Ron Paul is very clear. He is NOT an Anarcho-Capitalist

[heavenlyboy34]

No, they would rather insist that Honorable Dr. Paul is a liar.

I doubt they're saying that. Conza, et al, usually argue that RP doesn't call himself an ancap for strategic reasons. That's not the same as calling him a liar.

I doubt he's a true an-cap too, but he has referred to himself as "libertarian" in some interviews and "conservative" in others. Perhaps no single label fits him?

 

[specsaregood]

I doubt they're saying that. Conza, et al, usually argue that RP doesn't call himself an ancap for strategic reasons. That's not the same as calling him a liar.

Look 2 posts above mine. Here,I'll help you out.

I'd probably lie in his spot too. If someone asked Tom on CSPAN if he was an anarchist he'd probably say no too. I wonder why? Does it make him not an anarchist?

Sure sounds like calling him a liar.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Look 2 posts above mine. Here,I'll help you out.

Sure sounds like calling him a liar.

Thnx. I just skimmed the thread and missed that.

 

[Wesker1982]

Ron Paul's goals have not changed. If someone asked him while he was in congress or during his presidential run if he were an anarchist, he would have definitely said no. It is no different now that he is out of the government. He is still trying to appeal to the masses, and you don't do that by calling yourself an anarchist.

The conversation really isn't new. This came up before on here.. Ron had said before that he was not an anarchist, on Hannity I think it was. The thread is around if you want to find it.

Tom put Ron on the spot. From there, Ron could either:

A. Alienate Minarchists

or

B. Have a bunch of ancaps shrug

Which group is bigger, and which group is Ron Paul aiming at?

It would be more interesting and constructive if Tom then asked Ron what would happen if people want to secede without moving, and then start up their own competing and voluntarily funded defense organizations. Then ask him if he supported initiating violence against this group for opting out and competing for consumers. Yeah, his answer would be 100% ancap consistent even though he just said he wasn't one. It was a friendly interview, and Tom respects Ron and his strategy. Even if it were myself asking that question, I would not have pushed it, even though I could have easily backed him into a corner and got some real answers out of him.

 

[Danke]

So what if Ron Paul isn't an an-cap? This seems to be a thread designed to divide and drive wedges.

Because cocoa, there have been many people throughout the years who posted claims over and over again that Ron Paul was an anarchist. So, it appears to me to be germane to post this video where Ron Paul himself lays that to rest. If you want to get a wedgie over it, by all means, enjoy.

ROFL, you guys STILL can't handle it.

LE, I was born at night, but it wasn't last night.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Really good interview.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I am a strict Constitutionalist because it describes just about the closest thing we can get to voluntaryism on this planet. With refinements, we may even be able to get closer, and those are refinements I would like to work on once we get this country back where we belong. I do not believe that voluntarism would be served by anarchy, so I am like Ron Paul -- a strict Constitutionalist who once we have put the government back inside of it would like to work on perfecting the Constitution towards an even more voluntary society than it would already provide, while still rejecting total anarchy as destructive to the goal of a voluntary society this side of nirvana.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Answered, a little after the 17 minute mark.

Not really. Quit the opposite, in fact. Especially if one places what he says into a visionary model of sorts. I don't know. Maybe i didn't hear it the same way.

 

[fisharmor]

ROFL, you guys STILL can't handle it.

Actually..... I've got something for you, LE.

Ten thousand pounds of compressed giveashit.

 

[Tod]

It didn't seem to me that he answered whether it is a good idea. He said he wasn't sold on the idea that it was feasible in the short term.

I think he was just staying on "safe" ground for his son's sake. Coming out and saying yes, he is an an-cap would not have done anything for anyone except a cause a few fans to gloat upon hearing an admission.

 

[GregSarnowski]

Kokesh: "You have described yourself as a volunteerist. Can you tell us what that means for the big picture and what your ideal society would be as a volunteerist?"

Ron Paul: "Voluntary means no coercion. If you want to change people's habits or change the world you should do it by setting examples and trying to persuade people to do it. You can use force only when somebody uses force against you. So voluntary use of information and persuading people I think is the best way to go no matter what kind of problem you're looking at."

OK, so Ron is opposed to all coercion and supports strict adherence to the non-aggression principle. Any state that existed within those confines would have to be so incredibly small as to be mostly irrelevant.

 

[cjm]

You and I are older LE and the higher frequencies are the first to go,so we are no longer able to hear the dog-whistle messages that Ron Paul seems to broadcast to some of his younger acolytes in spite of his clearly stated positions.

One can see the results of a dog whistle without hearing it.

 

[pcosmar]

Because cocoa, there have been many people throughout the years who posted claims over and over again that Ron Paul was an anarchist. So, it appears to me to be germane to post this video where Ron Paul himself lays that to rest. If you want to get a wedgie over it, by all means, enjoy.

Well I am continually accused of being an anarchist,, and I do not even believe that it is possible (beyond momentary).

I do not advocate the privatization of police. I advocate the rejection of the very concept of police.
To authoritarians,, that makes me an anarchist. Though I am not.

I believe that the Duty and authority of law enforcement is in the hands of all men (and women) and that society can function without State enforcers.

I never considered Ron an Anarchist,, but to some he may appear that way.

 

[mad cow]

One can see the results of a dog whistle without hearing it.

I will stick with his clearly stated opinions of the last 35+ years and not assume he is an habitual liar,like some on this thread.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Kokesh: "You have described yourself as a volunteerist. Can you tell us what that means for the big picture and what your ideal society would be as a volunteerist?"

Ron Paul: "Voluntary means no coercion. If you want to change people's habits or change the world you should do it by setting examples and trying to persuade people to do it. You can use force only when somebody uses force against you. So voluntary use of information and persuading people I think is the best way to go no matter what kind of problem you're looking at."

OK, so Ron is opposed to all coercion and supports strict adherence to the non-aggression principle. Any state that existed within those confines would have to be so incredibly small as to be mostly irrelevant.

I am 100% with RP here. And both of us are (politically) strict Constitutionalists and (philosophically) voluntaryists.

 

[dannno]

lol, I just listened to the OP finally and ya know what he said?

He hasn't subscribed to the idea that we can just scrap it all "tomorrow".

What about the next day?

But seriously, everybody in this country should listen to that part toward the end where he talked about how the speaker of the house tells everybody exactly what to do. Then they need to be told that the speaker of the house is also told what to do.

 

[newbitech]

if he's an anarchist, he isn't a leader. Observe how none of the other anarchist are following in his footsteps. Perhaps the anarchist are still going with the whole, 'education' campaign thing. That momentum died in 2012 and is certainly dead with Rand Paul lining up for a power position.

Fact is, the man is not an anarchist. Sometimes I make analogies an metaphors to relate to others and to share experiences. At the end of the day, I am not even what I say I am. I am what other people perceive of me thru my actions.

I perceive Ron Paul to be a freedom loving statesman. He's a diplomat for truth and a champion of individual liberty and self government. Clearly the man rises above any political or apolitical labeling.

I am glad that Ron Paul has related to the anarchist, economic or otherwise. I have a lot in common with those folks, but I don't believe in civilization without rulers. We've gone over and over the semantics on this board ad nauseam. At the end of the day, I think we all agree that Ron Paul is one of a kind and the man rules over himself as much as possible. If all of us endeavored to mimic Ron Paul in whatever way we see fit, I believe we'd all be happy and comfortable with that outcome.

History will have it's own label for Ron Paul, and if it's not the label Ron Paul chooses for himself, then the historians will have to pull a new label out their posterior since the man by his nature defies being tagged. He wouldn't be Ron Paul if he was anything else.

 

[fr33]

Ron Paul's work for liberty has convinced me that both minarchists and anarchists are capable of being wrong about tactics.

Many an anarchist has said "Don't participate in politics! It's counter-productive to the cause!"
But a minarchist named Ron Paul played the most major role in educating people that became anarchists.

Many a minarchist will say "It's happening! We're going to turn this system around!"
But there's no real evidence of it legislative-wise.

 

[kuckfeynes]

While OP is technically correct and has always been true, if anything that was as much of an endorsement of ancap principles as I've ever heard him give.

He deferred as usual by saying it couldn't just be done tomorrow, which wasn't really part of the question.

He says there would be problems with corruption in competing police forces, and he is right. But the alternative of a large bureaucracy with that power is much worse, and he is right. (A perfect world was never the goal.)

And he says he has drifted more and more towards ancap ideals since taking office. (Why throw that in there if not subtly conceding merit?)

So basically, he both avoids labeling himself an anarchist while not saying anything to contradict anarchism either, as usual. Who needs these isms anyway?

 

[kcchiefs6465]

I guess you've missed the dozens if not hundreds of posts debating/arguing over or not he is one.
Its nice to have the answer straight from the man himself.

Well he basically said what Judge Napolitano has said and what I myself say.

Political labels are hard to pin.

I don't call myself an anarcho-capitalist specifically for the reason he espoused but even here I am labeled a "radical" to many who ascribe themselves minarchists or Constitutionalists.

Personally I just think I am logical and try to be consistent so I am not too worried about the labels. Ron Paul has spoken that perhaps in another era he would have been an anti-federalist. No doubt he is more aligned to anarcho-capitalists than republicans and it's more just an issue of not quite understanding how everything would work.