The View on Anarchy

[Terryphi]

Hello,

I would like to know what Ron Paul Supporters think of Anarchy.

I'm not talking about the Anarchy sung in bad music nor the Anarchy delivered by a bullet, but, rather, the Anarchy of Emma Goldman, Noam Chomsky, and Peter Kropotkin. The Anarchy of the Spanish CNT.

In a capitalist society, money has power. It can be used to grant power disproportionately to individuals, or rob others of their power. With unequal power distribution you cannot have maximum individual liberty. One of Ron Paul's central themes is that of individual liberty. How do you resolve this conflict?

Ron Paul represents many Anarcho-Capitalistic ideas. What makes you perfer Anarcho-Capitalism to traditional Anarcho-Socialism.

Lastly, how do you justify the ownership of property while promulgating individual liberty? Does not the ownership of property inheritly give rise to misers whom breed tyrants?

I very much look forward to hearing your thoughts.

-Terryphi

 

[FindLiberty]

The system we have now is not working out very well, and it continues to get worse, MUCH WORSE. We have war(s), freedom is going away, and the economy is tanking as we emulate the worst of national-socialism and relentless extreme government versus individual freedom and Constitutionally limited small government.

Yes, "federal" land owners and huge Gov/Corporations with repressive laws are indeed a problem... RIGHT NOW!

Let's try moving in the opposite direction for a while and see if that works out any better.

Call that sliding towards anarchy if you wish.

 

[werdd]

Anarchy in the sense of minimalistic goverment, whos only soul purpouse is to protect your unalienable rights sounds good to me.

But in order to protect those rights, you need a strong military, with a big stick mentality.

And i also think the goverment has the right to maintain a postal service.

Other than that, im all for every man for his self.

 

[Black Dude]

Hello,

I would like to know what Ron Paul Supporters think of Anarchy.

Ron Paul represents many Anarcho-Capitalistic ideas. What makes you perfer Anarcho-Capitalism to traditional Anarcho-Socialism.


-Terryphi

I don't see Ron Paul as representing Anarcho-Capitalistic ideas. It is more about getting the FEDERAL government out of our lives as much as possible, and letting the people at the local and State levels make their own decisions. The smaller the government, the more power the people have.

 

[Black Dude]

In a capitalist society, money has power. It can be used to grant power disproportionately to individuals, or rob others of their power. With unequal power distribution you cannot have maximum individual liberty. One of Ron Paul's central themes is that of individual liberty. How do you resolve this conflict?

-Terryphi

When I think of Liberty, I don't think of equality. I think of a person being able to make his/her own decisions on how to live his/her own life - without government interference. The assumption that many people have is that the government owns us, and decides whats best for us.

The government doesn't own us. The people own the government. At least that is how it is supposed to be in America.

 

[therealjjj77]

I see government as being instituted for one purpose: to secure the rights of the governed. That's it. It is not to infringe upon the rights of the governed through taxation. There are other means by which it can gain revenues to function.

I believe that NO MATTER THE SYSTEM, there will always be disparities between what one person has and another person. And that isn't a bad thing. Those who contribute more to society should have more. When the government only intervenes when rights are being infringed upon, then the free market can freely decide who should have how much property. Then the free market can properly do it's work. This gives people motivation to succeed. Everyone has an equal opportunity to find ways to contribute to society and benefit from it.

Problems occur in the free market when people are being misled, or lied to. Then it is the government's role to return that which was unlawfully exchanged and apprehend the abusers so they cannot further harm society.

About property, it is an inalienable right to own property. It is among the rights granted us by our Creator.

 

[inibo]

Hello,

I would like to know what Ron Paul Supporters think of Anarchy.

I'm not talking about the Anarchy sung in bad music nor the Anarchy delivered by a bullet, but, rather, the Anarchy of Emma Goldman, Noam Chomsky, and Peter Kropotkin. The Anarchy of the Spanish CNT.

In a capitalist society, money has power. It can be used to grant power disproportionately to individuals, or rob others of their power. With unequal power distribution you cannot have maximum individual liberty. One of Ron Paul's central themes is that of individual liberty. How do you resolve this conflict?

Ron Paul represents many Anarcho-Capitalistic ideas. What makes you perfer Anarcho-Capitalism to traditional Anarcho-Socialism.

Lastly, how do you justify the ownership of property while promulgating individual liberty? Does not the ownership of property inheritly give rise to misers whom breed tyrants?

I very much look forward to hearing your thoughts.

-Terryphi

Many of Ron Paul's ideas are compatible with anarcho-capitalism, but he is not an anarchist himself. He is a constitutionalist. He recognizes than there is a legitimate purpose for government: the protection of individual rights and liberty.

 

[garrettwombat]

anarchy is worse than tyranny.

you need to watch this short video and find out why we hate anarchy

http://youtube.com/watch?v=MW6AKVyi6As

 

[gerryb]

Hello,

I would like to know what Ron Paul Supporters think of Anarchy.

I'm not talking about the Anarchy sung in bad music nor the Anarchy delivered by a bullet, but, rather, the Anarchy of Emma Goldman, Noam Chomsky, and Peter Kropotkin. The Anarchy of the Spanish CNT.

We're not gonna take it! No we ain't gonna take it, anymore!

I don't fully understand the full definition of Anarchy, but I will speak to the degree that I do understand it.

In a capitalist society, money has power. It can be used to grant power disproportionately to individuals, or rob others of their power. With unequal power distribution you cannot have maximum individual liberty. One of Ron Paul's central themes is that of individual liberty. How do you resolve this conflict?

Money has power in every society. Or, more accurately, control and distribution of production has power. You can have "maximum individual liberty" with unequal distribution of money, as long as there is a system of enforcement and reparations when agreed upon terms of a contract or association are broken. I don't believe their is any conflict to resolve between Ron Paul's positions on a true Free Market Capitalist economy and individual liberty.

Ron Paul represents many Anarcho-Capitalistic ideas. What makes you perfer Anarcho-Capitalism to traditional Anarcho-Socialism.

I'm not sure really what the differences between Anarcho-Capitalism and Anarcho-Socialism actually are. But in the case of Anarcho-Socialism..
I'll take "Oxymorons" for 500 Alex. I don't know, but I think under an Anarcho-Capitalism society, people would be free to create Anarcho-Socialist associations?

Lastly, how do you justify the ownership of property while promulgating individual liberty? Does not the ownership of property inheritly give rise to misers whom breed tyrants?

I do not believe you can have individual liberty without the right to the ownership of your production. If you do not own your production or the goods or property you trade your production for, you do not have any personal liberty. Also, I do not know of any system of government or society that does not breed tyrants. The system I believe to be most resilient to tyrants is the free market capitalist system. After all, it has taken nearly 250 years for that system to become corrupted to its current broken form.

How do "misers" breed tyrants? Is Bill Gates a tyrant, is Warren Buffet? I would say no. They and other "misers" may be supporting the 'wrong' side of the political landscape with the wealth they have earned and saved, but I wouldn't call them tyrants just yet. While they have used the political system to ferment their control of production, coercion and control of government is not what gave them their wealth.

Now I ask, are the Rockefellers, Morgans, or Rothschilds tyrants? I would say yes. Their wealth was and is earned through coercive means from "We The People" through the individuals that control government.

The waning state of our Republic is not due to the failure of Free Market Capitalism, but is rather due to the failure of our Republic to protect the Free Market.

I very much look forward to hearing your thoughts.

-Terryphi

 

[Black Dude]

In a capitalist society, money has power. It can be used to grant power disproportionately to individuals, or rob others of their power. With unequal power distribution you cannot have maximum individual liberty. One of Ron Paul's central themes is that of individual liberty. How do you resolve this conflict?

-Terryphi

A utopian world of liberty doesn't exist. The goal is allowing people to make their own decisions on how they want to live. Some people want to make money, have wealth, and provide for their families as well as they possibly can. Others are content to live on their own growing their own food. Unfortunately, some people desire power, and money can be used for that. Rich people continuing to make money and hoarding it away could also be a problem when there is a fixed money supply. If I recall correctly, Thomas Paine suggested having an Inheritance Tax to help redistribute that money so that the rich don't just keep getting richer. But obviously, that would mean a major government presence in our lives to measure each person's wealth when they die, not to mention it is outright theft. My opinion on it is that it would only become a problem if it is illegal to have competition in money (which is how it is with the dollar). Especially if there is a policy of inflation, and the people that receive that new money are the rich, while the poor and middle class just got their money devalued (like it is here in the US). Eventually the middle and lower class keeps getting pushed down, as their wages don't go up until long after prices rise.

Some recommended reading would be Common Sense by Thomas Paine and Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt

 

[Dave39168]

I don't know, but I think under an Anarcho-Capitalism society, people would be free to create Anarcho-Socialist associations?

AGREED gerry.
I've always used this when debating my socialists friends. Under a government system of capitolism and free markets, people who wanted socialism would be free to start their own communes/socialist communities with like minded people. Just give us freedom, and then people who truly believe in socialism can get together with other socialist and share farmland and property and share food and housing and do whatever they wish. (The pursuit of their happiness that is)

On the other hand, If the government system is socialism, then the capitolist are not free to live as they wish. (I cannot pursue my happiness in this system)

Just another example that freedom works

to the OP, I don't like anarchy b/c I think there is a proper role for government such as: protecting certain rights and enforcing contracts between individuals, making sure we don't murder each other, making sure we are able to speak freely and bear arms, protecting the environment & maybe maintaining a military,

 

[RevolutionSD]

I'm an anarcho-capitalist (and RP supporter).

The Ron Paul campaign was successful in getting people talking about such ideas as ending the income tax, dismantling the Federal Reserve, and practicing individualism vs. collectivism.

It's time to take it a step further.

Government is simply force, or services provided at the barrel of a gun. I think ALL services can be better if we have a choice in the matter, and without the violence.

Without the threat of violence our world would be a far better place. Minarchism (or small libertarian gov't) is just a stop on the way to complete liberty.

 

[berrybunches]

There are a lot of Rothbardians here and straight up anarchists. No one is the same here or anywhere. There is no 100% right answer anyway but I will try to sum ours up. Although, naturally it has flaws as does anything.

Most here believe in the necessary evil of government to insure rights, not grant rights - I think that is clear.

Personal liberty to me means taking what life gives you and doing what you will with it. Since I don't see liberty as something granted/given to us but something that we just have or are born with I don't see a need to ensure everyone is equal. We are born, we belong to ourselves and only to ourselves and we don't owe anything to anyone except to allow them their freedom. People are diverse, we are born with different abilities and some people are just luckier and more fortunate than others and I think thats okay.
I am not wealthy and I will never be wealthy..and you know why? Because I don't really give a damn to work hard. I would rather sit on my ass most of the time and have very little material and save. Thats me. I think if my neighbor wants to build a corporation and work their ass off thats okay. I think if they want to give their inheritance to their child so they never have to work and can have everything that it is none of my business. Just leave me alone.

Unequal power distribution and liberty? Thats just it, as long as they are not using their power from wealth to infringe on my rights thats fine. Sure, they have more liberties like being able to travel more frequently and buy big screen TV's but I don't see how that is bad. If they worked for it or someone gave it to them than thats fair IMO.
Personal property? Let me turn that around on you. How can I have liberty without being able to own property?

I find myself agreeing with Ayn Rand on the ownership issues (not on all issues) and I like the idea of libertarian anarchy. I think they go hand and hand.
I do see the point and merit in Chomsky and others with their whole "wage slavery" argument. But I think people like working for other people because it rids them of responsibility. Why should I not have the freedom to not be free if I choose? (If that makes since)

 

[A Ron Paul Rebel]

I'm curious why this is your first post.

But to clarify a few things, individual liberty does not mean
equal money for everyone. To me, that sounds like socialism.

If someone has land or money, that does NOT mean that that
person is corrupt/evil/miser, etc... If anyone is the corrupt it's
the establishment that takes that money and redistributes it
to everyone so that everyone has an equal amount. That's not
individual liberty. Again, that is socialism as far as I see it.

No, individual liberty is being able to offer a value (freely) and
being able to get value (cash) in return... with no limits... only
the market/public/consumers to decide if you deserve it.


I could go on but that's enough for me. If you are really serious
about knowing more, please stick around. I'm sure that you'll
find a library of knowledge here that will free your mind and free
your spirit.

Hunter

 

[AutoDas]

Anarchy is communism.

 

[A Ron Paul Rebel]

to the OP, I don't like anarchy b/c I think there is a proper role for government such as: protecting certain rights and enforcing contracts between individuals, making sure we don't murder each other, making sure we are able to speak freely and bear arms, protecting the environment & maybe maintaining a military,

The last one is the ONLY one for Federal Gov.

The others don't need laws and regulations to enforce and
can be ensured by a free market at the local level.

 

[RevolutionSD]

Anarchy is communism.

Wrong. What we have now is communism, or soon to be.

 

[Anti Federalist]

more here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=139923

 

[Anti Federalist]

Anarchy is communism.

Huh?

Anarchy = absence of government or leaders.

Communism = Large, intrusive authoritarian government which owns, commands and controls all means of production.

(and why didn't you answer the Bilderberg question?)

 

[Anti Federalist]

Wrong. What we have now is communism, or soon to be.

We have the worst of both worlds.

Economic fascism coupled with authoritarian "welfare" communism.