Ron Paul & voluntarists

[Wesker1982]

Yeah it was at the top of the philosophy forum, but unbumpable in general...

 

[heavenlyboy34]

QFT. There is also a difference between people voluntarily governing themselves and the State.

I define the state as that institution which possesses one or both (almost always both) of the following properties: (1) it acquires its income by the physical coercion known as "taxation"; and (2) it asserts and usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the provision of defense service (police and courts) over a given territorial area. An institution not possessing either of these properties is not and cannot be, in accordance with my definition, a state.-Murray Rothbard

(1) 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. -Ron Paul

Ron Paul may support completely voluntary governance but this is very different than supporting the State. As shown in my earlier post, (2) Ron Paul not only advocates the private production of a select few defense services, but advocates the private production of all defense services.

Ron Paul + his beliefs on (1) and (2) = voluntaryist.

That Rothbard quote is very good. I would encourage anyone who wants to better understand the State to read Murray's Anatomy of The State. It's got plenty of footnotes and citations and so forth for further reading.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Conza, welcome back man!

 

[Conza88]

The climate here is far more hospitable to Voluntaryism than it was during the height and denouement of the '08 campaign, and I think our presence has increased a good deal (both from new forum members and seasoned ones who eventually shed the last vestiges of uncertainty). Old resentments may resurface now that campaign '12 is rolling (though I certainly hope they don't), but we've enjoyed a great few months generally free from drama.

That's good to hear. Hope it stays that way... Although I see this has been moved to the "philosophy" forum. Funny that, I thought "General Politics" literally contained discussions of political philosophy in every thread... it's kind of inherent within the concept.

Is there anyway to tell which moderator moved the thread? That I'd like to know.

I had just heard horror stories, they scared me lol. It seems pretty friendly around here. I noticed your post on this subject on the mises.org forum, I lurk/sometimes post there.

They're probably all true . That forum has it's problems as well... long story but those 'controlling' the scenes are consequentialist's / utilitarians. Long term moderator (now former), amazing guy both logically and in terms of knowledge - wouldn't succumb. Made them look like fools. He was eventually turfed out, offered no notification/reason. Anyway, that was awhile ago.

conza's been back 2 days and so far not one single wall-o-text-copy-paste from mises?
not one single ranting video from that crazy bald guy?
you're losin' your touch brother.
but welcome home

Ha, well thankfully I haven't seen anything where it has felt necessary to post anything quite like that.

Sure, Ron Paul calls himself voluntaryist, but that doesn't mean for him that there should be no government, because he specifically rejected that idea.

That's right. He's in favor of self-government. [Mod note- edit for forum guidelines]

 

[Conza88]

YOUUU'RE BAAAAAAAAAAAAACK!!!!
You said you don't know if you'll keep posting, but it'd be nice if you did.

Thanks Mini-Me.

Vindication .
I do hope you stick around...

Cheers Live Free :o

Wow, conza is absolutely pwning this thread.

Ha, thanks Dannno. I'd like to think my 'skills' have improved quite alot since I've been absent. Being on the side of truth makes it so much easier.

Conza, welcome back man!

Anti-Fed, good to see ya still around!

 

[Theocrat]

Childrearing Defies Voluntarism

I bet Congressman Paul wasn't a voluntarist when it came to raising his kids.

 

[Wesker1982]

Being on the side of truth makes it so much easier.

Yep. This became very clear after I became a voluntaryist. When people irl tell me I am a good debater I tell them that it's easy when the truth is on your side.

 

[Conza88]

I bet Congressman Paul wasn't a voluntarist when it came to raising his kids.

Oh.. because Ron Paul definitely beats little boys & girls. Good one Theocrat.

In other news, just wondering if there has been a recent poll anywhere on the forums about self-government versus constitution? Would be interested, cheers.

 

[Kotin]

Always nice to see you pop in, conza..

 

[Wesker1982]

In other news, just wondering if there has been a recent poll anywhere on the forums about self-government versus constitution? Would be interested, cheers.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?282656-QUIZ!-***-What-kind-of-libertarian-are-you-***

 

[Sentient Void]

Conservative and minarchist supporters of RP on this forum weep.

Market Anarchists & Voluntaryists nod.

 

[Wesker1982]

I came across this in Reason magazine, apparently we aren't the only ones who have come to this conclusion:

For longtime students of the libertarian movement, Ron Paul and his followers represent something several libertarians have predicted but is still very hard to believe has actually arisen: an eager mass populist movement of almost-anarchist Middle Americans. (Paul never gets explicit about it, but you can easily glean from this book a complete opposition to any taxation on the grounds that it is essentially theft and a belief that a free market can meet every conceivable human social need.) While very different in polemical style and approach, in ideas Ron Paul is the successor to the controversial libertarian economist, philosopher, journalist, and activist Murray Rothbard, to whom he frequently tips his hat.

Given how radical Rothbard could be, it is surprising that the biggest sparkplug in the present or foreseeable future of libertarianism would be a politician pushing a largely Rothbardian vision.

http://reason.com/archives/2011/06/09/ron-pauls-radical-vision

It is interesting to see Reason publish this. I wonder how much freedom the writers are allowed to write about anarcho-capitalism? According to wiki, Brian Doherty "supports capitalist anarchism". And also Katherine Mangu-Ward from Reason made pretty clear that she is an anarcho-capitalist one time on Freedom Watch. I wonder how much they could write about it before the CATO guys put their foot down? JW...

 

[eOs]

Cheers Conza, welcome back

 

[low preference guy]

I came across this in Reason magazine, apparently we aren't the only ones who have come to this conclusion:



http://reason.com/archives/2011/06/09/ron-pauls-radical-vision

It is interesting to see Reason publish this. I wonder how much freedom the writers are allowed to write about anarcho-capitalism? According to wiki, Brian Doherty "supports capitalist anarchism". And also Katherine Mangu-Ward from Reason made pretty clear that she is an anarcho-capitalist one time on Freedom Watch. I wonder how much they could write about it before the CATO guys put their foot down? JW...

Highlighting the key word:

Given how radical Rothbard could be, it is surprising that the biggest sparkplug in the present or foreseeable future of libertarianism would be a politician pushing a largely Rothbardian vision.

Do you really believe Ron Paul was lying when he said he wasn't an anarchist?

 

[Wesker1982]

I believe he was equating anarchism with how 99.9% of Sean Hannity's audience understands the term (chaos). So that would mean I do not think he was lying. I do not believe Ron Paul advocates lawlessness, chaos, violence, etc.

If by Ron Paul saying he isn't an anarchist he was referring to anarcho-capitalism, then yes, I think he lied.

Since he was talking to an audience who overwhelmingly believes anarchy=chaos, and has no idea what anarcho-capitalism is, I conclude Ron Paul was not talking about anarcho-capitalism. To think he was talking about free-market anarchy is to assume Ron Paul is dumb enough to think Sean Hannity's audience is well read in Rothbard or free-market statelessness.

 

[Travlyr]

Conservative and minarchist supporters of RP on this forum weep.

Market Anarchists & Voluntaryists nod.

lol.. smiling ... not weeping...

Excellent interview, Adam!

The champion of the Constitution in favor of a voluntary society and States rights is describing minarchy.

 

[low preference guy]

I believe he was equating anarchism with how 99.9% of Sean Hannity's audience understands the term (chaos). So that would mean I do not think he was lying. I do not believe Ron Paul advocates lawlessness, chaos, violence, etc.

If by Ron Paul saying he isn't an anarchist he was referring to anarcho-capitalism, then yes, I think he lied.

Since he was talking to an audience who overwhelmingly believes anarchy=chaos, and has no idea what anarcho-capitalism is, I conclude Ron Paul was not talking about anarcho-capitalism. To think he was talking about free-market anarchy is to assume Ron Paul is dumb enough to think Sean Hannity's audience is well read in Rothbard or free-market statelessness.

He actually clarified what he meant by anarchist... those who advocate no government, that's what he said. So he wasn't referring to the definition of anarchy as chaos.

To think he was talking about free-market anarchy is to assume Ron Paul is dumb enough to think Sean Hannity's audience is well read in Rothbard or free-market statelessness.

Yeah... like when RP says capitalism. RP must be dumb to think people know what they mean. Ron Paul is really, really dumb.

Or when he says "Austrian Economics". A lot of people think it's about the economy from Austria. How dumb is Ron Paul.

 

[Wesker1982]

He actually clarified what he meant by anarchist... those who advocate no government, that's what he said. So he wasn't referring to the definition of anarchy as chaos.

The bolded in this context is equating no government with chaos. Ron Paul is not the type of anarchist who advocates no governance. He does not advocate no government. It is important to make the distinction between government and the State.

You can be an anarchist and advocate government/governance. People equate no government with chaos/"anarchy". I believe Ron Paul advocates governance but not the State.

You have been deliberately ignoring context this whole discussion.

Yeah... like when RP says capitalism. RP must be dumb to think people know what they mean. Ron Paul is really, really dumb.

Or when he says "Austrian Economics". A lot of people think it's about the economy from Austria. How dumb is Ron Paul.

You are falsely assuming that the level of difficulty in teaching people the meaning of capitalism and Austrian Economics is on par with explaining the meaning of anarchy. If you honestly believe this then I don't think I can help you.

 

[low preference guy]

You are falsely assuming that the level of difficulty in teaching people the meaning of capitalism and Austrian Economics is on par with explaining the meaning of anarchy. If you honestly believe this then I don't think I can help you.

There are various degrees of difficulty to explain various things, and you arbitrarily draw the line on anarchy. That's the exact one thing for which Ron Paul would not use the meaning he uses for himself and will use the meaning of other people without even clarifying. He would go so far as to muddle language and encourage confusion on the word that actually describes his political beliefs. And he would do all this umprompted, on his own initiative, as Hannity didn't even ask him anything about anarchy.

If you would go so far as to believe that Ron Paul will change the way he usually acts and become someone who isn't like Ron Paul at all just to justify your belief that he agrees with you, then I can't help you.

 

[Wesker1982]

There are various degrees of difficulty to explain various things

Yes.

and you arbitrarily draw the line on anarchy.

I don't think so. I reason that explaining anarchy to the average person (especially neocons) is harder than explaining the other two.

He would go so far as to muddle language and encourage confusion on the word that actually describes his political beliefs.

There really is no confusion. It is clear that anarchy means chaos and no government to the majority of people. What Ron Paul said was interpreted as: "I do not advocate lawlessness and chaos. I do not reject governance."

And he would do all this umprompted, on his own initiative, as Hannity didn't even ask him anything about anarchy.

He wants to make clear that by wanting things out of the hands of a centralized authority he does not support chaos, the "law of the jungle", etc. When some people hear Ron Paul's "extreme" positions on the role of government they start to question whether or not he is an anarchist (as the masses interpret the word), whether or not he believes in any governance at all.

If you would go so far as to believe that Ron Paul will change the way he usually acts and become someone who isn't like Ron Paul

I don't believe that. I believe he used the word in the context that is consistent with the interpretation of the majority of Sean Hannity's listeners to make clear that he does not reject governance.