Where do Ron Paul's ideas come from?

Ron Paul on Self-Government or Tip-Toeing Into Panarchism - Lew Rockwell.com
Posted by Michael S. Rozeff on April 4, 2012 05:41 AM

My thanks to fellow-panarchist Christian Butterbach for a short video of Ron Paul in which he endorses as an ultimate goal libertarian self-government. He specifically mentions enclaves and the Amish as well as communities that, in America's past, chose voluntarily to live socialistically. He contrasts this freedom to choose one's own government (as he projects would be a real choice in what he calls a "libertarian society") with a single monolithic monopoly (and necessarily territorial) government that forces everyone involuntarily to subscribe to what he calls its "socialism."

I think we can say that Ron Paul here not only understands panarchism but endorses it as what he "really" wants, and, by the same token, I think he would endorse voluntaryism, which comes to the same end. The constitutionalism of Ron Paul (returning to its original interpretation) appears for him quite possibly to be a means to a greater goal, which is a libertarian society, which in this context implies wide social agreement on the concept of voluntary self-governments and tolerance of them. The quickest way to get there is by making as much of government as possible optional or voluntary. This means making secession at the personal level more and more of a reality. And even if it is difficult to see how this can happen, it is very important to keep it in view as a goal. This goal contrasts starkly with any spreading of government involuntaryism (or coercion) into more and more areas of life, here and across the world.
Click to expand...
lol....
 
osan said:
I will say that Conza gets too worked up - too strident in his tone - not a good method for getting a point across.

That said, Dale Carnegie? WTF? I've despised that man's ideas forever.

For one thing, I do not endeavor to "win" friends. I build friendships. They are not prizes. As for influencing people, I don't do that either. I put out the truth as I see it and let it speak for itself. Forget Carnegie's bankrupt world view.
Click to expand...
Yeah, Carnegie sucked. But there are things to be learned from most people-even the terrible ones (even if the lesson is what NOT to do). It's just the book I thought of in the spur of the moment. Now that you've reminded me, there are better books on the subject of relationships, acquaintances, influencing people, etc. Napoleon Hill's books are best-sellers and still practical IMO.
 
Conza88 said:
"I have no idea how to sell ideas..." as I host this video on how to sell ideas... :rolleyes:

​



Btw update: All 3 individuals have been informed of this thread.

If you doubt the twitter is real - http://www.twitter.com/ronpaul2010www.twitter.com/ronpaul2010 join :D
Click to expand...

If you sell ideas well in person, I applaud you for it. The point in the video there^^ are well-known in libertarian circles (you didn't originate them). I've heard Larken Rose and numerous other discuss almost the same point. My point was that the tone you tend to take on RPFs is too confrontational. You come off as rude-which is why the debates you participate in lose their civility almost instantly. Take the classy route more often and I think you'll have more success. Even if you don't convince your opponents, others watching will be more likely to consider what you say. Just FWIW.
 
heavenlyboy34 said:
If you sell ideas well in person, I applaud you for it. The point in the video there^^ are well-known in libertarian circles (you didn't originate them). I've heard Larken Rose and numerous other discuss almost the same point. My point was that the tone you tend to take on RPFs is too confrontational. You come off as rude-which is why the debates you participate in lose their civility almost instantly. Take the classy route more often and I think you'll have more success. Even if you don't convince your opponents, others watching will be more likely to consider what you say. Just FWIW.
Click to expand...

I'm blunt, and harsh with people who are intellectually dishonest on here. I STARTED OUT as perfectly reasonable with them, respectful and assumed they were open to reason. This is a different medium to face to face conversations. Here you can lurk, there is NO pressure to post, you can THINK and take as MUCH time as you want to ponder something. You can RESEARCH if you want. And then you can choose to post your thoughts. I have a different standard for face to face discussions, which usually involve others listening in and the inclination is to defend your ideas, you need an immediate response etc.

As history and the interaction goes on here - whether that is true or not becomes crystal clear. When they are not intellectual honest, when they DICTATE answers instead of ask, when they are NOT curious but overtly aggressive against things they know little to nothing about... it reflects on them.

Since they are not intellectually honest, or open to reason (asking things like: what books have you read on the subject or source? help determine it. If they are completely unable to answer that, and AVOID it COUNTLESS TIMES - they are more troll than someone actually interested in the ideas.

And so they lose respect. Engaging with them becomes about using them as a soundboard, to convince others. I've made many people out to be fools here - they generally don't know it, they delusionally think they're on some crusade to 'defend the constitution' or the movement. Hilariously sad... and yet I thank them!

tumblr_m1pn91tO361qjqdh8o1_r1_500.jpg
 
Last edited:
That's great Conza.

But if the Mises Institute promotes Mises as an anarchist when Mises himself rejected anarchy, then what is the purpose? I hold much respect for Ludwig von Mises.

Ludwig von Mises made it very clear that Classical Liberalism has nothing to do with anarchism,
Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints.

Liberalism is not anarchism, nor has it anything whatsoever to do with anarchism. The liberal understands quite clearly that without resort to compulsion, the existence of society would be endangered and that behind the rules of conduct whose observance is necessary to assure peaceful human cooperation must stand the threat of force if the whole edifice of society is not to be continually at the mercy of any one of its members. One must be in a position to compel the person who will not respect the lives, health, personal freedom, or private property of others to acquiesce in the rules of life in society. This is the function that the liberal doctrine assigns to the state: the protection of property, liberty, and peace.
Click to expand...
Mises makes it very clear to a reader,
Liberalism is therefore far from disputing the necessity of a machinery of state, a system of law, and a government. It is a grave misunderstanding to associate it in any way with the idea of anarchism. For the liberal, the state is an absolute necessity, since the most important tasks are incumbent upon it: the protection not only of private property, but also of peace, for in the absence of the latter the full benefits of private property cannot be reaped.
Click to expand...
Conza, why are you promoting anarchism when Mises didn't?
 
Travlyr, I'm going to trust that if you are going engage with other anarchists here and you end up getting frustrated, annoyed, etc., you aren't going to bring that frustration into our debate.
 
A Son of Liberty said:
Travlyr, I'm going to trust that if you are going engage with other anarchists here and you end up getting frustrated, annoyed, etc., you aren't going to bring that frustration into our debate.
Click to expand...

I will point to the truth, as I see it, every day of my life for the rest of my life. If you can't handle the truth, then read and don't write.
 
Travlyr said:
I will point to the truth, as I see it, every day of my life for the rest of my life. If you can't handle the truth, then read and don't write.
Click to expand...

If I can't handle the truth? Travlyr, I'm simply saying that I hope the integrity of our debate will be preserved. I don't feel like these comments of yours are very conducive to that...
 
It is the same thing with noneedtoagress, who is very aggressive, I must add... No desire to debate because he holds values that are not valuable. noneeedtoagress is an empty suit.
 
It means that I'm disappointed that you're reacting this way. All I did was point out that I was hoping if you engaged a personality like Conza, any frustration from that discussion wouldn't spill into our debate. That is ALL.

I am debating you. I'm not afraid to debate you.
 
A Son of Liberty said:
It means that I'm disappointed that you're reacting this way. All I did was point out that I was hoping if you engaged a personality like Conza, any frustration from that discussion wouldn't spill into our debate. That is ALL.

I am debating you. I'm not afraid to debate you.
Click to expand...
Until you post a new thread for our debate, then I will assume that you don't want to debate.
 
Travlyr said:
Until you post a new thread for our debate, then I will assume that you don't want to debate.
Click to expand...

I thought you said you were going to create the new thread:

Travlyr said:
I wish to start a new thread with this post if it is okay with you. I would like to copy/paste every post including this one into the new thread. I wish to call it: Statelessness vs. State

What do you think?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PAF
Murray Rothbard’s Lost Letters on Ayn Rand
Replies
0
Views
222
PAF
PAF
PAF
Mises Institutes Beyond the United States
Replies
0
Views
183
PAF
PAF
PAF
Voting: The Seen and the Unseen
Replies
2
Views
131
TheTexan
TheTexan
PAF
Resignation from the Scientific Advisory Board of the Ludwig von Mises Institute Germany
Replies
4
Views
177
TheTexan
TheTexan
PAF
The Many Roads to Liberty
Replies
0
Views
844
PAF
PAF
Back
Top