http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=111
Ha ha, it acts as if government is synonymous with law. Someone needs to educate the Paultard that made this.
BTW does anyone know if Ron Paul has been asked about Anarcho Capitalism? He knew Rothbard after all and certaintly should be aware of it. Maybe even Ron is making political judgements and not speaking his mind.
"The plans differ; the planners are all alike"
-Bastiat
We had a thread about this video yesterday.
I don't think it even addresses anarcho-capitalism in that video. Only that anarchy is just killing people and having no property rights until the good guys show up or something. It just arrogantly states that this is a transition period to The Republic (TM) or The Dictator (TM). Notice Fidel waiting in the wings.
I am pretty sure Ron Paul knows about Anarcho Capitalism. Not only did he know Rothbard, not only was his congressional Chief of Staff Lew Rockwell, but IIRC, Ron Paul was a founding member of the Mises Institute. He also cites or refers Mises, Hayek, Rothbard in his book, The Revolution, A Manifesto.
ViennaSausage: I am pretty sure Ron Paul knows about Anarcho Capitalism. Not only did he know Rothbard, not only was his congressional Chief of Staff Lew Rockwell, but IIRC, Ron Paul was a founding member of the Mises Institute. He also cites or refers Mises, Hayek, Rothbard in his book, The Revolution, A Manifesto.
I tend to think that this does more to shame Lew Rockwell and Mises Institute than to make Ron Paul look good.
Notice there are ancaps in the comments section proposing to get to anarchy by taking back the GOP as "a good first step," then rescuing the republic from democracy... all the while that denouncing anarchism as something we can "rule out."
My perception is that not only does he know it, he believes in it. But that doesn't sell. If you listen closely to Paul's rhetoric, he admits to the fallacy of democracy, of government. He talks about zero taxes, and then how bad tariffs are. Which basically means zero taxes PERIOD.
He's very anarchistic, he just can't be obvious about it.
Brainpolice: I tend to think that this does more to shame Lew Rockwell and Mises Institute than to make Ron Paul look good.
Oh stick it in your purple hat boinker!
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
Brainpolice:I tend to think that this does more to shame Lew Rockwell and Mises Institute than to make Ron Paul look good
I beg to differ. I think Ron Paul is a stepping stone to the Mises Institute and towards ancap/agorism/etc.... Coming from a liberal (in the modern American sense) background, I would have automatically disregarded many of the arguments and concepts posited by scholars of the Mises Institute. However, RP brought the concepts to a level I could comprehend, albeit a minarchist position. He is just one of many avenues towards the ideas of the Mises Institute.
liberty student: ViennaSausage: I am pretty sure Ron Paul knows about Anarcho Capitalism. Not only did he know Rothbard, not only was his congressional Chief of Staff Lew Rockwell, but IIRC, Ron Paul was a founding member of the Mises Institute. He also cites or refers Mises, Hayek, Rothbard in his book, The Revolution, A Manifesto. My perception is that not only does he know it, he believes in it. But that doesn't sell. If you listen closely to Paul's rhetoric, he admits to the fallacy of democracy, of government. He talks about zero taxes, and then how bad tariffs are. Which basically means zero taxes PERIOD. He's very anarchistic, he just can't be obvious about it.
Im with you on that one.
Democracy is nothing more than replacing bullets with ballots
If Pro is the opposite of Con. What is the opposite of Progress?
I hope you are right. Someone should ask him the question, but then he probably would not be reelected in his district.
Since he was friends with Rothbard and is good friends with Rockwell and some of his rhetoric gives the impression that he is, I tend to believe he is an anarchist but doesn't discuss it or isn't open about it in public. It's a smart move if you believe in working within the system. It's hard to get elected if you are known as an anarchist considering the misconception most people have concerning that word.
If I ever meet Dr. Paul I would ask him straight up what his position is.
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. " -- Samuel Adams.
With the risk of starting another flame war. There is no law without some authority that has the power to enforce the law. And once someone has the power to enforce the law, he has the power to create and change law. You really cant keep law enforcement and law creation separate. Whoever has the power to enforce the law, is the state. Its a top down thing, because the law must be based on the treat of violence from someone everyone fears. Law cant be a bottom up thing, the law (or the payment of law services) cant be voluntary, because there nature of law itself is based on violence and authority.
The utopia is thinking that we can employ someone to protects our rights, without in the process giving away our power to ensure that this party does not abuse his power. The problem is there are no checks and balances that keeps the person/company who is employed to provide law enforcement, to staying a servant and not deciding he is a ruler.
Imagining that the state magically dissappeared overnight and a number of private companies where allowed to take its place. So the theory might go that instead of having a state charging for its protections service threw forced taxation, that the companies get payed for its protection services threw voluntarily payment. Well this is naive, because what is to keep these private companies from morfing into the state (or states). What is to keep them nice, and wait for customers voluntarily to pay them for their service, what is to keep them from force customers to pay it for its services (at gun point and threats of violence). What is to keep these companies from turning into mafias, gangs, militias and states? Nothing, because the guys with the guns make the rules. Waiving a contract or the law in their face, and telling them.. "but.. but you promised!" or "you work for me, remember?". Will get you nowhere. The only reason people and companies respects the law and contracts is because there is some bigger stronger authority than themselves with the power to violently punish rule breakers. In the market anarchist utopia there is no such authority. Law creation and law enforcement comes from the top down, you cant make it into a bottom up system, however nice that would be. You cant make the law (and payment for it) voluntary instead of mandatory, however nice that sounds.
Or imagine this, you and a group of people are on a deserted island. Everyone is given a job, and everyone is paid the same aount of bananas. One of the peoples job is to keep the law, asn he is given the only gun in order to do so. Its abit naive to think that just because you pay him bananas that he works for you. Him having a monopoly on violence will decide the rest of you work for him and he will take as many bananas as he likes. Well what if there was two guns on the island, and these where given to two different people, both of who are supposed to keep the law. Well one of them might just kill the other, and get all the bananas he wants. Or instead of killing eachother they might make a deal to splitting the island and its people between echother. They would draw a line in the sand and agree that the people and the bananas on the other side belongs to the other person with the gun. There now would be two govts and two countries on the island. The point is that without a state, there would be nothing that kept the private law enforcers from becoming the state.
Cheers
kingmonkey: Since he was friends with Rothbard and is good friends with Rockwell and some of his rhetoric gives the impression that he is, I tend to believe he is an anarchist but doesn't discuss it or isn't open about it in public. It's a smart move if you believe in working within the system. It's hard to get elected if you are known as an anarchist considering the misconception most people have concerning that word. If I ever meet Dr. Paul I would ask him straight up what his position is.
No need, he is a minarchist. Meaning he understands the needs for a monopoly on violence for laws to be respected and enforcable. He talks about the proper role of govt all the time. On being the police, military and the law system. The rest of it he says, free market capitalism can take care of.
Or rather he is a constitutionalist.. which is the idea that people can make laws that limit the powers of the state. Its a bit of a naive idea, in that the state is supposed to police itself and punsish itself in case it breaks its own rules. The state will just change the rules or the law as it sees fit. The idea is probably that the people will punish the state if it breaks its own rules.. but that is unlikely because the state by definition has more power of violence that the individuals. Try fighting the IRS next time it comes knocking, and see what happens. And if all people joined and by revolution managed to killed the state off, they would be back where they started.. and most of them would be dead. The next state would be no better at following its own rules. For the people keeping the state in check.. would require constant revolution and bloodshed.
Yet another thread on the same topic, on the same video. I'm closing it. As for you Driftwood, do make the effort to actually read anarchist materials on law enforcement, to realize just how utopian and incorrect your own claims are. You've just demonstrated how stupid statism is with your own comments on monopoly. Good game.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap