right on. the LvMI has done such a great job advancing the scholarship of liberty that anarcho-capitalism is finally getting its radical voice heard out from under the mainstream pro-state ‘Libertarians’
Can you show me where he says this.
Agreed, anarcho-capitalism is not the Misean tradition for the man himself outright rejected the doctrine during his life.
As you would abandon Ron P., now you are free to abandon this forum:
"Question: Some say you’re an anarchist; is that true?
Answer: The term anarchist is mostly used to mean someone who believes that if the state and law are gotten rid of, all property would become collectively owned. It was the great insight of Murray Rothbard that this is not the case: private ownership and the law that support it are natural, while the state is artificial. So he was an anarchist in this sense but to avoid confusion he used the term anarcho-capitalist. This doesn’t mean that he favored somehow establishing a capitalism system in place of the state. What he said is that capitalism is the de facto result in a civilized society without a state. Has this position made advances? Yes, but not so many that we can use the term anarchism without causing confusion. If the purpose of words is to communicate, I’m not sure that the term does that well.
As to my own views, I do believe that society thrives best without a state. But I’m with Rothbard, Nock, Molinari, Chodorov, and others who believe in law and private government, such as we find in corporations, housing subdivisions, and church hierarchies. So if by anarchism we mean a society without law, I’m completely against that idea."
“Rockwell’s political ideology, like Rothbard’s in his later years, combines a form of anarcho-capitalism with cultural conservatism and the Austrian School of economics.”
I haven’t read any of his books, but it wouldn’t surprise me he discusses this in them too. I’ve read some of his written articles and listened to him talk on the internet. He regularly calls for getting rid of the government and advocates getting educated.
I cannot support Ron Paul if he is for the abolishment of the United States Government entirely.
here’s more from August '09, notice that one person says that Ron P. told him that the ideal is self-government (so you might want to think about packing your bags and supporting somebody, somewhere else on the internet):
I just love the excuses anarchist have for supporting Ron Paul, and deluding themselves he is not a statists, and therefore one of the enemies.
that sentence didn’t really make sense, but oh well. i wouldn’t vote for the guy, but of course you are a statist.
No need to be petty. Anarchists support Ron Paul because he supports individual secession.
Third person, not Ron Paul.
Who said I supported Ron Paul? I voted for Bob Barr not Ron Paul. Why are you so insistent that I leave? So far your arguments have not been convincing for your positions.
i didn’t say you had to leave. i simply affirmed your abandonment position. you’ll abandon anybody that you currently support if you find out they are a liberty lover all in the name of your statist agenda. that’s you.
To have an abandonment position, I would first need someone to abandon and since I have never been a Ron Paul supporter than it is not possible for me to “abandon him”. But I will “abandon” anyone who pretended to hold my views but I later found out did not. These are the standards I hold myself to.
I don’t have a statist (actual definition) agenda.
lol
i don’t even need to comment beyond this.
I didnt want to start such controversy.
Can we all just get along?
You didn’t. Neither Lam nor Poptech are particularly knowledgeable re: Ron Paul.
I don’t think people who endorse the initiation of force, can get along with people who seek peaceful exchange. They are opposed philosophies.
Some anarchists support Ron Paul because unlike McCain, Obama, Clinton, Giuliani, Thompson, Romney, Kucinic, and Gravel, he actually wants to reduce the size of government, and unlike Root and Barr, he is not a crony.
Liberty Student has deluded himself into thinking Ron Paul is a fellow anarcho-capitalist, how cute.
I’ve already stated that Ron Paul supports individual secession, which is consistent with ancap.
Whether he is an ancap or not, is not a claim I have made. As you have posted that I have, you are in fact a liar.
It’s funny that I haven’t seen mentioning of panarchism, yet.
A possible coalition of minarchists, anarchists, etc. who see the tactical advantage in mutually supporting secession to the individual level, could form.
The existence of both minarchism & anarchism would effectively make the eventual result panarchism, imo, unless all followers of each side were to magically kill each other in some sort of war.
Both ideologies have a vast advantage in hitting the [RESET] button, so to speak.
Everything he stated in that video implied he supports the U.S Constitution as a rhetorical tool in an age of manufactured consent. Appealing to it, means he can get a pass from the economically ignorant populace.
Are you implying Ron Paul is a fool? Are you suggesting he is not logically & principally consistent? Rothbard converted Robert Nozick in 5 minutes. What do you think is the case with Ron, who was Rothbards friend for 30 years?
What is certain, is you’ve failed to prove it isn’t. There is a myriad of information, examples and quotes that all point towards the beneath the surface obvious. There is more than one source stating Ron has told them, privately, that “his ideal is self government” and “anarcho-capitalism would be a great idea to strive for.”
And again, we’ve already addressed this. Ron uses it as a rhetorical tool. His appeal to the Constitution is secondary, not primary. It is not where he gets his positions from.
Wrong. The point was 40%. The hot bed of activism during the Ron Paul campaign, where a lot of ideas sprang from, 40% from that poll. Voluntaryists. They support self government, just like Ron Paul. See the above motorhome diaries video? Are you calling that person a liar, who said Ron told them he is for self government? Are you calling the forum member here, Pablo - who asked Ron about anarcho-capitalism, to which the response was: “it is a great idea to strive for”. Are you calling him a liar?
Should the Ludwig Von Mises Institute support conscription? Yes or no? In this in the tradition and spirit of Liberty? Yes or no? Do you know what ‘inspired’ means? Do you know what ‘tradition’ means? Do you know what ‘praxeology’ is?
Furthermore, he did not have an ideology, he had a method. It is called praxeology. You do know what praxeology is, right? This is the method that is the underpinning of the Austrian school. That is the tradition it follows, Mises worked tirelessly to apply this method to economics / catallactics, and it is in this tradition that Rothbard has done the same. He extended its use and analysis. I suggest you read Power and Market.
You are the one who is saying it must hold a specific position and that it must be minarchism, or it should change its name. In order to get to this position, you must twist reality. This isn’t an Ayn Rand Cult. Austrian Economics is not a closed system. It is in the tradition of Mises character & determination, that the Institute advances the scholarship of Liberty.
What is the method Mises used and developed? What is the method Rothbard used and developed? Hint: it starts with ‘P’, ends with ‘y’.
It is time now to bring the State into our discussion. The State is a group of people who have managed to acquire a virtual monopoly of the use of violence throughout a given territorial area. In particular, it has acquired a monopoly of aggressive violence, for States generally recognize the right of individuals to use violence (though not against States, of course) in self-defense.5 The State then uses this monopoly to wield power over the inhabitants of the area and to enjoy the material fruits of that power. The State, then, is the only organization in society that regularly and openly obtains its monetary revenues by the use of aggressive violence; all other individuals and organizations (except if delegated that right by the State) can obtain wealth only by peaceful production and by voluntary exchange of their respective products. This use of violence to obtain its revenue (called “taxation”) is the keystone of State power. Upon this base the State erects a further structure of power over the individuals in its territory, regulating them, penalizing critics, subsidizing favorites, etc. The State also takes care to arrogate to itself the compulsory monopoly of various critical services needed by society, thus keeping the people in dependence upon the State for key services, keeping control of the vital command posts in society and also fostering among the public the myth that only the State can supply these goods and services. Thus the State is careful to monopolize police and judicial service, the ownership of roads and streets, the supply of money, and the postal service, and effectively to monopolize or control education, public utilities, transportation, and radio and television.
Now, since the State arrogates to itself the monopoly of violence over a territorial area, so long as its depredations and extortions go unresisted, there is said to be “peace” in the area, since the only violence is one-way, directed by the State downward against the people. Open conflict within the area only breaks out in the case of “revolutions” in which people resist the use of State power against them. Both the quiet case of the State unresisted and the case of open revolution may be termed “vertical violence”: violence of the State against its public or vice versa.
What doesn’t the government intervene in?
Lmao! How is it subjective? Answer the question. What do you see as the proper role of government?
How can say an institution say it protects property, when it must violate it to exist?
Wow, that is pathetic. So if he was to do exactly what he has been doing, saying the exact same things publicly, and you asked him privately, do you favor self government? And he said - “yes”. You’d stop supporting him?
And why can you promise this question will be asked in the future? Are you going to be an ass and ask him about it publicly? It’s already been tried. Two guys, one with a camera asked Ron about Lysander Spooners Constitution of No Authority, they asked a question, but it required a follow up - for them to ‘catch him’. He didn’t allow a follow up. He knew the argument. By the way, you conveniently ignored the other questions. What do you think would happen to the movement? How would the MSM react? I guess you wouldn’t care though, right? Since you wouldn’t support him anymore.