Ron Paul & voluntarists

[Cabal]

David Nolan would disagree (as do I). Assuming you mean the common understanding of voluntaryism as practically synonymous with anarcho-capitalism, of course.

Voluntaryism is just taking core libertarian moral theory and philosophy to it's logically consistent conclusion. So AED is fairly correct logically speaking; unfortunately many who identify themselves as Libertarian are utilitarian/consequentialists at best, rather than moralists/ethicists, and thus many seem to disregard the core of libertarian philosophy in favor of minarchist statism. Some adhere to the core philosophy of libertarianism while not advocating the Rothbardian perspective, instead proposing a path of gradualism; and this is understandable, but the minarchy types who don't care for logically consistent moral theory don't really identify as such--I suspect Ron Paul may very well fall into the gradualism category, for better or worse.

 

[newbitech]

​

Massive Lolz to LE...

Ron Paul might not want to be going around comparing his rivals to these types of people...

The Tinkerer has a genius intellect, with extensive knowledge in a wide variety of scientific disciplines. He has a high degree of expertise in the design and manufacture of inventive weapons and devices derived from pre-existing technologies. The Tinkerer has invented a wide variety of scientific and technological devices, and often has access to these devices as needed. The Tinkerer's advanced age limits his physical abilities, and he possesses no superhuman abilities.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Voluntaryism is just taking core libertarian moral theory and philosophy to it's logically consistent conclusion. So AED is fairly correct logically speaking; unfortunately many who identify themselves as Libertarian are utilitarian/consequentialists at best, rather than moralists/ethicists, and thus many seem to disregard the core of libertarian philosophy in favor of minarchist statism. Some adhere to the core philosophy of libertarianism while not advocating the Rothbardian perspective, instead proposing a path of gradualism; and this is understandable, but the minarchy types who don't care for logically consistent moral theory don't really identify as such--I suspect Ron Paul may very well fall into the gradualism category, for better or worse.

That is more consistent with what RP has written and spoken, so I'm inclined to agree.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

David Nolan would disagree (as do I). Assuming you mean the common understanding of voluntaryism as practically synonymous with anarcho-capitalism, of course.

Disagree all you want, but you can't advocate liberty and thievery and subjugation at the same time. They are mutually exclusive set of principles and ideals. Libertarian has always meant some form of voluntaryism whether it be socialist/communist in Europe or market/individualist in America. Libertarian theory predisposes the maximization of human liberty, which ergo, means no State, no taxes, no initiation of force or aggression as permissable. Libertarianism is antithetical to statism. You can call yourself a Minarchist, or limited-Statist (Night-watchman advocate), but you do not advocate the maximization of human liberty which is libertarianism if you support any amount of Statism.

Voluntaryism does not necessarily imply anarcho-capitalism, merely the rejection of, and determination against Statism in any form, and instead advocation for the complete voluntary society of the individuals choosing. Some say anarchy without adjective, some say Voluntaryist, others say Autarchist, the point is that each individual is autonomous, free, and sovereign and no human has the authority, moral imperative or otherwise to subjugate another individual unto their will & authority without consent free from coercion or duress.

That is Ron's goal & is mine. It is always highly amusing when I run into a so-called 'libertarian' and run them straight into their hypocritical views and reasoning. At least it gets some thinking. Is it wrong to steal? Yes, they say. So, since you have no right or authority to steal, you therefore have no right to give this authority to someone else or some other organization or institution to do so in your place? No, you do not. So, you advocate the elimination of all taxes? No. /WTFSLITWRIST

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Disagree all you want, but you can't advocate liberty and thievery and subjugation at the same time. They are mutually exclusive set of principles and ideals. Libertarian has always meant some form of voluntaryism whether it be socialist/communist in Europe or market/individualist in America. Libertarian theory predisposes the maximization of human liberty, which ergo, means no State, no taxes, no initiation of force or aggression as permissable. Libertarianism is antithetical to statism. You can call yourself a Minarchist, or limited-Statist (Night-watchman advocate), but you do not advocate the maximization of human liberty which is libertarianism if you support any amount of Statism.

Voluntaryism does not necessarily imply anarcho-capitalism, merely the rejection of, and determination against Statism in any form, and instead advocation for the complete voluntary society of the individuals choosing. Some say anarchy without adjective, some say Voluntaryist, others say Autarchist, the point is that each individual is autonomous, free, and sovereign and no human has the authority, moral imperative or otherwise to subjugate another individual unto their will & authority without consent free from coercion or duress.

That is Ron's goal & is mine. It is always highly amusing when I run into a so-called 'libertarian' and run them straight into their hypocritical views and reasoning. At least it gets some thinking. Is it wrong to steal? Yes, they say. So, since you have no right or authority to steal, you therefore have no right to give this authority to someone else or some other organization or institution to do so in your place? No, you do not. So, you advocate the elimination of all taxes? No. /WTFSLITWRIST

Absolutely. I didn't mean to come off as arguing for an all-powerful State or anything close. The ideal at this point in time is Misesian micro-secession and libertarian gradualism. As more and more people disengage from the parasitic State, it will whither and die. Thanks for the more detailed info about Voluntaryism. I've read conflicting descriptions about it. Your post is overall excellent. 2 thumbs up!

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Is it wrong to steal? Yes, they say. So, since you have no right or authority to steal, you therefore have no right to give this authority to someone else or some other organization or institution to do so in your place? No, you do not. So, you advocate the elimination of all taxes? No. /WTFSLITWRIST[/B]

Here's the response I got when I used that same logic recently on another board:

Meh. Individuals make up societies, which create governments, which ideally act in the best interests of those societies. Governments are funded by taxes which provide roads, schools, police forces, etc. - things which keep life from being solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. The idea that taxation is theft is a faulty premise, IMO.

 

[Cabal]

Here's the response I got when I used that same logic recently on another board:

Sounds like thoughtless rationalization and complacency as a result of public school indoctrination to me.

Taking by force someone's time, energy, and property is theft by definition. What it supposedly provides is irrelevant to the fact. If these things taxes pay for are necessary and valued--if there is adequate demand--they can and would emerge from the market, and they would be voluntary. This is to mention nothing of how much better these goods/services would also be as a result.

If governments are comprised of nothing but individuals reflecting the will of society; then what is their purpose? If it is individuals acting in accord with one another to satisfy demands of a society at large, then it follows such things will result with or without government.

And to my knowledge, with the possible recent exception of Iceland which is still in the works AFAIK; the masses have never come together for the purpose of elevating the rich few to positions of monopolistic power which would be wielded over them. And even if this did take place in theory, it doesn't justify or validate imposing the government, laws, and debt of one generation on future generations.

From the ground up it is purely immoral and therefore illegitimate. To the State people are mere cattle with which to leverage debt upon as it wages war against any potential threat to its ever-expanding tyranny.

 

[teacherone]

Here's the response I got when I used that same logic recently on another board:

that's their favorite answer because they conflate services rendered to a tax payer with money taken from the taxpayer to give to another.

these are fundamentally two different actions and the latter is quite obviously stealing. if you take money from someone in order to give to another and provide no good or service to the originator of the taxes you have robbed him.

case closed.

 

[Wesker1982]

Here's the response I got when I used that same logic recently on another board:

These statist arguments can be refuted by a combination of three fundamental insights: First, as for the kindergarten argument, it does not follow from the fact that the state provides roads and schools that only the state can provide such goods. People have little difficulty recognizing that this is a fallacy. From the fact that monkeys can ride bikes it does not follow that only monkeys can ride bikes. And second, immediately following, it must be recalled that the state is an institution that can legislate and tax; and hence, that state agents have little incentive to produce efficiently. State roads and schools will only be more costly and their quality lower. For there is always a tendency for state agents to use up as many resources as possible doing whatever they do but actually work as little as possible doing it.

Third, as for the more sophisticated statist argument, it involves the same fallacy encountered already at the kindergarten level. For even if one were to grant the rest of the argument, it is still a fallacy to conclude from the fact that states provide public goods that only states can do so.- HHH



I am breaking up a Tom Woods video right now, one of the parts debunks this myth: "things which keep life from being solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." The myth that if it wasn't for the government, we would all be working for pennies a day, etc. The exact opposite is the truth, of course.

 

[V3n]

Rorschach test. See what you want to see. Even with the new titile, I still tire at seeing this thread come up.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Rorschach test. See what you want to see. Even with the new titile, I still tire at seeing this thread come up.

Then why bother posting?

 

[LibertyEagle]

​

Massive Lolz to LE...

What exactly do you believe you proved with that video? Was what he said news to you or something?

 

[Conza88]

What exactly do you believe you proved with that video? Was what he said news to you or something?

Nothing new, just came across it again. He's backing up the reasons I've previously said were the drive of his desire to run his campaign, i.e spread the message of liberty... and it's not to get elected, for getting elected's sake.

Thanks for the neg rep you gave way back, it book marked the post you took issue with. And this.

You're the one who then had a temper tantrum about it, and took major issue with it in other threads where it was posted. Funny, you must have forgotten all that. Want me to jog your memory?

But lets hear from someone who would be in the know. A close family member. According to Ron Paul's niece -> "He's running just to make a point".

​

2min+

Nothing at all particularly controversial... as you appear to now concede. Back then, you got extremely miffed.. (want me to go track down the exact threads?) No? Ok, great you finally "got on board" and deny your past zealous fanaticism.

 

[V3n]

Then why bother posting?

Capt. Morgan.

 

[Delivered4000]

I've just read all 40 pages of this thread.

Ron Paul is obviously a voluntaryist (the only moral system). The clips in this thread only re-assured me. I now admire\appreciate him even more.

He's a voluntaryist, but he knows that you can't go out and say you want everything to be voluntary. Most people cannot fathom that just yet. They live in a statist paradigm. I guess you could call it gradualism, but he knew the best way to do it, and the most effective, was the approach he was doing.

That being said, his 2007-2008 campaign has exploded the ideas of liberty beyond the 'event horizon' so to speak, i.e. to the velocity at which it can escape the paradigmatic gravitational field

 

[ClayTrainor]

I've just read all 40 pages of this thread.

Ron Paul is obviously a voluntaryist (the only moral system). The clips in this thread only re-assured me. I now admire\appreciate him even more.

He's a voluntaryist, but he knows that you can't go out and say you want everything to be voluntary. Most people cannot fathom that just yet. They live in a statist paradigm. I guess you could call it gradualism, but he knew the best way to do it, and the most effective, was the approach he was doing.

That being said, his 2007-2008 campaign has exploded the ideas of liberty beyond the 'event horizon' so to speak, i.e. to the velocity at which it can escape the paradigmatic gravitational field

 

[Conza88]

I've just read all 40 pages of this thread.

Ron Paul is obviously a voluntaryist (the only moral system). The clips in this thread only re-assured me. I now admire\appreciate him even more.

He's a voluntaryist, but he knows that you can't go out and say you want everything to be voluntary. Most people cannot fathom that just yet. They live in a statist paradigm. I guess you could call it gradualism, but he knew the best way to do it, and the most effective, was the approach he was doing.

That being said, his 2007-2008 campaign has exploded the ideas of liberty beyond the 'event horizon' so to speak, i.e. to the velocity at which it can escape the paradigmatic gravitational field

Hehe . Quality .

Just to clarify/nitpick ; The Case for Radical Idealism - Rothbard, I'd take issue with the term 'gradualism'. He's a radical, and an abolitionist. Abolish, IRS, CIA, FBI, Dept. of Education, Dept. of Commerce, Bring troops home end the wars, Etc. etc. etc.

“… In the name of practicality, the opportunist not only loses any chance of advancing others toward the ultimate goal, but he himself gradually loses sight of that goal—as happens with any “sellout” of principle. Thus, suppose that one is writing about taxation. It is not incumbent on the libertarian to always proclaim his full “anarchist” position in whatever he writes; but it is incumbent upon him in no way to praise taxation or condone it; he should simply leave this perhaps glaring vacuum, and wait for the eager reader to begin to question and perhaps come to you for further enlightenment. But if the libertarian says, “Of course, some taxes must be levied,” or something of the sort, he has betrayed the cause.” - Rothbard’s 1961 Confidential Memo to Volker Fund​

But yes, you can't abolish the FED over night... he keeps the end goal HIGH and MIGHTY (END THE FED), but there are transition programs.. audit etc. and case for a gold dollar which Rothbard himself helped deduce.

 

[Wesker1982]

All government is, is force.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

All government is, is force.

Such a beautiful answer. He's had some real gems lately, in the Huckabee forum and in this last debate.

 

[low preference guy]

All government is, is force.

yeah, and force is good in many situations, like when recovering stolen property.