Ron Paul & voluntarists

[Wesker1982]

If Canada and the United States can be separate nations without being denounced as being in a state of impermissible "anarchy," why may not the South secede from the United States? New York State from the Union? New York City from the state? Why may not Manhattan secede? Each neighborhood? Each block? Each house? Each person? But, of course, if each person may secede from government, we have virtually arrived at the purely free society, where defense is supplied along with all other services by the free market and where the invasive State has ceased to exist. — Murray N. Rothbard

 

[noneedtoaggress]

People like you and me need to start walking out of the room, REGARDLESS of who is holding the gun.

Sure, I don't disagree with that at all.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Nice! Man I love it when he takes a strike at the root...

This is one of my favorite moments this cycle:

 

[Wesker1982]

Promoting the NAP on national TV. HOPE WE CAN BELIEVE IN.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Promoting the NAP on national TV. HOPE WE CAN BELIEVE IN.

I don't like the use of force, I like voluntaryism, that's what a free society is all about.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Nice! Man I love it when he takes a strike at the root...

This is one of my favorite moments this cycle:

EPIC!!!

 

[Cabal]

Promoting the NAP on national TV.

Legendary.

 

[Conza88]

​

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

I'd never read the introduction to Liberty Defined before twenty minutes ago. Holy eff, few things that jumped at me:

Liberty means to exercise human rights in any manner a person chooses so long as it does not interfere with the exercise of the rights of others. This means, above all else, keeping government out of our lives. Only this path leads to the unleashing of human energies that build civilizations, provide security, generate wealth, and protect the people from systematic rights violations.

To believe in liberty is not to believe in any particular social and economic outcome. It is to trust in the spontaneous order that emerges when the state does not intervene in human volition and human cooperation.

And yet even among the friends of liberty, many people are deceived into believing that government can make them safe from all harm, provide fairly distributed economic security, and improve individual moral behavior. If the government is granted a monopoly on the use of force to achieve these goals, history shows that that power will be abused. Every single time.

These aren't dogwhistles, these are freaking bullhorns.

 

[Conza88]

I'd never read the introduction to Liberty Defined before twenty minutes ago. Holy eff, few things that jumped at me:

These aren't dogwhistles, these are freaking bullhorns.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

@ around 10:00 min in.

 

[Conza88]

This goes out to all those in this thread who helped spawn and inspire a new meme. Couldn't have done it without you. Thanks soundboard.

 

[Cabal]

I'd never read the introduction to Liberty Defined before twenty minutes ago. Holy eff, few things that jumped at me:

These aren't dogwhistles, these are freaking bullhorns.

There's so many anarchistic undertones in those small selections alone.

keeping government out of our lives

If government is completely out of our lives, one could easily take this to mean it ought not to even exist. If government is not involved in anyone's lives at all, how can it exist, and for what purpose?

spontaneous order that emerges when the state does not intervene in human volition and human cooperation

Spontaneous order in absence of the State = a direct reference to anarchy.

many people are deceived into believing that government can make them safe from all harm

So not even national defense or police protection.

monopoly on the use of force

Again, anarchist phraseology.

history shows that that power will be abused. Every single time

Common anarchist argument against government and the State.


Was there ever really any doubt? Aside from Statists trying to justify their world view by asserting the RP holds the same.

 

[Wesker1982]

So not even national defense or police protection.

Just in case you missed it: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?308268-Ron-Paul-and-Private-Courts

I plan to edit sometime and add the other stuff he said about Spooner.

Question: "You're frequently an advocate for the Constitution. What are your thoughts of the Lysander Spooner statement: "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."

Ron Paul: "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 [at least tries to limit government], 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."

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

There's so many anarchistic undertones in those small selections alone.



If government is completely out of our lives, one could easily take this to mean it ought not to even exist. If government is not involved in anyone's lives at all, how can it exist, and for what purpose?



Spontaneous order in absence of the State = a direct reference to anarchy.



So not even national defense or police protection.



Again, anarchist phraseology.



Common anarchist argument against government and the State.


Was there ever really any doubt? Aside from Statists trying to justify their world view by asserting the RP holds the same.

Found this gem while reading through the Medical Care chapter:

In fact, the greater the importance of anything, the stronger the reason not to depend on a government redistributionist system. A government system of anything has a nearly perfect record of failure - whether it's stopping war, preserving liberty, guaranteeing sound money, or generating economic prosperity.

Also fun is this, in the marriage section:

It is typical of how government intervention in social issues serves no useful purpose.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Bump.

Looky what I found:

http://www.theenc.org/img/print/RP&V.pdf

 

[Conza88]

Haha, yep... lot of good work from those here in the forums have managed to find a lot of gems. Nicely put together.

 

[Conza88]

LE, just for you

 

[Wesker1982]

It’s easy to reject the initiation of violence against one’s neighbor but it’s ironic that the people arbitrarily and freely anoint government officials with monopoly power to initiate violence against the American people—practically at will.

No Government Monopoly over Initiating Violence

Restraining aggressive behavior is one thing, but legalizing a government monopoly for initiating aggression can only lead to exhausting liberty associated with chaos, anger and the breakdown of civil society. Permitting such authority and expecting saintly behavior from the bureaucrats and the politicians is a pipe dream. We now have a standing army of armed bureaucrats in the TSA, CIA, FBI, Fish and Wildlife, FEMA, IRS, Corp of Engineers, etc. numbering over 100,000. Citizens are guilty until proven innocent in the unconstitutional administrative courts.

Government in a free society should have no authority to meddle in social activities or the economic transactions of individuals. Nor should government meddle in the affairs of other nations. All things peaceful, even when controversial, should be permitted.

Here he expresses the explicitly Rothbardian view that governments get away with initiating violence because of their perceived legitimatacy:

Because it’s the government that initiates force, most people accept it as being legitimate.

(For the Rothbardian summary see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bqo7XMkbtEk and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpCy0gmWMCM )

Here he echos Lysander Spooner:

It is believed by too many that governments are morally justified in initiating force supposedly to “do good.” They incorrectly believe that this authority has come from the “consent of the people.”

( also see Ron Paul on Lysander Spooner here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQWz2zQ9OmI )

Here he mentions three positions:

1. economic interventionism
2. social interventionism
3. voluntarism

Then rejects two of them.

The problem we have faced over the years has been that economic interventionists are swayed by envy, whereas social interventionists are swayed by intolerance of habits and lifestyles. The misunderstanding that tolerance is an endorsement of certain activities, motivates many to legislate moral standards which should only be set by individuals making their own choices. Both sides use force to deal with these misplaced emotions. Both are authoritarians. Neither endorses voluntarism. Both views ought to be rejected.

What a wonderful world it would be if everyone accepted the simple moral premise of rejecting all acts of aggression. The retort to such a suggestion is always: it’s too simplistic, too idealistic, impractical, naïve, utopian, dangerous, and unrealistic to strive for such an ideal. The answer to that is that for thousands of years the acceptance of government force, to rule over the people, at the sacrifice of liberty, was considered moral and the only available option for achieving peace and prosperity. What could be more utopian than that myth – considering the results especially looking at the state sponsored killing, by nearly every government during the 20th Century, estimated to be in the hundreds of millions. It’s time to reconsider this grant of authority to the state.

The idealism of non-aggression and rejecting all offensive use of force should be tried.

 

[torchbearer]

that is true.
ron did talk about the two choices... but had a government... but what was different in each example was the people.
a moral people will bring about a moral government.
a society of people that boo the golden rule produces the government we have today.