This one is much broader in scope as it is talking about Ron Paul's ideas. I take this to mean also ideas in general. I reject the notion that Ron Paul ideas originate exclusively from his belief in voluntaryism.
I have yet to read anyone embrace this notion. I have yet to read anyone advance this notion. Thus your rejection of it seems superfluous.
This is such a narrow scope and really doesn't do any justice to what I would call "thinking people" or Forum Philosophers.
Obviously everyone knows that Ron Paul, like all of us, has been influenced by a whole variety of people in his thinking, and has come up with original thoughts of his own as well. We can all join hands with you in harmony and brotherhood on that one. He has clearly been influenced by the Bible, for instance. Surely his good conduct and high character emulate that of his mother and father to a large degree. Hippocrates and other great medical and surgical minds no doubt have shaped many of his thoughts.
As for his political thoughts specifically, there have clearly been a large number of influences there. How can we judge what persons have been the most influential? What schools of thought Ron might subscribe to and/or consider himself a part of? I submit that one good way to judge would be to look at the bibliographies at the end of his books. Look through the lists of books he recommends people read. Read them. Follow this course and you cannot but learn something. Essentially, what you will learn is that I am right. Ron Paul wants people to read radical libertarian books. Why would he want that? Hmm.
Couple that with the actual content of his own books. What message is he trying to convey? Yes, again we must conclude: his message is that of a thorough opposition to the state. He never puts in a disclaimer at the end of his books, like for instance James Bovard, explaining that: "Yes, I just got through documenting a litany of outrages the State has perpetrated, but please, guys, don't reject the idea of the State! We just need to rein it in somewhat. To reduce it a bit. That's the solution I'm proposing. Please don't go any further than that." Interesting that he would avoid that almost unbearable temptation to distance himself from those he sees as taking things too far. If he has, I do not recall it; please correct me.
Couple those two points with everything he's ever said. His speeches are a treasure trove of libertarianism. I have yet to hear him explain how some taxes are actually beneficial, or how some level of taxation is beneficial and necessary and we shouldn't cut things below that level. Never.
One can also look at the people with whom he associates and has associated himself, and how he self-labels. He calls himself a Constitutionalist, a Libertarian, a Non-Interventionist. Are all those labels compatible with radical libertarianism? Yes. He says that he subscribes to the Austrian School of Economics. Are almost all Austrians radical libertarians (an-caps, voluntarists, market anarchists whatever you want to call them)? Yes. He says that his cause has been the cause of Liberty. What does it mean when someone's highest political ideal is that of liberty? What do we call such a person? And we don't exactly have to puzzle over the mystery of what exactly his personal definition of liberty is: he's shown that quite clearly via his voting record stretching back to the 70s, as well as telling us in many speeches and interviews and articles and books. His definition is the same as mine: lack of aggressive force. So again, what do we call such a person? His heroes he gives prominent place to are Gandhi, Rosa Parks, Ludwig von Mises, and Murray Rothbard. What can we learn from such a selection of heroes? He is a long-time supporter of the Mises Institute. What is their agenda (an agenda which Ron Paul clearly strongly supports)?
I conclude that Ron Paul is a radical libertarian. Has he also been influenced by Taft, Goldwater, and Hayek? Sure.
I've been influenced by Hayek, but that doesn't mean I'm not a radical libertarian. We've all probably been influenced, consciously or unconsciously, by Plato, even though he's the ultimate anti-libertarian and top-down control advocate. Would it be interesting to explore the fabric of Ron Paul's thought, the unique connections he has made between all these thinkers? Probably. That would probably be a worthwhile discussion to have.
To participate in
that discussion, you would have to first put aside your tedious attachment to haranguing those who you feel are too radical, an affectation that Dr. Paul does not share, by the way. Because that discussion would not be not worthwhile. It would probably not even be a discussion, just an endless repetition, making enemies where you should have friends. And what a waste that would be.
