“… In the name of practicality, the opportunist not only loses any chance of advancing others toward the ultimate goal, but he himself gradually loses sight of that goal—as happens with any “sellout” of principle. Thus, suppose that one is writing about taxation. It is not incumbent on the libertarian to always proclaim his full “anarchist” position in whatever he writes; but it is incumbent upon him in no way to praise taxation or condone it; he should simply leave this perhaps glaring vacuum, and wait for the eager reader to begin to question and perhaps come to you for further enlightenment. But if the libertarian says, “Of course, some taxes must be levied,” or something of the sort, he has betrayed the cause.”
It’s a coherent stop in terms of strategy / tactics. He is as radical as possible, and he is able to get away with calling for the abolition of the IRS, CIA, FBI, Dept of Education, Dept of Homeland Security, Dept of Labor, the FED in the national mainstream debates- and remains credible, sane - and not laughed at as a joke, whilst being instead considered principled - because he uses the simple sound bite, “the constitution”.
Absolutely right. But that’s the fault of constitutionalists, who are utopians. Ron uses the appeal as a means, it’s not an end goal… the fact that supporters of his don’t realise this is sad, but some what understandable. In fact… continually trying to point this out to them - gets you perm banned from RPF. ;p
Well I think that Ron Paul is laughed at [ not to infer that I condone it ] by certain mainstream pundits.
Well its possible he feels this way. Honestly, I would need to talk to the guy in person to figure this out but that is probably asking too much. You have these ‘individuals’ at Glenn Beck forums, Sean Hannity forums and Ron Paul forms who are committing what can only be called idolatry over this Constitutional document. They are so incensed with this premise that the Constitution is a small government document which was made up by the ‘founding fathers’ that they fail to question what was going in within the ‘United States’ before the Constitution that required this document? Was the nearly non-existent federal government actually infringing upon people’s religion? What was the fault present in the Articles of Confederation that demanded this ‘small government’ legislation which basically created the framework of government we have today? But your right, it is at about this point where one is banned from the Beck or Paul forums for being ‘trollish.’ And don’t even get me started on these boobs who think the Constitution is a social contract that we are all bound by.
I think the role the constitution plays in his strategy is sort of an appeal to authority. You see, to the general populus, arguments from raw logic and strict economics do not appeal fully. A sort of authority that they already trust that would appeal to them, is necessary to feel secure about their beliefs, to not get the feeling that it is weird and socially unacceptable.
I agree. I do the same. I also mention, as Ron does, the Declaration of Ind. and how this country is founded upon the very initial concept and action of succession. Without succession there would be no U.S. And succession isn’t of institutions but of the various individuals who argued it out in Philadelphia and then across the region, one person at a time.
Get out of the political process, start enterprising, start voluntarily lending a hand, and start educating people to make your own small community a slightly better place. That’s all you can do and all you should do; it counts for far more than a vote.
Yeah it was much easier to dismiss him then, than it is now - after all of what he said would happen, did.
That’s what I thought I’d have to do. But then there is the motorhome diaries video interview above I linked, which he explicitly states it. So… no need.
Yes. I can’t speak for anywhere but RPF, but you bring up the Articles of Confederation - some still cling to it. You bring up the Constitution was never signed, only witnessed… same deal. You bring up there was mass opposition in places to the Constitution. You compare the anti-federalists as the Ron Paul supporters of yester-year (obviously not those who cling to the Constitution compared to Aoc). There was an uprising, a march.
There’s other arguments as well. “How can you say it protects private property, when it must violate it to exist?” All get blank stares, and when you keep pushing it against the irrationally idiotic mod, you get bs reasons concocted to ban you. [:)]
I think it’s more that they simply ignore him. Take this recent article in the Guardian, where Dr. Paul is scarcely mentioned despite it being an article about the Southern Republican leadership conference straw poll in which he placed second and missed first place by just one vote.
As for whether an anarcho-capitalist should support a political candidate whose views are close enough to those of freedom, well, I don’t, but it’s your call. In the specific case of Dr. Paul, I dislike his illibertarian position on immigration enough not to be tempted, but that’s me.
I understand the OP’s sentiment since I’m more or less in agreement with your position. However, I still hold Congressman Paul in high esteem. If there’s any one person I can point to that directed me to the ancap philosophy it would be him. From the day I heard the name Ron Paul to the time I fully accepted Libertarianism in its true form was about 18 months of introspection and study. If it were not for him, I would not be an ancap today and doubt I would have been otherwise. I think there are many others with a similar story as mine and recognize Ron Paul as the catalyst of their conversion as well.
Uh-uh. There are those that accept the libertarian position on immigration, and those whose positions on things may be mostly libertarian, but who are not libertarian on this issue, like Dr. Paul. It’s the same thing with drug prohibition – that there are some self-styled “libertarians” who don’t call for the end of drug prohibition doesn’t mean it’s “controversial” or that their position is somehow potentially libertarian.
Kinsella’s argument, for example, seems based on the argument that if the state owns roads, ports, airports, an so forth, then it’s not wrong for them as property owners to limit who can use it. But it seems to me that if we’re talking about a scenario where the state not only exists but owns that much property that it means we’ve already left thelibertarian sphere of things.
And Hoppe seems simply to be saying that in a free society that private property owners can discriminate against those from other lands. Well, sure. But that’s not an immigration restriction, as such. I suppose if 100% of people in a large area had the same policy it would be effectively similar, but that means there would be a market that no one was willing to serve, which is extremely difficult to believe.
(Admittedly, they were long, so I skimmed them. Feel free to point me to a more specific passage if I’ve missed either of their points.)
He copy pasted it from over on RevLeft, where I assume he usually spends his time.
In the thread over there it is just accepted as fact by everyone without question.
Unprincipled response: Ron Paul is a GATEWAY “drug” into anarcho-capitalism/voluntaryism/agorism. So, support him and hope that others, like you, eventually “evolve” into a higher form of being. If you think about it, many people take this path of enlightenment. Also, if Ron Paul is promoting the ideas of liberty, at least he’s touching the people who are so plugged into the system that they need to hear it on a political level.
Being an anarcho-capitalist doesn’t mean you have to be crazy. If you think the government in Switzerland is just as evil as the government in North Korea, you are crazy.
