According to this he is:
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Anarcho-capitalism
but I don’t know how reliable this is.
Yes, Tom Woods is an anarchist. He is a Rothbardian to be specific.
I figured he was Hoppean.
They did that because the mission of the forums was to get RP elected, thus, you did the opposite.
Citation please. Being a Mises scholar does not automatically make one ancap (I dont think William Anderson is an ancap either), and that article linked offers no actual proof.
You could try emailing him.
In his Mises Author’s forum for Who Killed the Constitution? he makes the comment that he use to be an old fashion constitutionalist. If there is any more explicit concessions about anarchism I will be sure to pass it on. I know it is in here, just have to go through it.
Like I said, a bunch of babies.
Some of his enemies in the Catholic world would try to use that against him (and he has many); which is why I suspect that if he is ancap, he might keep it quiet.
So what’s the point of being an ancap and keeping it quiet? Do you get extra credits for it in the Afterlife?
Nothing, except that his critics could use it to marginalize him. His work on Catholicism has started to reach a wide audience (such as EWTN), but many dont like his free market doctrine. Being a loud and proud ancap would only make his critics even more vehement.
But thats all just a guess, I could be wrong.
Well I planned on ignoring this, having moved on. But my opinion has been requested a few times, so I am obliging. This is directed at folks over there, and to some of the responses here.
Brief History
Well I joined RPF from DailyPaul, as I got sick of the trolls there - bumping insane topics to the front page. Regardless of this, it seems to have turned out alright, with no real moderation process - and if you go there today, the complete general trend is anarcho-capitalism, especially from some of the bloggers. (Thread complaining about the bias) It may not be overtly blatant, but it’s not meant to be. Part of the factor contributing to this trend is the owner, Michael Nystorm. Who, I suddenly have new found respect for. As owner, he obviously sets the trend and he explains it well with this open thread about the virtues of disorganized resistance. It seems where folks are intellectually honest, they will naturally progress to the logical conclusion of the NAP.
Oddly, I left DP in favour of some form of moderation, and whilst at RPF I slowly grew in favor of none. This was after spending a considerable amount of time there as a minarchist. I don’t think I ever rejected anarcho-capitalism, not that I remember it ever being mentioned, but I remember acknowledging I was pretty ignorant in everything and that my best recourse was to have an open mind and question my premises. I was a recovering chomskyite after all. All I really knew where Ron Paul buzz words. Free markets, Constitution, Sound Money, Peace, Non Intervention etc. He had integrity and principles like no-one else. I wondered why he believed what he did.
I think it was around the time of the Rally for the Republic, Lew Rockwell, Thomas Woods; both ancaps were invited by Ron Paul to be there as speakers, among others. Anyway, Thomas Woods mentioned Austrian Economics & it got massive cheers. In addition to this, I remember zeitgeist addendum coming out around the same time. I soon realised I had hardly any real understanding of economics, not Austrian Economics anyway… and it left myself and a myriad of other supporters open to fallacies and corruption. So I decided to find out why Ron believes what he believes. And he has literally stated, he would not have had a political career if it wasn’t for Austrian Economics. So I hit up the Media section here for about 6 months and the fallacies slowly ebbed away.
The scapegoat
In retrospection, this is a result of a fair amount of members, imo, also being convinced of natural law and making the progression towards principled and consistent Libertarianism. Those that got “left behind” so to speak, i.e like LE who has been stuck in a flawed & inconsistent political position for 30 years, tend to see everyone as “betraying the revolution,” or trying to corrupt or subvert it. Apparently I was chief culprit. lolz
The thing is I was there since the beginning, I was completely ignorant, I knew nothing, I lurked and I learnt. When I eventually got around to learning about Austrian Economics, I began to see the logical contradictions and errors in minarchism. I shed my fallacies one by one. I was open minded, I questioned my premises and I progressed. As anyone who is, does. It’s why we’re not statists and others are.
At the moment, they [rpf moderators + a handful of members] will do anything to convince themselves that they are right. They have no response to the logical conclusion of the NAP, anarcho-capitalism. And they’ll do anything to avoid questions that highlight their contradictions. [1] That’s why I was banned. None of the other reasons stick.
Activism defined
Adding onto this is their belief that political activism is the only way to bring about Liberty and that the only way to do anything is to get into power. They care less about ideas and education, which is - oddly, the very thing Ron Paul says is most important. Naturally they choose to ignore the ideas and what a free society is all about, and instead deride it as “philosophizing”. “We must instead be pragmatic! Form alliances! Politics above principles!” It’s the type of mentality that the LP is all about. Bob Barr, Republican Lite. Ron Paul was more radical and an abolitionist. Anyway, in RPH’s case, again - in his world, all that can be done is voting and political activism.
The ignorance is profound & it is pretty much willful ignorance as well. He’s admittedly never read anything from Rothbard, or Mises let alone anything else. He doesn’t have time to read. And I have absolutely no problem with this, but when you freak the hell out and blow a complete mental gasket about a thread that is 6 months old, openly declare that it is evidence of conspiracy, and then use it to tar a political philosophy, whilst going on the banning war path against anything & anyone associated with Mises.org , then it becomes a problem.
Where the ignorance and intellectual dishonesty comes into play, is the blanketing of an entire philosophy due to an individuals actions. Including the implied notion that once you go ancap, you’re basically doing “nothing”. But also, the responses above in this thread do not help. The shame is that the “activists” won’t ever read, Toward a Theory of Strategy for Liberty, Ending Tyranny Without Violence, Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty, The Case for Radical Idealism, Libertarians of Will, Intellect, and Action, Why be Libertarian? by Rothbard or Isaiah’s Job by Nock.
There is nothing wrong with political activism (except imo the wasted time & the possible perception that it legitimizes the state), unless when the purpose of it is education, and voting for self defense. I agree with Rothbard and Spooner, to the extent that - the candidate will / must not increase the size of the state at all, in any area, and that to which they do - they are personally liable. I would recommend Rothbard’s Living in a State Run World. I’m not going to elucidate to why I think Ron Paul is a closet anarcho-capitalist, btw I’m not the only one. I did that here, and else where. Alternatively, he may not be so closet. Ron is for self-government. (Video Interview) He uses the Constitution as a rhetorical tool in an age of manufactured consent, he appeals to it - but it is secondary. ‘The only reason he has had a political career is because of Austrian Economics’ - his own words. Now, if it was possible - who here would not support a reduction of government, to the size it is meant to be, as outlined in the Constitution, in COMPARISON, to what we have now. Anyone?
Education is the primary function of Ron Paul’s presidential campaign. And in essence, he ran against the concept of the presidency as it is known today. His entire platform and key steps for the movement follow Rothbard’s 10 Liberty caucus points. I think it’s fairly certain, a guy whose been in the halls of power for 30 years knows you’re not going to change it through the political process, but the fact that he is there gives a beacon for the issues & relevancy. And if it’s not him, the position is going to be filled by a statist regardless. The theft will increase.
Radical Abolitionists
Let’s accept for a moment, contrary to Ron stating self government / anarcho-capitalism is his ideal goal, that he is for a limited government in comparison to a truely free alternative. I’d like to highlight an excerpt made by Rothbard in Do you Hate the State?, as a good rejoinder and perspective on the matter.
I have been ruminating recently on what are the crucial questions that divide libertarians. Some that have received a lot of attention in the last few years are: anarcho-capitalism vs. limited government, abolitionism vs. gradualism, natural rights vs. utilitarianism, and war vs. peace. But I have concluded that as important as these questions are, they don’t really cut to the nub of the issue, of the crucial dividing line between us.
… {snip}
Perhaps the word that best defines our distinction is “radical.” Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and anti-statism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul.
Furthermore, in contrast to what seems to be true nowadays, you don’t have to be an anarchist to be radical in our sense, just as you can be an anarchist while missing the radical spark. I can think of hardly a single limited governmentalist of the present day who is radical – a truly amazing phenomenon, when we think of our classical liberal forbears who were genuinely radical, who hated statism and the States of their day with a beautifully integrated passion: the Levellers, Patrick Henry, Tom Paine, Joseph Priestley, the Jacksonians, Richard Cobden, and on and on, a veritable roll call of the greats of the past. Tom Paine’s radical hatred of the State and statism was and is far more important to the cause of liberty than the fact that he never crossed the divide between laissez-faire and anarchism.
And closer to our own day, such early influences on me as Albert Jay Nock, H. L. Mencken, and Frank Chodorov were magnificently and superbly radical. Hatred of “Our Enemy, the State” (Nock’s title) and all of its works shone through all of their writings like a beacon star. So what if they never quite made it all the way to explicit anarchism? Far better one Albert Nock than a hundred anarcho-capitalists who are all too comfortable with the existing status quo.
Where are the Paines and Cobdens and Nocks of today? Why are almost all of our laissez-faire limited governmentalists plonky conservatives and patriots? If the opposite of “radical” is “conservative,” where are our radical laissez-fairists? If our limited statists were truly radical, there would be virtually no splits between us. What divides the movement now, the true division, is not anarchist vs. minarchist, but radical vs. conservative. Lord, give us radicals, be they anarchists or no.
… {snip}
Taking the concept of radical vs. conservative in our new sense, let us analyze the now famous “abolitionism” vs. “gradualism” debate.
.. {snip}
And that is why the radical libertarian is not only an abolitionist, but also refuses to think in such terms as a Four Year Plan for some sort of stately and measured procedure for reducing the State. The radical – whether he be anarchist or laissez-faire – cannot think in such terms as, e.g.: Well, the first year, we’ll cut the income tax by 2%, abolish the ICC, and cut the minimum wage; the second year we’ll abolish the minimum wage, cut the income tax by another 2%, and reduce welfare payments by 3%, etc. The radical cannot think in such terms, because the radical regards the State as our mortal enemy, which must be hacked away at wherever and whenever we can. To the radical libertarian, we must take any and every opportunity to chop away at the State, whether it’s to reduce or abolish a tax, a budget appropriation, or a regulatory power. And the radical libertarian is insatiable in this appetite until the State has been abolished, or – for minarchists – dwindled down to a tiny, laissez-faire role.
Many people have wondered: Why should there be any important political disputes between anarcho-capitalists and minarchists now? In this world of statism, where there is so much common ground, why can’t the two groups work in complete harmony until we shall have reached a Cobdenite world, after which we can air our disagreements? Why quarrel over courts, etc. now? The answer to this excellent question is that we could and would march hand-in-hand in this way if the minarchists were radicals, as they were from the birth of classical liberalism down to the 1940s. Give us back the antistatist radicals, and harmony would indeed reign triumphant within the movement.
Abolish the IRS, CIA, FBI, Dept. of Education, Dept. of Labor, End the Federal Reserve, Secession, Civil Disobedience, Bring the troops home (from all around the global empire)… He’s a radical abolitionist.
Anyway, this was just to outline my take on the matter, since there was a bit of a hullabaloo about it over there. Minarchists needs to close their mouths and not defend the state and risk becoming opportunists. Ancaps need to not slander Ron as a statist and fall into the trap of sectarianism, as he’s lead more people into Austrian Economics than ever before, and whom most of all will become anarcho-capitalists.
I dont think RP is a closet anarchist. But I dont think he is strictly speaking a minarchist or a constitutionalst either. (Albeit he will use the latter label as a self-designation in public.) I think he is a very pragmatic person that never really saw the need to formaly pen himself into a labeled category, but rather thinks of the problems from a more case to case, ad hoc basis. I was somewhat like that. I had already been reading lewrockwell.com regularly for over half a decade finding myself fascinated by its freshness and originality, before I started to really explore what lewrockwell.com was fundamentaly advocating or what libertarian conclusions entailed. At the time I might not even have called myself a libertarian, but just vaguely an anti-statist. (Or it could just be projection where you assume everyone works the way you do. 
)
One of the audio lectures from the 2009 Mises University makes me suspect that he may, indeed, be an anarchist. At least I think it was from that set of recordings.
Where ever it was, there was a recording of him talking about an appearance on PBS with an anarchist. The host apparently thought Tom was not an anarchist, and wanted the two to debate. In the end, they just tried to out-radical one another.
Haha, ok.. now you’re going to have to provide a link. [:)]
I seriously doubt that I’m the only employee of the USG on these forums.
Whether Ron Paul is an ancap or not, he’s shown more class towards ancaps (Rockwell, Rothbard) than the people on RPF. And the folks on RPF are a lot less radical than Ron Paul.
Ultimately, their unfriendliness to groups and ideas which Ron Paul is not unfriendly to, will be the demise of that “movement”. Which is natural. When “movements” deviate from their ideals, they have to collapse or fracture. Creative destruction.
Those who grip authority too tightly risk becoming caricatures of their ideals.
I think the RPF mods and the RPF nobility see an-caps as a threat to their movement. That is, they think an-caps are derailing, not Ron Paul’s movement, but their movement. I suppose they believe that standing on a sidewalk holding a Ron Paul sign, or marching down the street holding a Ron Paul sign, or protesting at a park with a Ron Paul then leaving the cops ask them to, is a higher priority than having consistent argument or education.
They’ve already fractured. That’s why I’m here.
They’re enamored with the mysticism of the founding fathers.
Well my prediction is that the RP crowd is going to make even bigger waves in the future than they are making now, but that they are ultimately not going to be successful in the way they imagine they may be. The power elite has way too many barriers in place for that to happen and they can always erect new ones. So after they realise that (probably after some brazenly arrogant, but very stupid move of the establishment targeted directly at them) they are going to become disillusioned and will crystalise as a more radical phenomenon, not necessarily where their politicial philosophy is concerned but where their approach to achieving freedom is concerned. Namely they are going to start to look for more unconventional and unapologetic (and I`m not using these as code words for violent) ways to achieving it.
It may sound cynical, but from my knowledge of history that is how it usually works. You start with a naive, merry movement, they get stomped on, then grow and mature, then come back to haunt the jackboot.
They really are. ‘The founding fathers established the constitution..blah blah blah’
Well yes the constitution was created by some founders, those who wanted to create a quasi-monarchical state of centralized government. I mean at least argue for the articles of confederation or something.