What is Ron Paul? And who supports him?

There was another that was discussing what ideological nomenclature fit Ron Paul.  IMHO, he is a Republican by name, constitutional libertarian minarchist by action, and an ancap/agorist in spirit.

One of my favorite things about RP is that in many of his speeches, he cites his attendees and supporters coming from a wide range of the political web, paraphrased, "Republicans, Democrats, liberals, conservatives, libertarians, and, yes, we even anarchists supporting this message of liberty."

ViennaSausage:

There was another that was discussing what ideological nomenclature fit Ron Paul.  IMHO, he is a Republican by name, constitutional libertarian minarchist by action, and an ancap/agorist in spirit

How did you come to the conclusion that he is an Anarcho-Capitalist in spirit?

Angurse:

ViennaSausage:

There was another that was discussing what ideological nomenclature fit Ron Paul.  IMHO, he is a Republican by name, constitutional libertarian minarchist by action, and an ancap/agorist in spirit

How did you come to the conclusion that he is an Anarcho-Capitalist in spirit?

By the very least, the very fact that he's a politician would disqualify him as an agorist from the get go.

Brainpolice:

By the very least, the very fact that he's a politician would disqualify him as an agorist from the get go.

Agorists have this self righteous thing going on, where they feel that they are the only ideology of effectiveness, when agorism has never achieved it's goals, nor is there compelling proof that agorism will achieve it's goals.

And yes, Paul is definitely not an agorist.  He doesn't work in the shadows, or avoid confronting statism head on.

 

liberty student:

Brainpolice:

By the very least, the very fact that he's a politician would disqualify him as an agorist from the get go.

Agorists have this self righteous thing going on, where they feel that they are the only ideology of effectiveness, when agorism has never achieved it's goals, nor is there compelling proof that agorism will achive it's goals.

And yes, Paul is definitely not an agorist.  He doesn't work in the shadows, or avoid confronting statism head on.

 

Bad arguments. We've had about 200 years of libertarians trying to achieve their goals through the political process and we've ended up with leviathan. There is no compelling proof that continueing this strategy will ever lead to any meaningful strides towards the ultimate goals.

Electing politicians is most certainly not confronting statism head on. Actually defying the state's laws and engaging in secession is, which is part of Agorism. It's not a short-term solution like the electoral process, which is why you shy away from it, since you seek short-term solutions and an easy way out.

Yea, Ron Paul doesn't work in the shadows. He just ends up being a singular no vote against a nearly unanimous sea of yes votes, while almost everyone around him essentially thinks he's a nutbag. It's effectiveness? Nil. A token at best. Or then he goes on to vote "yes" when it's convenient.

It's impossible for Ron Paul to confront statism because he's a part of it himself.

Brainpolice:

By the very least, the very fact that he's a politician would disqualify him as an agorist from the get go.

From the agorist manifesto: "All relations between people are voluntary exchanges - a free market. No one will injure another or trespass in any way."

The reason I say he is a an ancap/agorist in spirit is because the type of things he fights for in Congress appear Free-Market oriented, for example legislation allowing competing currency in the US.  Granted, most if not all ancap/agorist don't agree with the means of utilizing the current governmental structure, but perhaps subverting it.  That is why I loosely use the term "in spirit" because his actions are not necessarily ancap/agorist, but constitutionalist/libertarian/minarchist. He fights for most of our exchanges to be voluntary, and calls the folks in congress out when they are not.  By no means does he act in direct definition of ancap/agorism, but IMHO, the spirit of ancap/agorism influences his action.

Brainpolice:

There is no compelling proof that continueing this strategy will ever lead to any meaningful strides towards the ultimate goals.

I think there is compelling evidence that utilizing the system in incremental and iterative steps works (but that evidence is skewed towards the statists), but the challenge and irony is that libertarians do not, as a whole, utilize the system.  The US was originally a fairly libertarian (in the minarchist/constitutional sense) oriented nation, granted not perfect.  But gradually, slowly, but surely, statist took over, creating bigger and bigger governments, and seizing more and more freedoms.  The statist used the system over the years to make the system bigger and more bloated.  It didn't happen over night.  And perhaps the incremental progress of the growth of more government was not even noticed.  

 

Brainpolice:

He just ends up being a singular no vote against a nearly unanimous sea of yes votes, while almost everyone around him essentially thinks he's a nutbag. It's effectiveness? Nil. A token at best.

Imagine a lots of little tokens.  His effectiveness is not necessarily in passing the legislation, but in waking up a individuals.  Over the past 10 years, he was practically an unknown.  His presidential campaign catapulted him into a spotlight.  His credibility was built up over the past 10+years as the only no vote, as the only voice of reason.  IMHO, there is more than one path to the goal.

Brainpolice:

Bad arguments. We've had about 200 years of libertarians trying to achieve their goals through the political process and we've ended up with leviathan. There is no compelling proof that continueing this strategy will ever lead to any meaningful strides towards the ultimate goals.

Bad argument?  How about irrelevant to what I posted?  If you are going to change the topic, fine.  But don't pull that and then claim that my argument is bad.

Brainpolice:

Electing politicians is most certainly not confronting statism head on. Actually defying the state's laws and engaging in secession is, which is part of Agorism. It's not a short-term solution like the electoral process, which is why you shy away from it, since you seek short-term solutions and an easy way out.

The first part, I have not endorsed.  Which makes it a strawman.  The last part about my shying away, is also a strawman.  You don't know what sort of solutions I seek, or how fast I seek to implement them.
I think that is the common refuge of the blogger/agorist.  "I've got the only valid technique, and I am going to or am doing it, but I can't talk about it because it's top secret and stuff..."

 

"Whoa man, you want me to actually do something?  That's moving too fast man." 

Brainpolice:

Yea, Ron Paul doesn't work in the shadows. He just ends up being a singular no vote against a nearly unanimous sea of yes votes, while almost everyone around him essentially thinks he's a nutbag. It's effectiveness? Nil. A token at best. Or then he goes on to vote "yes" when it's convenient.

His campaign was not a singular no vote.  Look around this forum at the number of people who attribute their arrival to him.  While you spin canards and stereotypes about Conservatives (as Ego pointed out, almost always avoiding any criticism of the socialist left) real conservatives are here, learning about anarchism, learning about the ethics and ideas of liberty.  Not so much for your morally bankrupt pals on the left, is it?

Brainpolice:

It's impossible for Ron Paul to confront statism because he's a part of it himself.

It is possible that Paul has done more with his medical practice for agorism than most of the so-called agorists elite around here have.  We know he didn't accept medicare, and that he treated people in charity hospitals.  I'm curious to know how that stacks up with your own, and the rest of the purple agorist elite's accomplishments to date.  Because when he was doing it, that was years before the term agorism had even been spun out by SEK3.

BP, you're a smart guy, but like Nicky, are counter-productive to your own ends, because you put yourself on an ideological island, and refuse to participate with the rest of society, or even near-allies to further your own agenda.

I am/was a conservative.  I'm a Canadian, so I'm nothing like your American bible belting, pro-war conservatives.  And I hate your stereotyping, and convenient omission of the facts when you attack people who may not be doing things "your way" but certainly producing much more education, money, energy and momentum than you are.

The fallacy that the state will just fall and all of the YouTube Blogger anarchists will be free is total nonsense, and I think its time you guys decided if you want to fight, or if you want to talk.  Because at one point, you might have to decide if you want to be free, or if you enjoy complaining about not being free more.

 

I've not read up much on agorism.  Though, I agree with brainpolice in that libertarians in politics is mostly a dead end.  I've always been more interested in the economic and moral side of anarchism.  RP took on a lot of individual issues and I liked what he had to say.  His philosophy is more important than his great record in congress.  He's like the opposite version of Milton Friedman.  He's not an outsider sharing libertarian knowledge with the jerks in Washington who won't listen.  He's on the inside and he's sharing it with all of the outsiders who will actually listen.  See the way he used the media.  It wasn't to influence foreign policy or the Fed in one way or another directly.  I think he was really informing a lot of people about the foreign policy, about the Fed, etc. who were at home watching.  So when it angered Giuliani and the establishment goons, he did not get frustrated or angry.  Like he's said before "I've always just had really low standards."

I was intially introduced to the concept of liberty through the Ron Paul campaign. So while I am very grateful for his canidacy I no longer consider myself a supporter.

 

He is a very principled man in the sense that he follows the Constitution completely. However, as I'm sure many realized, the Constitution is not this great libertarian document by any means.

After reading Lysander Spooner's. " No Treason: The Constituion of No Authority". I soon realized that I could no longer be a Constiutionalist and be consistent with libertarinism.

I'm sure Ron Paul has a lot of respect for anarchists, but the fact that he spent the last 30 years in Congress means that he certaintly isn't one.

LibertasMaximum:

I'm sure Ron Paul has a lot of respect for anarchists, but the fact that he spent the last 30 years in Congress means that he certaintly isn't one.

I heard that Ron Paul only became a Congress Man because Blogger wasn't invented yet.  Who knows, if blogs had been around in the 70s, Paul might have started his own libertarian magazine and online community.  He might be trading his home grown tomatoes for pot and haircuts like all good agorists.

Someone here wrote recently, "you're preaching to the choir".  Paul doesn't preach to the choir.  He plays the heretic.  He's not trying to reach smug leftist purple bloggers.  He's not trying to reach angry Nicky.  He's trying to reach people who have been brainwashed by the state and not exposed to Bastiat, Rothbard, Mises etc.

 

 

That's all well and good.

 

However. he has also inspired a group of people who have no problem with states banning drugs, or the right of people to contract...all in the name of states' rights.

 

As I said, I'm thankful for his campaign, but it has not been all positive.

Chris:

I was intially introduced to the concept of liberty through the Ron Paul campaign. So while I am very grateful for his canidacy I no longer consider myself a supporter.

 

He is a very principled man in the sense that he follows the Constitution completely. However, as I'm sure many realized, the Constitution is not this great libertarian document by any means.

After reading Lysander Spooner's. " No Treason: The Constituion of No Authority". I soon realized that I could no longer be a Constiutionalist and be consistent with libertarinism.

I'm sure Ron Paul has a lot of respect for anarchists, but the fact that he spent the last 30 years in Congress means that he certaintly isn't one.

 

Some people including myself think he uses the Constitution because it is much more Libertarian than our government today and he can use it to be viable in politics, but he is really An-Cap in his core beliefs. He knew Rothbard and must of been aware of An-Cap and his rhetoric makes you wonder what his beliefs really are when you compare it to some of Rothbards rhetoric. This is all speculative of course but I have a gut feeling he is really An-Cap. Somebody needs to ask him if he is An-Cap. I demand it.

"Those who say it cannot be done should not get in the way of those doing it." - Chinese Proverb

liberty student:

Brainpolice:

By the very least, the very fact that he's a politician would disqualify him as an agorist from the get go.

Agorists have this self righteous thing going on, where they feel that they are the only ideology of effectiveness, when agorism has never achieved it's goals, nor is there compelling proof that agorism will achieve it's goals.

And yes, Paul is definitely not an agorist.  He doesn't work in the shadows, or avoid confronting statism head on.

 

I'm for any tactic that works and gives me more liberty.  If libertarians can shrink the size of the State via the political process more power to them.  If agorist can turn enough people around so they stop supporting the State more power to them.  I think all tactics work in harmony with each other since they all share the same ultimate goal.

Criticize Ron all you want, but he rules.  I'm constitutionalist, conservative, libertarian, an-cap.  Call it a contradiction.  I don't care.  Until I see a bigger difference between those things individually than them collectively compared to what we have, I'll gladly contradict myself.  And I'll find more people willing to accept at least one of those philosophies in the mean time.

I won't lie.  Ron re-awoke my political flame.  He's the reason I'm ancap.  Thus, if someone is opposed to ancap, it might be a GREAT F'IN idea to simply argue for something less radical.  That might plant the seed that eventually leads to their support of ancap.  If it at least sticks, it may help get a smaller state.

We need to look at things not only from good and bad but better and worse.  Ultimate goals as a sole value of success is folly.

ChaseCola:

Some people including myself think he uses the Constitution because it is much more Libertarian than our government today and he can use it to be viable in politics, but he is really An-Cap in his core beliefs. He knew Rothbard and must of been aware of An-Cap and his rhetoric makes you wonder what his beliefs really are when you compare it to some of Rothbards rhetoric. This is all speculative of course but I have a gut feeling he is really An-Cap. Somebody needs to ask him if he is An-Cap. I demand it.

He'll say no.  He is not an anarchist.  He is a libertarian-leaning Constitutionalist/conservative. 

On a side note, can't you just imagine the MSM outcry when/if they realize that Ron Paul keeps a picture of an anarchist and a secessionist on his wall.

 

wombatron:

ChaseCola:

Some people including myself think he uses the Constitution because it is much more Libertarian than our government today and he can use it to be viable in politics, but he is really An-Cap in his core beliefs. He knew Rothbard and must of been aware of An-Cap and his rhetoric makes you wonder what his beliefs really are when you compare it to some of Rothbards rhetoric. This is all speculative of course but I have a gut feeling he is really An-Cap. Somebody needs to ask him if he is An-Cap. I demand it.

He'll say no.  He is not an anarchist.  He is a libertarian-leaning Constitutionalist/conservative. 

On a side note, can't you just imagine the MSM outcry when/if they realize that Ron Paul keeps a picture of an anarchist and a secessionist on his wall.

 

Well my theory which is based on almost no evidence states that he uses the constitution because he knows he could not get support as an anarchist and he figures he is doing good for liberty by doing so.

ChaseCola:

Chris:

I was intially introduced to the concept of liberty through the Ron Paul campaign. So while I am very grateful for his canidacy I no longer consider myself a supporter.

 

He is a very principled man in the sense that he follows the Constitution completely. However, as I'm sure many realized, the Constitution is not this great libertarian document by any means.

After reading Lysander Spooner's. " No Treason: The Constituion of No Authority". I soon realized that I could no longer be a Constiutionalist and be consistent with libertarinism.

I'm sure Ron Paul has a lot of respect for anarchists, but the fact that he spent the last 30 years in Congress means that he certaintly isn't one.

 

 

Some people including myself think he uses the Constitution because it is much more Libertarian than our government today and he can use it to be viable in politics, but he is really An-Cap in his core beliefs. He knew Rothbard and must of been aware of An-Cap and his rhetoric makes you wonder what his beliefs really are when you compare it to some of Rothbards rhetoric. This is all speculative of course but I have a gut feeling he is really An-Cap. Somebody needs to ask him if he is An-Cap. I demand it.

This claim that Ron Paul is a market anarchist makes no sense to me at all. His own position is clearly a constitutionalist/minarchist one. At a minimum, he definitely supports government provision of defense and arbitration. Beyond that, he also supports immigration restriction, governmental prohibitions on abortion and state's rights.

Here is my 2 cents.

I too got the impression he has some anarcho-capitalist leanings.  When I hear him speak, I sometimes get the feeling that he's only pretending to be a strict Constitutionalist to get elected.  After all, do you think anyone could win an election if their platform was strictly anarcho-capitalist?  Of course not.  Also I once heard him mention Spooner, someone statists don't tend to mention.

I voted for him because I think he is far better than anyone else running.  I think if he were in office that he would actually reduce the size of government.  I don't agree with him on every issue.  But I'd rather have someone in office that decreases the size of government, even if it is by a small amount, than someone who helps the governement to grow even more.