Ron Paul & voluntarists

[heavenlyboy34]

Are you part of the Rothbard cult?

Nope. I like a lot of his stuff, though. I like Rand's stuff, too.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Rothbard: "Ron's a pure libertarian, who is not going to waffle or sell out".

Indeed he is. But by Voluntaryist standards, he is not. How do you explain away RP's support of the Constitution? By its nature, it is incompatible with Voluntaryism.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Indeed he is. But by Voluntaryist standards, he is not. How do you explain away RP's support of the Constitution? By its nature, it is incompatible with Voluntaryism.

He did swear an oath of office to uphold and defend the constitution. He also supports seeking alternatives to the constitution as we can see through his support of studying Spooner's arguments.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

He did swear an oath of office to uphold and defend the constitution. He also supports seeking alternatives to the constitution as we can see through his support of studying Spooner's arguments.

Yes, but you can do that and not support it, especially to use the office as a teaching platform (it's common for congressmen to ignore their oath, as you know).

 

[newbitech]

he's just not a voluntaryist or voluntarist.

Whatever nuanced definition you want to use, he is an advocate of the political process. That doesn't mean he doesn't share the same goals.

If he were a voluntarist, he wouldn't try to get people to conform to the law involuntarily by seeking the nomination and eventually become president through the electoral process. People are voting against his ideas, yet he persist in the race because he thinks he can win and have people involuntarily support his candidacy through the use of force.

If he ere a voluntaryist, he wouldn't participate in the political process at all.

He might like those ideas and methods, but he is not advocating them or implementing them in his life. I don't have a problem with that, because what he does advocate is and the methods he does utilize will lead to a path of limiting government to it's proper role. At some point along that path, we will have self-government and at that point, Ron Paul may decide to become one of those. He also might become something completely different. Who knows.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Yes, but you can do that and not support it, especially to use the office as a teaching platform (it's common for congressmen to ignore their oath, as you know).

I'm pretty sure Ron takes his word as seriously as possible, (not to mention it's a device he can use to expose government expansion. It's supposed to be the supreme law of the land after all.)

 

[Wesker1982]

Indeed he is. But by Voluntaryist standards, he is not. How do you explain away RP's support of the Constitution? By its nature, it is incompatible with Voluntaryism.

I support the Constitution compared to what we have now too. Are you going to tell me I am not a Voluntaryist?

And Ron says...

"I don’t criticize Lysander. His point is very well taken, and someday maybe we will mature to that point."
"It is a good idea, but under today’s circumstances, I have to work with the best that we have."

He supports the Constitution vs what we have now, and Voluntaryism compared to the Constitution.

 

[Wesker1982]

"It would be self government, as long as we accept one principle... we don't force people to live the way we want to live." - Ron Paul

Self-governance is Voluntaryism.... and obviously so is the bold.

40 min mark... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmy6g4ZgUuo&feature=player_embedded

 

[newbitech]

I support the Constitution compared to what we have now too. Are you going to tell me I am not a Voluntaryist?

And Ron says...

"I don’t criticize Lysander. His point is very well taken, and someday maybe we will mature to that point."
"It is a good idea, but under today’s circumstances, I have to work with the best that we have."

He supports the Constitution vs what we have now, and Voluntaryism compared to the Constitution.

compared to what we have now?

So Voluntaryism/ism/yist/ist do not:
advocate non-political strategies to achieve a free society
reject electoral politics
seek to delegitimize "the States" aura of moral legitimacy
withdraw cooperation and cooperation and tacit consent on which "State" power depends

So what exactly is a Voluntaryism/ism/yist/ist if the purpose is not what is stated and linked by other Voluntaryism/ism/yist/ist over at the voluntaryist.com website?

I support Ron Paul because of his unwavering integrity in upholding the Constitution, adhering to his oath, and his ideas of freedom and liberty.

If I accept Voluntaryism, I'd need to reject the laws that give Ron Paul his authority. I cannot on one hand support someone because of their integrity and on the other hand ignore my own integrity by giving tacit consent and cooperation to "the state".

I am not sure how Ron Paul would keep his integrity either if it does turn out to be that is what he believes.

Compared to what we have now? That is no excuse for not being honest about who we are.

 

[newbitech]

"It would be self government, as long as we accept one principle... we don't force people to live the way we want to live." - Ron Paul

Self-governance is Voluntaryism.... and obviously so is the bold.

40 min mark... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmy6g4ZgUuo&feature=player_embedded

No it's not. Self-government is also allowing enclaves of some form of "statism" to exist. Self government comes from within, not from without. I understand the attempt to link Voluntaryism to not forcing people to live a certain way. The only condition for self government appears to be not forcing others to conform to our way of life if they resist. That is possible in every culture and does not require other conditions be lumped upon it. Voluntaryism goes beyond that one principle, so it is not equal to self government.

Same can be said of the Constitutional form of government that Ron Paul does advocate.

If you want to associate yourself to self-government all you need to do is come up with a word that describes "not forcing people to live like me"

I'd say invent a new word, because there is so much baggage with all the other words people are trying to latch on to. throw and ist or ism on the end of it and you are golden.

 

[Wesker1982]

From wiki:

Voluntaryism is the philosophy which holds that all forms of human association should be voluntary. One of the moral principles frequently used to support this philosophy is the non-aggression principle, which prohibits the initiation of aggression or coercion.

Supporting less aggression (the Constitution) is consistent with that. If the U.S. followed the Constitution strictly, there would be much less initiated aggression. So in that regard, I support the Constitution. If I could vote Voluntaryism vs the Constitution, I would vote Voluntaryism.

In regards to voting, if you can vote for less aggression, I do not think this contradicts Voluntaryism. If you were on a slave farm and could vote for less beatings, I would not consider voting against the beatings to be consent.

 

[Wesker1982]

If you want to associate yourself to self-government all you need to do is come up with a word that describes "not forcing people to live like me"

Um yeah, that is called Voluntaryism. I do not know what you are talking about.

 

[newbitech]

From wiki:



Supporting less aggression (the Constitution) is consistent with that. If the U.S. followed the Constitution strictly, there would be much less initiated aggression. So in that regard, I support the Constitution. If I could vote Voluntaryism vs the Constitution, I would vote Voluntaryism.

In regards to voting, if you can vote for less aggression, I do not think this contradicts Voluntaryism. If you were on a slave farm and could vote for less beatings, I would not consider voting against the beatings to be consent.

do you ever check the sources of your quotes? in your wiki quote this is the source. http://www.voluntaryist.com/forthcoming/historyofvoluntaryism.html

If you go to the home page of that site. you find this..

Statement of Purpose: Voluntaryists are advocates of non-political, non-violent strategies to achieve a free society. We reject electoral politics, in theory and in practice, as incompatible with libertarian principles. Governments must cloak their actions in an aura of moral legitimacy in order to sustain their power, and political methods invariably strengthen that legitimacy. Voluntaryists seek instead to delegitimize the State through education, and we advocate withdrawal of the cooperation and tacit consent on which State power ultimately depends.

tell me, if that is the purpose of voluntaryism, how can you make the claim that Ron Paul is a voluntaryist by linking his words of "not forcing other people to live like us" to a wiki article that describes voluntary interaction to a source that describes voluntaryism as having a purpose that Ron Paul's words and actions do not conform to?

This is circular and it fails.

 

[BuddyRey]

The idea that one cannot be a Voluntaryist *and* a participant in the political process simply isn't true. Even Rothbard said it's ok to use any non-violent means to advance liberty, including voting and running for office.

Just because one is principled does not mean one cannot take a Gradualist approach. Realistically, it's already hard enough just trying to get people to embrace middle-of-the-road libertarianism. Convincing them of the wholesale immorality and inexpediency of the state is going to be so much harder.

Look at what the Fabian Socialists accomplished, through stealth and gradualism. Of course, if they had their immediate druthers back when they first formed, The West would have been their perfect Marxist "utopia" long ago. But they knew people would reject socialism if it was foisted on them all at once. But slowly, by inching degrees, they infiltrated the very power centers of society and slowly unfurled their schemes for the world, while never blinking an eye or admitting what they were doing.

I know we like to hold ourselves to higher moral standards than this. We like to be scrupulously honest with people about the problems in our country and the solutions libertarianism presents. But in that earnest desire to be upfront with people, many of us are ceding crucial miles of tactical advantage to the enemy.

To sum up, you don't have to feel bad about being an "Anarcho-Gradualist", even if it requires you to be a bit sneaky. Just look at what Ron Paul has accomplished by doing so.

 

[Cabal]

Rothbard supported political action and the involvement in the electoral process; yet he was a die-hard anti-statist who would just as soon push a button to obliterate the State if one existed. Rothbard is also praised by RP as one of his mentors.

The subject of political action and the electoral process has never been unanimous within the ranks of anarchists, anarcho-capitalists, or voluntaryists. Adam K. is also a self-described voluntaryist who is very heavily involved in the electoral process and political action.

Moreover, the idea that one website has the authority to determine what does or does not qualify as voluntaryism is rather ironic.

Is RP a voluntaryist? I don't know. I don't see how it really matters one way or another. Labels schmabels. What is important are the principles he ascribes to, not what -ism people want to associate him with.

I'm a registered republican; have been for the entirety of my voting-life. Doesn't mean anything.

 

[Wesker1982]

do you ever check the sources of your quotes? in your wiki quote this is the source.

Yes.

http://www.voluntaryist.com/forthcoming/historyofvoluntaryism.html

If you go to the home page of that site. you find this..

I have read that and mostly agree, but I think they are wrong about voting being incompatible with libertarian principles. As long as you are voting to reduce the initiation of violence, then I do not view this as violating the non-aggression principle.

To say voting makes you non-libertarian would be to say Thomas Woods, Murray Rothbard, Lysander Spooner, Walter Block, Mary Ruwart,.... are all not libertarians.

I 100% agree with "the philosophy which holds that all forms of human association should be voluntary. One of the moral principles frequently used to support this philosophy is the non-aggression principle, which prohibits the initiation of aggression or coercion." Which I believe is enough to consider myself and Ron Paul a Voluntaryist. I do not view that voting to reduce aggression violates those principles.

Edit: In short, voting per se does not violate the actual principles of Voluntaryism. The voting vs non-voting debate is over a disagreement about strategy rather than principle. I.e. you can disagree with strategy while sharing the same principles.

 

[nayjevin]

I do not view that voting to reduce aggression violates those principles.

Edit: In short, voting per se does not violate the actual principles of Voluntaryism. The voting vs non-voting debate is over a disagreement about strategy rather than principle. I.e. you can disagree with strategy while sharing the same principles.

I agree. Voting against a new tax is not aggression by any standard. Voting for a man who represents repealing laws, repealing taxes, and returning power toward the individual in all decisions is not aggression. I know of one man like this... Ron Paul!

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Ron Paul believes that human interaction should be voluntary. He believes that, ideally and ultimately, we should not have an institution which attempts to boss people around and steal their resources. He has said as much multiple times.

Whatever you want to call that philosophy, that is what I also believe.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Yes.



I have read that and mostly agree, but I think they are wrong about voting being incompatible with libertarian principles. As long as you are voting to reduce the initiation of violence, then I do not view this as violating the non-aggression principle.

To say voting makes you non-libertarian would be to say Thomas Woods, Murray Rothbard, Lysander Spooner, Walter Block, Mary Ruwart,.... are all not libertarians.

I 100% agree with "the philosophy which holds that all forms of human association should be voluntary. One of the moral principles frequently used to support this philosophy is the non-aggression principle, which prohibits the initiation of aggression or coercion." Which I believe is enough to consider myself and Ron Paul a Voluntaryist. I do not view that voting to reduce aggression violates those principles.

Edit: In short, voting per se does not violate the actual principles of Voluntaryism. The voting vs non-voting debate is over a disagreement about strategy rather than principle. I.e. you can disagree with strategy while sharing the same principles.

Just for what it's worth, Robert Wenzel had a convo with Ron last May, and Rothbard came up. Here's what Ron said:

When we were riding over to the Washoe County Republican Party breakfast, somehow the topic of people dying their hair green came up and almost simultaneously a comment about San Francisco. Being as politically incorrect as ever, I managed to combine the two comments by saying, "The problem with San Francisco is that there are too many people walking around with green hair." Dr. Paul immediately responded to this in a small scolding. "Now, as long as people aren't interfering in the lives of others, it shouldn't be a problem what color their hair is," he said to me, immediately.

Again in the car, this time heading to the airport, I asked him what he said to those who were hardcore Rothbardians and didn't vote. He said that Rothbard loved politics and was always involved. He mentioned that Rothbard always followed his career and even at one time endorsed Pat Buchanan for president. He then added, "But Rothbard probably didn't vote himself."

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

It has often been maintained, and especially by conservatives, that the development of the horrendous modern weapons of mass murder (nuclear weapons, rockets, germ warfare, etc.) is only a difference of degree rather than kind from the simpler weapons of an earlier era. Of course, one answer to this is that when the degree is the number of human lives, the difference is a very big one.4 But another answer that the libertarian is particularly equipped to give is that while the bow and arrow and even the rifle can be pinpointed, if the will be there, against actual criminals, modern nuclear weapons cannot. Here is a crucial difference in kind. Of course, the bow and arrow could be used for aggressive purposes, but it could also be pinpointed to use only against aggressors. Nuclear weapons, even "conventional" aerial bombs, cannot be. These weapons are ipso facto engines of indiscriminate mass destruction. (The only exception would be the extremely rare case where a mass of people who were all criminals inhabited a vast geographical area.) We must, therefore, conclude that the use of nuclear or similar weapons, or the threat thereof, is a sin and a crime against humanity for which there can be no justification.

This is why the old cliché no longer holds that it is not the arms but the will to use them that is significant in judging matters of war and peace. For it is precisely the characteristic of modern weapons that they cannot be used selectively, cannot be used in a libertarian manner. Therefore, their very existence must be condemned, and nuclear disarmament becomes a good to be pursued for its own sake. And if we will indeed use our strategic intelligence, we will see that such disarmament is not only a good, but the highest political good that we can pursue in the modern world. For just as murder is a more heinous crime against another man than larceny, so mass murder – indeed murder so widespread as to threaten human civilization and human survival itself – is the worst crime that any man could possibly commit. And that crime is now imminent. And the forestalling of massive annihilation is far more important, in truth, than the demunicipalization of garbage disposal, as worthwhile as that may be. Or are libertarians going to wax properly indignant about price control or the income tax, and yet shrug their shoulders at or even positively advocate the ultimate crime of mass murder?

If nuclear warfare is totally illegitimate even for individuals defending themselves against criminal assault, how much more so is nuclear or even "conventional" warfare between States!

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard26.html

I don't want them to have a weapon. I don't even like nuclear weapons. I don't even like conventional weaponry, either.