Just An Interpretation Of Sorts

[LibertyCzar]

There is a difference between Liberty and Anarchy. Nothing in what I know about Ron Paul leads me to believe one bit that he supports Anarchy.

My father gave me some wise sage advice a few years ago. It's good to have an open mind. It's like an open window. But there's still a good reason for a screen. Because not everything is meant to enter through the window.

Free speech is fine. But the tongue serves an important purpose, much as a screen does for a window. Just because, in theory and practice, you can say and do anything, that doesn't mean you should. I mean you cannot shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, if it's untrue. Doe anyone think you should be able to?

The word "censorship" has become as cliche as the word "love". Whenever there is resistance to the quoting of something bordering on outer limits of common sense and reason, the claim of censorship rises up. But words have consequences. Friendships can be destroyed by saying the wrong thing. Words have power.

If you want to generate a positive reaction to what you are promoting, such as Ron Paul, you have to use reason and common sense in how you do it. I mean you could, in theory and in practice, run naked through the streets. But if you do, don't then complain if you are arrested for indecent exposure.

This is just my imput and opinion. I'm sure there will be some indignation and fierce outrage at the mere concept of what I am trying to point out. But I really think the definitions of Liberty and Anarchy have become blurred and merged.

More to the point, I do not believe Ron Paul advocates Anarchy. Nor will I support Anarchy in any form.

 

[d'anconia]

I think you'd be surprised how open to anarcho-capitalism people would be once they realized than an already minimized government would work well.

The idea of the Dispute Resolution Organization, among other things, has pretty much given me faith than an anarcho-capitalist society would both work and also is bound to be the ultimate ends for human civilization.

If you want some good podcasts on just about every subject regarding anarcho-capitalism check out FreeDomainRadio.com. They have hundreds of podcasts (all done by the same guy) and the reasoning behind the arguments is done very well.

Of course anarcho-capitalist societies will probably not spring up until the use of coersive force is no longer accepted as morally justified by humanity.

 

[beermotor]

People equate Anarchy with Chaos. Which is pretty far from the truth. Iceland was a great example - 300 years of good old fashioned viking living, without a monarchy, just an informal parliamentary dispute resolution / settlement convocation (the Althing). Course Christianity and other Vikings (Danes/Norwegians, I forget which) put a stop to that.

The point is simple: just because something sounds crazy, doesn't mean it IS actually crazy. People resist change because it is uncomfortable - that does not mean that whatever is going on now is the way it has always been or should always be. I make this same argument re: global warming, as a geologist I studied a lot about past earth conditions and I can safely assure you that they were not like this at all in the not too distant past, ergo we can expect change in the future.

That said, I am definitely an Anarchist. But an anarcho-capitalist, not a commie type. The only thing that differentiates me from Ron Paul is the idea (that he supports) that a nation's borders are to be protected. and frankly, I can live with that.