I’m in favor of supporting Ron Paul’s campaign, and certainly in favor of supporting all those interested in arresting the state’s growth of authority in individuals’ lives.
Paul presents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to spread the message of freedom to an amazingly wide audience. If that message is important to an anarchist, they are best served by promoting it with Paul.
Persuasion in politics is delicate, but this candidacy affords the minimal state–or anarchist–and amazing opportunity. Here in Minnesota this weekend we made our presence at a Republican issues conference. This conference was comprised of the state’s Republican party elite. Party politics in America is by nature a fixed game, but one must attempt to at least play the game to have any chance of winning.
Our goal here in Minnesota is to make Ron Paul the GOP nominee for president. We believe we are smart and creative enough to convince all types of people that Ron Paul’s message of liberty is the right path for our nation to forge from now on.
As an anarchist, you must make a one of many choices:
(1) Help Ron Paul so that he might peaceably change the state’s path toward minarchy.
(2) Declare war on the state (suicide?), and reject all that tacitly condone the state’s authority through their candidacy.
(3) Reject the state altogether, ignore it, and hope for the best.
I think that in this case the best path for those concerned with liberty is choice 1.
Going to a local meet up group supporting Dr. Paul is a powerful lesson on how the message of liberty can unite people with amazingly different worldviews. Ours has anarchists, former military, former neocons, liberals, etc.
My compromise is to support only candidates who I am very sure will do what they promise once in office and reduce the state. That pretty much limits the set of candidates I’ll support to Ron Paul.
Other than that I have as little to do with the state as I can, take only the benefits for which there is no voluntary alternative (yes to roads, yes to fiat currency, no to primary and secondary education, my son’s college will be one with no government ties at all, etc).
Someone without a long track record would have to work really hard to get my help because once an incumbent re-election is almost a certainty and I’ve been burned too many times before.
GoRonPaul --Right. He is against abortion, but prefers to avoid giving an opinion that might alienate supporters and civil libertarians of the left (an oxymoron?), so he says “Leave it up to the states” which is also consistent with his constitutional view. Whether this view came into law would depend in part on the composition of Congress after his election, and that of the Supreme Court at the time of any ruling affecting abortion law. Since last commenting, I came across an interview of the late great libertarian, Dr. Timothy Leary, who stated unequivocally that in his view life began at conception, a view identical to Dr. Paul’s.
He no longer supports the death penalty at the federal level, not on moral or unconstitutional grounds, but because its not fair, and the DNA evidence proves that too many mistakes are made, etc. In other words, if these 'kinks" were ironed out he’d be all for it. In an interview in 1988 during his presidential campaign running as a Libertarian, he was asked if he supported the death penalty and he answered unhesitatingly “Yes”. Like abortion, I imagine he would leave it up to the states to decide, and Libertarians like myself would be free to shun states that had capital punishment while living and doing business in those states that abolished it. Hopefully, after his elections, Libertarians like myself will be able to convince him that not only is the death penalty unconstitutional, but also one of the cornerstones of Fascism, and that its abolition would be an effective prophylactic against this collectivist disease.
The fact that I disagree with Dr. Paul on 4 or 5 issues, doesn’t alter the fact I agree with him on the other 154 important issues. When has America had a chance to elect a physician, an economist, a politician/statesman with years of experience, and a published writer all combined into one, who also was espousing a valid system of economics? This is a chance to re-ignite and revivify the revolution of Jefferson and Franklin, which has lain smouldering for almost 200 years, into the roaring fire of a freedom loving free-market society, where technology and trade will virtually wipe out poverty, a society the world has never yet seen. And isn’t it interesting that Rep. Paul is the only doctor running, and he speaks directly and the truth, while most of the other candidates began as lawyers, who never answer a question directly, and whose boring speeches are full of nothing?
I have maintained for years that any candidate who came out for the legalization of cannabis and the abolition of the immoral death tax would be elected president. Ron Paul is going to prove that.
The death penalty at the Federal level could be used exceedingly rarely because there are only a few crimes in the Constitution a citizen of the states can commit and the Federal government has no police powers.
The death penalty in the states is clearly Constitutional – how many of the states had a death penalty before, during and after ratification of the Constitution?
Note that I’m recently of the opinion that trusting the state with the power to kill citizens isn’t a good idea. However, that doesn’t make it unconstitutional.
GoRonPaul — Yes, I share some of your scepticism in regards to the twisted logic of the anarchist, who drives a car on the public road, or wants to form a “movement”.
I don’t know that I agree with you that using a public resource is a form of voting. I doubt that an incontinent old gent on the continent will have this in mind as he rushes to and employs a “gentlemen’s convenience”. He certain isn’t engaged in volutary voting. Moreover, voting seems to me a much more direct statement of view than non-usage of a public resource. My vote for candidate A over B may be caused by many motives, the candidates and the sitting government doesn’t know why I made my choice, and it would also depend on a “None of the above” voting choice, but overall voting for one candidate over another is interpreted as an endorsement, and a significant political statement. Now, when I don’t use the road, it probably won’t be regarded as a vote against the state and its taxing power or perceived injustices, it may just mean that there is a depression, and the powers that be can say, “The economy is a bit slow, people aren’t using the public dual-carriageway as much because there’s less cash in people’s pockets. Nothing to do with us. In fact, less usage has saved on maintenance costs so this years budget deficit is smaller. Well done, lads.” If I don’t use the public schools, then, because they aren’t spending anything on my child, their budget deficit is lower, and then they say, “See, we’re running smaller deficits, which shows that our managers are doing a great job, — in fact let’s give 'em a bonus, and raise their salaries to retain top talent.” So my non-violent, non-cooperation “vote” of non-usage you suggest, GoRonPaul, may backfire and actually turn to the Statist’s advantage. The liberal-Dem. Gov. of Oregon just gave the state’s top managers raises of 11%-24% on top of their normal raise which I think was 3.2%. Two top honchos I recall had salaries of $133k raised to 165k. Most working folks in my town make 20k or less. It is this type of arrogance that will get Dr. Paul elected.
In sum, I don’t think not driving on the public road and not voting are parallel, just similar. I always think people who are completely cynical about the political process should still vote and write-in themselves or someone they know who is honest for every position. When 83% of the votes were write-ins of individuals, the winners of the elections and major political parties would know they had no popular support and so would have to rule very carefully in accordance with the Constitution. Also, the fact that there are usually many initiatives with Libertarian implications on almost every ballot necessitates that every Libertarian vote in virtually every election, unless they are nihilists who hope for the ending of mankind.
I also don’t agree that forced taxation is the problem, though I could easily conceive of a prosperous capitalist society that managed to cover all its public costs with a voluntary tax, especially in a patriotic country like the USA. However, in theory, some taxes would have to be “imposed” in order to maintain police, and whatever other socially necessary programs a Libertarian government would agree to fund. So, unfortunately, some tax imposition. Rothbard talks of this and the various side-effects of different taxes. Dr. Paul talks of the “low tax” and I think that’s very smart. While I’d like the abolition of the personal income tax, replacing it with some kind of national sales+corporate income tax + excise taxes, any tax system that is low is better than this current system that kills capitalist initiative and discourages people from going all out in earning. A very low flat income tax of 5% or less with a low national sales tax would be another alternative, though I’d rather just get rid of the whole government claim on your earnings which seems pretty nosey. And saving the costs of the Income Tax bureaucracy would be a huge benefit. Also, pemitting one or the other tax (income or sales) is much better than permitting both, because if you permit both, government will edge each one up gradually, and the impost will seem more palatable to the public (however, a Libertarian revolution will hopefully expand the economic consciousness of the general public to such an extend they they will become somewhat innoculated to the obfuscating prestidigitations of the collectivist politicians and their central bank geniuses).
Please people, voting or using public roads are not endorsements of the system. This is demonstratively false, and i don’t know why people claim that voting is somehow immoral. Few Americans vote for elections other than presidential ones, and that hardly changes anything. If Ron Paul and Stalin were running, I’d vote for Ron Paul every time, and no one can say that not voting in that situation is somehow more moral. Niccolo may think voting is a waste of time, but that doesn’t make it immoral.
Personal responsibility means taking responsibility for your own actions, and their effects.
If the state is immoral, voting is immoral. If voting for Stalin is immoral, voting for Ron Paul is immoral. You are not friend of liberty if you vote, you are for slavery-reform instead of the abolishment of slavery. The lesser of two evils is still evil. You endorse the state when you vote. Would you vote in a mafia leader election? And it is quite dangerous to praise any politician. After all, all politicians are parasites and oppressors, Ron Paul included. By voting FOR Ron Paul, you are voting FOR the mafia. And no, being for smaller government does not automatically mean you’re on my side. An advocate for small government still believes in government, and government itself is the problem, not the size of the government.
If you impose large risks upon other people thru an activity heavily subsidized by the state, that also is immoral and anti-human. You do not respect my property rights when you drive. You pollute my body and my property, and if/when you make a mistake, you punish innocents. Surely accepting socialist security money is immoral. So is accepting any other large subsidies from the state, even if not in cash form.
Take responsibility for YOUR participation in a mafia election. Take resposibility for the harm YOU cause every time you drive.
I think you are confusing the state with government. When I vote, I am helping to choose the government, not the state. The government is a necessary evil; that’s why it’s important I use that opportunity to vote for someone who in large part agrees with my views (Dr. Paul) vs someone I am surely out of agreement with (Stalin-Clinton-Bush).
MR. BLITZER: Congressman Paul, you ran for president once before as a Libertarian. What do you say about this whole issue of church and state and these issues that are coming forward right now?
REP. PAUL: Well, I think we should read the First Amendment, where it says, “Congress shall write no law.” And we should write a lot less laws regarding this matter. It shouldn’t be a matter of the president or the Congress. It should be local people, local officials. The state should determine so many of these things that we just don’t need more laws determining religious things or prayer in school. We should allow people at the local level.
That’s what the Constitution tells us. We don’t need somebody in Washington telling us what we can do, because we don’t have perfect knowledge. And that’s the magnificence of our Constitution and our republic. We sort out the difficult problems at local levels and we don’t have one case fit all, because you have a Supreme Court ruling like on Roe versus Wade; it (ruined ?) it for the whole country.
MR. BLITZER: Thank you.
REP. PAUL: And that’s why we shouldn’t have it at a central level.
You also endorse the state when you use its’ roads, pay taxes, attend its’ schools, and go to its’ libraries. There is very little you can do that is moral. In light of these observations is voting for Ron Paul really that bad? The problem is not endorsement of the state, but the state itself. The state forces you to endorse it. There is a very high cost associated with leaving a state. The US, for instance, does not allow citizens to immediately renounce their citizenship even if they leave completely. The US actually keeps you on the books for a minimum of 10 years after you renounce and during that time your are required to pay taxes. You are a slave. A slave can walk around saying that it is immoral for him to continue working for someone else, but the cost of refusing could have severe consequences. Not paying your taxes is the strongest form of not voting. Ultimately, a vote for Ron Paul might actually eliminate the IRS. Is this not a step toward morality?
Private property and self defense is the answer to the state. The state is organized crime. The state claims that you are its’ property (income tax, death tax, SSN). You actually rent your property from the state (property tax).
The problem is that if you assert your property rights you better have the ability to defend that assertion. You could end up dead very quickly. Just look at Iraq. America has murdered 500,000 of Iraqs’ people so that it can steal/control their oil. Congress is now discussing plans to sell Iraqs’ oil to pay for this unconstitutional war. The lesson here is that you do not own what you cannot defend. Rights do not matter if you are dead.
Niccolo, you have it all wrong. You are not washing your car. You are washing the states car. Washing your car is just as immoral as voting. Stop paying your property taxes, and you will see whose car you drive.
No, I don’t attend a government school or go to government libraries.
In some areas, the state is quite difficult to avoid. But voting is a very easy to avoid. Just because the state forces you to pay taxes does not mean that paying taxes is the same as voting. Voting is not forced on you.
If you think the state is a necessary evil, you are an enemy of me and of my freedom.
Imagine if the mafia had an election. You would say, I’m helping to choose the mafia leader, not the mafia. When in fact, you are really voting for the mafia no matter which leader you vote for. The state is nothing more than the strongest and most powerful mafia in a particular geographic region.
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote against the government. Ron Paul wants to disband the department of education, agriculture, FAA, homeland security, CIA, Social Security, IRS, legalize sound money, and he wants to bring our troops home from our 600 plus US military bases around the world. A vote for Ron Paul is a vote to install a leader that will, if not free us, at least cut some of our chains.
Vote just this once (and, maybe once more next November should Paul get the nomination). Consider it a customer satisfaction survey and you’re simply recording your extreme dissatisfaction. Otherwise, the state and the masses will not be able to differentiate the dissatisfied from the uninterested. The state is not concerned about the uniterested, while the masses are aware of the principles of Liberty. And, education of the masses is something everyone on this blog desires.