It is if you use it more than a rhetorical tool in an age of manufactured consent. What do you think trying to present anarcho-capitalist ideas in sound bites, would look like?
You can present yourself as a limited government type, yet point and lead people in the direction of anarcho-capitalism. The way the Ludwig Von Mises Institute presents itself is genius. Classical liberalism, libertarian political philosophy etc. reading the about page, anarchism is never mentioned and for a damn good reason.
Yet, when folks decide to check out the media section and literature, when they participate in the forum - they are met with the consistently applied logic of the NAP. [:)]
I do not think it is genius if you don’t really believe it. Talking about supporting the constitution when you really don’t want any constitution is hypocritical and dishonest. All the Ron Paul supporters I met are strict constitutionalists, limited government types. They may want to abolish the Fed but not the U.S.
I said this before if the institute was here to promote anarcho-capitalism then it should have been called the Murray N. Rothbard institute. Otherwise Mises was no anarchist.
No, it’s not. The appeal is secondary. What part of that is not understood? Ron Paul doesn’t hold his beliefs because a piece of paper says so. He supports Natural Law and Natural rights. The only reason he has his political career is because of Austrian Economics. He is publicly as radical & abolitionist as possible.
Well you need to meet more, preferably those who talk about the Austrian School. As for the rest that’s because they’ve never questioned why Ron says what he says, or believes what he believes. They’ve never decided to investigate how or why he came to his conclusions. They just assume, ahh, he appeals to the constitution a lot - that must be why. Problem is, that’s simple minded & fallacious.
He would abolish the IRS, CIA, FBI, Federal Reserve, Dept. of Education, Dept. of Energy, Dept. of Labor, yada yada yada and on the list goes. Also don’t equate the nation-state with the nation, because it is a non sequitur. Austro-Libertarians don’t want to abolish the U.S either, just the parasitic class of thieves initiating violence against everyone else. And furthermore on this point, Ron Paul supports secession - so in essence, he does.
It’s here to promote scholarship in the Misesian tradition. That is what it is doing. Mises stood on the shoulder of giants, Rothbard did as well and the tradition continues.
“In this cause, the Mises Institute works to advance the Austrian School of economics and the Misesian tradition, and, in application, defends the market economy, private property, sound money, and peaceful international relations, while opposing government intervention as economically and socially destructive.”
It’s not here to defend government intervention, that much should be obvious. Now the question posed to you is, what government intervention isn’t economically & socially destructive? [;)]
Nor is it minarchism (and he didn’t say that the Mises Institute was here to promote anarcho-capitalism). Its a think-tank, inspired by Mises - thats all.
No. It means your strawman argument doesn’t exist. It doesn’t change the fact that Paul supports the right of the South to secede during the civil war, and supports secession down the individual level, per the Declaration of Independence.
Speech by US Congressman Ron Paul at the “Prague Spring Lecture”, Czech Republic, 29 May 2006 Theme: “Ludwig von Mises and Politics” Ron Paul is hosted by Czech President Vaclav Klaus at the launch of the “Czech Translation of Human Action” organized by Liberální Institute.
6m45s - 9min.02s
"The Federal Government subsidizes those of us who want to live in a dangerous area. A lot of people live in the dangerous area, and lo and behold, their house gets blown down and the government pays for it.
My position of federal flood insurance is, they shouldn’t have it. You shouldn’t have flood insurance, bad economics, unfair to the people in Arizona to pay for the hurricanes in Texas. And yet, that one is a tough one…
But they know upfront that I don’t vote for the flood insurance and yet it’s very challenging.
... [Earmarks, get the money back, vote against them though] …
Fortunately for me, though what I do is controversial to a large degree, I can use the argument of the constitution. Our Constitution is very small and very straight forward…
But, in the United States there is a still a lot of respect for the Constitution.
So, if you say: “Well I voted against the flood insurance and I realise the difficulty you might have, because you don’t immediately have that. BUT, I am following my pledge and oath of office to obey the constitution, I believe in the rule of law, and therefore I am not going to vote, for that.”
They will give you enough respect and give you a pass on that. That is easier, than if you would vote against it, and you had only voted against it for say, economic reasons. That would be different. They would have a little more difficulty in understanding the economics of it all."
His ideal is reducing the size of the state. Who are you to contend he privately doesn’t want to do away with it completely. He’s never defended it. Furthermore; Ron Paul is a Libertarian. He ran for the Libertarian Party in 1988. He is what he is because of Austrian Economics, he says so himself. (Libertarian + Austrian Economics) = Austro-Libertarian. He has denied Mises utilitarianism, he supports Natural Law and Natural rights i.e Rothbard. He is a radical abolitionist.
“In any case, when I speak of the Misesian movement, I am speaking of something much more important, something that is changing history, and something that will have a profound impact on the world, long after the regime in power is forgotten. I am speaking of an intellectual movement, a movement rooted in a certain understanding of society, economy, and history. It has a theory of the past and an agenda for the future, and both shed far more light on the realities of the present moment than the political apparatus ever can.”
“I would also draw your attention to the work of Murray Rothbard… He was the key to the Mises Institute from its founding. He taught at all our programs. He established our journal. He wrote in all our publications. He inspired all of us on a daily and hourly basis. His passion and optimism were a constant source of inspiration for our supporters, for our faculty, for our students, for me. He made every conference unforgettable, and hardly any student who spent time with him left unchanged… What they underestimated was the power of his ideas – just as so many had underestimated the power of Mises’s ideas.”
When are you going to drop the strawman? Who has said he does support the abolition of the United States (nation)? No one, so give it up.
“In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written.”
“The protection against centralized government failed because of too many loopholes in the Constitution.”
~ Ron Paul from his book End the Fed, 2009
Maybe you should go buy it & read it… and that goes for his other books too. He writes about a free market in money, in Gold, Peace and Prosperity, that of which Rothbard wrote the preface.
That is him explaining how he markets his ideas. It does not imply he is anti-constitutional but uses the constitution to make his arguments for reducing the size of government. Nothing he said mentioned or implied abolishing the constitution or the United States.
Which is not anarcho-capitalist
Which is Mr. Tucker’s opinion not Ron Pauls.
So Ron Paul is lying when he called himself a constitutionalist? Oh and your link does not work.
The Misean movement is name after Mises who was not an anarchist, I’ve already proven this. If it is about anarcho-capitalism then it should be called the “Rothbardian movement”. I never claimed Rothbard was not a key part of the institution. My statement which has not changed is that the institute is called “The Ludwig von Mises Institute” and Mises was not an anarchist. Rothbard was, which is fine but the institute is not named after him. This isn’t complicated
The statement “while opposing government intervention as economically and socially destructive” is not opposing or abolishing government. You consider the existence of government as intervention, I don’t. Lets not play word games, if the Mises Institute supports abolishing government then they should say so. If Ron Paul does to then he should say so, instead of pretending to be a constitutionalist.
That’s exactly what I said. He uses it as a rhetorical tool.
Are you suggesting he is not logical and principally consistent? There’s a Rothbard caucus in the LP. The revolution has followed it to a tee.
Nah, seems to be Ron’s aswell.
No, and you’re being fallacious when you consistently disregard the fact that no-one here has called for the abolition of the United States (nation). When you understand the difference between the state and society, let us know.
Why do you persist? We’ve already covered this, he uses it as a rhetorical tool in an age of manufactured consent. You heard the speech, you agreed to it. Move on.
Ah, apparently you need to be signed in. “Quick Minarchism vs. Voluntarism/Anarchism Poll” at Ron Paul Forums.
View Poll Results: Have you converted?
I have converted to anarchy/voluntarism/market anarchism/anarcho-capitalism
41
39.81%
I support some form of government.
62
60.19%
Voters: 103. You have already voted on this poll
That’s not why it was named after him. So no, you’ve proven squat. Mises was for conscription. Should we all support conscription now? Aye? Is this in the tradition and spirit of Liberty? Do you understand what the word ‘tradition’ means?
Your premise is flawed, the naming of the institute has nothing to do with whether Mises was an anarchist or not, and that is where your analysis fails.
What is the Misesian tradition besides the obvious scholarship in Austrian Economics?
"The Institute’s official motto isTu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito, which comes from Virgil’sAeneid, Book VI; the motto means “do not give in to evil but proceed ever more boldly against it.” Early in his life, Mises chose this sentence to be his guiding principle in life."
What doesn’t the government intervene in? It doesn’t have a monopoly on the use of violence over a given territory?
How on earth can you say an institution protects property, when it must violate it to exist?
The Mises Institute is about advancing the scholarship of Liberty in the tradition of the Austrian School. It’s not too hard to understand. The debate has taken place within this framework, it just happens to be most people these days have overcome the fallacies. You unfortunately haven’t worked out the logical contradictions of classical liberalism yet. Universality and Equality of Law for all - no doubt you’d agree people should not be allowed to go down the street and hold a gun to someones head and say “Your money or your life!”. Correct?
Well what gives a group of individuals who call themselves “the government” the right to do so?
If he did, what would you do? What do you think would happen to the movement? How would the MSM react? Would you still vote for him?
No the question is a straw man and it is illegitimate. When you ask a valid question, you’ll get a valid response. There is a difference between the nation-state and the nation. At the moment you are equating them both. You’ve specified constantly, ‘abolish the United States’ , well what I was trying to get you to do is, clarify which one you mean.
If you mean the abolition of the Union? The United States government? Sure - Ron Paul is for secession.
If you mean the nation, called the United States - No. Ron is for America. Obviously… lol.
“In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written.”
~ Dr. Ron Paul, End the Fed 2009
So wait… why is this person, who, according to you - is a strict Constitutionlist… why is this Champion of Liberty writing in his book, that the Constitution is useless and “incapable of achieving limited government, no matter how well written”? Aye? Funny that.. that’s something an anarcho-capitalist would say.
Go on, try rationalize it… maybe you should instead check your own premises and the legitimacy of your beliefs. No?
Poptech is being asked to post a higher standard of discourse, and instead of arguing semantics in every thread, demonstrate familiarity with the source material and be able to convey discussion about it in context.
If you believe he has not satisfied the minimum burden of basic research, then simply ignore him. That includes, reading TEOL, or FANL, and in any debate on Ron Paul, considering some of us here worked damn long and hard for the campaign, and thus are more expert than the media pundits who interview him, The Revolution and/or End the FED. Those books, at a minimum.
Besides googling up a quote from Mises on anarchism, I’ve yet to see any understanding of praxeology, methodological individualism, free market economics (in the Austrian tradition) or any conception of liberty in the Austrian tradition.
It won’t last. It’s been several months now, and we’re still stuck with the same pedantry, and no real substance in debate.
No he did not state he does not support it and only mentions it for arguments sake. If he does please show me where he said this. What he did say was that he can convey his argument better using the constitution than simply expressing free market ideology. Nothing Ron Paul stated in that video implied he does not support the U.S. Constitution.
I am telling you the Libertarian Party is not anarcho-capitalist. The existence of a caucus, is not the views of the party.
You have failed to prove this.
Calling for something and secretly wanting it to happen are the same thing. Talking one game and believing another is disengenuous.
WOW! 41 people, soon you will have as many people that live on my street.
Whatever the reason it was named after him has to be based on his ideology not someone elses. You cannot apply theories and ideas he did not advocate and use them in his name. Yes I have proven he did not support anarchism.
Logic fails? Really? If the institute was not named after Mises in relation to anarchy and it is shown Mises does not support anarchy than all arguments that the only position one at the Mises institute can hold is “anarcho-capitalism” are wrong.
Austrian Economics espoused by Mises. Rothbard’s views cannot be part of the “Misesian tradition” because Mises views were not based on Rothbard’s theories which includes anarcho-capitalism.
How can a government have a monopoly on violence when I can commit violence in the territory at any time?
This is subjective.
Again, Lets not play word games, if the Mises Institute supports abolishing government then they should say so.
I would not support him. The one thing I can promise you is that he will be asked this question in the future.
