SPLIT: Ancap derail of "Best book on minarchism" thread

[UnReconstructed]

You are correct, he states that he is not minarchist but have you read his books? I have heard him speak and heard him state that government is incompatible with liberty and that force is wrong and that he believes in voluntary associations and the free market but... have you read his books?

I must say that I have only read one and that was the Politically Incorrect Guide to American History and it, was minarchist. So maybe I am using a broad brush being that once I read that book I made the decision to not read any of his other works.

 

[Joe3113]

You are correct, he states that he is not minarchist but have you read his books? I have heard him speak and heard him state that government is incompatible with liberty and that force is wrong and that he believes in voluntary associations and the free market but... have you read his books?

I must say that I have only read one and that was the Politically Incorrect Guide to American History and it, was minarchist. So maybe I am using a broad brush being that once I read that book I made the decision to not read any of his other works.

So another person everyone thinks is a minarchist / Constitutionalist and yet he's an anarcho-capitalist.

How interesting..

 

[UnReconstructed]

I'm not sure what to make of that but like I said, I know what he says but the (1) book of his that I read was minarchist.

 

[LibertyEagle]

So another person everyone thinks is a minarchist / Constitutionalist and yet he's an anarcho-capitalist.

How interesting..

Yes, he is an ancap now. But, he wasn't always.

 

[Joe3113]

Yes, he is an ancap now. But, he wasn't always.

Can you prove this please.

How did you come to that conclusion?

 

[__27__]

Yes, he is an ancap now. But, he wasn't always.

Can you prove this please.

How did you come to that conclusion?

I'm not citing any sources or calling on extensive research, but I would say that's generally correct. And I would also say that is generally the norm. I see it as one of the few positives LE has said toward Ancapism. This is generally how we progress. First I was a hard line Republican, then I was a minarchist, then I was an anarchist. The more I questioned my principles and made the effort to apply them to my life, the more I saw that Ancapism is the logical conclusion of libertarian values. If you were born an ancap and have remained ancap your entire life, I'd say you're the exception, not the rule.

EDIT: And I would also add that I see Dr. Paul in the reverse. That is, the poster above said that Woods claims he is an ancap, but his writing (at least the one he read) sounds much more minarchist. Dr. Paul claims on a national stage to be minarchist, but from my prospective if you listen to or read his words, they are much closer to ancap than minarchy.

As I've said before, 2012 can't come soon enough for me. As much as I will vehemently disagree with minarchists and call them out at every chance in philosophical debate, I rather prefer when we are working together toward a common goal to trying to pick each other apart over minor philosophy differences.

 

[Joe3113]

Yes, he is an ancap now. But, he wasn't always.

When did he stop being a minarchist is the point I was making. You know he wasn't always, but do you know when?

My contention is that he didn't convert after writing those books. He already was one, it just wasn't necessary, nor expedient to write about it.

I'm not citing any sources or calling on extensive research, but I would say that's generally correct. And I would also say that is generally the norm. I see it as one of the few positives LE has said toward Ancapism. This is generally how we progress. First I was a hard line Republican, then I was a minarchist, then I was an anarchist. The more I questioned my principles and made the effort to apply them to my life, the more I saw that Ancapism is the logical conclusion of libertarian values. If you were born an ancap and have remained ancap your entire life, I'd say you're the exception, not the rule.

This is all besides the point. You also forgot that some people never progress and get stuck with fallacies and a position with full of contradictions.

EDIT: And I would also add that I see Dr. Paul in the reverse. That is, the poster above said that Woods claims he is an ancap, but his writing (at least the one he read) sounds much more minarchist. Dr. Paul claims on a national stage to be minarchist, but from my prospective if you listen to or read his words, they are much closer to ancap than minarchy.

Woods is an anarcho-capitalist. There is no 'claim'. What needs to be queried is in what context? Everyone here is a Constitutionalist (limited government) when compared with what we currently have. It's just that there are those that in comparing less government with that as outlined in the Constitution - would choose less, just like the Anti-Federalists did.

Ron Paul has explicitly stated his ideal is self government. That's anarcho-capitalism.

As I've said before, 2012 can't come soon enough for me. As much as I will vehemently disagree with minarchists and call them out at every chance in philosophical debate, I rather prefer when we are working together toward a common goal to trying to pick each other apart over minor philosophy differences.

As do I. When no-one attempts to denounce a truly free society & there is no problem.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I'm not citing any sources or calling on extensive research, but I would say that's generally correct. And I would also say that is generally the norm. I see it as one of the few positives LE has said toward Ancapism. This is generally how we progress. First I was a hard line Republican, then I was a minarchist, then I was an anarchist. The more I questioned my principles and made the effort to apply them to my life, the more I saw that Ancapism is the logical conclusion of libertarian values. If you were born an ancap and have remained ancap your entire life, I'd say you're the exception, not the rule.

EDIT: And I would also add that I see Dr. Paul in the reverse. That is, the poster above said that Woods claims he is an ancap, but his writing (at least the one he read) sounds much more minarchist. Dr. Paul claims on a national stage to be minarchist, but from my prospective if you listen to or read his words, they are much closer to ancap than minarchy.

As I've said before, 2012 can't come soon enough for me. As much as I will vehemently disagree with minarchists and call them out at every chance in philosophical debate, I rather prefer when we are working together toward a common goal to trying to pick each other apart over minor philosophy differences.

Here's what some of you guys don't understand. I don't have a problem with anarcho-capitalism IN THEORY. But, in practical application with the society we have today, I have major issues with it. So, until people change a great deal, I firmly believe that a limited constitutional government is the best way to secure liberty. I also firmly believe that it is difficult enough to remind Americans about why government should not be looked to for every damn thing, and why it badly needs to be drastically reduced and put in chains.

So, to all ancaps, we can either work together to drastically reduce government, or we can keep beating the hell out of each other. The choice is yours.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Ron Paul has explicitly stated his ideal is self government. That's anarcho-capitalism.

Nope. There you go again.

The term "self-government" has been used by limited government folks for as long as I can remember. Because our Founders largely intended us to be that way. It does not mean, no government.

Ron Paul is a constitutionalist and for you to keep claiming he is an ancap is ridiculous.

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=15

Defending the Constitution
​

"For the sake of the future of our Republic, it is important that we are not just consistent, but correctly consistent. We must defend not just the sections of the Constitution we find popular, we must defend the entire Constitution. Most importantly, we must jealously guard the philosophy of freedom upon which it is based. If we do, the sound we will hear is that of liberty once again loudly ringing across our land."
Ron Paul, Texas Straight Talk, June 21, 1999
​

The most popular documents on Defending the Constitution:
1. A Republic, Not a Democracy Ron Paul Newsletter, December 11, 2000
2. Congress Should Read the Bills Before they Vote! Ron Paul Press Release, March 14, 2006
3. Sorry, Mr. Franklin, "We're All Democrats Now” Ron Paul Speech to Congress, January 29, 2003
4. Federal Courts and the Growth of Government Power Ron Paul Newsletter, January 16, 2006
5. What Does the First Amendment Really Mean? Ron Paul Newsletter, July 1, 2002
6. The Electoral College Serves to Protect Liberty and Statehood Ron Paul Newsletter, November 13, 2000
7. A Republic, If You Can Keep It Ron Paul Speech to Congress, January 31, 2000
8. Restricting the Executive Orders Ron Paul Newsletter, August 2, 1999
9. Let liberty ring loudly. All of Constitution, not just sections, must be defended Ron Paul Newsletter, June 21, 1999

77 other documents on Defending the Constitution:
1. Celebrating the Fight for Freedom on the Fourth Ron Paul Congressional Blog, July 6, 2009
2. Secession: the Ultimate States' Right Ron Paul Congressional Blog, April 27, 2009
3. Introducing the Sunlight Rule Ron Paul Speech to Congress, March 5, 2009
4. What's in a Bill Name? Ron Paul Congressional Blog, August 11, 2008
5. Congressman Paul Cosponsors Engel Paul Act Ron Paul Press Release, August 4, 2008
6. Statement on HR 6304, the FISA Amendments Ron Paul Speech to Congress, June 20, 2008
7. Comments on the Recovery Rebates and Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 Ron Paul Speech to Congress, January 29, 2008
8. Statement Regarding Impeachment of Vice President Cheney Ron Paul Speech to Congress, November 6, 2007
9. Statement Introducing the American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007 Ron Paul Speech to Congress, October 15, 2007
10. The Sunlight Rule Ron Paul Newsletter, September 16, 2007
11. Introducing the Congressional Responsibility and Accountability Act Ron Paul Speech to Congress, August 1, 2007
12. Signing Statements Erode Constitutional Balance Ron Paul Newsletter, July 9, 2007
13. In the Name of Patriotism (Who are the Patriots?)

Ron Paul Speech to Congress, May 22, 2007
14. Statement on the "Sunlight Rule" Ron Paul Speech to Congress, March 3, 2006
15. Statement on H.Res 648 [Lobbyists using the House gym] Ron Paul Speech to Congress, February 1, 2006
16. Searching for a New Direction Ron Paul Speech to Congress, January 18, 2006
17. Our Political Federal Courts Ron Paul Newsletter, October 19, 2005
18. Politics and Judicial Activism Ron Paul Newsletter, August 15, 2005
19. Hands Off the Electoral College Ron Paul Newsletter, December 27, 2004
20. The Electoral College vs. Mob Rule Ron Paul Newsletter, November 1, 2004
21. The Imperial Judiciary Ron Paul Newsletter, October 4, 2004
22. Resisting Judicial Tyranny Ron Paul Newsletter, July 26, 2004
23. End the Two-Party Monopoly! Ron Paul Speech to Congress, July 15, 2004
24. Paul Votes to Preserve the Elected House of Representatives Ron Paul Press Release, June 3, 2004
25. The House of Representatives Must be Elected! Ron Paul Speech to Congress, June 2, 2004
26. Whose Justice? Ron Paul Newsletter, April 12, 2004
27. Congress Cannot Be Appointed Ron Paul Newsletter, January 26, 2004
28. Christmas in Secular America Ron Paul Newsletter, December 29, 2003
29. Statement Opposing the Continuity of Government Proposal Ron Paul Speech to Congress, September 9, 2003
30. Federal Courts and the Imaginary Constitution Ron Paul Newsletter, August 11, 2003
31. Independence from England, Dependence on Washington? Ron Paul Newsletter, July 7, 2003
32. The "Continuity of Government" Proposal- A Dangerous and Unnecessary Threat... Ron Paul Speech to Congress, June 30, 2003
33. Let’s Keep All Representatives Elected Ron Paul Speech to Congress, June 4, 2003
34. Who Should Prosecute the Snipers? Ron Paul Newsletter, November 4, 2002
35. Is Congress Relevant with Regards to War? Ron Paul Speech to Congress, October 3, 2002
36. Were the Founding Fathers Wrong about Foreign Affairs? Ron Paul Newsletter, April 15, 2002
37. Statement Opposing Unconstitutional "Trade Promotion Authority" Ron Paul Speech to Congress, December 6, 2001
38. The Real Threat of the Faith Based Initiative Ron Paul Speech to Congress, June 13, 2001
39. Statement on the Unborn Victims of Violence Act Ron Paul Speech to Congress, April 26, 2001
40. "Campaign Finance Reform" Serves Entrenched Interests in Washington Ron Paul Newsletter, April 9, 2001
41. Challenge to America: A Current Assessment of Our Republic Ron Paul Speech to Congress, February 7, 2001
42. The Ashcroft Controversy Exposes Disdain for Conservative Principles Ron Paul Newsletter, January 22, 2001
43. The Blessings of Liberty at Christmas Ron Paul Newsletter, December 25, 2000
44. The Conflict Between Collectivism and Liberty is Reflected in the Presidential Election Ron Paul Newsletter, November 27, 2000
45. Older Americans Act Amendments of 2000 Ron Paul Speech to Congress, October 24, 2000
46. Child Support Distribution Act of 2000 Ron Paul Speech to Congress, September 7, 2000
47. U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum Authorization Act Ron Paul Speech to Congress, September 7, 2000
48. The Disturbing Trend Toward Federal Police Ron Paul Newsletter, July 31, 2000
49. Electoral Follies. Paul Says Gore's Plan is Hypocritical, Would Ruin Free Elections Ron Paul Newsletter, April 3, 2000
50. Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2000 Ron Paul Speech to Congress, March 22, 2000
51. The Year Ahead. Looking towards the 2nd Session of the 106th Congress Ron Paul Newsletter, January 3, 2000
52. Overall Review. The First Session of the 106th Congress Ron Paul Newsletter, December 27, 1999
53. Cosponsored Bills. 106th Congress, 1st Session Ron Paul Newsletter, December 20, 1999
54. Taking the Next Step. Building on This Year's Victories Ron Paul Newsletter, November 29, 1999
55. History Repeats Itself, So Let's Repeat History. A Real Solution to Executive Order... Ron Paul Newsletter, November 1, 1999
56. Regulating gridiron prayer. Communities, not feds, should have control Ron Paul Newsletter, September 13, 1999
57. A flood of bills of rights. Pols hide power-grab agendas behind images of liberty Ron Paul Newsletter, August 16, 1999
58. Flag Amendment is a reckless solution Ron Paul Newsletter, June 28, 1999
59. The war that isn't a war. Cracks forming in unconstitutional wall of war policy Ron Paul Newsletter, May 3, 1999
60. Rein-in the President. Lack of congressional diligence has brought problems Ron Paul Newsletter, April 19, 1999
61. Unconstitutional wars gravest of crimes Ron Paul Newsletter, December 21, 1998
62. Religious freedom found in following Constitution Ron Paul Newsletter, June 8, 1998
63. Federalization of crime contrary to Constitution Ron Paul Newsletter, May 18, 1998
64. Methods employed by Congress as bad as the legislation Ron Paul Newsletter, March 30, 1998
65. Security of the people's liberty at risk Ron Paul Newsletter, March 23, 1998
66. US must not trample Constitution to attack Iraq Ron Paul Newsletter, February 16, 1998
67. 1998 is a new chance to change government for better Ron Paul Newsletter, January 5, 1998
68. Communist China shouldn't be financed by US Ron Paul Newsletter, November 10, 1997
69. IRS reform is big news, but "fast-track" bill attacks the Constitution Ron Paul Newsletter, November 3, 1997
70. Gun Control? Disarm The Bureaucrats! Ron Paul Newsletter, October 20, 1997
71. FDA bill was no reform Ron Paul Newsletter, October 13, 1997
72. US shouldn't cast stones with Religious Persecution Ron Paul Newsletter, October 6, 1997
73. Out-of-touch Congress needs to abolish IRS, not increase it Ron Paul Newsletter, September 22, 1997
74. If someone accepts federal cash, then they must follow rules taxpayers set... Ron Paul Newsletter, September 15, 1997
75. Congress to tackle Education budget this week Ron Paul Newsletter, September 8, 1997
76. Constitution must always be considered Ron Paul Newsletter, September 1, 1997
77. Line-Item Veto violates separation of powers, threatens America's constitution... Ron Paul Newsletter, August 18, 1997

As do I. When no-one attempts to denounce a truly free society & there is no problem.

Well, hold on then, because only anarchists and their associates want to get rid of ALL government. The rest of us, and Ron Paul, are trying to reinstate our Constitution. It is also the mission of this forum.

 

[__27__]

So, to all ancaps, we can either work together to drastically reduce government, or we can keep beating the hell out of each other. The choice is yours.

Hence the comment '2012 can't come soon enough for me'. I agree, but at present we don't have enough to keep us working together, so we're often stuck arguing philosophy, and I will disagree every time someone tries to justify the use of government force in any way to meet their ends.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Hence the comment '2012 can't come soon enough for me'. I agree, but at present we don't have enough to keep us working together, so we're often stuck arguing philosophy, and I will disagree every time someone tries to justify the use of government force in any way to meet their ends.

Yeah, I saw that.

 

[Joe3113]

Nope. There you go again.

The term "self-government" has been used by limited government folks for as long as I can remember. Because our Founders largely intended us to be that way. It does not mean, no government.

Ron Paul is a constitutionalist and for you to keep claiming he is an ancap is ridiculous.

What happens when you put the term self government, as used by Ron Paul in context?

YouTube - Ron Paul Discusses Civil Disobedience, Self-Government & More with Motorhome Diaries

It means voluntarism / anarcho-capitalism... just like the people interviewing him are.

Thanks for playing...

 

[UnReconstructed]

I think it possible to be born and raised an anarchist or an anarcho____________ (fill in the blank). Anarchism wasn't born with Rothbard. My parents were very anarchistic though they would never say that out loud... you know, the government has executed anarchists in this land and many more have been deported.

Also, I agree with LE in his statement below. If the state fell tonight then there would be some amount of chaos. Those people that depend on the state or otherwise benefit from the state would, in my opinion, be the ones running around breaking into businesses and other such extremes. It might take 2 or 3 generations before people could make the adjustment. Molyneux has even stated that. Ian Freeman has called it an "evolution" because it's not going to over night. I'd like to see it in my life but I really don't think it will happen... not on a societal scale.

Here's what some of you guys don't understand. I don't have a problem with anarcho-capitalism IN THEORY. But, in practical application with the society we have today, I have major issues with it. So, until people change a great deal, I firmly believe that a limited constitutional government is the best way to secure liberty.

 

[UnReconstructed]

What happens when you put the term self government, as used by Ron Paul in context?

YouTube - Ron Paul Discusses Civil Disobedience, Self-Government & More with Motorhome Diaries

It means voluntarism / anarcho-capitalism... just like the people interviewing him are.

Thanks for playing...

what is that song?

EDIT: Disregard

 

[LibertyEagle]

What happens when you put the term self government, as used by Ron Paul in context?

It means voluntarism / anarcho-capitalism... just like the people interviewing him are.

Thanks for playing...

I'm not playing and you're puffing smoke.

 

[Joe3113]

I'm not playing and you're puffing smoke.

Thanks for the non response and non refutation.

I'll take that as a concession.

Cheers

Alternatively, please actually refute my refutation of yours - that is of course, if you choose to continue to play

 

[Joe3113]

Also, I agree with LE in his statement below. If the state fell tonight then there would be some amount of chaos. Those people that depend on the state or otherwise benefit from the state would, in my opinion, be the ones running around breaking into businesses and other such extremes. It might take 2 or 3 generations before people could make the adjustment. Molyneux has even stated that. Ian Freeman has called it an "evolution" because it's not going to over night. I'd like to see it in my life but I really don't think it will happen... not on a societal scale.

This however is not a refutation of anarcho-capitalism, nor advocation of a stateless society - i.e voluntarism. The state is failing, it is inevitable. The system WILL collapse.

That's not a reason to not promote anarcho-capitalism / stateless society which is arrived at by reason and logic, not via the collapse of a failed state.

Again, none of that is actually a valid refutation.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I already refuted you and added to that, the fact that Ron Paul took an oath to uphold the Constitution, makes your argument beyond ridiculous.

 

[LibertyEagle]

This however is not a refutation of anarcho-capitalism, nor advocation of a stateless society - i.e voluntarism. The state is failing, it is inevitable. The system WILL collapse.

That's not a reason to not promote anarcho-capitalism / stateless society which is arrived at by reason and logic, not via the collapse of a failed state.

Again, none of that is actually a valid refutation.

Curlz, the mission of this forum is activism to get liberty candidates elected to reinstate the Constitution. Unless your purpose is to be divisive, I sincerely hope you will join with us to attain that goal.

 

[__27__]

I already refuted you and added to that, the fact that Ron Paul took an oath to uphold the Constitution, makes your argument beyond ridiculous.

??

Did not Barney Frank take that same oath? What again does it mean?


Paul is against the state period, by whatever title you choose to call that. As for today, he is much like the ancaps here, we will work with minarchists hand in hand until we get government down to minarchy size, then we will work to keep making government smaller until it ceases to exist completely. Whether you want to fight us at that point is up to you.