Deep down, is Rand actually a true anarcho-capitalist? Either way is he still OK?

[Christian Liberty]

The hatred of labels is ridiculous. The bottom line is that labels are useful for identification purposes.

 

[KingNothing]

The hatred of labels is ridiculous. The bottom line is that labels are useful for identification purposes.

Labels are stupid in this context. Who cares if Rand is a Libertarian, an anarcho capitalist, an anarcho marxist, a voluntaryist, a libertarian republican, or anything else? What matters is his voting record and his thought-process. He's done plenty to inform us of those things. Beyond "brilliant politician who works to increase Liberty," no other label matters.

 

[LibertyEagle]

No, he isn't, and thank GOD he isn't.

Ding, ding, ding. I agree.

 

[PaleoPaul]

Ding, ding, ding. I agree.

And I didn't mean that blasphemously or casually either. I really mean thank the Lord he is NOT an an-cap.

 

[TheTexan]

And I didn't mean that blasphemously or casually either. I really mean thank the Lord he is NOT an an-cap.

Ya, agreed. That would just be awful. If he were an ancap, and became President? Fuck that, right? Give us Mccain or Obama or something, anything except those damned ancaps

 

[fr33]

Of course not. His father wasn't. His voting record reflects that. What a stupid poll with stupid results.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Ya, agreed. That would just be awful. If he were an ancap, and became President? Fuck that, right? Give us Mccain or Obama or something, anything except those damned ancaps

How about someone like Ron Paul, who ALSO was NOT an anarchist.

 

[TheTexan]

How about someone like Ron Paul, who ALSO was NOT an anarchist.

The way I see it is, that an-caps and minarchists and constitutionalists and perhaps even "traditional conservative" (whatever that means?) are all close enough philosophically that we shouldn't be worried about which label is on whom.

As long as someone wants to let me have my freedom instead of take it away, I really don't care what they call themselves. We're waist deep in a shit pool of tyranny; we don't really have the luxury of being choosy about which freedom philosophies are cool or not cool

 

[KingNothing]

I'm an anarcho capitalist, and I have no problem with anything Ron Paul or Rand Paul have done in office. The differences between an anarchist, a Libertarian, and a libertarian Republican are so on the margins that they are totally trivial at this time.

 

[whoisjohngalt]

Anyone opposed to anarcho capitalism and claims to be a "libertarian" "constitutionalist" "conservative" still have some awakening to do. The Constitution was formed illegally in the dead of night behind closed doors by the bankers and their puppets. Anyone who believes a ruler should lead them in all aspects or even limited areas that are "necessary". Market failures= BIGGER GOVERNMENT FAILURES. I will gladly welcome any debates on any issues by the statist on this site.

Typically, the objections raised against an caps have a lot more to do with their methodology rather than their actual belief system. They tend to drive people away from anything resembling liberty. Many of us, including myself, value changing hearts and minds over being "right" and thus become annoyed with the typical ancap approach of throwing down the gauntlet and tossing around pejoratives like "statist". I'm damn close to one myself, but I think your post essentially proves my point.

You can perfect on the issues and still a detriment to actually achieving your desires. It seems pretty clear you are one of these people.

All that being said, I have never heard a defense of an an-cap solution to air and water pollution that I don't find laughable.

 

[Christian Liberty]

How about someone like Ron Paul, who ALSO was NOT an anarchist.

Ron may not have been an ancap, but he was sympathetic enough to those ideas to recommend reading Rothbard.

The way I see it is, that an-caps and minarchists and constitutionalists and perhaps even "traditional conservative" (whatever that means?) are all close enough philosophically that we shouldn't be worried about which label is on whom.

If by "Traditional Conservative" you mean the poster, he's more of a libertarian than a conservative at this point anyway. If you mean "traditional conservative" as a philosophy, I don't know what that is, or even if it exists. If you mean "paleoconservative" constitutionalist is probably close enough.

Regarding labels, I tend to agree that for politicians it really doesn't matter. An ancap isn't going to vote any differently than a minarchist. But, there are still fairly substantial differences between anarcho-capitalist philosophy and constitutionalist philosophy, the differences just seem small compared to the leviathan state we are now dealing with, and in the present political environment both are going to be voting "no" a heck of a lot of the time.

As long as someone wants to let me have my freedom instead of take it away, I really don't care what they call themselves. We're waist deep in a shit pool of tyranny; we don't really have the luxury of being choosy about which freedom philosophies are cool or not cool

Again, for politicians I agree with you. I don't care that Ron is not an anarcho-capitalist, and it doesn't really affect how he's going to vote on anything. When we're debating philosophy, its different. And yes, I do think its worth the time to debate each other on philosophy at times. The more consistent we are, the better.

I'm an anarcho capitalist, and I have no problem with anything Ron Paul or Rand Paul have done in office. The differences between an anarchist, a Libertarian, and a libertarian Republican are so on the margins that they are totally trivial at this time.

I think with Ron it is mostly trivial, but Rand has done a number of things that are not libertarian even from a minarchist perspective. For better or worse, those things definitely matter. Sanctions matter. Rhetoric matters.

Typically, the objections raised against an caps have a lot more to do with their methodology rather than their actual belief system. They tend to drive people away from anything resembling liberty. Many of us, including myself, value changing hearts and minds over being "right" and thus become annoyed with the typical ancap approach of throwing down the gauntlet and tossing around pejoratives like "statist". I'm damn close to one myself, but I think your post essentially proves my point.

"statist" can be used either as an accurate descriptor or as a perjorative. Ancaps (I say this as an ancap) sometimes jumble the two up in ways that aren't intended. Technically my minarchist friends are "statists" by the technical definition of that word. They're still on the same team as me, as far as I'm concerned. But technically the definition of "statist" would be supporting the existence of the State.

But, other times the term is used as an insult for someone who is exceptionally statist. We might call Bush or McCain or Obama a "statist" as an insult, whereas we wouldn't call Ron or Rand Paul statists. Technically, again, by the denotative definition of that word, they are. But when you're using it in the connotative sense, its a different ball game.

Personally, I generally understand that the connotations of that term are bad, and so I refrain from using it to describe people who love liberty and yet support a minimal state.

You can perfect on the issues and still a detriment to actually achieving your desires. It seems pretty clear you are one of these people.

All that being said, I have never heard a defense of an an-cap solution to air and water pollution that I don't find laughable.

The thing is that an-cap philosophy really has little to do with those things. An anarcho-capitalist, by definition, believes in the non-aggression principle, private property rights, and a free-market provided system to enforce these things (The third part is important because minarchists agree with the first two but want a monopoly-provider of protective services, which is the point where minarchism and anarcho-capitalism diverge.)

So, in an ancap society, just like any other society, the question that needs to be asked WRT pollution is "did an aggressive act take place?" If the answer is yes, its a crime, and would be handled the same way any other crime is handled. If not, there's no crime.

I can imagine some gray areas that I'm not totally sure about, but I don't think these things give any credence to the idea that law enforcement must be provided on a monopoly basis.

For instance, say you own the top half of a river, and I own the bottom half. You dump pollutants into the river, which then flows down and contaminates my section. Or, you dam up the top of the river to prevent me from having access to water.

Is this an act of aggression against me?

I tend to think yes, that you're damaging/stealing my property. But, I can understand how that could be debated. Either way, its an issue that could be solved the same way as any other dispute. And the solution is most assuredly not "let's make a monopoly organization that has the right to take money from everyone and has the absolute right to rule in all cases including cases where this organization itself is involved."

 

[RonPaulMall]

I disagree. I think it is quite clear Ron Paul is an anarcho-capitalist. He does not portray himself as one in his public political persona because he surmised that an anarcho-capitalist could never get elected to Congress but on a personal level, he must be an anarcho-capitalist. His closest political friends and associates are all anarcho-capitalists. Why would that be if he himself weren't one as well? It's not like there is some kind of political advantage in being associated with Murray Rothbard, Burt Blumert, and Lew Rockwell.

I've been following Ron Paul since his very first run for President when I was just a kid, and if you listen to him closely in interviews over the years it is clear he believes in anarcho-capitalist ideology but simply dresses it up in minarchist clothing for public consumption. He never gets called on it because the media finds minarchism crazy enough and they simply aren't equipped to press him on an ideology they know nothing about.

Rand is a more extreme version of Ron. Ron was an anarchist who pretended to be a minarchist to keep his Congressional seat, but Rand has higher ambitions and understands to have a chance in hell at that he needs to pretend to be an actual Republican. Is Rand at heart as much of an anarchist as his father? That's really tough to say. Rand doesn't have the public record his father had, and Rand is a much, much better speaker and politician than his father so he doesn't give away as many tells as his old man. Rand's college op-eds are promising, as is the fact that as recently as his Senate campaign he was objecting to the provision of the Civil Rights Amendment that violated the non-aggression principle. But that and the fact he is his father's son is all we really have to go on. Further complicating matters is that even if Rand is a secret anarchist pretending to be a Republican, when is the act going to end? Once he wins? After re-election? Or will he keep the act up to the grave in which case the fact he might have been a secret anarchist wouldn't even matter.

 

[idiom]

That's what happens to people who fail to uphold the Constitution?

Its what happens to people who try to doing things that are outside what is politically acceptable.

The Rule of Law is the rule of the mob in any system at the end of the day. The system is designed with the hope that the mob would enforce the constitution, but they just do whatever they do.

 

[Christian Liberty]

@RonPaulMall- I said "may not be". THat would imply that I think its possible that Ron is an ancap. I would not really be surprised either way. But, even if he really is a minarchist, that wouldn't mean that he can't genuinely admire Rothbard, Rockwell, and the other ancaps, and believe their ideas are worth considering.

Rand... the idea that Rand could be a closet ancap is something I'm not even going to consider. Its extremely unlikely, and if it were true, he's putting on an act that people smarter than me are not supposed to see through, so I'll just ignore the possibility. I think its more likely (though not terribly likely) that he's a closet neocon.

 

[Yung_Hustler]

No, and that's why I support him.

 

[TheTexan]

No, and that's why I support him.

Ya, I agree. If he were secretly an an-cap I would no longer support him. How could someone in good conscience support an an-cap?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Its what happens to people who try to doing things that are outside what is politically acceptable.

The Rule of Law is the rule of the mob in any system at the end of the day. The system is designed with the hope that the mob would enforce the constitution, but they just do whatever they do.

This ^^ +rep

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Ya, I agree. If he were secretly an an-cap I would no longer support him. How could someone in good conscience support an an-cap?

Easily. And much more easily than supporting a republicrat or democan.

 

[CCTelander]

Ya, I agree. If he were secretly an an-cap I would no longer support him. How could someone in good conscience support an an-cap?

Really. Who wants a president who would leave them the hell alone as much as possible as opposed to meddling in virtually every Spect of their lives? What fun would THAT be?

Christ! The an-cap hate around here REALLY gets old sometimes.

 

[TheTexan]

Really. Who wants a president who would leave them the hell alone as much as possible as opposed to meddling in virtually every Spect of their lives? What fun would THAT be?

That'd just be the worst. It would be awful. Doesn't matter if he's closing the IRS, NSA, etc... if you don't love the constitution you can get out!