Ron Paul & voluntarists

[Conza88]

Could be because they contain useful information relevant to the subject matter. Epistemology. RP is an ideas guy. I count MC Escher, Picaso, and Matisse among my many influences, but they were not graphic designers as I am. RP also likes Ayn Rand but isn't part of the Ayn Rand Cult. We should ask Ron himself, wouldn't you agree?

I suggest folks read Chomsky. What conclusion would you draw from that?

Were you best friends and "PROFOUNDLY INFLUENCED" by him? [Ron Paul's exact stated in text words] We're talking Rothbard here.

Right, yeah... useful information in a book called "LET'S ABOLISH GOVERNMENT" geee guys I wonder what 'useful information' Ron wants us to know? He's linking Lysander Spooner... surely he wants us to know about how awesome the US Constitution and social contract is! Seriously lmao

Hans-Hermann Hoppe has known and been a friend of RP for 25 years as well.

​

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 cannot believe I have to have this conversation. NO. BY voluntarist standards HE IS. This has been explained upteen times, I guess you were never paying attention.

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).

Every voluntarist and libertarian, self-government supporter would say yes.

COMPARING the Articles of Confederation to the US Constitution... would you prefer a return to the US Constitution? Supporters of self-government and voluntarism, including Ron Paul... would say NO.

Because it is an INCREASE in the size of the STATE.

Supporters of self-government keep on going until it is down to the individual level. Ron Paul's real goal is self government / anarcho-capitalism, instead of a return to the Constitution. As he has said, and some deluded souls here refuse to accept. 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.

 

[newbitech]

Were you best friends and "PROFOUNDLY INFLUENCED" by him? [Ron Paul's exact stated in text words] We're talking Rothbard here.

Right, yeah... useful information in a book called "LET'S ABOLISH GOVERNMENT" geee guys I wonder what 'useful information' Ron wants us to know? He's linking Lysander Spooner... surely he wants us to know about how awesome the US Constitution and social contract is! Seriously lmao

Hans-Hermann Hoppe has known and been a friend of RP for 25 years as well.

​

I cannot believe I have to have this conversation. NO. BY voluntarist standards HE IS. This has been explained upteen times, I guess you were never paying attention.

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).

Every voluntarist and libertarian, self-government supporter would say yes.

COMPARING the Articles of Confederation to the US Constitution... would you prefer a return to the US Constitution? Supporters of self-government and voluntarism, including Ron Paul... would say NO.

Because it is an INCREASE in the size of the STATE.

Supporters of self-government keep on going until it is down to the individual level. Ron Paul's real goal is self government / anarcho-capitalism, instead of a return to the Constitution. As he has said, and some deluded souls here refuse to accept. 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.

Wrong, he never said his goal was anarcho-capitalism. He never said INSTEAD of. The question what do you say to those who advocate self-government rather than a return to the constitution?

So the questioner knows that Ron Paul advocates a return to the Constitution, as was apparent in the setup statements to the question. He was asking Ron Paul what he says to people who are advocating self government rather than advocate a return to the Constitution like Ron Paul does.

Also, because you stopped listening to run off and try to make some big link between Ron Paul and anarchy, you missed the part where Ron Paul explained to the guy that he is laissez faire about what to do to get us to self government. He told the guy, you do one thing but I do something else. He is doing it through the existing political "statist" process.

This is not voluntaryism/ism/ist/yist. Ron Paul is not simply involved in politics to educate. He really does plan on changing the laws and getting back to the constitution. He really does think he can win the Republican nomination by getting delegates (which is grossly involuntary). He is bending the people towards his will by taking advantage of the arcane "state" system of electoral politics which is anathema to the purpose of Voluntaryism.

Of course you are going to tell me all the same crap you have been telling me before in your futile attempt to make the connection, but you won't address the points. You will say that Rothbard's libertarianism advocated participating in politics and voting if it brought about peaceful change and shrinks the state.

FINE! But that is not voluntaryism.

There is a reason that voluntaryism is a spin off. It's pretty clear that voluntaryism seeks non-political ways and does not want to encourage "the state" by participating in state activities.

This is different than Rothbard's AND Ron Paul's view. So while the goals might be the same, the purpose is distinctly different.

Your efforts to tie a label and a name to the movement is very shallow minded and is causing conflict where none is needed. Please stop.

 

[Wesker1982]

Wrong, he never said his goal was anarcho-capitalism. He never said INSTEAD of. The question what do you say to those who advocate self-government rather than a return to the constitution?

He was asking Ron Paul what he says to people who are advocating self government rather than advocate a return to the Constitution like Ron Paul does.

He said self-governance (many call anarcho-capitalism and Volutaryism) is really what his goal is. He also advocates the private production of all defense, and by extension of this, the courts would be private as well. See: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?308268-Ron-Paul-and-Private-Courts

He really does plan on changing the laws and getting back to the constitution.

You might be naive enough to believe this is possible in 4 years, but Ron Paul is not. Changing a few laws, sure. Returning strictly to the Constitution? Yeah right.

"Ideas are the only things that matter. Politicians for the most part are pretty much irrelevant." - Ron Paul

FINE! But that is not voluntaryism.

It's pretty clear that voluntaryism seeks non-political ways and does not want to encourage "the state" by participating in state activities.

The political process stuff is just a red herring. The core of Voluntaryism is that all human relationships should be voluntary. Bickering about strategy does not change principle.

The goal of not participating in politics I agree with. The goal is to delegitimize the State. Generally this is a good strategy to achieve that goal. But Ron Paul has delegitimized the State maybe more than anyone in history through political action. Usually, sure, political action is counter productive. If the goal is to expose the State for what it really is, then Voluntaryists should support Ron Paul.

Again, it would be like claiming that voting for less beatings would imply consent to the aggression. I would not agree with this. Some might argue that it is strategically a bad idea, but no one would convince me that I am violating Voluntaryism principles by voting for reduced aggression.

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.

 

[Conza88]

Wrong, he never said his goal was anarcho-capitalism. He never said INSTEAD of. The question what do you say to those who advocate self-government rather than a return to the constitution?

So the questioner knows that Ron Paul advocates a return to the Constitution, as was apparent in the setup statements to the question. He was asking Ron Paul what he says to people who are advocating self government rather than advocate a return to the Constitution like Ron Paul does.

Self-government was compared to strict US Constitutionalism.... RON PAUL AGREED HIS END GOAL IS SELF-GOVERNMENT. Self-government aka voluntarism, aka anarcho-capitalism. Get a grip bro, the ideas are the same... the labels different.

This was the first time he had been asked a question from a NON-STATIST PERSPECTIVE. All other general questions he gets are from a STATIST perspective, so that's why he offers the argument for the constitution which is essentially saying... "even on their own terms they fail to live up to it".

The REASON Ron Paul appeals to the Constitution is so he can get a "pass on that" - HIS WORDS from a 2006 Prague Speech.

6m 45s - 9m 01s​

Also, because you stopped listening to run off and try to make some big link between Ron Paul and anarchy, you missed the part where Ron Paul explained to the guy that he is laissez faire about what to do to get us to self government. He told the guy, you do one thing but I do something else. He is doing it through the existing political "statist" process.

This is not voluntaryism/ism/ist/yist. Ron Paul is not simply involved in politics to educate. He really does plan on changing the laws and getting back to the constitution.

Do you have a learning disability? I'm actually genuinely interested.. because if so - I'll try break it down so you can understand.

And where on earth does the above contradict or refute anything I've ever said? IN FACT - I have PROMOTED the exact DIVISION OF LABOR he refers to... Hans-Hermann Hoppe also makes the case in the sense of it is "guerrilla warfare" .. more people attacking the state from different avenues and ways the better.

I've never done anything to indicate otherwise. You and LE and the other clowns here continue to think and act as if I'm against political activism.

What part of Murray Rothbard and political activism and it not needing to be against it, do you not understand? Ron Paul IS involved primarily to educate. The SIDE issue is to obviously WIN.

Now go ahead, call me out to back up this last point and I'll smash your bs once again. Forewarning;

1. I'll be referencing the reasons he first decided to enter politics...
2. I will also be showcasing his story to Carol.
3. Post the video of Ron Paul's brother saying he's not in it to win.. he's in it to spread the message.
4. Post the video of Ron Paul's niece saying he doesn't want to 'win', he's in it to spread the message.

Do I think the above facts being well known would HELP Ron Paul? Of course not. Then my suggestion would be for you to stfu so I won't need to educate your ignorant self and post them.. but then we both know that won't happen.

He really does think he can win the Republican nomination by getting delegates (which is grossly involuntary). He is bending the people towards his will by taking advantage of the arcane "state" system of electoral politics which is anathema to the purpose of Voluntaryism.

Of course you are going to tell me all the same crap you have been telling me before in your futile attempt to make the connection, but you won't address the points. You will say that Rothbard's libertarianism advocated participating in politics and voting if it brought about peaceful change and shrinks the state.

FINE! But that is not voluntaryism.

And where the F$))# do I care about it being "voluntaryism"? Where have I ever claimed it was? I've done the OPPOSITE.. (Those purist deviationist fallacy supporters I have to defend RP against all the time).. I'm going up against those clowns, as well as you - who refuse to accept what Ron Paul really is... a voluntarist.

There is a reason that voluntaryism is a spin off. It's pretty clear that voluntaryism seeks non-political ways and does not want to encourage "the state" by participating in state activities.

This is different than Rothbard's AND Ron Paul's view. So while the goals might be the same, the purpose is distinctly different.

Your efforts to tie a label and a name to the movement is very shallow minded and is causing conflict where none is needed. Please stop.

And you re-make the point I've already made COUNTLESS TIMES... lmao. You're a real waste of space. Thanks for adding absolutely nothing of value. Recommendation? Crawl back into that cave of yours.

 

[newbitech]

He said self-governance (many call anarcho-capitalism and Volutaryism) is really what his goal is. He also advocates the private production of all defense, and by extension of this, the courts would be private as well. See: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?308268-Ron-Paul-and-Private-Courts



You might be naive enough to believe this is possible in 4 years, but Ron Paul is not. Changing a few laws, sure. Returning strictly to the Constitution? Yeah right.

"Ideas are the only things that matter. Politicians for the most part are pretty much irrelevant." - Ron Paul



The political process stuff is just a red herring. The core of Voluntaryism is that all human relationships should be voluntary. Bickering about strategy does not change principle.

The goal of not participating in politics I agree with. The goal is to delegitimize the State. Generally this is a good strategy to achieve that goal. But Ron Paul has delegitimized the State maybe more than anyone in history through political action. Usually, sure, political action is counter productive. If the goal is to expose the State for what it really is, then Voluntaryists should support Ron Paul.

Again, it would be like claiming that voting for less beatings would imply consent to the aggression. I would not agree with this. Some might argue that it is strategically a bad idea, but no one would convince me that I am violating Voluntaryism principles by voting for reduced aggression.

I have to disagree about Ron Paul's purpose. Sure his method is education, but his purpose is to restore Constitutional government. In 4 years, he can do a lot. For starters, he would be commander in chief. He could immediately reverse 50 years of war without declaration. He would also immediately be able to reign in much of the financial chaos by directing the Justice Department to issue indictments against financial fraudsters. He would be able to immediately dismantle the power structures in place through executive orders.

So no, he's not going to automatically give us freedom and liberty, but he can begin the damage control and put a halt to a big chunk of the most damaging aspects.

Many may call self government those things, but that is just evidence of misunderstanding. Self Government is a principle that encompasses many philosophies of government. Some good examples of self government that are not anarcho-capitalism and are not Voluntaryism would be, the American Revolution, the Indian Independence Movement, the Balkans, The American Civil war, and let us not forget the local and hyper local. Some examples would be a community voting for or against incorporation in to the larger government. In my town, we have several small municipalities that opted for self-government rather than tying in with the county. These little cities are indistinguishable on a map, but they are for the most part autonomous and pass there own laws and are not under the jurisdiction of the larger communities around them.

This is self government and in some cases, force was necessary to achieve and in some case not. The one thing that is common, is that once establish, these governments are able to exist without continuing force on the governments around them.

So no, self government is not ancap or volutaryism.

I agree, ideas matter. And whether or not politicians are irrelevant, really depends on the politician now doesn't it? What about a politician with a good idea? Pretty much not absolute. But I agree with the sentiment.

The political process is not red herring. New ideas can spread through the process. The difference is some people abhor "the state" so much, they are unwilling to work within "the state" as a principle. Standing by these principles is a central theme to the philosophy of Voluntaryism. This doesn't mean that everyone who stands by their principles is a Voluntaryist.

Ron Paul believes that some force is necessary. The only gray area is determining precisely when that force becomes justified. But the fact that force is necessary should not cause there to be problems with standing by principles.

I believe this is my key disagreement with Ancaps and anyone else who abhors "the state". Those philosophies are so determined to stick to the NAP, and make the issue of force black and white, that they do not leave room for judgement or consensus. There will always be one person who does not like the rules and buck whatever system comes up. Probably more than that. The only non violent solution I can see is to allow those folks to self govern. Ancapism won't allow that. They will send their private forces after them. Voluntaryism won't allow that, they will find non political ways to pressure those people. To me that is the gray area of force, justified or not.

Self government means just leave them alone. Hands off laissez faire. This is why I think it is important to pay attention to what Ron Paul is saying rather than tie him in to any one philosophy other than what he actually advocates, which from what I hear and have read is liberty through the Constitution. I agree, that may not be appealing to people who are ready to move beyond Representative Government, however that is non-violent path to self government. If you want to practice aspects of anacapism or voluntaryism, that is aloud under the United States Constitution. Unfortunately and as we all know, we are no longer governed by the United States Constitution. The biggest threat of force to anacapism and voluntaryism is the usurptation of the money system enforced violently.

In other words. Taxes. Under the United States Constitution, individuals are aloud to keep the fruits of their labor. That has been twisted. Under the United States Constitution, we have real money. That has also been twisted. Under the United States Constitution security is directly in the hands and is the responsibility of the individual, and only under extreme duress should collective forces be controlled and committed to War at the highest levels. That has been twisted.

You'd have no problems practicing anacapism and voluntaryism under the United States Constitution. It was designed as a self governing document check on political violence.

 

[newbitech]

Self-government was compared to strict US Constitutionalism.... RON PAUL AGREED HIS END GOAL IS SELF-GOVERNMENT. Self-government aka voluntarism, aka anarcho-capitalism. Get a grip bro, the ideas are the same... the labels different.

This was the first time he had been asked a question from a NON-STATIST PERSPECTIVE. All other general questions he gets are from a STATIST perspective, so that's why he offers the argument for the constitution which is essentially saying... "even on their own terms they fail to live up to it".

The REASON Ron Paul appeals to the Constitution is so he can get a "pass on that" - HIS WORDS from a 2006 Prague Speech.

6m 45s - 9m 01s​

Do you have a learning disability? I'm actually genuinely interested.. because if so - I'll try break it down so you can understand.

And where on earth does the above contradict or refute anything I've ever said? IN FACT - I have PROMOTED the exact DIVISION OF LABOR he refers to... Hans-Hermann Hoppe also makes the case in the sense of it is "guerrilla warfare" .. more people attacking the state from different avenues and ways the better.

I've never done anything to indicate otherwise. You and LE and the other clowns here continue to think and act as if I'm against political activism.

What part of Murray Rothbard and political activism and it not needing to be against it, do you not understand? Ron Paul IS involved primarily to educate. The SIDE issue is to obviously WIN.

Now go ahead, call me out to back up this last point and I'll smash your bs once again. Forewarning;

1. I'll be referencing the reasons he first decided to enter politics...
2. I will also be showcasing his story to Carol.
3. Post the video of Ron Paul's brother saying he's not in it to win.. he's in it to spread the message.
4. Post the video of Ron Paul's niece saying he doesn't want to 'win', he's in it to spread the message.

Do I think the above facts being well known would HELP Ron Paul? Of course not. Then my suggestion would be for you to stfu so I wn't need to educate your ignorant self and post them.. but then we both know that won't happen.



And where the F$))# do I care about it being "voluntaryism"? Where have I ever claimed it was? I've done the OPPOSITE you clown.. (Those purist deviationist fallacy supporters I attack all the time).. I'm going up against those fools, as well as you - who refuse to accept what Ron Paul really is... a voluntarist.



And you re-make the point I've already made COUNTLESS TIMES... lmao. You're a real waste of space. Thanks for adding absolutely nothing of value.

I have not looked past your personal insults and condescending nature towards me. Correct that and I may be willing to discuss your OPINION. At this point, you are arguing against yourself.

 

[Conza88]

I was still editing. Fixed it up for you. But really your position deserves condescension because it's that untenable. But really all your post amounts to is a nice pathetic attempt to grab the 'high ground' by refusing to engage (i.e defend your unjustifiable position) because you have no leg to stand on. These are the actions one comes to expect from an intellectually dishonest and closed minded individual.

Thanks for spreading the message of Ron Paul and his voluntarism newbitech.. what would I do without you being such a useful soundboard.

I mean.. there was a loooooooooooong period where I saw no reason to post, or have these bumped.. but here you come and give it all the impetus and re-exposure it needs. Cheers

 

[newbitech]

I was still editing. Fixed it up for you. But really your position deserves condescension because it's that untenable. But really all your post amounts to is a nice pathetic attempt to grab the 'high ground' by refusing to engage (i.e defend your unjustifiable position) because you have no leg to stand on. These are the actions one comes to expect from an intellectually dishonest and closed minded individual.

My position is that Ron Paul is not a voluntarist/yist. He doesn't even advocate the purpose of voluntarism/yism. He may agree that actions should be voluntary, but clearly he divorces himself from the idea and philosophy by not only engaging in electoral politics, but also making bold pronouncements that he can win the nomination and the presidency WITHOUT popular support. This is distinctly NOT voluntary. Yes Ron Paul is using "state" apparatus as a platform to spread the idea of self government and non violent resistance. If that doesn't work, then I am sure Ron Paul would support the idea of marching down to Washington DC with pitchforks and torches and taking back our government. Why am I sure? Because sometimes, violence is necessary and is the duty of an American citizen according to our other self governing document, the declaration of independence.

So unless you want to redefine Voluntaryism/ism, and unless you have a direct quote from Ron Paul that he is a voluntaryist/ist, then I have provided sufficient documentation that shows by his actions and words that he does not subscribe nor advocate that particular philosophy.

So why distort Voluntaryism by tying a politician who is clearly involved with "the state" apparatus to it? Is not Voluntaryism/ism against "the state".

And please spare me the spelling differences, I see where you participate in a Mises thread where the two spelling are used interchangeably, and you didn't bother to correct it there.

 

[newbitech]

yeah and thanks for advocating self government even though you desperately need it to mean something that it is not.

 

[nayjevin]

Do I think the above facts being well known would HELP Ron Paul? Of course not. Then my suggestion would be for you to stfu so I won't need

Misplaced blame. No one backed you in a corner. No one forces you to consistently try to prove the claim in multiple threads over the course of several years. I know you're not dumb, I know you're not intentionally intellectually dishonest. So why are you acting like people are forcing you to prove this claim? What I see is folks responding in self-defense to your claims, which are spurious at best.

 

[Wesker1982]

The political process is not red herring.

You are misunderstanding what I said. I was responding in regards to Voluntaryism. It diverts attention from the real issue in regards to Voluntaryism.

See:

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.

Ron Paul supports X, compared to a return to the Constitution.

Call X whatever you want. I will call it Voluntaryism because Ron Paul views all taxation as theft and believes that all forms of human association should be voluntary. He believes in the moral principle frequently used to support this philosophy which is the non-aggression principle, which prohibits the initiation of aggression or coercion.

Diverting the attention away from the principles of this philosophy with arguments about political action are red herrings.

 

[newbitech]

You are misunderstanding what I said. I was responding in regards to Voluntaryism. It diverts attention from the real issue in regards to Voluntaryism.

See:



Ron Paul supports X, compared to a return to the Constitution.

Call X whatever you want. I will call it Voluntaryism because Ron Paul views all taxation as theft and believes that all forms of human association should be voluntary. He believes in the moral principle frequently used to support this philosophy which is the non-aggression principle, which prohibits the initiation of aggression or coercion.

Diverting the attention away from the principles of this philosophy with arguments about political action are red herrings.

Right, I agree. You are telling me to ignore the established principle of voluntaryism (an authoritative wiki source cites voluntaryist.com) that non political action is the purpose. Do you have another authoritative source for what the purpose of voluntaryism is that would lead me to believe there is some conflict as to the purpose and nature of the philosophy?

I don't subscribe to the philosophy so I am unaware of the nuances. I simply look at the home page of the authoritative source and it is clear as day that the philosophy are advocates of bringing about a free society through non political means.

Maybe that is the red herring, but I am not trying to tie Ron Paul to the philosophy either. I can see where he espouses aspects of that philosophy and the goals are the same, but I believe making the claim that he "is" one who represents that philosophy damage not only Ron Paul's work, but also those people who do adhere to and take seriously the purpose of non political activities to promote their goal.

It is hard for me to take a philosophy seriously if the people who claim to represent that philosophy say and do things and make exceptions for the guiding purpose and key tenants of that philosophy. Especially somewhat obscure philosophies like voluntaryism where authoritative sources for information lie dormant and outside of layman's view. I am willing to take the step to research and dig up information and educate myself, and at the same time, I don't expect the non layman on the subject to divert my attention away from the authoritative sources, but rather give other sources or example that explain the distortions and discrepancies that are obvious to the layman and raise a first objection to the philosophy with very little effort.

I like the philosophy too and I support it, but it's hard for me to do so because the examples I am being given quickly veer off the path of the fundamentals of the philosophy. I hope you will gently correct the misunderstanding and give other sources and examples of people who actually SAY they are voluntaryist and show their works.

 

[Wesker1982]

Right, I agree. You are telling me to ignore the established principle of voluntaryism (an authoritative wiki source cites voluntaryist.com) that non political action is the purpose.

I am saying it is not an established principle. The only established principle in Voluntaryism is "all forms of human association should be voluntary". That is why it is called Voluntaryism.

First paragraph from wiki:

Voluntarism, or 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.

Since voluntaryists hold that the means must be consistent with the end, the goal of a purely voluntary society must be sought voluntarily. Voluntaryists assert that people cannot be coerced into freedom or voluntarily give it up. Voluntaryists often advocate the use of the stateless free market, education, persuasion, and non-violent resistance as the primary ways to change people's ideas about the state and their behavior toward it.

From Voluntaryist.com

Voluntaryism is the doctrine that relations among people should be by mutual consent, or not at all. It represents a means, an end, and an insight. Voluntaryism does not argue for the specific form that voluntary arrangements will take; only that force be abandoned so that individuals in society may flourish. As it is the means which determine the end, the goal of an all voluntary society must be sought voluntarily. People cannot be coerced into freedom. Hence, the use of the free market, education, persuasion, and non-violent resistance as the primary ways to change people's ideas about the State.The voluntaryist insight, that all tyranny and government are grounded upon popular acceptance, explains why voluntary means are sufficient to attain that end.

Non-voting is only one form of education, non-violent resistance, persuasion, etc.

A lot of Voluntaryists agree with me that the above is all that is required to consider yourself a Voluntaryist. Even those who disagree do not all of the sudden claim that they are not "true" Voluntaryists. They just maintain that they are incorrect on this issue.

You are committing the No True Scotsman Fallacy

 

[Voluntary Man]

The only established principle in Voluntaryism is "all forms of human association should be voluntary".

Bingo! All else is embellishment.

 

[newbitech]

Ok, so how does this make Ron Paul a voluntaryist? If I ran a survey and asked 1,000 people if they agree that all forms of human association should be voluntary, I have no doubt that overwhelmingly the answer would be yes. If I asked the same 1,000 people if they would voluntarily pay taxes, I suspect I would get a very similar response.

Are these people Voluntaryist? No I have not run the experiment, but you have to go a little further in to the philosophy than simply saying someone who agrees with voluntary action is a Voluntaryist.

So back to Ron Paul. He is planning on winning the nomination through the arcane delegate process. He is planning on winning without popular support. Tell me, does Voluntaryism support the idea that Ron Paul can and should take the reigns of government by using "the state" apparatus to coerce a very large majority of people who have actively voted against his candidacy into accepting his nomination?

See, I am not saying that you can't be a voluntaryist and make exception to the underlying principles. I am saying that if someone like Ron Paul who is known for and bases his education on integrity and unwavering commitment to his principles tried to do this, he would not have the platform he currently enjoys. This is WHY he is not a voluntaryist. He would be subscribing to the principles of a philosophy that would render his chosen actions, trying to win the nomination through the delegate process, invalid due to the obvious involuntary nature of accepting the nomination despite the large majority of people NOT voluntarily electing him.

He'd either have to abandon the philosophy or abandon his pursuit of the nomination via involuntary means. Never mind the electoral politics and political activity and leveraging of "the state" apparatus necessary to pull it off.

Or he could just cash in his integrity for something else.

As far as the logical fallacy. The burden of proof is on the tenants of the Voluntaryist philosophy. I am not the one redefining the purpose of the philosophy as stated by an authoritative source to which you have also referenced. I am simply asking if the philosophy holds to those principles. I guess it does not, and at that point I would argue that again, Ron Paul is a principled man and he would not associate himself to a philosophy that deviates from it's principles. At least that is his character and that is what his body of work has shown. I can only speculate as to why he hasn't come out and associated with the philosophy.

I would think that it is more likely because he would not want to associate with non political activities rather than some hidden agenda he has to not "out" himself. Who knows, but what we do know is that he is 76 years old and has been in and out of politics and he is pretty much an open book. He hasn't ever come out and said anything that would lead me to believe that Voluntaryism is at his core. In fact, he has even said to someone who describes himself as a voluntaryist (motor home diaries guy) basically you do your thing and I'll do mine.

 

[newbitech]

more from the authoritative source

Although the label "voluntaryist" practically died out after the death of Auberon Herbert, its use was renewed in late 1982, when George Smith, Wendy McElroy, and Carl Watner began editing THE VOLUNTARYIST. George Smith, after publishing his article "Nineteenth-Century Opponents of State Education," suggested use of the term to identify those libertarians who believed that political action and political parties were antithetical to their ideas. In NEITHER BULLETS NOR BALLOTS: Essays on Voluntaryism, Watner, Smith, and McElroy explained that voluntaryists were advocates of non-political strategies to achieve a free society. They rejected electoral politics "in theory and practice as incompatible with libertarian goals," and explained that political methods invariably strengthen the legitimacy of coercive governments. In concluding their "Statement of Purpose" they wrote: "Voluntaryists seek instead to delegitimize the State through education, and we advocate the withdrawal of the cooperation and tacit consent on which state power ultimately depends."

So claiming to be a voluntaryist while also supporting political action is antithetical according to the people who studied, wrote about, and revived the idea.

Are these people somehow co-opting this flavor of libertarianism? Or are the people who are claiming to be voluntaryist while advocating political activity simply misinformed as to the history of their chosen label by failing to do the requisite research before taking up a banner?

I have absolutely NOTHING against this philosophy and the people who are trying to represent it. I even like it and would encourage people to do it. Of course that runs afoul of my goal and the goal of this forum in supporting Ron Paul's candidacy for president. So I feel obligated to point out the risk of acting in a way that betrays the appeal of the man we all seem to support.

If someone wants to make exceptions, that is fine, but I don't think it is fair to paint Ron Paul as a voluntaryist if he is NOT willing to compromise his principles.

 

[newbitech]

a little more on the guy who helped write Views of the Voluntary Principle in 1845.

Baines embraced what he called the Voluntary system which includes all that is not Government or compulsory, - all that men do for themselves, their neighbours, or their posterity, of their own free will. It comprehends the efforts of parents, on behalf of the education of their children, - of the private schoolmaster and tutor, for their individual interest, - of religious bodies, benevolent societies, wealthy benefactors, and cooperative associations, in the support of schools, - and of those numerous auxiliaries to education, the authors and editors of educational works, lecturers, artists, and whoever devotes his talents in any way to promote the instruction of the young, without the compulsion of law or the support of the public purse. ...

I am finished drawing conclusions, based on the text and the history of voluntaryism. I think it is clear that Ron Paul and voluntaryism are compatible allies, but not occupying the same ground in the battle against "the state" or unbridled government apparatus.

 

[Cabal]

I don't doubt that if you were to poll people in general, they would agree that human interaction ought to be voluntary; yet at the same time, the same people probably don't think about all that question (or answer) entails, and how it applies to the world at large. Many people, for instance, probably do not even consider the violence inherent in mandatory income taxation.

Voluntaryism doesn't really have a one-way with regard to how to go about affecting change--that's not really part of the philosophy. There's much internal debate among voluntaryists and other such anarchists about this issue. Many see any participation in the State, including the electoral process, as either pointless or contradictory to their positions; others are more than happy to attempt to affect change through such things, and jump at the chance to minimize the state or state sponsored violence wherever possible.

Ron Paul's strategy here has nothing to do with coercion--this is a gross misrepresentation on your part which demonstrates a lack of understanding of coercion in general, quite frankly. So no, your argument here is nonsequitur.

As for the burden of proof, I think in this thread and others, ample proof has been provided to, at the very least, conclude that Ron Paul does indeed ascribe to some form of voluntaryism. I think the most likely truth here is that Ron Paul would ultimately prefer a purely voluntary society absent of the State; but I suspect he also realizes that isn't a practical thing to hope for at the moment, and that even if such a thing is possible, he isn't likely to see it in his lifetime. In the meantime, I suspect he would like to spread the message of liberty so that future generations may actually see such a future realized, whilst also doing what he can to shrink the State as best as he can; avoid impending wars, and mitigate against an impending monetary crisis. In my view this is the most reasonable conclusion after considering everything.

I think one of the primary reason you and others have been in such contention with this conclusion is because you are honestly afraid that a man you idolize and support may very well not share your opposition to a stateless society or the philosophy therein.

As someone else in another thread mentioned, it's difficult to reconcile the fact that he praises such a man as Spooner while asserting that he doesn't identify with voluntaryism. Likewise, you don't get mentored by one of the most renown anarchists of the 20th century and not at least carry some of those ideals with you.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

I think one of the primary reason you and others have been in such contention with this conclusion is because you are honestly afraid that a man you idolize and support may very well not share your opposition to a stateless society or the philosophy therein.

This is precisely what Ron is referring to here, imo.

Ron: Well, I tell you what... I don't critisize Lysander....
but... and his point is very well taken.
Maybe someday we'll mature to that point.

 

[nayjevin]

I think it is clear that Ron Paul and voluntaryism are compatible allies, but not occupying the same ground in the battle against "the state" or unbridled government apparatus.

Good way to put it, methinks.