Ron Paul The Anarchist

I love this video showing statements by Ron Paul that demonstrate his commitment to voluntary government.

Beautifully done.

All Austrian economists who believe in their work are anarcho-capitalists.

Voluntarism, Anarcho-capitalism, and Agorism, all mean roughly the same thing. I like to use the term Anarchism because it is such a volatile reaction provoking word. No rulers. It’s much more powerful than voluntarism.

Here are a few great videos that define voluntarism:

.

  • Albedopiazolla

    Ron paul is a constitutionalist, not an anarchist. There needs to be a limited government to protect the people’s God-given rights. Without that, rights do not exist. In an anarchistic society, you have no right to protect yourself, no right to say what you want, no right to live in a house. If someone steals your computer, rapes your wife, or kills your children, you can’t complain. They have just as much right to pillage you as you do i.e. none. Survival of the fittest. Perhaps you’ll pay him to not beat you with a baseball bat and call it capitalism, but without someone to determine what a free market is by law, he could just as well take your money and still beat you. To him, that may be a free market. Anarchy would be essentially the same as a dictatorship because the strongest will rule the weak instead of the elite ruling the non-elite.

    • http://www.libertariannews.org/ Michael Suede

      He’s a constitutionalist in public, but I don’t think that is where he really stands.

      As a politician, it would end his career to come out against the Constitution.

      He uses the Constitution as a tool to bash government.

      • John W. Tobin

        That sounds logical. So anyone that speaks for the Constitution and We The People and is in politics is still a lier?
         He “uses” the Constitution because it is the foundation of our Republic. He “uses” it to try and teach those who do not understand it (which is a rather large percentage of Americans). He “uses” it because we should ALL be using it. 

    • A-San

      There needs to be a limited government to protect the people’s God-given rights.
       (Look at what a limited government has become and done to those rights)

      Without that, rights do not exist.  (If rights are God given, then they exist without government)

      In an anarchistic society, you have no right to protect yourself, no
      right to say what you want, no right to live in a house. If someone
      steals your computer, rapes your wife, or kills your children, you can’t
      complain. They have just as much right to pillage you as you do i.e.
      none. Survival of the fittest. 
      (Anarchism is the philosophy of the non-initiation of force UNLESS you are aggressed upon, so you certainly DO have the right to defend yourself either directly or through firms/collectives/family/etc.  And why would you not have the right to live in a house or say what you want?  Why does the absence of a state necessarily dictate that there would be no system of redress or law?  If rights are God given then you can certainly do all of the above.)

      without someone to determine what a free market is by law… (is not free market).

      Anarchy would be essentially the same as a dictatorship because the
      strongest will rule the weak instead of the elite ruling the non-elite.  
      (I have trouble seeing the difference in your false dichotomy and I have not been able to confirm this accusation.  From what I’ve read about large anarchist societies, it wasn’t a dictator from inside that destroyed them but only dictators from outside the community.  There doesn’t seem to be much evidence to prove that anarchism leads to dictatorship).

      BUT, there is mountains of evidence indicating that governments do devolve into dictatorships, and often.

      • exuberant1

        You seem to be forgetting that no-win scenarios would be more easier to impose and far more abundant in an anarchist society.

        Advanced weaponry and delivery systems will be available at low cost, and the average person will having the means of creating and maintaining a Nash equilibrium with potential threats. The price for violating the rights of an individual can be set much higher in an anarchist society, whereas now those who are clothed in state garb can end your life on a whim and face not penalty.  You cannot easily impose and live within a Nash equilibrium if your opponent is the state.

        Once an anarchist society arrives and makes it easy for you and I to impose no-win scenarios on our threats – once that equilibrium comes into existence it will be by it’s nature, self-stabilizing, self-sustaining, self-perpetuating and it won’t ever go away. 

    • Free Idaho

      Dear Sir or Madam which ever the case may be. Unfortunately your understanding on Anarchism is grossly distorted and shows gross ignorance of the philosophy of Anarchy.  Your statements of what would happen under Anarchy also shows the gross ignorance of the individual that told you these things. Obviously neither of you has invested the time to educate yourselves to the true philosophy of Anarchy. Had you taken the time to educate yourself you would have found that your statements were a 180 degree reversal of what Anarchy is. Any use of force or fraud for whatever reason is a oneway ticket to the undertaker. When the use of force or fraud is prosecuted it is the VICTIM that determines the penalty up to and including capitol punishment. What you fail to understand is that there are RULES just NO RULERS. The RULES are set down in NATURAL LAW. You do not have the Right to use force or fraud  in any of it’s forms to achieve Social, Political, Economic, Cultural, Religious, Personal or other gain.

    • Hikaru1020

      Anyone who actually went out and raped women, stole possessions, and murdered people would most likely be killed within a week in an anarchist society.

  • Larken Rose

    The ONLY thing “government” adds to society is the illusion that aggressive violence can be legitimate. The use of inherently justified defensive force does not require any “law” or “authority.” By definition, “government” is the gang imagined to have the right to use violence in situations where YOU have no such right. It is insane to say that we need an AGGRESSOR in order to PROTECT us. It is insane to try to appoint a ruling class–which is what “government” always is–in the name of protecting individual rights. There has never been a “government” anywhere in the world, at any time in history, that has only protected people. (By definition, it wouldn’t be “government” if it only did that; it would be a mutually voluntary arrangement.) Why do people still imagine that “law” is what protects against tyranny and oppression, when the vast majority of tyranny and oppression has been committed in the name of “law”?

  • Albedopiazolla

    I think your idea of anarchism is naive. Rights are given to you by either God or the government. Without either, where will you validate your right to live? Or your right to own property? Or your right to to whatever you want except for harm others? Where will you get your right to  If you say that you validate them, isn’t it just as likely that others will invalidate them. If I say this is my television and someone else says, no, it is mine. Then really what it would amount to would be whoever was stronger. If you say “my security validates my rights”. Then you automatically tie your rights to money or whatever you pay for the security. If that dries up, you have lost your rights. If you say the community validates your rights, you have contradicted anarchism in that you have a local government. Then the problem becomes what if they don’t want you to have the rights. If the local government is democratic, then they could just as easily vote your rights away, or tax you. Therefore the only way to truly anarchistic would be to live outside of any communities with no neighbors. If the community is communist, your rights are not your own as they belong to everybody. Anarchism is only as good as those that make up it’s populous. It in a sense is democracy and can just as easily devolve into mob rule. The very same human nature that allows dictatorship and big government that invalidates rights is the very same human nature that will allow the invalidation of rights in an anarchistic society.

    Our constitution is a law that protects our rights. There is no need to discard the Constitution. We let our government devolve, not the constitution. If the government gets too big, We the People should start over using the Constitution. All we really need is something to make sure our rights are upheld. 90% of our government is not needed, but we need some parts of it to make sure our society doesn’t devolve into slavers and mobs.  Perhaps we could allow different types of government in different states to see which really works. The minarchists have their government and the anarchists have theirs. And with such a small government, the minarchist government could get by with voluntary taxes. And really in an anarchistic society, there would be a government, even if it was only local. Of course the very same people that plague our current government system would plague even an anarchistic one.

  • Socorro

    Limiting government is one thing, but no form of government is just dangerous. Thats why i’m NOT voting for Ron Paul. :l 

    • http://www.libertariannews.org/ Michael Suede

      Opposing violently funded government does not equal no government.  Supporting one of the statists is simply supporting your own enslavement.  Its too bad you are not mature enough to rid yourself of the fear and greed that causes you to support a violent system of enslavement.

    • Pastorjdh

      Ron Paul does not believe in “no government”. He believes the Federal government should not take people’s money in an effort to run a national dictatorship. He also believes they should not make laws restricting or limiting States or local governments from making laws to govern their people as long as those laws do not violate the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. If people really knew who Ron Paul was and what he wants to accomplish it would be a landslide election in his favor. He would bring us back to our roots as a country where freedom reigns, parents decide what is best for their children and local law enforcement deals with criminals.