Why do the non-anarchists seem to be so anti-anarchist?

[A Son of Liberty]

The whole "Revolution thing" is about Ron Paul's ideas, not yours. People who come here to check out Ron Paul see people identifying themselves as anarchists and immediately dismiss the whole candidacy. But as always, anarchists don't care that they're hurting Paul's chances of getting elected. It's more important for them to hang around and portray themselves as perpetual victims of the propoganda war. They'd rather see Ron lose elections than STFU, because they don't believe in electoral politics anyway.

But of course since you had to ask, chances are pretty slim that you'll "get it." I mean, only only has to look at the category you chose to expound upon yourself in to understand that you wanted to make sure this was seen by a maximum number of posters. And of course this is all about you, and not Ron Paul.

Ron Paul does not call the ideas he espouses "his".

I'm still relatively new here, but I've yet to find an anarchist who's trying to undermine Paul in anyway, nor one who thinks it's all about him/her. I will absolutely vote for Ron Paul.

Ron Paul has never disassociated himself with Lew Rockwell, nor the Mises Institute, nor any other person or entity that espouses ideas that are more radical than those he's open with. Ron Paul associates with raging leftists like Dennis Kucinich and Barney Frank. I don't think Ron would mind if I posted my philosophical view points here, and I'm not sure why you do. And I definitely do not understand your vitriol.

 

[Travlyr]

And I definitely do not understand your vitriol.

I do understand it, and it would be to your advantage if you understood it too.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

I do understand it, and it would be to your advantage if you understood it too.

Well explain it then.

I've never said a cross word about Ron Paul. I'm ACTIVELY supporting his campaign.

 

[Travlyr]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchyDefinition of
ANARCHY
a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

This is what 99% of the people think when they hear the word "ANARCHY."
People don't want ANY part of it, and too few people will take the time to learn otherwise. So, their mind shuts down, and they say, "Those Ron Paul people are anarchists." It destroys our credibility... right or wrong... the definition of the word sends people running away.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

This is what 99% of the people think when they hear the word "ANARCHY."
People don't want ANY part of it, and too few people will take the time to learn otherwise. So, their mind shuts down, and they say, "Those Ron Paul people are anarchists." It destroys our credibility... right or wrong... the definition of the word sends people running away.

Oh, that.

Ron Paul has never disassociated himself with Lew Rockwell, nor the Mises Institute, nor any other person or entity that espouses ideas that are more radical than those he's open with. Ron Paul associates with raging leftists like Dennis Kucinich and Barney Frank.

 

[mczerone]

This is what 99% of the people think when they hear the word "ANARCHY."
People don't want ANY part of it, and too few people will take the time to learn otherwise. So, their mind shuts down, and they say, "Those Ron Paul people are anarchists." It destroys our credibility... right or wrong... the definition of the word sends people running away.

So does "libertarian", "constitutionalist", "Christian conservative", or any number of other terms more embraced by RP and his supporters.

People (i.e. a majority of voters) don't want ANY part of shutting down the drug war, federal education controls, the Federal Reserve, welfare programs, etc., etc., and too few people will take the time to learn why RP advocates these things. So their mind shuts down, and they say "those RP people are crazy". The ignorance of outsiders destroys our credibility.

So what to do? Go back in the closet?

No, it seems to me that if the problem is that others don't understand, the best course of action is to live true to yourself and gently educate those on the margins of accepting the validity of your position (anarchy and minarchy alike).

To the OP:
You'll find that most "anarchists" here self-identify as Voluntaryists, anarcho-capitalists, or some other term designed to be less fear inducing and more inviting to open discussion. They recognize that they are mis-understood, even by many here, and must do more to build bridges. There are a few statists here that are hostile to these ideas (the logical conclusion of saying that no central agency deserves to rule others by force) who don't seem to understand that the "anarchists" are working to support the same goals at this point, and will logically work HARDER toward goals like getting Paul elected, because they see this as an intermediate step to living more freely and educating more people about how freedom (without hyphens) is the most compassionate, humane, economical, just, peaceful, and fair system by which to conduct one's self in a society.

 

[ronpaulhawaii]

Speaking for myself, being attacked/mocked/etc. and called a statist/tyrant/etc, (the ol, "voting is an act of aggression" argument) one too many times, has left me quite cynical. While there are plenty of ancaps who consider when, how, and where, to have debates on certain issues, it is those who display no discretion, nor common sense, that I find a PITA.

An-caps like Tom Woods encourage people to engage in the political process to further the march towards liberty. Others come here to dissuade people from voting, or being involved at all. Sensible ancaps like Tom would never come here, to a board centered on the electoral process for a GOP candidate, and argue things that are sure to turn off typical GOP primary voters.

 

[Travlyr]

All I was doing was explaining why attaching the word "anarchy" to Ron Paul's campaign for president is objectionable to some people. The campaign is trying to gain voters, not drive them away. Ron Paul is not trying to achieve "lawlessness" or "chaos."

The baby boomers and older voters who learned about the Constitution in civics class in High School are the target voters.

Ron Paul called himself the "Champion of the Constitution" and rightly so. Those older voters can relate to that, but they will avoid anarchy at all costs.

I'm voting for Ron Paul.

So what to do?

The thing to do is embrace honest sound money at the State level as called for in the Constitution, and work to "Separate banking from the State." That's the right solution because it is already in place lawfully. When that benchmark is achieved, then move forward from there. In the meantime, the anarchy vs. minarchy debate is silly.

 

[LibertyEagle]

So does "libertarian", "constitutionalist", "Christian conservative", or any number of other terms more embraced by RP and his supporters.

Libertarian may be slightly off-putting to Republicans, but neither constitutionalist or Christian conservative would be. And all that matters right now is how Republicans view the situation. If Paul does not win the Republican nomination, his campaign is over.

People (i.e. a majority of voters) don't want ANY part of shutting down the drug war, federal education controls, the Federal Reserve, welfare programs, etc., etc., and too few people will take the time to learn why RP advocates these things. So their mind shuts down, and they say "those RP people are crazy". The ignorance of outsiders destroys our credibility.

So what to do? Go back in the closet?

No, it seems to me that if the problem is that others don't understand, the best course of action is to live true to yourself and gently educate those on the margins of accepting the validity of your position (anarchy and minarchy alike).

So, what a minute. You're saying that before we can talk to people about Dr. Paul's ideas to turn America around, we FIRST will have educate them on anarchy? That is ridiculous, you know. Anarchy isn't part of Dr. Paul's platform, so why on earth would we want to add another barrier we have to jump over to reach Republican voters?

I would think that at least during the campaign, that we would remember that we are his ambassadors and that since many people see "RonPaulForums" and think that Ron Paul established this forum, that we do our best to use this forum to get the man elected.

To the OP:
You'll find that most "anarchists" here self-identify as Voluntaryists, anarcho-capitalists, or some other term designed to be less fear inducing and more inviting to open discussion. They recognize that they are mis-understood, even by many here, and must do more to build bridges. There are a few statists here that are hostile to these ideas (the logical conclusion of saying that no central agency deserves to rule others by force) who don't seem to understand that the "anarchists" are working to support the same goals at this point, and will logically work HARDER toward goals like getting Paul elected, because they see this as an intermediate step to living more freely and educating more people about how freedom (without hyphens) is the most compassionate, humane, economical, just, peaceful, and fair system by which to conduct one's self in a society.

There are still several who use the term "anarchist" on these forums. And some, use every chance they get to bash the Constitution and those who you call "minarchists"; Not to mention making the constant, but erroneous, claim that Dr. Paul is an anarchist.

Tell me, when Ron Paul is telling Americans that he is the "champion of the Constitution" and that the Constitution needs to be restored, and also his Christianity, do you believe that potential Paul voters who see supposed supporters bashing the Constitution, Republicans, Conservatives and Christians, are helping or harming Dr. Paul's campaign? The answer seems pretty obvious to me. So why do some do it?

Not all ancaps/anarchists do this of course and when they don't, there is no problem.

 

[Kade]

And the word LOVE is highlighted in that word "Revolution"...so where's the love?

I'm pretty good about listening to all sorts of ideas. Having a pretty deep understanding of human behavior, I generally reject pure anarchism on biological/evolutionary reasons.

See c. Nathan Holn , ie Holnists

 

[Deborah K]

There are entirely too many bashers of values that Ron Paul holds near and dear like Christianity and the Constitution. The extremists on this site are going to put Ron in a very bad light and as far as I am concerned this forum is in a do or die situation if it is widely reported that we as a group advocate anarchy, atheism, etc. etc. Dr Paul probably doesn't mind that anarchy and atheism are values that a portion of his supporters embrace. But the cold, hard fact is that we will be in the spotlight from time to time and scrutinized coldly. Calling the Constitution a piece of crap and those who respect it statists, and calling Christians ignorant will hurt his chances irreversibly.

 

[acptulsa]

Look, I know anarchism isn't the most popular idea in the world, but I tend to think we are rather disdained on this forum. Maybe it's just me...I am rather new (first impressions can be deceiving).

'Everybody is running around in circles, announcing that somebody's pinched their liberty. Now the greatest aid that I know of that anyone could give the world today would be a correct definition of "liberty". What might be one class's liberty might be another class's poison. I guess absolute liberty couldn't mean anything but that anybody can do anything they want to, any time they want to. Well, any half-wit can tell you that wouldn't work. So the question arises, "How much liberty can I get away with?"

'Well, you can get no more liberty than you give. That's my definition, but you got perfect liberty to work out your own.'--Will Rogers

Now, I don't include the Will Rogers quote because I think it's entirely gospel (though I do love it). And I don't include it because I'm trying to piss you off. I include it because he had a point.

The minarchists here most often think an ancap society sounds very nice, and many of us believe it would indeed work on a very small scale. We've probably all been on small committees where the chair just didn't much enforce any rules and things got done very nicely, thank you. It isn't as if you're not among friends. You are. And allies, too. Here we are--we want to get to Sixth Street and you want to get to First Street and we're on 248th. So, of course we want to work together.

But when you come in arrogant and cocky from too many arguments from statists, and you don't even test the waters to see if, a, we're sympathetic and, b, if we've had this conversation twelve million, six hundred forty-two thousand, nine hundred eighteen times before, and you ice this cake by not keeping a civil tongue in your fingers, what the hell do you expect? Roses?

 

[Theocrat]

Anarchy Is Too Relative

Because the people associate anarchy with chaos and disorder. They have been conditioned to think this way by the government which fears the idea of anarchy as a political system

One of my main problems with anarchy is that it has no universal law which everyone is obligated to keep on a civil realm. It essentially allows every person to do that which is right in his own eyes, without civil restraints and a uniform process of law to bring about restitution and justice. Anarchy inherently assumes that rules are not absolute, and therefore, there should be no magistrates to ensure those rules are followed in society, universally and without variance.

 

[Theocrat]

We Should Be Sensitive to Some Things

There are entirely too many bashers of values that Ron Paul holds near and dear like Christianity and the Constitution. The extremists on this site are going to put Ron in a very bad light and as far as I am concerned this forum is in a do or die situation if it is widely reported that we as a group advocate anarchy, atheism, etc. etc. Dr Paul probably doesn't mind that anarchy and atheism are values that a portion of his supporters embrace. But the cold, hard fact is that we will be in the spotlight from time to time and scrutinized coldly. Calling the Constitution a piece of crap and those who respect it statists, and calling Christians ignorant will hurt his chances irreversibly.

I agree, Deborah K. More importantly, the presence of those conflicting ideas makes it difficult to recommend this site to Constitutionalists and Christians who like Ron Paul and would be interested in knowing more about his views. It also makes it challenging for said groups to be comfortable networking with anarchists and/or "atheists" to be part of grassroots activities.

What we don't need is something like a segment on The Rachel Maddow Show showcasing this site to prove her thesis that Ron Paul is supported by "crazy anarchists" who want to overthrow our government and destroy the Constitution. This site gets a lot of traffic, and I'm sure as Ron gets more momentum in the race, some opponents in the media will use this site as a tool against Ron Paul himself.

 

[ronpaulhawaii]

Speaking of Woods, he just posted this relevant article from Jeff Tucker @ Mises

http://blog.mises.org/17179/scrupulosity-and-the-condemnation-of-every-existing-business/

Scrupulosity and the Condemnation of Every Existing Business

There’s a growing moral scrupulosity going on in libertarian land, to the point that every really existing business is closely examined for any hint of state involvement (sin!), even when one stage removed (sin!), and then, upon discovery, condemned to hell has yet another example of the terrible things that the state does to the world.

...

Murray Rothbard used the phrase “do you hate the state?” to ferret out real from mild libertarians. As a correlative question, we might ask “do you love commerce?” to ferret out real defenders of real markets as versus those who just enjoy standing in moral judgement over the whole world as it really exists.

I belive this applies to more than just fast food/markets...

 

[AceNZ]

Really? Where? Here? I'm honestly surprise by this, as there are farrr more minarchist type libertarians on this board than any other.

Yes, here -- as well as IRL and on other forums. Although there are minarchists on RPF, I think the majority here are in favor of a constitutional style government, at a minimum, usually with a few "extras," such as closed borders, etc. What I find lacking is true, consistent, principled support of individual rights.

Anyone that is 'using Anarchy as a tool' to further *any* ends, particularly collectivist ones - aren't really anarchists, no matter how much they stamp their feet and claim to be so.

I agree. However, for the majority of the public, collectivists have managed to conflate "true" anarchy with their version of anarchy. Look at people like Chomsky, for example.

'anarchy is the fullest expression of capitalism and capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchy.' - Murray Rothbard

I don't buy it. The best arguments I've heard for anarchy usually end up advocating some form of ad hoc government, so they aren't really true anarchy. I believe that a civil society needs objective laws and an arbiter of honest disagreements -- which is part of what a proper government should provide. (I would be happy to discuss my misgivings in more detail, if there's interest.)

If you actually read any Rothbard, Block, Kinsella, et al - you wouldn't be saying that. There are tons of free books online in PDF format, so ultimately there is no excuse for believing such a thing.

If you are legitimately interested, we can recommend some stuff for you. Again - free and very easily accessible.

I'm interested. I don't have time at the moment to read anything too lengthy, but if you know of a reasonably concise summary, I would appreciate a pointer.

 

[Wesker1982]

I also think the anarcho-capitalists really haven't thought the whole thing through in enough detail. I'm willing to be proven wrong, but I see some problems that appear to be insurmountable if one's goal is to live in a peaceful, productive and civilized society.

This would be a good start:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?296399-Anarcho-Capitalist-Reference-List

Everything there just scratches the surface, though. A good place to start is Chaos Theory by Bob Murphy. Short and sweet. For a longer and more detailed analysis, I could not think of a better place to start than For a New Liberty by Murray Rothbard (free on mises.org, audio version is nice imo).

Related to a few posts here, the much neglected but important question is:

Once one concedes that a single world government is not necessary, then where does one logically stop at the permissibility of separate states? If Canada and the United States can be separate nations without being denounced as being in a state of impermissible “anarchy,” why may not the South secede from the United States? New York State from the Union? New York City from the state? Why may not Manhattan secede? Each neighborhood? Each block? Each house? Each person? But, of course, if each person may secede from government, we have virtually arrived at the purely free society, where defense is supplied along with all other services by the free market and where the invasive State has ceased to exist.

edit:
Free PDF for Chaos Theory: http://mises.org/books/chaostheory.pdf
Free audio, good for when driving or mowing the lawn etc: http://mises.org/media/category/215/Chaos-Theory-Two-Essays-On-Market-Anarchy

 

[Kade]

There are entirely too many bashers of values that Ron Paul holds near and dear like Christianity and the Constitution. The extremists on this site are going to put Ron in a very bad light and as far as I am concerned this forum is in a do or die situation if it is widely reported that we as a group advocate anarchy, atheism, etc. etc. .

What light would that be? Freedom?

 

[Deborah K]

What light would that be? Freedom?

The light of non-electability.

 

[Kade]

The light of non-electability.

You think the movement is really about gathering up Conservatives? I've fought that fight for years, those people are immovable and stubborn. Liberals and moderates are interested in alternatives. Or you can alienate them by pushing the cherished beliefs of the 5-7% of Christian Reconstructionists in the country. Awesome.

And I really take offense to being called an extremists. Atheists make up a least 20% of this country, and possibly far more.