Ron Paul & voluntarists

[newbitech]

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.

gonna have to disagree. Voluntaryism is already some form of libertarianism. It is a branch in the network and the defining attribute of voluntaryism, from its earliest tenants, to the authoritative source we are citing is the non political action.

As far as Ron Paul's strategy, it has everything to do with coercion. Suppose he wins the delegates with only 20% - 25% popular support. What of the other 75% - 80%. What prevents those people from enforcing their clear will to NOT have Ron Paul their representative? They will be forced in to complying with the results by the laws that govern the electoral process. They may refuse to accept the results, but if they try to do anything to alter those results, they risk being caged.

This really is no different than trying to resist the income tax. That same metaphorical gun to the head that compels people to pay their tax will also compel them to accept the results of a Ron Paul victory should he compile enough delegates to win the nomination. Is Ron Paul holding that gun to your head to make you pay taxes? Well, he pays his and redistributes those collected funds. Is Ron Paul holding that gun to the heads of the people who didn't vote for his nomination? Well, he'd gladly accept the nomination.

Yes he is working from within the system, but you cannot escape the fact that he is part of the system.

Again, some form of Voluntaryism. We can splinter off in all different directions, but the power of the movement is by focusing on what we share in common. So I accept that Voluntaryism is a branch of libertarianism. I also accept that some Voluntaryist are willing to abandon the non political theme that distinguishes this branch.

What I am not willing to accept is that Ron Paul is a voluntaryist because based on what voluntaryism is, how it came about, it's history, its iconic tenants, authors and body of works, they key to being a voluntaryist is understanding how to effect change WITHOUT using "the state".

Also again, Ron Paul has many influence, including his parents who were life long Republicans. Ronald Reagan, who as far as I know was not an anarchist. Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Grover Cleveland, Thomas Jefferson and on and on. I have no doubt that Ron Paul has many influence that have self identified as anarchist. But you blow off the fact that Ron Paul has not self-identified as such because it might damage his political aspirations?

Is it possible that he has not self-identified as an anarchist or voluntaryist in his 76 years because there are parts of those philosophies he DISAGREES WITH?
Why in the world would anyone take up the label of a philosophy that did not match their own? Why is it necessary to pick up a label at all? Could it be that the label someone takes up helps to rally people around that label to further that persons agenda?

Ron Paul HAS taken up the label of Constitutionalist. He explains how his philosophy matches his label. He goes in to great detail in explaining his philosophy and what he believes. I see no reason to try and wrap his self-identity in a label that he has not chosen. I also think the distortion that some folks are willing to take on to make this label fit, betrays their own philosophy.

I am in contention with the conclusion because it is demonstrably false. I have not taken up any particular label other than the required "Republican" on my voter ID card in order to support Ron Paul. I will gladly turn that card in, just like Ron Paul did when the label loses it's value. This won't change my beliefs as it did not change Ron Paul's beliefs.

The people who seem to have a problem with Ron Paul's label are the people who don't like the idea of returning to the Constitution as a non violent path and END RESULT of Ron Paul's work. Ron Paul had to clarify for one such person (motor homes diary guy). Yes Ron Paul does believe that the Constitution is a self-governing document. That should not surprise people. Especially people who understand self government, and MOST especially people who read Rothbard. You know national self determination. Home Rule (Gandhi) is another way to look at it.

So we are all looking at the same result from different angles. You don't see me trying to wrap Ron Paul in the label I'll call, newbitechism, cause I carry no label. I rather focus on the ideas and how those ideas are manifest in actions and words.

I think it is a good thing to go back and read the sources and see the influences. I also think it is a good thing to use common sense. Common sense tells me that if Ron Paul wanted to "be" or label himself as anything other than a Constitutionalist, that is what he would do. His whole entire career and appeal are based on integrity and being bluntly honest. Why would he make an exception over a label? Possibly because using that label would betray his actions and words since the underlying philosophy that the label represents is not a philosophy that he can stand by with integrity. Or perhaps like the Libertarian Party, the members of the label are in disarray over the philosophy that the label represents.

This is why it's important to focus on what is in common with the philosophies and avoid labels that are based on splinters of that philosophy.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

As far as Ron Paul's strategy, it has everything to do with coercion. Suppose he wins the delegates with only 20% - 25% popular support. What of the other 75% - 80%. What prevents those people from enforcing their clear will to NOT have Ron Paul their representative? They will be forced in to complying with the results by the laws that govern the electoral process. They may refuse to accept the results, but if they try to do anything to alter those results, they risk being caged.

This really is no different than trying to resist the income tax. That same metaphorical gun to the head that compels people to pay their tax will also compel them to accept the results of a Ron Paul victory should he compile enough delegates to win the nomination. Is Ron Paul holding that gun to your head to make you pay taxes? Well, he pays his and redistributes those collected funds. Is Ron Paul holding that gun to the heads of the people who didn't vote for his nomination? Well, he'd gladly accept the nomination.

Yes he is working from within the system, but you cannot escape the fact that he is part of the system.

Ron is trying to control the gun in the room that everyone is pointing at each other, including himself.

You're saying it's not "voluntary" enough to try and grab the gun of someone whose mugging you and pointing it in your face and to try and convince them it's not the best idea.

The strongest motivating force in my political activities is to
live free since I was born free. Liberty is my first goal. The free market
is the only result that can be expected from a free society. I do not
accept individual freedom because the market is efficient. Even if the
free market were less “efficient” than central planning, I would still
prefer my personal freedom to coercion.

Ron Paul HAS taken up the label of Constitutionalist. He explains how his philosophy matches his label. He goes in to great detail in explaining his philosophy and what he believes. I see no reason to try and wrap his self-identity in a label that he has not chosen. I also think the distortion that some folks are willing to take on to make this label fit, betrays their own philosophy.

Yet his own words:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoUrrlbDoVs&feature=youtu.be&t=2m50s

"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

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.

He did swear an oath of office to uphold the constitution, as he mentions. He does see the merit in using the constitution as a device with which to argue for limitations on government, as he mentions.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

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.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Cabal again.

 

[Cabal]

Voluntaryism being synonymous with libertarianism doesn't disqualify what I said. Just as in voluntaryist circles, libertarian circles are/were also in contention about involvement with the State or not. And once again, there is no single authoritative source on what is or is not cohesive with voluntaryism, or libertarianism for that matter.

Ron Paul is not initiating violence or threat thereof, Ron Paul is not prohibiting participation--therefore there is no coercion. Again, you seem to lack a basic understanding of the terminology. In any case your point is further disqualified when you take voter turnout into consideration. Less than half the voting population votes in the general election; even less than half of the party-voter population participates in the party primary process. Either way, whether its Ron Paul or someone else, the minority is electing the candidates and indeed the president. Now you can argue that inaction is still action--that not voting is still a vote; or you can argue that the choice not to participate is a forfeiture of your freedom to vote as you choose, but that is another discussion for another time, yet it would seem central to determining what is or is not coercion relative to the electoral process.

What I am not willing to accept is that Ron Paul is a voluntaryist because based on what voluntaryism is, how it came about, it's history, its iconic tenants, authors and body of works, they key to being a voluntaryist is understanding how to effect change WITHOUT using "the state".

Alright, this is getting very old, very fast. Some advocate involvement, some do not. This is not a difficult fact to wrap your head around. Stefan Molyneux does not advocate involvement. Murray Rothbard did. And for both of them there are likely tens of thousands of average people, if not more, who agree with one or the other who would self-identify as voluntaryist. Stop making assertions on things which you clearly haven't bothered to understand. Please. It's annoying as hell.

demonstrably false

And yet you continue to prove incapable of demonstrating supposed fallacy.

And, quite frankly, the only thing being demonstrated here is your disregard for the man's intellectual and professional history. It's not a matter of your doubt or lack there of. Had you any regard for what has been reiterated throughout this thread and others, or any regard for the man's intellectual and professional career, you'd know for a fact who he studied under and who those people were.

For the record, I don't really care what label is applied to Ron Paul because as I mentioned before, that is largely irrelevant if not also far too subjective to individual biases, as we can clearly see here.

Is it possible that he has not self-identified as an anarchist or voluntaryist in his 76 years because there are parts of those philosophies he DISAGREES WITH?

Such as? I can't read Ron Paul's mind, so I can't answer this question which is probably just rhetorical anyhow. I can speculate that given his involvement in political office, which demonstrates a desire to attempt to affect change from within, it probably isn't in his best interests to identify with the label of anarchy which is also, unfortunately, largely misrepresented and misunderstood in the mainstream.

 

[newbitech]

Ron is trying to control the gun in the room that everyone is pointing at each other, including himself.

You're saying it's not "voluntary" enough to try and grab the gun of someone whose mugging you and pointing it in your face and to try and convince them it's not the best idea.

Yet:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoUrrlbDoVs&feature=youtu.be&t=2m50s

No, I am not using voluntary ambiguously. I am using it as the label that represents a philosophy. Philosophical voluntaryism is a branch of libertarianism that is distinct it's strategy for effecting change towards liberty. That distinction is non political actions. I put the case up there with sources to the history and authoritative sources to the reemergence of the label.

So with that in mind, no working inside government to motivate people to participate in electoral politics and arcane delegate selection process that is neither voluntary (ambiguously) or voluntaryism/ism (dis-ambiguously). I will leave the interpretation of the philosophy open, since I am a laymen, but I will also point to the authority, the history, the tenants, and leave it up to the reader to decide if the process represent voluntaryism. I will also continue to disagree that Ron Paul is a voluntaryist/ist, because based on a cursory examination of the authoritative sources, writings, history, and tenants, and his lack of self-identification of that label, the answer is overwhelmingly, no he is not.

As far the video you keep posting, I watched it. It is unconvincing to say the least. I appreciate what the video is trying to do, but in the context of the body of work that is Ron Paul, it falls well short of removing his self-identified label of Constitutionalist and attaching the label of voluntarist/yist.

Yeah, people are what achieves limited government power. The document itself is the vehicle for getting there and staying there. Metaphorically speaking, a car itself is incapable of taking me to the grocery and picking up dinner. I need to actually open the door, get in the car, start the engine, press the gas pedal, turn the wheel back and forth, park it, get out, go achieve what I would like to achieve and repeat the process over and over. Sure, I could walk and abandon the car and never drive it again and still achieve what I want. The car makes it a whole hell of lot safer, more convenient, and is just a better way to do it than walking.

I don't take this statement by Ron Paul to be him throwing off his self-identified label of Constitutionalism. I certainly don't take this statement to mean that he is advocating abandoning the Constitution.

Maybe some day we'll mature to the point? The point of finding a better way to get what we want? Sure I am all for that. But the maturity process requires us to grow through steps. We have to crawl before we walk. Walk before we take the car. And take the car before we are teleported. Ron Paul is not trying to skip a step in the maturity process.

 

[newbitech]

Voluntaryism being synonymous with libertarianism doesn't disqualify what I said. Just as in voluntaryist circles, libertarian circles are/were also in contention about involvement with the State or not. And once again, there is no single authoritative source on what is or is not cohesive with voluntaryism, or libertarianism for that matter.

Ron Paul is not initiating violence or threat thereof, Ron Paul is not prohibiting participation--therefore there is no coercion. Again, you seem to lack a basic understanding of the terminology. In any case your point is further disqualified when you take voter turnout into consideration. Less than half the voting population votes in the general election; even less than half of the party-voter population participates in the party primary process. Either way, whether its Ron Paul or someone else, the minority is electing the candidates and indeed the president. Now you can argue that inaction is still action--that not voting is still a vote; or you can argue that the choice not to participate is a forfeiture of your freedom to vote as you choose, but that is another discussion for another time, yet it would seem central to determining what is or is not coercion relative to the electoral process.



Alright, this is getting very old, very fast. Some advocate involvement, some do not. This is not a difficult fact to wrap your head around. Stefan Molyneux does not advocate involvement. Murray Rothbard did. And for both of them there are likely tens of thousands of average people, if not more, who agree with one or the other who would self-identify as voluntaryist. Stop making assertions on things which you clearly haven't bothered to understand. Please. It's annoying as hell.



And yet you continue to prove incapable of demonstrating supposed fallacy.

And, quite frankly, the only thing being demonstrated here is your disregard for the man's intellectual and professional history. It's not a matter of your doubt or lack there of. Had you any regard for what has been reiterated throughout this thread and others, or any regard for the man's intellectual and professional career, you'd know for a fact who he studied under and who those people were.

For the record, I don't really care what label is applied to Ron Paul because as I mentioned before, that is largely irrelevant if not also far too subjective to individual biases, as we can clearly see here.



Such as? I can't read Ron Paul's mind, so I can't answer this question which is probably just rhetorical anyhow. I can speculate that given his involvement in political office, which demonstrates a desire to attempt to affect change from within, it probably isn't in his best interests to identify with the label of anarchy which is also, unfortunately, largely misrepresented and misunderstood in the mainstream.

1.) Voluntaryism is not synonymous with libertarianism.

2.) If there is no single authoritative source for what voluntaryism, cite another source.

3.) The sources I have found compiled by the modern source at voluntaryist.com go back to the roots of the term.

4.) The fact that Ron Paul is not the one holding the gun when my money is stolen doesn't exonerate him from participating in the
system that allows that person to do so.

5.) The fact that Ron Paul is not the one holding the gun when he is nominated against the voluntary wishes of the people who do participate also does not exonerate him from participating in the system that allows this to happen.

6.) The fact is, Ron Paul is using the system to achieve his purposes.

7.) I don't hear the movement condemning individuals holding the guns more than I hear the movement condemning the system altogether.

8.) The ones who advocate involvement are libertarians

9.) The ones who advocate non involvement are voluntaryist

10.) I have bothered to understand as evidence by me being pretty much the only one citing authoritative sources

11.) I am not the one making the assertions, I am the one pointing out that the assertions being made by self-identified voluntaryist are not consistent

12.) I have provided evidence and you disagree prima facia. I have demonstrated more than enough doubt that concluding Ron Paul is voluntaryist is false. Now you must remove that doubt. You won't, because rather than addressing my evidence, you continue to refer to the same prima facia conclusion. The loose knitted associations in the video simply does not hold up under the scrutiny of the evidence I have provided.

13.) I am not disregarding his history. I am pointing out that the history of the label that is being attached to him does not reconcile with his history. How is that disregarding his history? I think what is being disregarded is the history I posted about the Voluntaryist movement. It is distinctly different from the path that Ron Paul and his mentors have taken. For that matter, we already know that Ron Paul does not self-identify as a voluntaryist, but please which of his mentors have?

14.) I do care what label is applied because it shapes the opinion of the layperson. If you really don't care, then bow out and allow those who are pushing the label on him to defend themselves. Otherwise, you are tainting the discussion.

15.) Well it's pretty obvious that Ron Paul disagrees with the purpose of Voluntaryism. You can argue that the word and the label mean something else, but then you are not arguing against me, you are arguing against the authoritative sources, the history of voluntaryism, the founders of the philosophy, the writers and tenants of the philosophy. Have at it, but in the mean time, until there is some significant breakthrough in that regard on your part, it's pretty easy to conclude that Ron Paul is not a voluntaryist.

16.) I agree that Ron Paul's philosophy contains pieces other philosophies. Which philosophy doesn't? I also agree that Ron Paul likes voluntarism/yism, is an advocate of voluntary association, believes that voluntary means without coercion, and might even become a voluntaryist AFTER he exists politics.

17.) He is NOT a voluntaryist now, he hasn't been a voluntaryist during his time in politics, though he may have participate in some voluntaryist activities. The label simply does not fit the man.

 

[Cabal]

1.) Voluntaryism is not synonymous with libertarianism.

Stopped reading there.

 

[newbitech]

Stopped reading there.

Like I said, you dismiss based on prima facie evidence , yet you don't address the evidence I present. It's very easy to prove 1.) but you don't accept the definitions. If the words are synonymous, the words reflect the same philosophy. If the philosophies are not the same, then the words are not synonymous.

18.) The philosophies Voluntaryism and Libertarianism are not the same.

I'll add for the sake of argument,

19.) Voluntaryism and Voluntarism may not be synonymous considering Voluntaryism may be a philosophy and Voluntarism may be an action. The distinction is unclear, but there is room for further inspection and definitions. The Wiki source circles back to the established branch of libertarianism, Voluntaryism. The dictionary voluntarism definition establishes the term firstly as a philosophical basis for will as the fundamental principle, the secondary definition is established in reference to churches and charity which gleans from the original source of the Voluntaryist philosophy. The tertiary definition is established a derivative of the root voluntary as a policy or practice in the nature of actions.

Further study reveals establishment of meaning in reference to again will over intellect as the ultimate principle for reality, doctrine based on participation in an action, absence of "state" involvement in procedures of collective bargaining and union organization, and of course being SYNONYM of voluntarYism.

And then we find that the synonymous use is of course established in reference to the principle of the absence of government in support of various none government institutions again gleaned from the founding of the philosophy.

So if voluntarism is not being used philosophically, how can the label be justified? That is like calling Ron Paul Cyclist, since he rides a bike and advocates riding a bike. It certainly cannot be used to challenge his self-identified label which is tied to a philosophy that he does advocate. Constitutionalism.

 

[Wesker1982]

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.

In reply Ron says: I think that's really what my goal is.

The reply is in response to choice X RATHER than the Constitution.

From the OP:

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.

Ok, so how does this make Ron Paul a voluntaryist?

.......... No True Scotsman

 

[Wesker1982]

Voluntaryism being synonymous with libertarianism doesn't disqualify what I said. Just as in voluntaryist circles, libertarian circles are/were also in contention about involvement with the State or not. And once again, there is no single authoritative source on what is or is not cohesive with voluntaryism, or libertarianism for that matter.

Ron Paul is not initiating violence or threat thereof, Ron Paul is not prohibiting participation--therefore there is no coercion. Again, you seem to lack a basic understanding of the terminology. In any case your point is further disqualified when you take voter turnout into consideration. Less than half the voting population votes in the general election; even less than half of the party-voter population participates in the party primary process. Either way, whether its Ron Paul or someone else, the minority is electing the candidates and indeed the president. Now you can argue that inaction is still action--that not voting is still a vote; or you can argue that the choice not to participate is a forfeiture of your freedom to vote as you choose, but that is another discussion for another time, yet it would seem central to determining what is or is not coercion relative to the electoral process.



Alright, this is getting very old, very fast. Some advocate involvement, some do not. This is not a difficult fact to wrap your head around. Stefan Molyneux does not advocate involvement. Murray Rothbard did. And for both of them there are likely tens of thousands of average people, if not more, who agree with one or the other who would self-identify as voluntaryist. Stop making assertions on things which you clearly haven't bothered to understand. Please. It's annoying as hell.



And yet you continue to prove incapable of demonstrating supposed fallacy.

And, quite frankly, the only thing being demonstrated here is your disregard for the man's intellectual and professional history. It's not a matter of your doubt or lack there of. Had you any regard for what has been reiterated throughout this thread and others, or any regard for the man's intellectual and professional career, you'd know for a fact who he studied under and who those people were.

For the record, I don't really care what label is applied to Ron Paul because as I mentioned before, that is largely irrelevant if not also far too subjective to individual biases, as we can clearly see here.



Such as? I can't read Ron Paul's mind, so I can't answer this question which is probably just rhetorical anyhow. I can speculate that given his involvement in political office, which demonstrates a desire to attempt to affect change from within, it probably isn't in his best interests to identify with the label of anarchy which is also, unfortunately, largely misrepresented and misunderstood in the mainstream.

/debate

 

[newbitech]

In reply Ron says: I think that's really what my goal is.

The reply is in response to choice X RATHER than the Constitution.

From the OP:

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.



.......... No True Scotsman

Prima facie STILL. I already gave my counter, you ignored. Why?

Look at how much you have to chop up the question and response to get it to fit what you want it to mean? I mean damn. The question prefaced with the acknowledgement that Ron Paul stands for the Constitution "BUT... what do you say to people who advocate for self government rather than a return to the Constitution." See Ron Paul advocates for a return to the Constitution. The interviewer wanted to know what Ron Paul would say to people who DON'T advocate that. Of course he explains his goal is self government. Ron Paul wants those folks who don't advocate a return to the Constitution, LIKE HE DOES, to understand that the goal is the same. You don't have to advocate for a Constitutional Government and a return to the Constitution if your goal is his goal. He says later on,

and for the life of me I can't understand how you and many others can sit here and ignore the context

later on he tells the guy, you do your thing I'll do mine. Ron Paul is doing something that the voluntaryist are not doing. Hmm... why would he say that? Oh that's right, he doesn't want to "out" himself

Come on. I want a real debate. I want you to address all the stuff that I bring up that to this point you have refused to address. You keep repeating yourself. I keep digging and finding more and more support for my views..

I'll change my views if they are wrong. Can you say the same and actually be dependable enough to do it?

As far as Kokesh. Obviously, Ron Paul is talking about voluntary ACTIONS and NOT Voluntarist philosophy. Obviously. Of course Kokesh labels himself as volunarist and pigeon holes Dr. Paul on the description and meaning of voluntarism. Ron Paul said he endorses the idea of voluntarism (the philosophy). Awesome, no argument from me! But what Kokesh did there was a bit dishonest. Clearly Kokesh was pushing the label attached to the philosophy on Ron Paul. And you can see by Ron Paul's response, he quickly goes to the root word voluntary which indicates he took the definition established by the ACTION and not the definition established by the philosophy.

I suspect Kokesh may not have done this on purpose if what I am seeing in this thread play out is true. He probably has simply accepted the label based on the action definition, which isn't the philosophy. If he knew the philosophy, he'd understand that Ron Paul cannot be a philosophical voluntaryist. At least he can't be one with any sort of integrity.

The problem is Ron Paul getting enough delegates to override the popular sentiment that he doesn't represent the Republican Party's views. The solution is NOT voluntary. The solution is to use the arcane delegate selection process to override the will (see 1st philosophical definition of voluntary) of the people who are participating the process.

So in order for him to maintain his integrity, he cannot be a philosophical voluntaryist. And if he thinks that using force in delegate selection process to override the will of the people is ok, then his argument now becomes that someone has used force against him in the process. I don't see him making that argument, yet.

You can prima facie reject that is what he is doing with delegates, but if you do that with delegates, you have to do that with taxes too. Fact, Ron Paul is part of the system he is trying to reign in. Fact, reigning in that system does not require collapsing that system. Fact, Ron Paul will use force if he believes force is being used against him.

If you want to label Ron Paul as a philosophical voluntaryist, you are going to need to show me where he was forced in to being a politician, and you are going to need to show me where the people who participate in nomination process were forced in to selecting someone other than Ron Paul at a rate of probably more than 75%.

 

[newbitech]

/debate

premature. Prima facie evidence has been answered. No further evidence has been offered on the other side. No refutation of my evidence has been forthcoming. Possible end of debate with Cabal since he came out and said he no longer cares for the premise.

 

[Wesker1982]

I want you to address all the stuff that I bring up that to this point you have refused to address.

You mostly ignored my responses. Reply with: BUT HOW DOES THAT MAKE HIM A VOLUNTARYIST?

If you took the time to reply to what I posted point by point, I would have no problem doing the same. Just because you write a huge wall of text does not mean it can't be a huge wall of non sequiturs and red herrings.

I was just watching this video again...

But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist. - Lysander Spooner

Ron's response to THAT....

I’ll tell you what: I don’t criticize Lysander. His point is very well taken, and someday maybe we will mature to that point. His claim was that if he himself didn’t agree to the Constitution, why should somebody in a remote body agree to the Constitution and he be pushed under it? It is a good idea, but under today’s circumstances, I have to work with the best that we have. Because who knows, I might have been an anti-Federalist at the time the Constitution was being written. But fortunately we ended up with a good Constitution, and our problem is more that we don’t obey the good parts about it. I think it’s a very interesting philosophic issue, and I hope that someday we mature enough to have that argument.

 

[newbitech]

You mostly ignored my responses. Reply with: BUT HOW DOES THAT MAKE HIM A VOLUNTARYIST?

If you took the time to reply to what I posted point by point, I would have no problem doing the same. Just because you write a huge wall of text does not mean it can't be a huge wall of non sequiturs and red herrings.

I was just watching this video again...

But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist. - Lysander Spooner

Ron's response to THAT....

I’ll tell you what: I don’t criticize Lysander. His point is very well taken, and someday maybe we will mature to that point. His claim was that if he himself didn’t agree to the Constitution, why should somebody in a remote body agree to the Constitution and he be pushed under it? It is a good idea, but under today’s circumstances, I have to work with the best that we have. Because who knows, I might have been an anti-Federalist at the time the Constitution was being written. But fortunately we ended up with a good Constitution, and our problem is more that we don’t obey the good parts about it. I think it’s a very interesting philosophic issue, and I hope that someday we mature enough to have that argument.

Oh but I did address your points. I addressed the source loop in the wiki. I addressed the various definitions being used. I addressed the fallacy you accused me of. So don't say I mostly ignored your response. I have been reading about Voluntaryism all day long. please don't accuse me of ignoring. If you have a specific point you want me to address, lay it out.

Good idea, BUT...

and

Good constitution, the problem is that we don't obey the good parts about it.

 

[Wesker1982]

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?

He isn't coercing anyone. If his actions were coercive, then it would violate Voluntaryist principles.

What is he doing to voters who voted against him? The position is essentially: "I am going to reduce as much coercion as possible. This includes using violence to get people to pay for things that you want".

Someone is trying to take away the power of this criminal organization to initiate violence on my behalf? They are coercing me!

See how that doesn't really work? He is not coercing the people who want other people robbed. He is reducing coercion.

 

[RiseAgainst]

In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having ever been asked, a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practise this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defence, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man attempts to take the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot -- which is a mere substitute for a bullet -- because, as his only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency, into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defence offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him.

~Lysander Spooner

 

[Wesker1982]

"I like voluntarism. That's what a free society is supposed to be all about." - Ron Paul

To believe in liberty is not to believe in any particular social and economic outcome (VOLUNTARYISM). It is to trust the spontaneous order that emerges when the state does not intervene in human volition and human cooperation (VOLUNTARYISM). It permits people to work out their problems for themselves, build lives for themselves, take risks and accept responsibility for the results, and make their own decisions(VOLUNTARYISM). - Liberty Defined

A free people do not use force to mold person moral behavoir, but a free people do entrust the management of social norms to the courts of taste and manners that arise spontaneously within civilization (VOLUNTARYISM). - Liberty Defined

We endorse the idea of voluntarism, self-responsibility, family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. - Ron Paul

[x] Spontaneous order
[x] All interactions voluntary
[ ] initiation of coercion

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Without Austrian economics, I would not have had my political
career. The strongest motivating force in my political activities is to
live free since I was born free. Liberty is my first goal. The free market
is the only result that can be expected from a free society. I do not
accept individual freedom because the market is efficient. Even if the
free market were less “efficient” than central planning, I would still
prefer my personal freedom to coercion.

http://mises.org/books/paulmises.pdf

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Good idea, BUT...

Good idea, BUT... it's just so taboo?

 

[Wesker1982]

We endorse the idea of voluntarism, self-responsibility, family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. - Ron Paul