Ron Paul & voluntarists

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

If you owe $40k+ just for coming out of a womb in the U.S. it's not that difficult to envision existence insurance costing less than $40k+ a year....

[Conza88]

Cheers Conza, welcome back

Thanks! eOs

Do you really believe Ron Paul was lying when he said he wasn't an anarchist?

How about you address the posts I made earlier in the thread - which address this point and absolutely shatter your "argument". Ron Paul using same definition as Mises. Oh and Rothbard too for a time. It's a word, what does the user mean when they use it. He's using the Mises definition, that doesn't mean he's not for Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism AKA SELF-GOVERNMENT AKA VOLUNTARISM.

Hoppe:
Rothbard's anarchism was not the sort of anarchism that his teacher and mentor Mises had rejected as hopelessly naive, of course. "The anarchists," Mises had written,

contend that a social order in which nobody enjoys privileges at the expense of his fellow-citizens could exist without any compulsion and coercion for the prevention of action detrimental to society. . . . The anarchists overlook the undeniable fact that some people are either too narrow-minded or too weak to adjust themselves spontaneously to the conditions of social life. . . . An anarchistic society would be exposed to the mercy of every individual. Society cannot exist if the majority is not ready to hinder, by the application or threat of violent action, minorities from destroying the social order.[10]

Indeed, Rothbard wholeheartedly agreed with Mises that without resort to compulsion, the existence of society would be endangered and that behind the rules of conduct whose observance is necessary to assure peaceful human cooperation must stand the threat to force if the whole edifice of society is not to be continually at the mercy of any one of its members. One must be in a position to compel a person who will not respect the lives, health, personal freedom, or private property of others to acquiesce in the rules of life in society.[11]

Inspired in particular by the nineteenth-century American anarchist political theorists Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker and the Belgian economist Gustave de Molinari, from the outset Rothbard's anarchism took it for granted that there will always be murderers, thieves, thugs, con artists, etc., and that life in society would be impossible if they were not punished by physical force. As a reflection of this fundamental realism—anti-utopianism—of his private-property anarchism, Rothbard, unlike most contemporary political philosophers, accorded central importance to the subject of punishment. For him, private property and the right to physical defense were inseparable. No one can be said to be the owner of something if he is not permitted to defend his property by physical violence against possible invaders and invasions. "Would," Rothbard asked, "somebody be allowed to 'take the law into his own hands'? Would the victim, or a friend of the victim, be allowed to exact justice personally on the criminal?" and he answered, "of course, Yes, since all rights of punishment derive from the victim's right of self-defense" (p. 90). Hence, the question is not whether or not evil and aggression exist, but how to deal with its existence justly and efficiently, and it is only in the answer to this question that Rothbard reaches conclusions which qualify him as an anarchist.

[Conza88]

lol.. smiling ... not weeping...

Excellent interview, Adam!

The champion of the Constitution in favor of a voluntary society and States rights is describing minarchy.

No he's not. He has explicitly said he is in favour of self-government OVER 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.

[Deborah K]

Conza, trying to propagate anarchy during an election period (when Dr. Paul has stated in debates that he considers himself the "Champion of the Constitution"), is a bad tactical move on your part, if you want to see the man get elected. How do you expect our country to advance out of the mess we're in without him?

[Travlyr]

Ron Paul has said over and over again that he defers to the constitution when he votes. As president he would base all his decisions on the rule of law, the U.S. Constitution. If he felt that changes were needed to the constitution, Ron Paul would use the amendment process to effect changes.

Anybody who represents him in a different light is disingenuous at best, and they should cease and desist misrepresenting him.

For those who earnestly want to learn about Ron Paul, "Liberty Defined" is excellent!

[Deborah K]

Ron Paul has said over and over again that he defers to the constitution when he votes. As president he would base all his decisions on the rule of law, the U.S. Constitution. If he felt that changes were needed to the constitution, Ron Paul would use the amendment process to effect changes.

Anybody who represents him in a different light is disingenuous at best, and they should cease and desist misrepresenting him.

For those who earnestly want to learn about Ron Paul, "Liberty Defined" is excellent!

This

[heavenlyboy34]

Ron Paul has said over and over again that he defers to the constitution when he votes. As president he would base all his decisions on the rule of law, the U.S. Constitution. If he felt that changes were needed to the constitution, Ron Paul would use the amendment process to effect changes.

Anybody who represents him in a different light is disingenuous at best, and they should cease and desist misrepresenting him.

For those who earnestly want to learn about Ron Paul, "Liberty Defined" is excellent!

We've established in other threads that anarchists can use the political system as a means to an end-the destruction of statism. It seems that you are the disingenuous one. I wouldn't consider RP an anarchist, but many of his opinions are anarchist-friendly. He's more Voluntaryist than anarchist. It's difficult to put RP into any one neat category, really.

[specsaregood]

We've established in other threads that anarchists can use the political system as a means to an end-the destruction of statism. It seems that you are the disingenuous one. I wouldn't consider RP an anarchist, but many of his opinions are anarchist-friendly. He's more Voluntaryist than anarchist. It's difficult to put RP into any one neat category, really.

While we argue over the minutiae of constitutionalist vs voluntaryist vs. anarchist. The war machine continues to pound us all in the ass.

[Deborah K]

We've established in other threads that anarchists can use the political system as a means to an end-the destruction of statism. It seems that you are the disingenuous one. I wouldn't consider RP an anarchist, but many of his opinions are anarchist-friendly. He's more Voluntaryist than anarchist. It's difficult to put RP into any one neat category, really.

The disengenuous ones are the ones who put their almighty philosophical points of view before the objective - which is to get Dr. Paul elected. We are living in a David and Goliath moment folks. Know thy enemy's strengths and weaknesses. The media crushed our chances last time. Learn from it. And don't make the mistake of thinking this forum is not being monitored.

[Travlyr]

We've established in other threads that anarchists can use the political system as a means to an end-the destruction of statism. It seems that you are the disingenuous one. I wouldn't consider RP an anarchist, but many of his opinions are anarchist-friendly. He's more Voluntaryist than anarchist. It's difficult to put RP into any one neat category, really.

I'm not being disingenuous at all! Watch the videos! Ron Paul clearly states that he is working within the system and if others want to work outside the system it is fine with him. He ended the first video by stating the problem that anarchists on this forum cannot seem to learn. Keynesianism is the culprit of our day. Anarchists think that statism is the culprit which it clearly is not as evidenced by their inability to adequately answer some simple questions.

It never ceases to amaze me that anarchists cannot see that it is the anarchists who are the powers-that-be. They don't call it that, but it is the rulers who are above the law... the diplomatic immunity crowd that counterfeits money, profits from wars, socialize societies, rule the Mundanes with laws and police ... it is the Keynesians who have to go to achieve liberty, peace, and prosperity.

Ron Paul has consistently advocated for voluntary involvement as the "Champion of the Constitution." His goal is not to overthrow governments as anarchists claim. That is their agenda.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFYRH...layer_embedded


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RF1PM...layer_embedded