Where do Ron Paul's ideas come from?

[newbitech]

It is interesting to me how one side of this "debate" cannot seem to come up with their OWN INDIVIDUAL ANSWERS explained from their personal experience and reasoning, and how the other side seems to have just plain common sense answers without the need to consult copious amounts of literature and appeals to authority.

How for instance did these authorities revel in their enlightenment? If something is common sense, should have to go to the library to figure it out? Yes, there is a certain level of deprogramming required from the misinformation. However, I believe it is unnatural to stay coupled to the deprogramming environment if that deprogramming was successful. There may be exceptions to that. We'll see.

I think one side of this debate need to really question their understanding, while the other side needs to just hold firm on their common sense and steadfast beliefs. Eventually, the other side will figure out how to explain their experience and translate their vast knowledge into actual wisdom and mature conversation.

I await your arrival, and will continue to enjoy the hard work of those who tirelessly work on their deprogramming skills. There is a role for everyone, and if some people feel the need to constantly tweak the message, so be it. I for one will just drop in from time to time to clarify a few simple points.

I second the request to explain Trav's conundrum. That is a difficult program to break. Hopefully, our in house deprogrammers find the answer in a book somewhere that does not simply dismiss the question as immature. Some real life examples would be handy here, I believe. Waiting for the news..

 

[Wesker1982]

1.) That is distinctly NOT the philosophy of Voluntarism.

Says you. Most Voluntaryists agree that

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

Perfectly describes the philosophy of Voluntaryism. If you can't understand that he is perfectly explaining Voluntaryism there, then you are definitely over your head in this whole conversation.

Everyone will tell you their motive is peaceful interaction

Yeah the difference is that Voluntaryists take it to the logical conclusion. If everyone who said this were consistent, they would be Voluntaryists.

You are grasping at straws.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

I second the request to explain Trav's conundrum. That is a difficult program to break. Hopefully, our in house deprogrammers find the answer in a book somewhere that does not simply dismiss the question as immature. Some real life examples would be handy here, I believe. Waiting for the news..

It's not the question that's immature. The problem is that Trav will not accept anything that fundamentally challenges certain perceptions he holds. He simply ignores it and reasserts his position later. His "conundrum" has been addressed several times over, and extremely patiently by other people. One of those threads I pointed to was a 78 page thread which went over this, in which he clearly stated that he was engaging "one side" disingenuously due to his own personal motives and agenda, as he viewed "one side" as distracting pests out to destroy the Ron Paul movement. I refuse to entertain his bullshit, when it's clearly bullshit. Why would I want to have another 78 page thread about that? He's clearly either disingenuous or completely caught up in denial. I'm not going to argue with that, it's useless... some other people here still do, but I don't know why they bother. Trav has consistently shown what sort of a person he is, and it's pretty much exactly the opposite of the image he holds of himself.

I also get the feeling that you're trying to "walk the line" of neutrality with your vague post, but your own disapproval towards "one side" and disdain over the fact that they are pointing to arguments made by some of the same people Ron turned to get his arguments from... arguments that they've accepted, rather than "making their own case", as if it's somehow "unfair". Unless I got you wrong, which is entirely plausible because that statement was pretty vague.

My friendships with two important students of Mises, Hans Sennholz
and Murray Rothbard, were especially helpful in getting firsthand
explanations of how the market functions. They helped me to
refine my answers to the continual barrage of statist legislation that
dominates the U.S. Congress.

 

[newbitech]

Says you. Most Voluntaryists agree that



Perfectly describes the philosophy of Voluntaryism. If you can't understand that he is perfectly explaining Voluntaryism there, then you are definitely over your head in this whole conversation.



Yeah the difference is that Voluntaryists take it to the logical conclusion. If everyone who said this were consistent, they would be Voluntaryists.

You are grasping at straws.

Nope, i'm not grasping at anything. I am going by the information provided. What you are doing is attaching your personal beliefs to a word, in this case voluntaryism. You think that your personal belief is a philosophy therefore the word is an accurate label for the philosophy. What I have done is to look for the philosophy that uses a word that accurately labels the philosophy. I found one. Of course you do not see that philosophy as viable, because that would preclude you from participating in political activities or raising someone like Ron Paul up as an adherent and standard bearer of that philosophy. So you conveniently toss out the central tenant and the core principal of that philosophy and instead chose to focus on the root word which is more palatable to the acceptance of the label you are trying to chose for your belief system.

This is why we hear people equating (incorrectly) the philosophy of voluntarism to other philosophies that do not hold conformance to non political action as central to the study of the fundamental problem of "the state" encroaching on personal liberties. "Most" voluntarist is an example of hearsay evidence and is a very weak argument for the "philosophy" of voluntarism. From what I have read, modern authorities and the founders of voluntarism have told me that participating in political action is supporting "the state" which they believe is violently coercive and forceful. So without that caveat, your #1 simply shares the root word with the label and therefor reverts to the base definition of the root word. Definitions are NOT philosophies. Which is why Ron Paul clarified before answering the question. Kokesh said that Ron Paul described himself as a voluntarist. Ron Paul did not describe himself as a political voluntarist (which is what Kokesh insinuated apparently), Ron Paul described his preference with the definition of voluntary. "Voluntary means". He did not say, "voluntaryism, the study of" or "voluntarism the systematic and rational argument approach"

Ron Paul didn't need to do all that to achieve his purpose of clarifying to Kokesh in his response. Why? Simply put, Ron Paul believes the dictionary definition (which he gave) of voluntary. Something complete different than the philosophical label voluntarism. Can you separate the two, like Ron Paul and I do? (sorry, I am appealing here because it should be obvious from the quote what idea Ron Paul is putting in to words.)

So you underlined "you can use force only when someone uses force against you" as describing voluntarism perfectly. That perfectly describes pretty much ANY decent moral philosophy of human interaction. There is nothing special about you wanting to say something like, "Well clearly he is ONLY talking about voluntarism." The problem you have is, you want to attach other riders to this very simple and basic life principle of interacting with other human beings. This isn't a philosophy. It's a moral approach, similar to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Or "Judge not, lest you be judged yourself". Or "pull the 2x4 out of your own eye before you try to pull the spec of dust out of mine."

There is nothing special about those words that convey any particular special meaning beyond the common sense idea that we should all be nice to each other. What makes those words coming from Ron Paul special is how he has take those very simple ideas, LIVED THEM, and extended them from his own core individual sphere outwardly to his family, friends, city, state, country, and the world. And HOW? Why, none other than the exact opposite of what we would expect a TRUE voluntarist to do.

He might talk your talk, but he certainly walks a different walk. Where you may be in over your head is when you say stuff like this...

Ron Paul = Voluntarist
Voluntarist = Take it to the logical conclusion
Take it to the logical conclusion = become a long time member of the ruling class and vote against everything that goes against some piece of paper that wouldn't matter to you if you didn't become a long time member of the ruling class in the first place.

So I am sorry that you are a voluntarist who thinks that Ron Paul is one of you. He's not because if he were, then either he is a total hypocrite, or the entire philosophy is pretty much worthless unless as you say, it's followed to the logical conclusion, leading me to believe that the path Ron Paul has chosen is the best the philosophy has to offer as far as conclusion go.

Sorry, not buying it.

 

[newbitech]

It's not the question that's immature. The problem is that Trav will not accept anything that fundamentally challenges certain perceptions he holds. He simply ignores it and reasserts his position later. His "conundrum" has been addressed several times over, and extremely patiently by other people. One of those threads I pointed to was a 78 page thread which went over this, in which he clearly stated that he was engaging "one side" disingenuously due to his own personal motives and agenda, as he viewed "one side" as distracting pests out to destroy the Ron Paul movement. I refuse to entertain his bullshit, when it's clearly bullshit. Why would I want to have another 78 page thread about that? He's clearly either disingenuous or completely caught up in denial. I'm not going to argue with that, it's useless... some other people here still do, but I don't know why they bother. Trav has consistently shown what sort of a person he is, and it's pretty much exactly the opposite of the image he holds of himself.

I also get the feeling that you're trying to "walk the line" of neutrality with your vague post, but your own disapproval towards "one side" and disdain over the fact that they are pointing to arguments made by some of the same people Ron turned to get his arguments from... arguments that they've accepted, rather than "making their own case", as if it's somehow "unfair". Unless I got you wrong, which is entirely plausible because that statement was pretty vague.

There is a lot of hair splitting that goes on in these types of threads. I am speaking directly to people who have and will continue to try and convince everyone that Ron Paul is some kind of closet something or other.

There are two sides. The side that can have a conversation and discuss the topic without having to cherry pick quotes from various and sundry sources, and the other side who just has to constantly bring up the same quotes day in day out with a slightly different twist.

I participate because over time it has become quite clear of the influence I have by simply updating these threads with simple observation. I have watched the rhetoric from the "other side" change in response to my points, even though my points get blown off as things like immature, ignorant, etc..

I don't mind most of the time. It is good to know that while I don't get the appreciation, my ideas help shape other folks opinions.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Honestly, I don't really want to get much further into it, because it seems more influenced by conversations you've been having with other people or perhaps some perception you have that you don't want to get into much more detail about (or maybe you have elsewhere) and I really don't want to get too involved with anything right now, anyway. But I just want to say that if that was an attempt to clarify your other post, it really didn't help too much. It still just looks like a lot of really vague finger-pointing to me.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Honestly, newbitech, labels are just labels. They are for facilitating communication, not hindering it. "Libertarian" didn't originally mean "libertarian" either; it used to be a label for left-wing anarchists (the commie/socialist type of anarchist). Labels can change. There are a bunch of libertarians that have decided voluntaryist would be a good label for them, and so the people using it (a very small group anyway) get linguistically pushed out.

I've addressed you with these thoughts before. Please give me some indication you understand what I'm saying.

As to the issue of whether Ron Paul is really a radical, consistent libertarian (whatever you want to call that), I would say that in my own, common-sense, observation-based, down-to-earth opinion: he is. There are a variety of reasons leading me to believe this. They are very good reasons. For one thing, I have listened to many many hours of his speeches, and read some of his written corpus as well. I think that makes me qualified to have an opinion on the subject. I am not just "cherry-picking" or "twisting" isolated quotes. I had arrived at my opinion before I even knew the quotes in question existed. But I have common sense. I can understand speeches when I hear them. I can understand books when I read them. I think I understand Ron Paul. Ron Paul is an Enemy of the State.

Right now, I'd say he might be Enemy #1.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

1.) That is distinctly NOT the philosophy of Voluntarism. That IS the definition of voluntary. Sadly, Adam Kokesh, and many others, cannot seem to separate themselves and their ideas from word association GAMES. It really speaks strongly to a persons character when they so strongly desire to be associated with a particular term. I have a lot of respect for Adam Kokesh, but he does not do a very good job of representing what Ron Paul believes. For instance, Ron Paul would NEVER consider leading an "Army" of active duty protesters to turn their backs on the commander and chief of the United States Armed Forces. What Adam Kokesh did was lead a group of people in an act of civil disobedience. Ron Paul thinks that if people want to advocate for self-government in this way, it is good. BUT HE HIMSELF doesn't and wouldn't do that. So to be clear, Adam Kokesh is free to make the claim that he represents the philosophy of Voluntarism, but he tried unsuccessfully to tag Ron Paul with this label simply because Ron Paul believes in voluntary (dictionary definition) interactions. Every believes in voluntary interaction. There is nothing special about that belief. What is special is that Ron Paul gets people to understand how this interaction extends to self-government beyond our personal and familial spheres.

2.) He is not advocating any philosophy with the words you quoted, unless you really want to say that he is advocating for peaceful interactions. Nothing really special there. Everyone will tell you their motive is peaceful interaction. No one really wants to fight. What is special is how Ron Paul gets people to understand that peacefulness can and should extend beyond individual and familial RELATIONSHIPS.

I find it very hard to believe that a guy who ends his Civil Disobedience chapter with book recommendations from Henry David Thoreau and Lew Rockwell, ends his Democracy chapter with Hans Herman-Hoppe and Lysander Spooner, and his Bipartisan chapter (in which he rails against government as a whole, and waxes poetic about agitators and revolutionaries) with Murray Rothbard's For A New Liberty doesn't understand or isn't familiar with voluntaryism or anarcho-capitalism.

Honestly, newbitech, labels are just labels. They are for facilitating communication, not hindering it. "Libertarian" didn't originally mean "libertarian" either; it used to be a label for left-wing anarchists (the commie/socialist type of anarchist). Labels can change. There are a bunch of libertarians that have decided voluntaryist would be a good label for them, and so the people using it (a very small group anyway) get linguistically pushed out.

I've addressed you with these thoughts before. Please give me some indication you understand what I'm saying.

As to the issue of whether Ron Paul is really a radical, consistent libertarian (whatever you want to call that), I would say that in my own, common-sense, observation-based, down-to-earth opinion: he is. There are a variety of reasons leading me to believe this. They are very good reasons. For one thing, I have listened to many many hours of his speeches, and read some of his written corpus as well. I think that makes me qualified to have an opinion on the subject. I am not just "cherry-picking" or "twisting" isolated quotes. I had arrived at my opinion before I even knew the quotes in question existed. But I have common sense. I can understand speeches when I hear them. I can understand books when I read them. I think I understand Ron Paul. Ron Paul is an Enemy of the State.

Right now, I'd say he might be Enemy #1.

How sweet would this shirt be with Ron on the back?

 

[newbitech]

Honestly, I don't really want to get much further into it, because it seems more influenced by conversations you've been having with other people or perhaps some perception you have that you don't want to get into much more detail about (or maybe you have elsewhere) and I really don't want to get too involved with anything right now, anyway. But I just want to say that if that was an attempt to clarify your other post, it really didn't help too much. It still just looks like a lot of really vague finger-pointing to me.

I'm not sure what you want me to clarify. I don't believe self-government needs to be labeled. I believe self government is the idea that the person who owns themselves must government themselves. I believe that no person exists as an island, therefor relationships form. I believe the fundamental idea in any relationship is an exchange of some part of one's self with another. Whether it be compliments or vast swaths of land or gold or Federal Reserve notes. These exchanges are voluntary. Without voluntary exchange, there is no relationship. Taking part of another self without a relationship is theft. The only response to theft is to stop the theft. There are all sorts of ways to stop the theft mostly depending on what was stolen.

All that being said, the idea that these relationships can exist in an environment where individual self-government does not also extend beyond the self is extremely shortsighted. Part of the relationship exchange is the fundamental agreement to make the exchange. The other part are the self governing factors of that relationship. In this sense, entering into a relation extends the sphere of self governance beyond the individual. Just thinking of this as two bubbles merging together to create one bubble. The bubble represents self governance. Sure you don't give up your individual right, but to make the exchange, both parties have to agree to expand their sphere of self governance to encompass the relationship. There can be no total reservation of self governance. This bubble that forms is the beginning of "the state".

What I believe happens is that self governance has it's limits. At some point, and I don't claim to know that point, there must be clearly defined boundaries. Of course we all agree and believe that one of those boundaries is voluntary interaction. There is a breakdown unfortunately, because it is easy to see how entering in to certain types of relationships can cause coercion and threats of force and violence in other relationships. For instance, I enter in to employment for a company that services automobiles. While working at the company, I come to realize that a particular process the company uses put drivers at risk of breaking down sooner than expected. I point this out to my supervisor, but the supervisor say, well that is the policy we have to follow it. So now what? Clearly if I follow the policy I am damaging my relationship by causing damage to someone else's property. At the same time, if I disregard the policy, I am damaging my relationship with my employer by not following the agreed upon terms of my employment.

I could simply quit, out of principle. Since there is no way for me to keep doing my job without becoming the aggressor and either damaging someones property, or willfully breaking the covenant of my employment. Either way, I have already been put in jeopardy with the confrontation of this issue. It is possible that the person responsible for the policy is unaware of the damage it causes. It could also be possible that same person is being greedy and immoral.

My approach to resolving this conflict and diffusing the threat of violence for myself, for the car owners, and for the business needs to be one of compromise. I have to find the middle ground. I have to find a solution that satisfies all parties. This is a very basic simple example. There are so many ways this can play out, but the main point is, the relationships. Just living, we naturally cause risks to other people and relationships. There has to be some way to find a compromise solutions without throwing our hands up and resulting to violence.

The problem becomes more and more compounded, and the solutions become more and more complex to the point of unsolvable the larger and larger that bubble grows. Sooner or later, there will be a cascading failure of the largest bubbles. The Constitution is one of the best solutions to grow those relationship bubbles as big as we can get them. The larger our networks, and the larger the network of networks the easier all of our lives will be. Sadly, there is a point where too big eventually wrecks all but our most fundamental relationships.

When the collapse occurs, we need to know two things. How to avoid being crushed, and how to rebuild a stronger network. This is the natural cycle of life. There is no way out of this cycle save death. Even then, our legacy carries on.

 

[newbitech]

Honestly, newbitech, labels are just labels. They are for facilitating communication, not hindering it. "Libertarian" didn't originally mean "libertarian" either; it used to be a label for left-wing anarchists (the commie/socialist type of anarchist). Labels can change. There are a bunch of libertarians that have decided voluntaryist would be a good label for them, and so the people using it (a very small group anyway) get linguistically pushed out.

I've addressed you with these thoughts before. Please give me some indication you understand what I'm saying.

As to the issue of whether Ron Paul is really a radical, consistent libertarian (whatever you want to call that), I would say that in my own, common-sense, observation-based, down-to-earth opinion: he is. There are a variety of reasons leading me to believe this. They are very good reasons. For one thing, I have listened to many many hours of his speeches, and read some of his written corpus as well. I think that makes me qualified to have an opinion on the subject. I am not just "cherry-picking" or "twisting" isolated quotes. I had arrived at my opinion before I even knew the quotes in question existed. But I have common sense. I can understand speeches when I hear them. I can understand books when I read them. I think I understand Ron Paul. Ron Paul is an Enemy of the State.

Right now, I'd say he might be Enemy #1.

yes I understand what you mean about labels. I don't really see Ron Paul as being a radical though. The motive behind adopting the label is because other labels had negative feeling towards them, and rightly so. I think people can adopt whatever labels they want if that helps them identify other like minded individuals. What bothers me is that we have people here at Ron Paul Forums who want to put a label on Ron Paul and create volumes on why he fits that label. I look at these labels like bumper stickers. So on Ron Paul's bandwagon, he is covered with these stickers. That's fine, its a movement that welcomes bandwagoners and encourages stickers and banners that support the cause of the bandwagon. The best way to start a fight is to go around with your sticker and slap it over everyone else's stickers.

That is what is going on here with this voluntarist label. It is being slapper over the top of Ron Paul's own sticker of Constitutionalism, Republicanism, and Conservatism. Why voluntarist cannot be satisfied to share the bumper on the back of the bandwagon with other worthy causes that are helping to keep that bandwagon rolling is beyond me.

So I engage the people who are doing this and try to help them realize that their sticker really isn't all that important. I am constantly trying to get them to stop putting their stickers on top of everyone else's because I like their cause too. But they hurt themselves by disrespecting others opinions. They hurt other people who may also share that idea or cause by making everyone holding one of those stickers look responsible for going out of their way to dominate.

There is nothing dominant about the ideas of voluntarism. It's just another word for anarchist. Some people are even trying to say it's another word for self government. To me, this just goes beyond the pale. This is an idea hijack trying to equate anarchy to self government. At some point, those folks who do this need to settle down with what they believe and start living it and STOP constantly trying to redefine words for the purpose of labeling. If that doesn't happen, then the message is not really being heard by them. That concerns me, because the effort put forth to make this happen DOES influence other people. If that is the example that is to be set, then something is wrong. I want to see results, not ever shifting definitions and hand wringing over what really is a common sense easy to understand idea.

The contrivances coming out of the philosophy forum are really doing the ideas of Ron Paul and his influences any justice IMO. It's just fostering an even deeper resentment of and for authority. That's a problem, IMO. Ron Paul is not a rebel, yet that is how he is being painted. Ron Paul is a passionate and caring man who understands a greater cause in which self sacrifice is necessary to achieve personal goals. His passion for justice is what drives him to participate in politics. That passion IMO is far stronger than his ideas about liberty.

 

[newbitech]

I find it very hard to believe that a guy who ends his Civil Disobedience chapter with book recommendations from Henry David Thoreau and Lew Rockwell, ends his Democracy chapter with Hans Herman-Hoppe and Lysander Spooner, and his Bipartisan chapter (in which he rails against government as a whole, and waxes poetic about agitators and revolutionaries) with Murray Rothbard's For A New Liberty doesn't understand or isn't familiar with voluntaryism or anarcho-capitalism.



How sweet would this shirt be with Ron on the back?

why did you attach voluntarism to anarcho capitalism? I'd think if Ron Paul had the same understanding of voluntarism as he did anarcho capitalism, he know the roots of the actual philosophy and see the distinction between the two. None of the people you mentioned were/are voluntarist in the traditional sense. From my studies, philosophical voluntarism has been around longer than anarchy capitalism and I wouldn't be surprised if Rothbard adopted pieces of voluntarism that he liked to amend his economic views with political views, and tossed out the ones he didn't like in order to coin his own term and develop his own philosophy.

Which incidentally brings ups a very good point. Do people who have adopted the more palatable label "voluntarism" to replace anarchy capitalism practice individual philosophy? Isn't there some merit to that? Particularly in quoting a staunch individualist anarchist like Spooner, would it not be wise to point out that these particular philosophies put a strong focus on the individual making his own choices which implies coming up with their own ideas on how to think and figure out the meaning of their lives? And doesn't labeling sort of fly in the face of the spirit of individualism?

 

[noneedtoaggress]

I'm not sure what you want me to clarify.

Err... you were going on about the methods certain "sides" were using when approaching each other on this forum and being extremely vague about what you were describing. I still don't know exactly what that was all about, but like I said, I'm not really concerned about it at this point. I only mentioned it as I was responding to the part about addressing Travlyr. I'm not entirely sure why you responded by explaining your philosophy concerning self-governance, and as I stated earlier I'm not about to get involved in any sort of in-depth discussion right now so... I'll just leave it at that.

 

[newbitech]

Err... you were going on about the methods certain "sides" were using when approaching each other and being extremely vague about what you were describing. I still don't know exactly what that was all about, but like I said, I'm not really concerned about it at this point. I only mentioned it as I was responding to the part about addressing Travlyr. I'm not entirely sure why you responded by explaining your philosophy concerning self-governance, and as I stated earlier I'm not about to get involved in any sort of in-depth discussion right now so... I'll just leave it at that.

its a philosophy forum. I am following the entire thread. My responses are directed towards the discussion. If my comments were vague, then they were probably not directed at you. I believe that in the context of my posting, if you have been following along, you will understand that I am on Travs "side". His question has been out there for a while. I may have missed your response. I can understand why you would not want to repeat yourself and post links to where you discussed that with someone else. At least I hope that is what your links went to. I didn't follow them because I disagree with people who think Trav (and me for that matter) are simply trolling or just rejecting others opinions out of hand. I believe if Trav has further questions, I would be interested, but if you are ready to blow him off, then I doubt you took his question serious in the first place. Never the less, I am still interested in reading your responses. At some point, I will follow and read all the links for the commentary in this thread. Hoping for news.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

its a philosophy forum. I am following the entire thread. My responses are directed towards the discussion. If my comments were vague, then they were probably not directed at you. I believe that in the context of my posting, if you have been following along, you will understand that I am on Travs "side". His question has been out there for a while. I may have missed your response. I can understand why you would not want to repeat yourself and post links to where you discussed that with someone else. At least I hope that is what your links went to. I didn't follow them because I disagree with people who think Trav (and me for that matter) are simply trolling or just rejecting others opinions out of hand. I believe if Trav has further questions, I would be interested, but if you are ready to blow him off, then I doubt you took his question serious in the first place. Never the less, I am still interested in reading your responses. At some point, I will follow and read all the links for the commentary in this thread. Hoping for news.

lol so you basically just said "I wasn't talking to you" when you posted your philosophy on self-governing as a direct response to me (in which I mentioned that your previous vague comments may not have been geared towards me anyway). apparently I somehow got involved with this because you had previously "taken sides" with Trav and were coming to his defense while making vague accusations at <abstract group of other people>, in which I had responded by defending my reasons for not engaging him over his "conundrum" in the previous 3-page conversation I had with him (which wasn't an arbitrary decision).

well alright then.

 

[Conza88]

Should the bs continue, I'll be giving shoutouts and thanks to Trav and newbitech on the RonPaul2010 twitter feed... and thanking them for "highlighting the need to spread this video".

 

[Wesker1982]

That perfectly describes pretty much ANY decent moral philosophy of human interaction.

Lol. I clearly understand this. But how many moral philosophies explicitly declare all taxation as theft? Of course Christians are against "theft", but most are pro-taxation. So yeah, you can't call all Christians Voluntaryists because they are not taking their principles to their logical conclusion.

Of course most moral philosophies are not going to praise the initiation of violence. DUH. But Voluntaryism takes these basic moral principles that are almost universally agreed upon and takes them to their logical conclusion.

There is nothing special about you wanting to say something like, "Well clearly he is ONLY talking about voluntarism."

He has taken his principles to their logical conclusion. That is why he views all taxation as theft. He believes force should only be used in response to force.

Sure a lot of philosophies claim this, but only Voluntaryism means it. Other philosophies only pay lip service to the principles that are universally shared (by moral philosophies).

No other philosophies advocate the non-aggression principle in libertarian context. Ron Paul clearly advocates the NAP in a libertarian way, i.e. he means it and takes it to the logical conclusion.

We already went over this in the other thread. You decided:

I'll go ahead and bow out, unconvinced.

After being unable to answer this post:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...voluntarists&p=4210142&viewfull=1#post4210142

Specifically:

Historically, sure, maybe every Voluntaryist refused to participate in all politics. But today many people self identify as Voluntaryists while participating in the political process (by voting for and supporting Ron Paul). See: The Anarcho-Capitalist Reddit, Mises.org Forums, Philosophy Forums at RPF .... These are the largest hangouts for Voluntaryists that I can think of off the top of my head. Mises.org obviously being probably the biggest. Go over there and ask them what they think...

This change in Voluntaryist consensus on voting is because almost everyone who used to identify as anarcho-capitalists are now calling themselves Voluntaryists. MANY of those anarcho-capitalists support Ron Paul. The Voluntaryist movement today largely consists of former self-identified anarcho-capitalists. I would say they make up the majority of the group.

If Rothbard were alive today, almost everyone in the movement would call him a Voluntaryist... and he advocated political action.

So with that said, there is undeniable evidence that Ron Paul:

1. Reaches his libertarian viewpoint through a totally Rothbardian belief system (natural rights)
2. Believes all interactions should be voluntary
3. Believes all taxation is theft
4. Wants the total voluntarization of all defense services (i.e., all law would be privately provided)

In other words, he is an obvious anarcho-capitalist. Most people call it Voluntaryism now because Ancap is a misnomer but the principles of it are almost identical to Voluntaryism.

This thread will go the exact same way, so I don't know if you are just bored or what.

The four points bolded are shared exclusively by Voluntaryists. Some philosophies might share anywhere from 1 to 3 of the points, but if they agree with all 4, then the philosophy is Voluntaryism. For example, Minarchists may believe #1 and pay lip service to #2, but fail 3 and 4.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Lol. I clearly understand this. But how many moral philosophies explicitly declare all taxation as theft? Of course Christians are against "theft", but most are pro-taxation. So yeah, you can't call all Christians Voluntaryists because they are not taking their principles to their logical conclusion.

Of course most moral philosophies are not going to praise the initiation of violence. DUH. But Voluntaryism takes these basic moral principles that are almost universally agreed upon and takes them to their logical conclusion.

:thumbs: Voluntaryism doesn't create a special exemption for government. Philosophies apply to human behavior; establishing principles for human behavior, and then making exceptions when some humans are "standing on base" is no philosophy at all... at least not one which is morally and logically consistent.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

For example, Minarchists may believe #1 and pay lip service to #2, but fail 3 and 4.

Randian minarchists would agree with 3, but not with 4, and thus not 100% with 2 either. The monopoly law/police/defense provider would fund itself via bake sales, lotteries, etc. That's one good thing about Rand, one good philosophical point she wasn't afraid to take all the way: taxation is theft. You can't have taxation.

 

[WilliamC]

The Federal Reserve Act was passed by the Congress and signed by the President, both of which were imposed upon all human beings living and eventually born into the territory commonly identified as "the United States of America" by the Constitution.

I guess I have to wonder why I'm to be convinced that what I really need is a "return to the Constitution".

This Travlyr fellow tells me that "we" just need to "obey" the "Constitution"; yet we've already seen over the past 200+ years that the Constitution was seldom if ever "obeyed". Why shouldn't I advocate for what is objectively, observably apparent - the sovereignty of each individual? It seems that "we" should have as much success convincing other people to respect the sovereignty of other individuals as "we" will having them respect a piece of paper.

How to we get back to individual sovereignty if not first at least going back to a more Constitutionally limited Federal government?

I have heard Ron Paul many times say that we won't solve our problems until we only elect people to Congress that are willing to abide by the Constitution. If we can't meet this first step then convincing the electorate of individual sovereignty would seem impossible.

Constitutional government is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for individual sovereignty, while a universal agreement on individual sovereignty is a sufficient but not necessary requirement for a Constitutionally limited government.

 

[newbitech]

lol so you basically just said "I wasn't talking to you" when you posted your philosophy on self-governing as a direct response to me (in which I mentioned that your previous vague comments may not have been geared towards me anyway). apparently I somehow got involved with this because you had previously "taken sides" with Trav and were coming to his defense while making vague accusations at <abstract group of other people>, in which I had responded by defending my reasons for not engaging him over his "conundrum" in the previous 3-page conversation I had with him (which wasn't an arbitrary decision).

well alright then.

No I didn't. You approached me first about something. So of course I responded. You asked me to clarify something, but we weren't involved in a discussion, so I started from scratch. I already explained "vague" post. You questioned why I gave you my beliefs. I answered. Apparently you are confused as to why you are having a discussion with me?