Ron Paul saying that he isn’t an anarchist on Hannity. 4:25
Unfortunate. I mean he wasn’t even asked, so why deny it?
His #1 principle out of the Ten Principles of Liberty:
‘Rights belong to individuals, not groups; they derive from our nature and can neither be granted nor taken away by government.’
is in such a blatant contradiction with his minarchist stance that it is mind-boggling.
Ron Paul is no entry level in libertarian studies. He is being very dishonest in my opinion, It’s based on trickery, it’s statist in nature, and it’s why I could never support his strategy.
it’s statist in nature
you’ll have to explain that to me…
The message is not pure because it’s political in nature, and I have a hard time making sense out of the strategy of spreading freedom through the political means.
If you understand that the message is corrupt, then to support it feels like political trickery.
Some interesting quotes from Liberty Defined:
“…but a free people do entrust the management of social norms to the courts of taste and manners that arise spontaneously within civilization.”
Page 254:
“In a free society, where depending on government is minimal or absent, any real crisis serves to motivate individuals, families, churches, and communities to come together and work to offset the crisis, whether it comes from natural causes such as floods, droughts, fire, illness, or predators or is man-made.”
Page 254-255:
“We might reflect on how we achieve security in our everyday lives. We have locks on our doors, provided by private manufacturers. We use privately provided alarm systems. We depend on the idea that others are going to drive safely, and the incentive to do so comes from a private system of insurance. Some people own and carry guns for security. Their efforts help everyone by deterring criminality. Commercial establishments such as banks and jewelry stores hire private security guards. Malls and subdivisions have their own security apparatus.”
“If we reflect on how security works in the real world, we discover a huge and important role for private enterprise, and we find that the vast government apparatus of “national security” does not keep us safe so much as threaten our liberties by regarding the entire citizenry as a threat. Private security does not threaten our civil liberties, but government-provided security does.”
Ron Paul mentioning a society absent of government and praising private defense (including “national” defense), all in the same chapter. He doesn’t share the minarchist view that government is necessary for security.
On page 70 he mentions Spooner’s position on the constitution and doesn’t necessarily says he disagrees with it but only that it isn’t likely to make headway. This could imply that he agrees with Spooner but doesn’t want to focus on it. He says all of Spooner’s writings are worty of study in the footnote.
He lists For a New Liberty and Lets Abolish Government at the end of chapters too.
He describes anarchy and just doesn’t say the word. Then gives you material to expand from there. Just like the judge.
Good find Wesker. As if more evidence was needed, these quotes from Liberty Defined confirm Ron’s anarchist views. All statements from him that suggest otherwise are merely strategic educational rhetoric.
So…you still haven’t shown me where Mises opposes conscription.
LOL. Are you serious? We’re not talking about foreign intervention. Now I have to ‘interpret’ what he says about that and somehow morph it into his views on dometic policy?
Except none of those three want to use state power in order to enforce immigration policy.
Conza, explain why the sekreet anarkist Ron Paul voted for a 700 mile border fence between the US and Mexico.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/house/2/votes/446/
Don’t change the subject and dodge my question (again).