Ron Paul and anarcho-capitalism?

[AnonLLF]

Ron Paul’s Voting Record

Here’s what he’s voted yes on :-

Secure Border Act 2006

Border security bill 2005

immigration law enforcement act 2007

Paul on Immigration :-"

We need to allocate far more resources, both in terms of money and manpower, to securing our borders and coastlines here at home. This is the most critical task before us, both in terms of immigration problems and the threat of foreign terrorists. Unless and until we secure our borders, illegal immigration and the problems associated with it will only increase." From The Immigration Question(2006)

Apparently he forgets how statist and how much tax theft this requires.Anarchist? Ron Paul? Pfft!

[Dondoolee]

I don’t know if it is possible to have dialogue with you. If you are not calling Burke a liberal don’t mind Chomsky and dislike Ron Paul you seem to be just listing pure aesthetics catagorizing them and calling them “good” or “bad” (or “liberal”/iliberal", “moral”/immoral", "anarchist/“statist”, take you pick). It is an unassailable position, how can a conversation happen?

Your 7 points don’t even state much. Pro-life, anti-immigation, inconsistent, counterproductive, and distraction are buzz words that could be leveled against The Pope, Hitler, Chomsky, or anybody for that matter.

“Inspires founding Father worship” is an odd choice he has called the constitution imperfect after all. If you care about utilitarian results and then list a plethora of moral tropes, this become even more confusing.

[AnonLLF]

@Conza88

“Principled response: Don’t vote, don’t support politicians, don’t get involved in any government. Check out “How to Withdraw Consent From the State””

“- No, that is the utopian purist deviation response.”

It’s not purist but principled.If the state is a class of aggressors then why be involved with them or even appear to lend them support.

It’s not utopian.You just don’t vote.

“Use government roads? By lord, so much for withdrawing consent… lol.”

She didn’t say that.It’s unavoidable however.Being anti -voting is not the same as being a hermit, strawman aside.

[AnonLLF]

@William

"I don’t know if it is possible to have dialogue with you. "

Your doing so thus you’ve engaged in a hoppean performative contradiction.

" If you are not calling Burke a liberal"

? I said he was NOT a liberal.He was a conservative.Big difference.

“don’t mind Chomsky”

He’s good on interventionism,empire and war plus linguistics but I don’t agree with him on much else particularly.I do find his anarcho-syndicalism interesting but I’m critical of his gradualist embracement of statism just as I am among libertarians.

" and dislike Ron Paul "

OH NO! I dislike Ron Paul.Guess I’m out the cult forever.Some libertarians do dislike Ron Paul.Like I said I think he has positives and negatives but the negatives outweight the positives and I’m worried by anarchist love for him including among those who otherwise oppose voting.

“you seem to be just listing pure aesthetics catagorizing them and calling them “good” or “bad” (or “liberal”/iliberal”, “moral”/immoral", “anarchist/“statist”, take you pick).”

That’s call judging.Surely that’s the point.That’s what we’re in libertarianism for.That’s what life involves.

" how can a conversation happen?"

It is happening now.You’ve posted ,I’ve replied.It’s just we disagree.

" Pro-life, anti-immigation, inconsistent, counterproductive, and distraction are buzz words that could be leveled against The Pope, Hitler, Chomsky, or anybody for that matter."

True but the point is are those criticisms valid? In Ron Paul’s case and everybody above too(probably the pope too) then I think so.

““Inspires founding Father worship” is an odd choice he has called the constitution imperfect after all.”

True yet he downplays this point and continually refers to the founding fathers in the same emotive way the randians do.He ignores their vigorous statism,racism,slaveholding among other things.I’m not saying they are without value but Paul never talks of these facts.

" If you care about utilitarian results"

Utilitarian? I think you mean consequentialist.

“and then list a plethora of moral tropes, this become even more confusing.”

Consequentialism and morality are not in conflict rightly understood.I’d argue any moral theory has an element of consequentialism.It’s a false dichotomy.

[AnonLLF]

@LogisticEarth

• 3. He’s anti-immigration

“Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought his stance on immigration was driven more by the implications it has with the US’s current entitlement programs, rather than a general anti-immigrant sentiment?”

To some extent but it’s a bit of a fallacy to conflate the two.That welfare exists is no itself an argument against immigration.Surely abolishing welfaring or reducing it is preferrable to heavy handed border controls which Ron Paul supports and has voted for.On the other hand he’s also said he has cultural concerns with immigration and rejection of american values which sounds a bit close to conventional anti-immigrant rhetoric of conservatives.

pro-life

“Again, my understanding was that he was personally pro-life, but generally favored the state staying out of the process.”

He want’s it devolved down to the local state level which is less bad than a national imposition but seems a bit wishy washy and is still statist.

" However, logically, being pro-life isn’t un-libertarian in an of itself. If you classify the fetus as a human individual, then with the NAP protecting that individual from danger is laudable."

Well I know it’s a bone of contention but I think it is.

" In a minarchist or society you could have laws against abortion if you consider it murder."

True.Likewise in anarchy.

" This is an entirely other can of worms though, so lets not dive into that discussion. I just wouldn’t use the point that he’s “pro-life” against him unless he’s trying to get the process banned at the federal level."

when I go on to argue against the pro-life position in general I think my criticism is justified.But I don’t plan on that whole can of worms -as you said- in this thread.

[liberty_student]

@Scott F

To me that you find it hilarious is part of the cultish mentality surrounding him.

To me it is hilarious that nobodies on the internet who can’t even articulate a somewhat coherent philosophy, claim the moral high ground when criticizing Ron Paul. Everyone is an ideological giant online. Who translates that offline into the real world where there are consequences for adopting particular ethical stances?

[Brainpolice]

Ron Paul is a paleoconservative-libertarian hybrid, Republican career politician who believes in returning to a constitutional republic as he understands it. He has a combination of good and bad stances on issues. There’s nothing special about him other than the fact that he’s in such a political position and therefore facilitates national dialogue about certain ideas. He isn’t immune to the overall problems involved in the institutional structures that he is part of. Occasionally he is among the only people in such a position taking a stance against some particular aspect of the status quo, but it never is effective. He’s generally shrugged off when he’s the lone wolf who happens to be right, and when he’s wrong he tarnishes the public image of libertarianism.

[Dondoolee]

and when he’s wrong he tarnishes the public image of libertarianism

By wrong I assume you mean “not left wing enough”. His paleo conservative “norms” are way worse than your conservative left wing list of “oughts” correct? I have a hunch you go much softer on that not nothing special career acamadician Chomsky, who doesn’t “tarnish” that image as much, because he is cooler.

[Brainpolice]

By wrong I assume you mean “not left wing enough”.

Not exactly, because that isn’t the only criteria or level of analysis. I mean “wrong” across the board.

I have a hunch you go much softer on that not nothing special career acamadician Chomsky, who doesn’t “tarnish” that image as much, because he is cooler.

Then your hunches are wrong. Over the past few decades, Chomsky largely has the role of a social-democratic youth culture leader rather than an anarchist intellectual. His stance and public posture has softened over time, with its merits largely being restricted to foreign policy analysis and criticism of the inegalitarian outcomes of various government policies. In substance, he is a strategic Marxist in his attitude toward the state (although, in an altered way, so was Rothbard). Chomsky’s skepticism toward private power is manifested in a way that is simultaneously naive about the realities of political beauracracy and alienated systems of representation, leading him to overestimate the utility of representative democracy.

[Dondoolee]

Then your hunches are wrong.

Apology on this then.

Not exactly, because that isn’t the only criteria or level of analysis. I mean “wrong” across the board.

What is your criteria? Thus far you simply seem to be dismissing him by throwing the word “conservative” around

ex:

“I dislike him because he is a conservative politician…”

If you are going to lean on the “inconsistent track record for liberty” part of the argument, you have to understand how that phrase is going to be very empty of content without a very specific context.

While it is OK to use words like “liberty” or “freedom” I think it is only fair to assume we are talking about liberty, unless you make it clear otherwise, the way Mises would on Liberalism, for example…because this is Mises.org. Perhaps, you would dismiss this as “propertarianism” or whatever, but that is beside the point.

[AnonLLF]

@William

and when he’s wrong he tarnishes the public image of libertarianism

I have a hunch you go much softer on that not nothing special career acamadician Chomsky, who doesn’t “tarnish” that image as much, because he is cooler.

I personally don’t think Chomsky’s cool really.I don’t get your harping on about this .He’s overrated by mainstream leftists(who ignore his gradualist willingness to put up with statism and his irrationality towards free markets) and underrated by an-caps and libertarians(who LARGELY ignore the similiarities between theirs and his work and ignore his valid criticisms and comments).Give me Kevin Carson, Gary Chartier or Roderick Long any day instead of him.They’re much cooler.

[Dondoolee]

I was trying to make an anology and it failed, due to my wrong hunches. That said, Roderick Long is working within the system too as he also is a University Professor, so there we have it.

[AnonLLF]

@William

I was trying to make an anology and it failed, due to my wrong hunches. That said, Roderick Long is working within the system too as he also is a University Professor, so there we have it.

True however he’s not advocating statism and Ron Paul’s statism is rather extensive.

[Dondoolee]

Whatever floats your boat, aesthetics are arbitrary after all. If that is “consistent enough in deed” so be it.

[Consultant]

I’m an ancap now because of Ron Paul. His arguments based on the constitution were helpful in this journey.

Ron Paul has done more for anarcho-capitalism than anyone ever did before him. It may be cool in some subcultures to look down upon him, but you can not deny the facts.

[liberty_student]

Long gets free passes from a lot of ideological hypocrites because he is “left”.

[Libertyandlife]

Frankly I’m sick of these “left” libertarians. At least the libertarian and anarchist “socialists” have an excuse; they are actually socialists. The left libertarians are just obsessed with wording and connotation.

[Laughing_Man]

‘Ron Paul has done more for anarcho-capitalism than anyone ever did before him. It may be cool in some subcultures to look down upon him, but you can not deny the facts.’

I don’t think Ron Paul is an anarchist ( some disagree, I am aware of this ), so how can he do more for anarcho-capitalism then someone like Thomas DiLorenzo, Robert Murphy, or anyone at the Mises center who subscribes to that philosophy? Ron Paul was just a gas station in the road toward anarchist philosophy. He isn’t the end, just a medium. The problem is that too many people are stopping at the gas station to enjoy the view.

[Brainpolice]

Long gets free passes from a lot of ideological hypocrites because he is “left”.

This has nothing to do with people being “left”; this is simply an ideological jab of your own. Roderick Long isn’t a national career politician, and the criticism of Ron Paul is just as much about the substance of his positions as it is about his institutional role. There’s also an obvious contextual difference between working for a state university as a teacher and actually having a job that directly entails political power. Roderick Long doesn’t vote on bills, attend governmental commitees, represent the special interests of a voting district, and run for president. Nor does he advocate republican constitutionalism.

[Kaiser434]

I haven’t come to fully support the principles of anarcho capitalism myself due to continuing enquiry, but it seems to me three principles are relevant to the case that you are making.

1. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. I don’t support everything Mr. Paul supports but he is prehaps closer to what I would support. This is important within a coercive environment. Its as though you have the choice of the Italian mafia and the Irish mafia. If the Italians demand exhorbitant sums with a weak assertion of good will and the Irish guys ask for a dollar a day with the promise to beat the crap out of anyone that attacks me it isn’t selling out my values to choose the brand of mafia closest to what I would want, if I were allowed to choose no mafia at all, which I am not.

2. We do not have full on socialist statism. We have a sort of bastard mixed system where the forces of coercion and capitalism are in a constant dynamic tension. Affecting that toward what is right is not wrong. We’re in this together. I would be comfortable supporting Mr. Paul vs the real barbarians at the gate with the qualification that if we manage to get this thing nearly perfect in my lifetime Mr. Paul would then become the opposition. Mr. Paul’s version of a great society is merely my version of the passably good in relation to now. To the extent that the great is the enemy of the good I must oppose Mr. Paul. However, I have to achieve his version of great before continuing toward my own. He thinks a halfway point is a destination and one day he may have to be informed that he is incorrect, but it isn’t immoral to accept his help to get to that halfway point.

3. Slow progress and sub-optimal alliances are the price of admission if you want real change. The other option is to kick out a little armchair philosophy and then pout that you can’t find enough pixie farts and unicorn horns to magically make it all happen overnight. A lot of people choose that route.