Ron Paul & voluntarists

[ClayTrainor]

If you agree with him, vote for him, if not, don't. Enough with this collectivist shit. Please!

This isn't a conversation about whether or not someone should vote for Ron Paul, this is a thread about Philsophy and whether or not Ron Paul accepts voluntaryism as a valid idea, and how that relates to his support of the Constitution and Limited Government.

The last couple of pages, I have been defending myself against Travlyr's harsh claims such as "lying" and "misrepresenting". My honest apologies if this frustrates you, but I can't help but feel the need to respond when someone makes such harsh claims about me.

 

[V3n]

I'm sorry. My frustration is not with you, nor Travlyr in specific, it's with the overall theme of this thread.

You all can debate the philosophy of another human being who has their Own Philosophy, until you're both blue in the face or in straight jackets.. what does this add to our cause? There's no answer until Ron Paul himself comes on this board to answer the question.

I may be wrong for trying to shut-down intelligent discussion, but involving another human in this discussion, who's not even here (Ron Paul), is wrong. You hear what you want to hear.. both of you, all of you, anyone. Put them in whatever box you are comfortable with and move on.

If you want to debate the merits of your philosophy v. their philosophy, I understand. If you want to defend yourself against unfair accusations, I understand. But don't (either of you, anyone) put a label on someone who is not even available to speak for themselves on this board. I would prefer you take it offline or take Dr. Paul out of it.

(IMHO - this is the internet - I give up)

 

[Deborah K]

I'm sorry. My frustration is not with you, nor Travlyr in specific, it's with the overall theme of this thread.

You all can debate the philosophy of another human being who has their Own Philosophy, until you're both blue in the face or in straight jackets.. what does this add to our cause? There's no answer until Ron Paul himself comes on this board to answer the question.

I may be wrong for trying to shut-down intelligent discussion, but involving another human in this discussion, who's not even here (Ron Paul), is wrong. You hear what you want to hear.. both of you, all of you, anyone. Put them in whatever box you are comfortable with and move on.

If you want to debate the merits of your philosophy v. their philosophy, I understand. If you want to defend yourself against unfair accusations, I understand. But don't (either of you, anyone) put a label on someone who is not even available to speak for themselves on this board. I would prefer you take it offline or take Dr. Paul out of it.

(IMHO - this is the internet - I give up)

Well stated.

 

[Travlyr]

Ron Paul reconfirms he's a voluntarist = False

This isn't a conversation about whether or not someone should vote for Ron Paul, this is a thread about Philsophy and whether or not Ron Paul accepts voluntaryism as a valid idea, and how that relates to his support of the Constitution and Limited Government.

The thread title labels Ron Paul as a voluntarist. The video claims that eliminating the state is necessary for a voluntary society. Both are false claims which Ron Paul has never said. The fact that he is sympathetic to voluntarism shows Ron Paul's compassion but it is not honest to label Ron Paul something he is not.

Ron Paul is a "defender of liberty" and supporter of the Constitution. That is the label Ron Paul chose and the one that honest people will promote.

The last couple of pages, I have been defending myself against Travlyr's harsh claims such as "lying" and "misrepresenting". My honest apologies if this frustrates you, but I can't help but feel the need to respond when someone makes such harsh claims about me.

 

[ClayTrainor]

The thread title labels Ron Paul as a voluntarist.

Then your beef is really with Adam Kokesh, not me.

ADAM KOKESH: So you've described yourself as a voluntarist. Can you tell us what that means for the big picture, and what your ideal society would be, as a voluntarist?

RON PAUL: Voluntary means no coercion. So 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; and no matter what kind of problem you're looking at.

I also find it interesting that Ron Paul didn't correct him, and even said that he thinks "it's the best way to go"? I guess I'm just misrepresenting him and lying again, eh?

Ron Paul is a "defender of liberty" and supporter of the Constitution.

Please show me where I in any way challenged this. I have never said Ron Paul is not a defender of liberty, or a Constitutionalist. I don't know what your point is.

 

[Wesker1982]

"The purpose of the State is to provide security" is an out-n-out lie.
This infers a police state and State constitutions do not call for police or security teams.

How come you guys lie and cannot be honest about that?

The government is incapable of doing what it's suppose to do. A job like the provision of security is something best left to private institutions. -Liberty Defined, Page 288

So Ron Paul is lying here? Maybe you disagree with this, but ad hominems will only discredit you.


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.

What do you say to this:

Also something that is absolutely indisputable is his support of the individuals right to opt out (like in the interview he mentions the Amish should just be left alone). And he talks about how in a libertarian society if a group of socialists want to start a community or whatever, he would have no problem with it so long as they didn't live off of anyone who didn't agree. This is Voluntaryism.

Right to opt out =

If each person may secede from government, we have virtually arrived at the purely free society, where defense is supplied along with all other services by the free market and where the invasive State has ceased to exist.

Once admit any right of secession whatever, and there is no logical stopping-point short of the right of individual secession, which logically entails anarchism, since then individuals may secede and patronize their own defense agencies, and the State has crumbled

Do you support the right of the individual to secede? And do you believe Ron Paul supports the individuals right to secede, or do you think he would advocate the use of violence to stop individuals from seceding?

 

[Wesker1982]

Also,

Like it or not, if you support the individuals right to secede, then you are a Voluntaryist. Even if you are a masochist who wants to live in a totalitarian dystopia, if you advocate the rights of individual secession, and would not use violence to force people into your society, you are a Voluntaryist.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

The government is incapable of doing what it's suppose to do. A job like the provision of security is something best left to private institutions. -Liberty Defined, Page 288

So Ron Paul is lying here? Maybe you disagree with this, but ad hominems will only discredit you.


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.

What do you say to this:



Do you support the right of the individual to secede? And do you believe Ron Paul supports the individuals right to secede, or do you think he would advocate the use of violence to stop individuals from seceding?

+rep

 

[ClayTrainor]

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.

That's a very provocative quote. I need to reflect on that a bit. Is that Rothbard as well?

 

[Travlyr]

Ron Paul is sympathetic to voluntaryism

Why is it so hard for you guys to say, "Ron Paul calls himself "defender of liberty" and supporter of the Constitution"?

The thread title labels Ron Paul as a voluntarist. The video claims that eliminating the state is necessary for a voluntary society. Both are false claims which Ron Paul has never said.

If you were honest you would post true statements.

• The State is a method of property distribution. A State has counties, counties contain townships, townships are made up of sections, 640 acre sections are divided up in smaller plots of 1/2 section, 1/4 section, etc. The State provides common people with the ability to own land and their homes.
  
• The State can be amended to be voluntary without destroying it.

Nonetheless, I have decided to end my debate with you anarchists because I have faith that your cult will fissile when people realize you lied to them. And I doubt you will be able to successfully attach the anarchist label to Ron Paul.

 

[ClayTrainor]

The thread title labels Ron Paul as a voluntarist.

The thread title seems to accurately describe the content of the video, unless of course Adam Kokesh is flatout lying to Ron Pauls face, and Ron chooses not to correct him, but instead sound rather supportive of the idea to the point of saying "I think, is the best way to go; and no matter what kind of problem you're looking at."

ADAM KOKESH: So you've described yourself as a voluntarist. Can you tell us what that means for the big picture, and what your ideal society would be, as a voluntarist?

RON PAUL: Voluntary means no coercion. So 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; and no matter what kind of problem you're looking at.

Nonetheless, I have decided to end my debate with you anarchists because I have faith that your cult will fissile when people realize you lied to them.

Finishing it off with yet another ad-hominem personal attack, eh? Way to go, champ! That means you win!

 

[heavenlyboy34]

[*]The State is a method of property distribution. A State has counties, counties contain townships, townships are made up of sections, 640 acre sections are divided up in smaller plots of 1/2 section, 1/4 section, etc. The State provides common people with the ability to own land and their homes.

Incorrect. The State (as Rothbard and other anarchists use the term) is that entity in society which has legal monopoly on the use of force. The way you use the word should be lowercase (state). This concept is relatively new in history. This rise of the Nation-State came about in the 19th century (by most accounts), and the concept of smaller, soverign territories (called "states") within a nation-state is only a bit older than that.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

I've found it interesting that Travlyr chose to rather blatantly ignore the dialogue between Kokesh and Dr. Paul, as well as the discussion in the Motor Home Diaries.

I also ask Travlyr to retract his statement that the voluntaryists are here to do damage to Dr. Paul's campaign. One can very much be a voluntaryist/anarchist while at the same time support Dr. Paul's campaign to a more limited government. Those are stops on the same railway. One is just a little further down the tracks than the other. I'm a vigorous supporter of Dr. Paul, and it doesn't particularly matter to me whether he is a voluntaryist or not - I respect the man immensely for his principles and the way he has lived his life.

Travlyr's opposition to anarchism/voluntaryism is extremely irrational - especially when comparied to how Ron Paul interacts with voluntaryists/anarchists - and his arguments are weak, and unsubstantiated.

 

[Deborah K]

Ron has a couple of conversations with anarchists et al. as compared to all of his speeches and interviews regarding adherence to the Constitution and some of you cling to it like it's some kind of proof that he intends to abandon his oath at some point. Declarations like that of this thread's title are damaging to our cause, no matter how much you don't want to face it. Especially when newcomers to Ron's message happen upon divisive threads like this one. But it's par for the course. The overriding mindset of the anarchist type in these forums is to propagate the philosophy, and recruit, at all costs - including Ron's election.

Conza, trying to propagate anarchy during an election period (when Dr. Paul has stated in debates that he considers himself the "Champion of the Constitution"), is a bad tactical move on your part, if you want to see the man get elected. How do you expect our country to advance out of the mess we're in without him?

Dr. Paul has left us with a pile of clues as to where his true moral compass points, but he has not really come out plainly and said, "I am a minarchist!", or "I am an anarchist!". It's true that he has said that he is a Constitutionalist - a Champion of the Constitution, even. But so am I, as I've stated in another thread - I would prefer strict adherence by the government to it over the present paradigm, and afterall it is the operating governing document of the federal government and as such ought to be held to it... but I'd also prefer the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution (and I believe Ron has said something similar, but I can't cite it at the moment), and the relative freedom of the colonies to the Articles, and ultimately real, true individual liberty. Just as well as calling himself a Constitutionalist, he's also said that the ultimate goal is self-government, the implication of course being that capital-G Government isn't necessary... and he's certainly made himself quite friendly with more than a few well-established anarchists.

Without offense, I find the unequivocal declarations that Ron IS or ISN'T something to be a bit absurd... he's never really come right out and said specifically that anarchism is preferable, or that government is. It's my personal opinion, from some of the things he's said and some of the folks he's associated himself with, that he is at least sympathetic to the philosophy of anarchism. In the end, frankly, it doesn't matter to me. It wouldn't matter to me if I were the only person on the planet who acknowledged the objective, moral truth of individual sovereignty.

 

[klamath]

I'm sorry. My frustration is not with you, nor Travlyr in specific, it's with the overall theme of this thread.

You all can debate the philosophy of another human being who has their Own Philosophy, until you're both blue in the face or in straight jackets.. what does this add to our cause? There's no answer until Ron Paul himself comes on this board to answer the question.

I may be wrong for trying to shut-down intelligent discussion, but involving another human in this discussion, who's not even here (Ron Paul), is wrong. You hear what you want to hear.. both of you, all of you, anyone. Put them in whatever box you are comfortable with and move on.

If you want to debate the merits of your philosophy v. their philosophy, I understand. If you want to defend yourself against unfair accusations, I understand. But don't (either of you, anyone) put a label on someone who is not even available to speak for themselves on this board. I would prefer you take it offline or take Dr. Paul out of it.

(IMHO - this is the internet - I give up)

Very true

 

[Wesker1982]

That's a very provocative quote. I need to reflect on that a bit. Is that Rothbard as well?

Yes.

I don't remember the last time I was talking to someone in person and I labeled myself an anarchist. I actually don't think I ever have lol (except maybe when I 13 cuz I was a cool punk rocker). Sometimes people end up asking: "what are you, an anarchist?", after I tell them that taxation is not voluntary (easy reply is: if it is voluntary, it would not have to be coercive), it is theft. I reply with: "well, that depends on what you mean by anarchist.", and then I have them define what they are talking about and reply accordingly.

But before I even say taxation is not voluntary, and before they ask me if I am an anarchist, I usually start the discussion with: "Using violence against non-criminals is not justified.[1] Defense and courts would be cheaper and more efficient in producing law and order if they were voluntarily funded." This helps clarify right away that I do not advocate lawlessness, regardless of what they try to label me. Even if they ask if I am an anarchist, it is already established in their mind that whatever the hell it is I am, I do not advocate chaos.

[1] If you agree with this, welcome to Voluntaryism

Travlyr,

You are either being intellectually dishonest, or you are mistaking The State (2nd paragraph) with states (as HB34 defined).


I am still interested to hear any statist responses to this:

Do you support the right of the individual to secede?
Do you believe Ron Paul supports the individuals right to secede?
Do you think he would advocate the use of violence to stop peaceful individuals from seceding?

If the answer to #1 and #2 is YES, then how is this not Voluntaryism?

If the answer to #3 is YES, then in your opinion, how could so many Voluntaryists and Anarchists (Tom Woods, Bob Murphy, Mary Ruwart, Doug Casey, Stephan Kinsella etc.) logically support Ron Paul when this would mean he is in clear opposition to them? And why would Ron Paul admire and associate with so many anarchists when a YES to #3 would make him directly opposed to one of their main fundamental beliefs (the NAP)?

 

[Deborah K]

Wesker, do you care if Ron wins the election?

 

[Travlyr]

Wesker, do you care if Ron wins the election?

Wesker? What say you?

 

[Travlyr]

I've found it interesting that Travlyr chose to rather blatantly ignore the dialogue between Kokesh and Dr. Paul, as well as the discussion in the Motor Home Diaries.

I have posted the interview between Adam and Dr. Paul on more than one occasion. It is an excellent interview but it does not confirm that Ron Paul wants to end the State. Ron Paul talks about a society without coercion. That is why he is a defender of liberty and supporter of the Constitution.

You people make a leap of faith and say that the State has to be eliminated to achieve that. That is not true, and the mention of it drives people away. The constitutions can be amended to achieve a non-coercive society. If you would just take the time to learn about the supreme law of the land, then you could stop redefining words and expect everyone else to know what you are talking about.

I also ask Travlyr to retract his statement that the voluntaryists are here to do damage to Dr. Paul's campaign. One can very much be a voluntaryist/anarchist while at the same time support Dr. Paul's campaign to a more limited government. Those are stops on the same railway. One is just a little further down the tracks than the other. I'm a vigorous supporter of Dr. Paul, and it doesn't particularly matter to me whether he is a voluntaryist or not - I respect the man immensely for his principles and the way he has lived his life.

Travlyr's opposition to anarchism/voluntaryism is extremely irrational - especially when comparied to how Ron Paul interacts with voluntaryists/anarchists - and his arguments are weak, and unsubstantiated.

I disagree with you, want to protect my property, and you call me extremely irrational. And then you want me to take you serious. All I ask is honesty. Anarchism is extremism. You could prove this to yourself by doing a survey of what people think of anarchy. Just don't do it while wearing Ron Paul gear.

There is noting irrational about understanding that most people do not want to live in a lawless society. 99% of the people in the world go to the dictionary to learn the meaning of words. If that is not what anarchy is, then change the dictionary and converse in meaningful language.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gm5yMq0w6OA

 

[Wesker1982]

Wesker? What say you?

It is not fun to ask you a question, have it ignored, and then be expected to answer your question.

Do you support the right of the individual to secede?
Do you believe Ron Paul supports the individuals right to secede?
Do you think he would advocate the use of violence to stop peaceful individuals from seceding?

If the answer to #1 and #2 is YES, then how is this not Voluntaryism?

If the answer to #3 is YES, then in your opinion, how could so many Voluntaryists and Anarchists (Tom Woods, Bob Murphy, Mary Ruwart, Doug Casey, Stephan Kinsella etc.) logically support Ron Paul when this would mean he is in clear opposition to them? And why would Ron Paul admire and associate with so many anarchists when a YES to #3 would make him directly opposed to one of their main fundamental beliefs (the NAP)?

It is an excellent interview but it does not confirm that Ron Paul wants to end the State. Ron Paul talks about a society without coercion. That is why he is a defender of liberty and supporter of the Constitution.

You can use force only when somebody uses force against you. - Ron Paul

So long as "THE STATE" is funded through force (which it is right now), then yes, he does want to end it. Is anyone claiming he wants to end voluntary means to governance (law,order,defense, property titles)? No.