argues for the free market on utilitarian grounds, one
starts with particular actions by the individual. In starting with a natural
rights argument the “a priori” becomes “the gift of life and liberty”
as natural or God-given.
The utilitarians may be neutral or antagonistic regarding the origins
of life and liberty, but this in no way weakens their explanation
of the technical advantages of a free economic system. However, those
who accept a natural rights philosophy have no choice whatsoever
but to accept laissez-faire capitalism.
Mises’s utilitarian defense of the market opens political careers for
those who believe in liberty, courage, and even dares one who truly
believes in the system to present it in political terms.
Mises in Human Action says:

The flowering of human society depends on two factors: the
intellectual power of outstanding men to conceive sound social
and economic theories, and the ability of these or other men to
make these ideologies palatable to the majority.18

Ludwig von Mises certainly provided sound economic and social
theories. I hope that my modest success in politics may encourage
others to try it, and help prove Mises “wrong,” showing that a political
career is open to men and women who do not identify themselves
with the interests of a pressure group, but with the liberty of all.

[A Son of Liberty]

People who gladly pay their taxes don't believe they are being coerced either, but we make the case because we understand that some of us believe in keeping the fruits of our labor. People who gladly vote for anyone but Paul don't believe they are being coerced either, but we make the case that winning 1144 delegates is all that matters.

In both cases, there is coercion by "the state" against those glad people. In the first case, it is we who are forced by the state to do something we don't want. In the second case it is the glad people who are forced by the state to do something they don't want.

Why is one outcome ok for us, but the other is not? How come coercion is only challenged when it is not to our benefit? Is there anything else that it is ok to use "the state" apparatus for? Or is this the exception to the rule?

People who gladly pay their taxes believing that they aren't being coerced are wrong. What they believe doesn't really enter into it, when it comes to advocating the elimination of that coercion - taking control of the state and putting an end to the practice.

Taking a loaded gun out of the hands of a mobster pointed at a person's head, lowering it and removing the bullets is not coercive just because I have the gun in my hand...

[Wesker1982]

People who gladly pay their taxes don't believe they are being coerced either

Cool. No one is using force to prevent them from sending their money to the government.

In the second case it is the glad people who are forced by the state to do something they don't want.

They can still do everything they want to do. The only difference is they would not be able to force other people.

Do I really have to explain this again? I really don't see how you can be serious here.

THIS is what you are essentially saying: Someone is trying to take away the power of this criminal organization to initiate violence on my behalf? They are coercing me!

Really. You would have to argue: Mr. X is benefiting from money that is violently extracted from innocent citizens Y. Someone comes along and reduces the initiation of coercion. Mr. X is therefore being coerced.

If you can't understand that then I don't think I can help you until you learn the basics of libertarianism.

yes, I know. but I don't remember reading (VOLUNTARYISM) in there. Did you receive a different copy?

I pointed out that that everything he said there is advocating Voluntaryism.

Everything you are saying is equivalent to: libertarians don't advocate IP, therefore if you advocate IP then you are not a libertarian. It is obvious though that you can still be a libertarian and mistakenly advocate IP. The issue of political action is still debated between Voluntaryists, supporting one side or the other does not disqualify one from the group though. Just like pro IP vs anti-IP in regards to libertarianism.

Historically, sure, maybe every Voluntaryist refused to participate in all politics. But today many people self identify as Voluntaryists while participating in the political process (by voting for and supporting Ron Paul). See: The Anarcho-Capitalist Reddit, Mises.org Forums, Philosophy Forums at RPF .... These are the largest hangouts for Voluntaryists that I can think of off the top of my head. Mises.org obviously being probably the biggest. Go over there and ask them what they think...

This change in Voluntaryist consensus on voting is because almost everyone who used to identify as anarcho-capitalists are now calling themselves Voluntaryists. MANY of those anarcho-capitalists support Ron Paul. The Voluntaryist movement today largely consists of former self-identified anarcho-capitalists. I would say they make up the majority of the group.

If Rothbard were alive today, almost everyone in the movement would call him a Voluntaryist... and he advocated political action.

So with that said, there is undeniable evidence that Ron Paul:

1. Reaches his libertarian viewpoint through a totally Rothbardian belief system (natural rights)
2. Believes all interactions should be voluntary
3. Believes all taxation is theft
4. Wants the total voluntarization of all defense services (i.e., all law would be privately provided)

In other words, he is an obvious anarcho-capitalist. Most people call it Voluntaryism now because Ancap is a misnomer but the principles of it are almost identical to Voluntaryism.

[RiseAgainst]

right, so if Ron Paul doesn't win, then what? If Ron Paul wins against the last resort of the people who voted against him, then what for them?

All I'm saying is that the logic string "Ron Paul participates in political action, therefore he is not against political action" does not follow.

[Wesker1982]

All I'm saying is that the logic string "Ron Paul participates in political action, therefore he is not against political action" does not follow.

Exactly. It would be like saying that because Ron Paul receives tax money that he supports taxation. He obviously would abolish taxation if given the chance.

This is exactly why understanding Spooner is important (as Ron Paul clearly agrees).

[helmuth_hubener]

This change in Voluntaryist consensus on voting is because almost everyone who used to identify as anarcho-capitalists are now calling themselves Voluntaryists. MANY of those anarcho-capitalists support Ron Paul. The Voluntaryist movement today largely consists of former self-identified anarcho-capitalists. I would say they make up the majority of the group.

If Rothbard were alive today, almost everyone in the movement would call him a Voluntaryist... and he advocated political action.

Your explanation is very simple, and very true. A lot of people decided that "anarcho-capitalist" was a lousy label -- stilted, confusing, and contains two loaded and easily-misunderstood terms. So they switched to another label -- a word with the root "voluntary", since "voluntary" is positive, non-threatening, and does in fact sum up the core idea of the philosophy.

This label change messes up the taxonomy a bit, but it solves more problems than it creates. It's confusing newbitech right now, because newbitech has a good point that not-so-long-ago, labeling yourself as a voluntar(y)ist had to do with dropping out of the political system. But it doesn't any more. Once he understands/accepts that, he'll understand, perhaps, why people are calling Ron Paul a voluntar(y)ist.


By the way,

Question: is anyone using voluntarist and voluntaryist as two different things? If so, what is the distinction?

1. Reaches his libertarian viewpoint through a totally Rothbardian belief system (natural rights)
2. Believes all interactions should be voluntary
3. Believes all taxation is theft
4. Wants the total voluntarization of all defense services (i.e., all law would be privately provided)

In other words, he is an obvious anarcho-capitalist. Most people call it Voluntaryism now because Ancap is a misnomer but the principles of it are almost identical to Voluntaryism.

Yep. Well, not obvious. I would say he's an under-cover an-cap. It's not evident to most people (yet), so it can't be super-obvious. It's only obvious if you're looking for it.

[Wesker1982]

Question: is anyone using voluntarist and voluntaryist as two different things? If so, what is the distinction?

In the context of libertarianism, they are the same. I use Voluntaryism because it is less likely to be confused with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntarism_(metaphysics) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntarism_(action)

Yep. Well, not obvious. I would say he's an under-cover an-cap. It's not evident to most people (yet), so it can't be super-obvious. It's only obvious if you're looking for it.

Yeah, what I meant is that it is obvious to anyone who is aware of those 4 facts.

[helmuth_hubener]

In the context of libertarianism, they are the same. I use Voluntaryism because it is less likely to be confused with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntarism_(metaphysics) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntarism_(action)

Thanks! That makes sense.

[newbitech]

I'll go ahead and bow out, unconvinced. I think HH summed it up pretty well.

In parting I will say, it's not that I am incapable of understanding or agreeing. All the points from the Ron Paul = Voluntarist are well met.

Someone who was looking up Ron Paul for the first time would more than likely follow the path I laid out and the seeds of doubt as to Ron Paul's credibility as a politician would be planted.

That is not to say people won't continue researching him. But I think it is pretty obvious why he doesn't take up the label. It's just not who he is.

I understand the distinction between the philosophies. If that distinction is on the ropes because people need a better label for anarchism or ancap or libertarianism, then I believe that is a sad mistake. I think it would be better to leave the distinction in place, to leave Ron Paul's label where Ron Paul has set it, and continue the discussion without trying to attach a politician who is working within the system to a label that is distinctly trying to effect change WITHOUT the system.

In that regard, no one has to sacrifice core principles. It can be argued that to esoteric adherence to the philosophy of voluntaryism, the distinction is worth sacrificing if it furthers the cause. To the layman however, it points to a willingness to sacrifice principle as the ends simply do not justify the means. In that regard, why tamper with the distinction in philosophies?

Why not press on without involving labels? I think that is a fair compromise and I have heard that offered albeit begrudgingly in this discussion.

I will stand by my assertions that winning the nomination is using the same apparatus to control the masses via the delegate process as collecting taxes. Most people who I know that do not support Ron Paul's ideas will say that there is no gun to their head when it comes to paying taxes. If however it turns out that Ron Paul wins the nomination with less than 25% of the popular support, the people I know who vote against Ron Paul will indeed believe that they are now being forced at the barrel of a gun to accept him representation, regardless if it is good or not.

We can't say these people are right or wrong for believing that paying taxes is their obligation and moral duty as American citizens. That is what they believe. We cannot even prove to them that they are slaves to the system, let alone slaves by force.

[noneedtoaggress]

I know you said you bowed out but I don't really get this:

I will stand by my assertions that winning the nomination is using the same apparatus to control the masses via the delegate process as collecting taxes. Most people who I know that do not support Ron Paul's ideas will say that there is no gun to their head when it comes to paying taxes. If however it turns out that Ron Paul wins the nomination with less than 25% of the popular support, the people I know who vote against Ron Paul will indeed believe that they are now being forced at the barrel of a gun to accept him representation, regardless if it is good or not.

But how is that not different from a mugger complaining that you took his gun away by force after you managed to get the upper hand? What if he even said that you could have the gun if you beat him at chess... and you won? Waaaah, don't force me to put my gun away, I wanted to roooobbbb youuuuuuu, you're such a tyrant!!!!

Boohoo, I don't believe there's a gun pointed to my head when I pay tribute and force you to pay tribute, but when someone comes along and says "hey you can't force that guy to pay tribute, you can only do it yourself" and does it through your own sacred democratic process. Who cares if they whine about it?

We can't say these people are right or wrong for believing that paying taxes is their obligation and moral duty as American citizens. That is what they believe. We cannot even prove to them that they are slaves to the system, let alone slaves by force.

Of course not, what's wrong is when they believe that paying taxes is YOUR obligation and moral duty and they have the right to extract it from you by force through the state. It's a perversion of law.


Beyond all that though it's pretty clear about Ron's mindset through his writings on the subject.

[heavenlyboy34]

In 1776, in America, it was a war for independence from British
oppression. In 1917, in Russia, violence was used to strengthen oppression.

I have a nit-pick with this. In the October Revolution (the Red-White war), the Reds believed they were using violence to oppose Czarist oppression. (they were incorrect, of course) And the American revolution is way overhyped by everyone who tries to gin up patriotic/anti-establishment fervor-and it's become a silly nationalist fairy tale with a life of its own. See: Did King George III Deserve To Be Overthrown?

[newbitech]

I know you said you bowed out but I don't really get this:



But how is that not different from a mugger complaining that you took his gun away by force after you managed to get the upper hand? Waaaah, don't force me to put my gun away, I wanted to roooobbbb youuuuuuu, you're such a tyrant!!!!

Boohoo, I don't believe there's a gun pointed to my head when I pay tribute and force you to pay tribute, but when someone comes along and says "hey you can't force that guy to pay tribute, you can only do it yourself" and does it through your own sacred democratic process. Who cares if they whine about it?



Of course not, what's wrong is when they believe that paying taxes is YOUR obligation and moral duty and they have the right to extract it from you by force through the state. It's a perversion of law.

yes I bowed out of the Ron Paul = voluntarist idea. I have stated my case, someone has reiterated my point and I have a satisfactory explanation of where the differences in opinion stem from. I can work with that.

As far as the gun in the room, until everyone in the room can get up and leave the room on their own free will, I will continue to see the threat. It should be clear, people who are paying taxes and voting against Ron Paul are in that room too, and the fact that Ron Paul is going to be in control that gun doesn't change the fact that those people still won't be able to get up and leave the room on their own free will.

Understand what I am saying here. Ron Paul holding the gun does not remove that gun, nor does it remove the threat. A lot of people will understand this when Ron Paul has the gun, because he will do the right thing. WE know that. But him holding the gun is not enough. Him disarming the threat is not enough.

People like you and me need to start walking out of the room, REGARDLESS of who is holding the gun.

[Wesker1982]

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

[noneedtoaggress]

People like you and me need to start walking out of the room, REGARDLESS of who is holding the gun.

Sure, I don't disagree with that at all.

[noneedtoaggress]

Nice! Man I love it when he takes a strike at the root...

This is one of my favorite moments this cycle:

[Wesker1982]

Promoting the NAP on national TV. HOPE WE CAN BELIEVE IN.

[noneedtoaggress]

Promoting the NAP on national TV. HOPE WE CAN BELIEVE IN.

I don't like the use of force, I like voluntaryism, that's what a free society is all about.

[heavenlyboy34]

Nice! Man I love it when he takes a strike at the root...

This is one of my favorite moments this cycle:

EPIC!!!

[Cabal]

Promoting the NAP on national TV.

Legendary.

[Conza88]

[Feeding the Abscess]

I'd never read the introduction to Liberty Defined before twenty minutes ago. Holy eff, few things that jumped at me:

Liberty means to exercise human rights in any manner a person chooses so long as it does not interfere with the exercise of the rights of others. This means, above all else, keeping government out of our lives. Only this path leads to the unleashing of human energies that build civilizations, provide security, generate wealth, and protect the people from systematic rights violations.

To believe in liberty is not to believe in any particular social and economic outcome. It is to trust in the spontaneous order that emerges when the state does not intervene in human volition and human cooperation.

And yet even among the friends of liberty, many people are deceived into believing that government can make them safe from all harm, provide fairly distributed economic security, and improve individual moral behavior. If the government is granted a monopoly on the use of force to achieve these goals, history shows that that power will be abused. Every single time.

These aren't dogwhistles, these are freaking bullhorns.

[Conza88]

I'd never read the introduction to Liberty Defined before twenty minutes ago. Holy eff, few things that jumped at me:

These aren't dogwhistles, these are freaking bullhorns.