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

[Christian Liberty]

Those who wish an-caps would disappear from RPF care.

True.

I don't think Ron is advocating for anarchism, but I don't think he's philosophically opposed to it either. I don't think the minarchist/anarchist debate is the one he's devoted his life toward.

I guess my question is really why anyone SHOULD care. Ron Paul's principles taken to their logical conclusion leads to anarchism. So what if he's only 98% consistent? I doubt I'm 98% consistent either.

BTW: This article is probably the best argument for Christian anarchy that I've ever seen. From a non-anarchist. Yet more evidence that it doesn't matter.

The solution is simple. All the ancaps here should just say they're not ancaps, just like Ron Paul.

LOL!

 

[July]

I understand what he means about police, I share the same question. I haven't quite wrapped by head around the idea of competeting police or militaries in a stateless society....because, well, police (as they exist today) are agents of the state. So in a stateless society, the nature of 'police' might be totally different. Because keep in mind there would also be free market law. Would the free market necessarily choose 'police' (as we know it) as a preferred solution for security or law enforcement? I can see how a lot of functions that police perform today could get handled by various other providers...for instance private security/body guards, private investigators and detectives to solve crimes, etc. So I don't know...maybe Tom should do a show on the topic someday.

 

[Matthew5]

I'd say as clear as mud. He's obviously been a pro-voluntarist for many years, he's just hammering out the details.

I agree, an cap should not be a system that is implemented tomorrow, or the next year for that matter. I don't think a lot of social and economical items are quite there yet (although Bitcoin is very promising).

Interesting that he wouldn't steer a young person toward politics, he's fully aware of the beast's venom (noticed how he said most people are sucked in within a year of being elected).

 

[cajuncocoa]

^^^
Blah, blah, blah.

“I have many friends in the libertarian movement who look down on those of us who get involved in political activity,” he acknowledged, but "eventually, if you want to bring about changes … what you have to do is participate in political action.” -- Ron Paul

He contradicts himself by what he says here:

Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing. - Ron Paul, May 2007

 

[erowe1]

He contradicts himself by what he says here:

That depends on context and also what was in that ellipsis in the first quote.

ETA: Also, I think the first quote has to be taken with a common sense assumption that he's not claiming that the ONLY way to make a difference is for EVERYONE to be politically involved, such that things like education and civil disobedience, that he mentions in the second quote, don't accomplish anything. It's not conceivable that he meant to imply that.

 

[July]

So, he's not a button-pushing abolitionist, but we already knew this--we've known he is a gradualist for a long time now, so this is no surprise, or great revelation. His inclusion of the 'tomorrow' caveat is interesting though. He doesn't say he hasn't accepted the idea that we can have no government; he says he hasn't accepted the idea that we can wake up tomorrow and have no government.

It makes sense, he has always made a point about how people have to change before things will change. Later in the interview he's asked about what a libertarian president could do, and he says something like he could bring all the troops home...and then be impeached. I think that kind of sums it up.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Ron Paul is a Voluntaryist

Ron Paul has re-ignited the spark for liberty in the United States and around the world. He has generated unprecedented interest in libertarian philosophy and sound Austrian economics.

The modern libertarian movement, founded by Murray Rothbard, opposes the initiation of force by anyone. In this way, modern libertarians go further than the classical liberals, who accepted the initiation of force by the State, believing taxation to be necessary for security.

This position is known by various names including voluntar[y]ism, self-government, anarcho-capitalism, market anarchism, and libertarian anarchism.

In this video, using Ron Paul's own words from his books and interviews, it is shown that Ron Paul's goal is voluntarism. He adopts limited-government positions and appeals to the U.S. Constitution as part of a long-term strategy for achieving a completely free society, absent any State.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=BoUrrlbDoVs

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

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?

The problem is anarchism and capitalism are both terrible and counterproductive labels. I don't call myself an anarchist, capitalist, or anarcho-capitalist. You guys pay too much attention to labels and ignore the ideas.

I agree labels mislead. I've also stopped using the word capitalism when I talk to people who aren't known to me as true capitalists because when we say "capitalism", others may often be correlating it to us supporting "corporatism" & then it becomes difficult to reason with them about anything. Instead, I try to focus on how only voluntary interaction can be justified, etc.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Whether he is an anarchist or not, he is responsible for turning more young minds onto the ideas of anarchy than anyone else. For that, I am eternally grateful.

That^^ Kinda like how Ayn Rand personally hated libertarians but was responsible for creating more of them than almost every libertarian scholar/intellectual/activist/etc. Irony is rather cool sometimes.

Indeed. Primarily from our exposure to - and under the influence of - Ayn Rand's ideas & ideals, I and a great many others became not just libertarians, but voluntaryist anarchists as well. Ron Paul is a "latter day Ayn Rand" in this regard - the chief difference being that (unlike Ayn Rand) Ron Paul very obviously does NOT regard voluntaryist anarchism with antagonism (in the form of loathing, contempt or "out of hand" dismissals).

Ron Paul is at the very least clearly sympathetic towards voluntaryist anarchism. It doesn't actually matter whether he himself "really is" an anarchist or not - except insofar as the question is an interesting intellectual/philosophical exercise in libertarian "taxonomy" (just as is the question of whether Ayn Rand is "really" a llibertarian or not - despite her vehement protestations to the contrary).

This matter of "sympathy vs. antagonism" is of MUCH greater significance & importance to the coherence & potency of the Liberty Movement as a viable intellectual force in society than is the matter of "anarchist vs. not-anarchist" - and I, for one, fall firmly on the "sympathy" side of that divide. As does Ron Paul.

I regard ALL genuine lovers of human liberty as my allies, regardless of whether they have "gone all the way" and become "anarchists" (yet ) or not ...

 

[Cabal]

It makes sense, he has always made a point about how people have to change before things will change. Later in the interview he's asked about what a libertarian president could do, and he says something like he could bring all the troops home...and then be impeached. I think that kind of sums it up.

Of course, and he's absolutely right on that point. We're very far, as a society, from actually embracing liberty--even here, many are scared shitless of liberty to the point of actually opposing it, despsite the hollow lip service they like to give it. Until the culture cures itself of its self-imposed insanity, there's no hope for any kind of thriving stateless society.

 

[cajuncocoa]

That depends on context and also what was in that ellipsis in the first quote.

ETA: Also, I think the first quote has to be taken with a common sense assumption that he's not claiming that the ONLY way to make a difference is for EVERYONE to be politically involved, such that things like education and civil disobedience, that he mentions in the second quote, don't accomplish anything. It's not conceivable that he meant to imply that.

and that is the point I was making as well.

 

[LibertyEagle]

He contradicts himself by what he says here:

Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing. - Ron Paul, May 2007

No he doesn't. One course of action doesn't fit everyone and in reality, a whole lot of things have to be done. No one way will be the solution.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

I didn't read every post (usually do, but pressed for time) so here goes.

Ron Paul (in video @18:06) "... I'm much closer to anarcho-capitalist than I was when I went [to congress], so I've always gone in that direction, but I haven't sorted all of this out ..."

edit: His problem with it is the same as some others, people are not perfect.

 

[newbitech]

True.

I don't think Ron is advocating for anarchism, but I don't think he's philosophically opposed to it either. I don't think the minarchist/anarchist debate is the one he's devoted his life toward.

I guess my question is really why anyone SHOULD care. Ron Paul's principles taken to their logical conclusion leads to anarchism. So what if he's only 98% consistent? I doubt I'm 98% consistent either.

BTW: This article is probably the best argument for Christian anarchy that I've ever seen. From a non-anarchist. Yet more evidence that it doesn't matter.



LOL!

1.) he is philosophically opposed, look at his career as one of the archists.
2.) people care because it's already a struggle to peel back the layers of lies and distortions about the philosophy of liberty without having to separate it from the philosophy of no rules.
3.) Ron Paul's principles don't logically conclude anywhere. The struggle for freedom is perpetual and should be regenerated every generation. This meme that THE logical conclusion of the philosophy of liberty is anarchy has been debated and struck down by using some of Rothbards conclusions. Perhaps Rothbard wasn't what he said he was either?
4.) Perhaps we are once again engaged in attempting as Rothbard did to rebrand a misunderstood term, or struggle to find a proper word to define our positions, however Christian anarchy seems to be horrendous phraseology. OED defines anarchy as "without rulers". Christ is a King. Christian anarchy? no way.

Anyways, I agree with your conclusion tho, ultimately it doesn't matter. Keep in mind tho that in the heat of the battle it's probably a good idea to bring your best weapons and best defenses. Anarchy and relating Ron Paul and the liberty movement to that terminology isn't either of those. The debate is useful for sharpening those weapons and honing the defenses, but we don't fight with grindstones do we? We fight with swords. Metaphorically speaking of course.

 

[Bman]

RP doesn't believe in the "Social Contract"? He said it with his own mouth there! My goodness! Don't tell teh conservatives around here, cuz they'll abandon RP!

Sometimes smelling bullshit doesn't mean you have an answer to clean it up or offer something better. At some level every idea is flawed.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

1.) he is philosophically opposed, look at his career as one of the archists.
2.) people care because it's already a struggle to peel back the layers of lies and distortions about the philosophy of liberty without having to separate it from the philosophy of no rules.
3.) Ron Paul's principles don't logically conclude anywhere. The struggle for freedom is perpetual and should be regenerated every generation. This meme that THE logical conclusion of the philosophy of liberty is anarchy has been debated and struck down by using some of Rothbards conclusions. Perhaps Rothbard wasn't what he said he was either?
4.) Perhaps we are once again engaged in attempting as Rothbard did to rebrand a misunderstood term, or struggle to find a proper word to define our positions, however Christian anarchy seems to be horrendous phraseology. OED defines anarchy as "without rulers". Christ is a King. Christian anarchy? no way.

Anyways, I agree with your conclusion tho, ultimately it doesn't matter. Keep in mind tho that in the heat of the battle it's probably a good idea to bring your best weapons and best defenses. Anarchy and relating Ron Paul and the liberty movement to that terminology isn't either of those. The debate is useful for sharpening those weapons and honing the defenses, but we don't fight with grindstones do we? We fight with swords. Metaphorically speaking of course.

Biblical anarchy is quite specific in its condemnation of earthly rulers. Anarchy is not the philosophy of "no rules"-but the philosophy of "no (involuntary) rulers". Perhaps "anarchy"/"anarchist" is a bad choice of word because of semantic drift has left it with an entirely different meaning than when it was originally brought into English, but it's a technically accurate word.

ETA: WRT 1 above: Rothbard was also really into politicking, but was not an "archist". You'll have to find a better way to make that argument, as the conclusion does not follow logically from the premises.

 

[robert68]

..

 

[A Son of Liberty]

I

edit: His problem with it is the same as some others, people are not perfect.

If your assumption is correct - that his "problem" with statelessness is that "people are not perfect" - then I must say I'm as mystified by his problem as I am by these numerous "others", presumably here at this website. How could it possibly be that literate people who regular this website could ever imagine that the sort of statelessness that is espoused by several of us here should in any way require the existence of perfect people!? IN FACT, it is quite the opposite! For a just state to exist requires the existence of perfect people - people who are capable of behaving absent of aberration over a lifetime without the bias of self-interest. Since, as you rightly say, people are not perfect, it necessarily follows that a just state cannot exist. And therefore, logically, a person seeking the just order of society cannot advocate the existence of the state.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Does anyone else imagine that the day LE watched this video, that night she got the best night's sleep she's had in years?

 

[klamath]

Ah... what is the true word of GOD! Soon we will have the Paul Catholics, the Paul Lutherans the Paul Baptists and a thousand other Paul etc sects all claiming they know the heart and word of Paul Indeed.passages from the Book that raises high and fiery debate, it is now minute markers from Youtube videos of the deity that the sects of paul choose to vent their engorged spleens.