Ron Paul & voluntarists

[Conza88]

Ron Paul re-confirms his voluntarism

​

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.

ADAM KOKESH: Do you think we have a change of achieving a society based on those ideals in America?

RON PAUL: Not soon. We had a relative voluntary society (you know) in our early history, but steadily, even after the Constitution was passed, steadily it was undermined and it systematically grew, it grew certainly through the 20th century; that is the authoritarian approach, which is the opposite. That is: the government tells us everything we can do and can't do.​

Hello forum How is everyone?

As some of you may remember.. the above is obviously not anything new. I often made the case on these forums & over here (contains the video where he says he prefers self-government as opposed to a return to the constitution).

Before jumping in (if you are so inclined) I'd suggest you don't assume any positions/strategy I hold because of the above. Simply ask. Cheers!

Edit: (additional video)

​

No he's not. He has explicitly said he is in favour of self-government INSTEAD of a return to the Constitution.



Ron Paul and Anarcho-Capitalism… Hint: He’s not a statist (4min+ of video).

For a better justification see this Mises thread here and my responses:

Ron Paul’s real goal is self government / anarcho-capitalism, instead of a return to the Constitution. The strategy merely differs. His role is educational, i.e directing folks to Libertarianism and Austrian Economics. He acknowledges that voting (in Congress) won’t change anything.​

…

Except he’s never advocated it, when compared to a voluntaryist society. Philosophically, the question you need to ask is “Compared to what?”

COMPARED to what we have now, would you prefer a return to the size of government as outlined in the US Constitution? (Obviously leaving aside the fact that it would only grow in size again).
​

…

“… 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 one must use democratic means only for defensive purposes; that is, one may use an antidemocratic platform to be elected by an antidemocratic constituency to implement antidemocratic — that is, anti-egalitarian and pro-private property — policies. Or, to put it differently, a person is not honorable because he is democratically elected. If anything, this makes him a suspect. Despite the fact that a person has been elected democratically, he may still be a decent and honorable man; we have heard one before.” - What Must be Done, Hoppe​

…

“In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written.” ~ Ron Paul, End the Fed
​

…

“Ideas are the only things that count, and politicians are, for the most part, pretty much irrelevant,” Ron Paul told the London Independent in December.
​

If Canada and the United States can be separate nations without being denounced as being in a state of impermissible "anarchy," why may not the South secede from the United States? New York State from the Union? New York City from the state? Why may not Manhattan secede? Each neighborhood? Each block? Each house? Each person? But, of course, 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. — Murray N. Rothbard

Also check out this amazing thread: Ron Paul and Private Courts, which lays out the case emphatically. In addition to this Ron Paul in his new book, Liberty Defined recommends reading Democracy: The God that Failed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe & Abolish Government by Lysander Spooner. *Check the Democracy section. Two great reads .

 

[Romulus]

Welcome Back!

 

[rp08orbust]

As much as I'd like Ron to say he's a voluntaryist, I only heard voluntarist.

 

[nayjevin]

Welcome back! Happy moneybomb day

 

[Conza88]

Welcome Back!

Thanks! However, I'm not sure that I'll be staying.

As much as I'd like Ron to say he's a voluntaryist, I only heard voluntarist.

Voluntaryism, or voluntarism, there's a difference? It'd be great if you could elaborate. Because according to the public lexicon there isn't. Maybe I'm ignorant though, see when it comes to Libertarianism or libertarianism the 'difference' means nothing to me.

Welcome back! Happy moneybomb day

Cheers Nay!

 

[specsaregood]

But he isn't an anarchist, he said it explicitly in an interview last week.

 

[Chester Copperpot]

hi conza!!!

 

[Conza88]

But he isn't an anarchist, he said it explicitly in an interview last week.

I don't use that label either... and I'm not "running" for office. Rothbard wrote an article on the etymology of the word.

I'd like to see the interview. Do you have a link?

Was the term properly defined? No, right?...

hi conza!!!

Mike!

 

[rp08orbust]

Voluntaryism, or voluntarism, there's a difference? It'd be great if you could elaborate. Because according to the public lexicon there isn't. Maybe I'm ignorant though, see when it comes to Libertarianism or libertarianism the 'difference' means nothing to me.

Voluntaryism is a subset of voluntarism. Voluntarism can refer to any advocacy of voluntary action, while voluntaryism is basically a synonym for the specific ideology of anarcho-capitalism. A person who refers to himself as a voluntarist isn't necessarily claiming to be a voluntaryist.

 

[specsaregood]

I'd like to see the interview. Do you have a link?

I'm about 99.7% sure it was the Hannity tv interview or radio interview last week. I'm sure somebody else will remember which.

Was the term properly defined? No, right?...

Well he offered the denial, unasked so no definition was needed I'd say.

 

[Sola_Fide]

You have to at least praise Ron for bringing these concepts into the national dialogue. It is not every day that you hear anarchism being mentioned on the Sean Hannity show.

 

[specsaregood]

I'd like to see the interview. Do you have a link?
Was the term properly defined? No, right?...

I'm about 99.7% sure it was the Hannity tv interview or radio interview last week. I'm sure somebody else will remember which.

Ok, It was the radio show:


It is about 4:30 BUT you should start around 4:00. He says the best term for him is a non-interventionist. And I was incorrect, he does offer up a definition for a "total anarchist".

 

[Sola_Fide]

DbL

 

[Conza88]

Voluntaryism is a subset of voluntarism. Voluntarism can refer to any advocacy of voluntary action, while voluntaryism is basically a synonym for the specific ideology of anarcho-capitalism. A person who refers to himself as a voluntarist isn't necessarily claiming to be a voluntaryist.

According to you.The wiki states otherwise, i.e that they're the same (not that it's an authority). I've never made the distinction before, because it doesn't matter. Does it? Are you making the claim that within this context he's not an anarcho-capitalist type voluntarist, but another type? What would that be then? An an-com? Ha.

You can be an an-com & call yourself a voluntarist, but if your political philosophy doesn't accept the principles of self-ownership and original appropriation, which make agreement and contract - including that of not agreeing and contracting - possible... then it doesn't deserve the title of 'voluntary' at all. What I mean by this is - they need to support the principles of anarcho-capitalism prior / before they go on their commune adventure. I could careless what they do on their property... this is exactly what Ron Paul states in the other video.

He explicitly states what he means by voluntarist in this video. This discussion is a bit of a red herring.

 

[Conza88]

Ok, It was the radio show:


It is about 4:30 BUT you should start around 4:00. He says the best term for him is a non-interventionist. And I was incorrect, he does offer up a definition for a "total anarchist".

AEN: Was Mises better than the classical liberals on the question of the state?

HOPPE: Mises thought it was necessary to have an institution that suppresses those people who cannot behave appropriately in society, people who are a danger because they steal and murder. He calls this institution government.

But he has a unique idea of how government should work. To check its power, every group and every individual, if possible, must have the right to secede from the territory of the state. He called this the right of self determination, not of nations as the League of Nations said, but of villages, districts, and groups of any size. In Liberalism and Nation, State, and Economy, he elevates secession to a central principle of classical liberalism. If it were possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, he says, it would have to be done. Thus the democratic state becomes, for Mises, a voluntary organization.

AEN: Yet you have been a strong critic of democracy.

HOPPE: Yes, as that term is usually understood. But under Mises's unique definition of democracy, the term means self rule or self government in its most literal sense. All organizations in society, including government, should be the result of voluntary interactions.

In a sense you can say that Mises was a near anarchist. If he stopped short of affirming the right of individual secession, it was only because of what he regarded as technical grounds. In modern democracy, we exalt the method of majority rule as the means of electing the rulers of a compulsory monopoly of taxation.

Mises frequently made an analogy between voting and the marketplace. But he was quite aware that voting in the marketplace means voting with your own property. The weight of your vote is in accord with your value productivity. In the political arena, you do not vote with your property; you vote concerning the property of everyone, including your own. People do not have votes according to their value productivity.

AEN: Yet Mises attacks anarchism in no uncertain terms.

HOPPE: His targets here are left-utopians. He attacks their theory that man is good enough not to need an organized defense against the enemies of civilization. But this is not what the private-property anarchist believes. Of course, murderers and thieves exist. There needs to be an institution that keeps these people at bay. Mises calls this institution government, while people who want no state at all point out that all essential defensive services can be better performed by firms in the market. We can call these firms government if we want to.​

Does the above sound familiar? This fits in perfectly where Ron Paul has stated (here - 4min+) that his end goal is self-GOVERNMENT. Rhetoric is important, why shut down minds with cognitive dissonance before they can be reached.. simply because you have a desire to cling to the name of a label? It makes even less sense to adopt a bad label that wasn't with your political philosophy to begin with hehe.

 

[Conza88]

Nice colored tie you have there Ron...

 

[BuddyRey]

Conza!!!

Great to see you back, man!!! I missed you!

 

[torchbearer]

I agree with everything Conza says in his OP, but i will add that Ron still believes in using the political process. which diverts from the teachings of Apostle Rockwell.

 

[Wesker1982]

Nice colored tie you have there Ron...

I pointed this out to my fiance and friend right away lol.

Also I think it should be obvious that when most people hear anarchy they think of lawlessness, chaos, molotov cocktails etc. I think Ron Paul was using the term anarchy in this sense on the Hannity show. When Sean Hannity's listeners hear anarchy they do not equate it with voluntaryism/anarcho-libertarianism etc. Ron Paul is not an anarchist as it is defined by 95% of the population.

I planned on making a thread on this subject, didn't know if I would get in trouble for posting it in general, but since I didn't make this thread I will post what I was going to post here:

Liberty Defined, Page 127: Advocating voluntary courts

...but a free people do entrust the management of social norms to the courts of taste and manners that arise spontaneously within civilization.

Liberty Defined, Page 254:

In a free society, where depending on government is minimal or absent, any real crisis serves to motivate individuals, families, churches, and communities to come together and work to offset the crisis, whether it comes from natural causes such as floods, droughts, fire, illness, or predators or is man-made.

Liberty Defined, Page 254-255: Advocating private defense, including national defense

We might reflect on how we achieve security in our everyday lives. We have locks on our doors, provided by private manufacturers. We use privately provided alarm systems. We depend on the idea that others are going to drive safely, and the incentive to do so comes from a private system of insurance. Some people own and carry guns for security. Their efforts help everyone by deterring criminality. Commercial establishments such as banks and jewelry stores hire private security guards. Malls and subdivisions have their own security apparatus.

Here Ron Paul is clearly advocating private defense, one of the issues that keeps minarchists from becoming voluntaryists.

If we reflect on how security works in the real world, we discover a huge and important role for private enterprise, and we find that the vast government apparatus of "national security" does not keep us safe so much as threaten our liberties by regarding the entire citizenry as a threat. Private security does not threaten our civil liberties, but government-provided security does.

Liberty Defined, Page 51:

A free society, valued by the people, would be adequately defend by volunteers, without age, sex, or any other restrictions.

Ron Paul praises private security and voluntary national defense, then he expresses that the government is not efficient in providing national security. Logic would conclude he advocates the private production of all defense.

And I almost forgot an important one:

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

Liberty Defined, Page 70:

Lysander Spooner carried this argument further. He believed that only a "few" consented (to the constitution). Therefore, the Constitution should not apply to those who did not give their personal consent to cede any personal liberty (power) to the state. This is an interesting argument, but it's not likely to make much headway at this stage in our history. Enforcing the Tenth Amendment is a big enough challenge to us for now.

Ron made no point to say he disagrees with Spooner, and in fact says in the footnote:

All of Spooner's writings are worthy of study.

I believe by purposefully avoiding saying that he disagrees with Spooner and then recommending you read his work, he is implying he agrees with Spooner's analysis. He lists Let's Abolish Government at the end of the chapter.

He also mentions For a New Liberty (the anarcho-capitalist manifesto).

And it doesn't get much more clear than:

If we as a nation continue to believe that that paying for civilization through taxation is a wise purchase and the only way to achieve civilization, we are doomed.-Liberty Defined, Page 284

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I don't use that label either... and I'm not "running" for office. Rothbard wrote an article on the etymology of the word.

I'd like to see the interview. Do you have a link?

Was the term properly defined? No, right?...



Mike!

Nice Rothbard piece-I haven't read that one before. Welcome back, Conzilla!