Ron Paul is a Voluntaryist (video)

[Wheylous]

Well, fine, maybe I’m overreacting, but your thoughts on this?

[MrSchnapps]

Here’s the problem: If we posit that Ron Paul is really a closet Voluntaryist, any disconfirming evidence can easily be explained away–and maybe it can be explained away plausibly. But in order to keep this hypothesis intact, we have to look very closely at the amount of ad-hocness involved in explaining away this. Otherwise, we get to a point where it’s just not even falsifiable anymore. It just must, must, must, must be true, and there are no conditions in which the hypothesis could be shown to be false.

Here’s an outlandish example:

A: Ron Paul told me in person that he was not a Voluntaryist!

B: Yeah, but you were probably in a CIA bugged room, and he was concerned that they’d leak it to the media if he spoke the truth!

We have to make sure we don’t take a collection of anecdotes as evidence of his adherence to Voluntarism, and then try and explain the disconfirming evidence away. It isn’t easy.

[John_James]

My thoughts are he’s a 76 year old future President who doesn’t spend his days hanging out on Internet forums with a bunch of purists elitists attacking people for not identifying as “anarchists”. He was on national television having to speak on the spot and just happened to use a word in the way it is commonly understood to simply get his point across.

I honestly don’t know how anyone could see the video that began this thread (and Graham’s other Ron Paul’s Ideas one) and still think Paul is not a voluntarist…let alone actually reading what he writes and watching what he does. I don’t even know why this debate still exists. Paul is just proceeding in line with Rothbard’s point about interacting with non-ancaps. I explain this here.

And seriously just stop and think about it. If the public were demanding abolishment of so much of the federal government that it would be de facto non-existent…do you really think Ron Paul would object? Give me a break. This whole thing is nonsense. The guy simply has the 2 brain cells necessary to realize you don’t get elected President by going around calling yourself an anarchist, and people are actually wasting time attacking him and his supporters for being statist. And now you think you’ve found “a big problem” because he used the word “anarchy” as a synonym for “chaos”, the way 99.9% of the population does. I say again. Give me a break my friend. Give me a break.

[RothbardsDisciple]

Along with JJ’s point, what is so bad…if he is a minarchist anyway? I, for one, would rather have a radical minarchist like himself than several non-radical Anarcho-Capitalists on the internet.

[vive_la_insurrection]

I’m with JJ. In Ron Paul we are watching perhaps the last true relevant old style statesman to exist in the USA. Always a rare breed to begin with, we will probably never see anything like this again. You may as well enjoy this while you can - it is a once in a life time experience, lightning will not strike twice. And if one considers themselves any type of LvMI type liberterian, this is aweful snobbery or flat out haterade drinking.

[Eric080]

He was using “anarchy” in the pejorative. Like JJ said, he used it to get a point across.

I saw the video earlier and was pleased to see that, when asked to recommend one book, he chose The Law by Basiat.

[Wheylous]

Alright, my bad

[bbnet]

Noted that in the Huckbille forum he ranked the heiarchy of sovereignty from high to low as individuals, followed buy the states, followed by the federal government, wuth none for the UN and NATO.

[Wesker1982]

He was using the term in the way that the vast majority of people understand it.

I debated about this a while back on the RPF because on Sean Hannity’s show he said he was not an anarchist.

[Conza]

"Hm… I found a big problem in Ron Paul being voluntaryist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aeg4lXicyEA&feature=player_embedded#t=7m37

You can argue it’s a popular slip (I do it myself sometimes), but…"

Lmao! No it’s not. This has been addressed countless times. He’s using “anarchist” in the same sense Mises did… and Rothbard did earlier on (before he changed his mind).

I refuse to be associated with the label publicly… just as Ron Paul does. It’s stupid to accept the label unless with fellow travelers.

He explictly rejects it, and wisely so. He accepts self-government and voluntarism though - as do I - again, wisely so.

[Wheylous]

Ooooh, evideeeence:

Rothbard on Ron Paul

[Truth_and_Liberty]

Here is what Murray Rothbard wrote about Ron Paul…

@Murray Rothbard on Ron Paul

Ron Paul is a most unusual politician – in many ways. In the first place, he really knows what he’s talking about. He is not only for the gold standard. He knows why he is for it, and he is familiar with the most advanced and complex economic insights on the true nature of inflation, on how inflation works, and how inflationary credit expansions brings about booms and busts. And yet Ron has the remarkable ability to take these complex and vital insights and to present them in clear, lucid, hard-hitting terms to the non-economist reader. His economics is as sound as a bell.

But, even more important, Ron Paul is an unusual politician because he doesn’t simply pay lip service to moral principles. He believes in moral principles in his mind and heart, and he fights for them passionately and effectively. High on his set of moral principles is the vital importance of individual freedom, of the individual’s natural right to be free of assault and aggression, and of his right to keep the property that he has earned on the free market, and not have it stolen from him by confiscatory taxes and government regulations.

Ron Paul, in short, is that rare American, and still rarer politician, who deeply understands and battles for the principles of liberty that were fought for and established by the Founding Fathers of this country. He understands that sound economics, moral principles, and individual freedom all go together, like a seamless web. They cannot be separated, and they stand or fall together.

Ron Paul: A Most Unusual Politician

And conversely…

@Ron Paul on Murray Rothbard

It would be difficult to exaggerate Professor Murray N. Rothbard’s influence on the movement for freedom and free markets. He is the living giant of Austrian economics, and he has led the now-formidable movement ever since the death of his great teacher, Ludwig von Mises, in 1971. We are all indebted to him for the living link he has provided to Mises, upon whose work he has built and expanded.

But many are less aware of Rothbard’s political influence. Some would say that while he is undoubtedly an excellent economist, his political efforts have been less than successful.

I would deny this. Rothbard is the founder of the modern libertarian movement, and of the Libertarian Party which is its political incarnation, and he thus has built the necessary foundation for liberty by inspiring the most important third-party movement ever. And in my own political work, I have been profoundly influenced by the lucid and brilliant works of Rothbard.

In his first correspondence with me after I was elected to office, Rothbard expressed surprise and delight to find a real Congressman who wrote that “taxation is theft,” and approvingly quoted his article, “Gold vs. Fluctuating Exchange Rates.” I, of course, was thrilled to hear from someone whose works I had studied and admired for so many years.

The Political Importance of Murray Rothbard

[John_James]

Why Voluntaryists ought to support Ron Paul