I made the switch to Anarcho-capitalism....what a trip!

[erowe1]

Are you forcing them to accept your system?

That's exactly what he unabashedly supports doing.

 

[Petar]

Why are you getting so bent out of shape? Is anyone forcing you to go along with the "An-Cap BS"? Are you forcing them to accept your system?

Because I honestly believe that the whole thing is another form of mind control that is used to make people politically dysfunctional.

 

[jllundqu]

Isn't using government to hold a nation together the exact opposite of what Ron Paul supports?

Ron Paul believes in the rule of law and the constitution... Yes I believe he said that on the campaign trail a time or two ()
Ron Paul is a Minarchist... his political positions are consistent with this
Ron Paul does not advocate 'no government' he advocates 'limited government'..... and so do I

 

[NIU Students for Liberty]

I still believe that government as small as possible to accomplish those few things that are necesary to hold a nation together is preferable to a nationless-faction based fantasy that would quickly be overun by the remaining governments of the world ie China.

During the American Revolution, Philadelphia was essentially the capital within the colonies. When the British eventually captured the city, did the war end? Did the colonists fail to achieve their independence from the Crown? Of course not! Everyone else continued on with their daily lives as did the militias fighting the British soldiers elsewhere across the remaining colonies.

"I think Philadelphia has captured the British army." - Benjamin Franklin

 

[jllundqu]

It's funny how people on Ron Paul Forums would just as soon imply that Ron Paul HIMSELF is nothing more than a statist simply because he advocates for small, limited government bound by the constitution and its original intent...

 

[Neil Desmond]

You noticed that it's the same dichotomy as the quote I was replying to, right?

Meh, it's just looks like a statement to me. Might be true or might be false - but I don't think that makes it a false dichotomy.

 

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Because I honestly believe that the whole thing is another form of mind control that is used to make people politically dysfunctional.

No, not mind control or some elaborate conspiracy, we (anarchists) just like peace.

 

[erowe1]

Ron Paul believes in the rule of law and the constitution... Yes I believe he said that on the campaign trail a time or two ()
Ron Paul is a Minarchist... his political positions are consistent with this
Ron Paul does not advocate 'no government' he advocates 'limited government'..... and so do I

To keep a nation together?

And, by the way, I also believe in the rule of law, which is why I am obligated to oppose the state. As far as I know, Ron Paul's belief in the Constitution basically equals opposing violations of oaths of office that include the promise never to do anything more than the Constitution authorizes. I do the same. My political positions, as a full-fledged opponent of the entire institution of the state, are the same as Ron Paul's. And I don't know of anybody anywhere who advocates no government. Do you?

 

[NIU Students for Liberty]

It's funny how people on Ron Paul Forums would just as soon imply that Ron Paul HIMSELF is nothing more than a statist simply because he advocates for small, limited government bound by the constitution and its original intent...

Except Ron Paul isn't going out of his way to attack anarchists. In fact, he's the one that got the ball rolling by suggesting people read Rothbard and Spooner, so perhaps people like Petar should direct their contempt at Ron and not a group of people who contribute to an online forum.

 

[Neil Desmond]

To keep a nation together?

And, by the way, I also believe in the rule of law, which is why I am obligated to oppose the state. As far as I know, Ron Paul's belief in the Constitution basically equals opposing violations of oaths of office that include the promise never to do anything more than the Constitution authorizes. I do the same. My political positions, as a full-fledged opponent of the entire institution of the state, are the same as Ron Paul's. And I don't know of anybody anywhere who advocates no government. Do you?

I advocate for no government.

 

[jllundqu]

To keep a nation together?

And, by the way, I also believe in the rule of law, which is why I am obligated to oppose the state. As far as I know, Ron Paul's belief in the Constitution basically equals opposing violations of oaths of office that include the promise never to do anything more than the Constitution authorizes. I do the same. My political positions, as a full-fledged opponent of the entire institution of the state, are the same as Ron Paul's. And I don't know of anybody anywhere who advocates no government. Do you?[/QUOTE]

A large cross-section of RPF argues DAILY for no government. If your political positions are consistent with the above, then we are in the same camp, and solidly in Ron Paul's camp. People here often argue that Ron Paul is well intentioned, but the Constitution itself is of no use and violates the NAP, etc etc. and they go on to say that anarchy/voluntaryism is the solution. I'm still in the limited and defined government camp, although I, too, oppose state oppression and force. I feel my statement above about 'keeping a nation together' was taken out of context. The civil war, for example, should never have happened. The states (as well as individuals) have every natural right to 'opt out' of the 'state' if they feel the need to do so. I simply advocate for the least amount of government necesary to achieve maximum liberty, but I do not cross the line into 'no government.' I would argue that a government is warranted for basic functions for things such as national defense, courts/local sheriffs, etc.

 

[erowe1]

A large cross-section of RPF argues DAILY for no government.

I have been here a long time, read a lot of posts, and never seen this.

 

[Romulus]

Next thing you know Glen Beck will call himself an Anarchist.

 

[AlexAmore]

I would argue that a government is warranted for basic functions for things such as national defense, courts/local sheriffs, etc.

What's interesting is you can bring the free market into those issues. If you have livable/arable land that is free of government, you have something VERY valuable. If you have something very valuable you can ascribe insurance and security in exchange and in proportion to the value it provides.

We already have private security forces being hired to patrol neighborhoods after kicking out the police.

We have major corporations using arbitration services rather than courts to manage disputes and contracts. They've decided it works better than courts and is far cheaper and quicker.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Yeah right, you're all a bunch of delusional ideologues.

May as well shave your heads and become Hare Krishna's...

A society with no government just isn't real.

look who's talking. A society with limited government just isn't real. A society without slavery just isn't real. (see what I did there? )

 

[Christian Liberty]

Ideal as possible? What does that mean unless you actually have ideals?

For what it's worth I'm not an an-cap. My political classification is Christian.

But actually supporting the state, calling evil good, that's not an option.

erowe, do you have any actual problem with anarcho-capitalism, or do you just not like the term since its not a Biblical term?

For the record, I pretty much agree with you, the problem is that all kinds of statists classify as Christian. anarcho-capitalism is just a word to describe the Christian view, IMO. Other terms, like voluntarism, libertarianism, anti-statism, anarchism, and probably other terms also describe this viewpoint.

 

[Christian Liberty]

To keep a nation together?

And, by the way, I also believe in the rule of law, which is why I am obligated to oppose the state. As far as I know, Ron Paul's belief in the Constitution basically equals opposing violations of oaths of office that include the promise never to do anything more than the Constitution authorizes. I do the same. My political positions, as a full-fledged opponent of the entire institution of the state, are the same as Ron Paul's. And I don't know of anybody anywhere who advocates no government. Do you?[/QUOTE]

A large cross-section of RPF argues DAILY for no government. If your political positions are consistent with the above, then we are in the same camp, and solidly in Ron Paul's camp. People here often argue that Ron Paul is well intentioned, but the Constitution itself is of no use and violates the NAP, etc etc. and they go on to say that anarchy/voluntaryism is the solution. I'm still in the limited and defined government camp, although I, too, oppose state oppression and force. I feel my statement above about 'keeping a nation together' was taken out of context. The civil war, for example, should never have happened. The states (as well as individuals) have every natural right to 'opt out' of the 'state' if they feel the need to do so. I simply advocate for the least amount of government necesary to achieve maximum liberty, but I do not cross the line into 'no government.' I would argue that a government is warranted for basic functions for things such as national defense, courts/local sheriffs, etc.

The question becomes, what does the word "government" mean?

Few, if any, of us support no laws. Some of us, however, support the abolition of the State.

Abolishing laws would lead to an untenable philosophy, because it would prevent any laws being passed that prevent the building of a coercive State, which puts us back at square one. Pacifism is fine as an individual ideology (Although I don't subscribe to it) but at a societal level, it can't work.

I oppose all States on principle, but at the same point, I wouldn't say the constitution is "useless." I regularly use the constitution as an arguing point when nothing else will work in a given situation. Few will admit that they don't care about the constitution, while many will refuse to care about the NAP.

 

[jllundqu]

I have been here a long time, read a lot of posts, and never seen this.

See post #30 in this very thread.

 

[mczerone]

I swear, you people are part of some concerted effort to influence all of us into giving up all political relevancy...

Give up your political relevancy and embrace your coming social relevancy.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I could make the same statement if "government" were defined the way it normally is... as synonymous with the State. By other definitions I couldn't say that.

I don't see how Ron Paul would support that by any definition though.... I think its pretty clear that he's a minarchist. Although maybe I've missed something. At any rate, I respect others who support very limited government, and I see no reason those who support a limited state and none at all can't work together. After all, we probably agree on close to 98% of the issues. Its when certain people, on both sides, start supporting people like Ted Cruz who are nowhere near what we want that I have to start dissenting.