Friday, May 30, 2014

Ron Paul's Pure Libertarianism Sorely Missed

 Brent Budowsky, columnist at The Hillwrites:

Ron Paul, pure libertarian, sorely missed in DC
Congress is a lesser place, and Washington is a lesser town, without the presence of one of my favorite members of Congress, the great libertarian of our generation, former Rep. Ron Paul (R) of Texas. I wrote about Ron Paul often, sometimes in agreement, often in disagreement, but always with respect for his pure-play libertarian philosophy.

In some ways, but not all ways, we have begun to enter a libertarian generation with increasing common areas of agreement between conservative libertarians and progressive libertarians on matters such as limiting the abuses of National Security Agency (NSA) eavesdropping.

While Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) often digresses from the pure libertarianism of his father, Ron Paul...What makes Ron Paul special, by comparison, is that he always advocates the libertarian view, without presidential politics watering down his position for purposes of expedience.


  1. Well Brent Budowsky is mistaken and RW missed an excellent opportunity to correct him.

    Ron Paul is not a "pure" libertarian.

    A pure libertarian is "(a) libertarian who believes libertarianism begins and ends with the non-aggression principle and that any appendages (SEE: libwaps) to the non-aggression principle distort the essence of libertarianism."

    Ron Paul claims a state is needed for national defense/police forces because he does not think the free market can handle these matters. Listen for yourself (17:05)

    1. A state acquires money through political means (taxation).
    2. Taxation is theft (the involuntary transfer of property) and is enforced by the threat of violence.
    3. This is a violation of NAP.
    4. Anyone that supports taxation (for any reason) supports a systematic and continuous violation of the NAP cannot be a pure libertarian.
    5. Ron Paul is not a "pure" libertarian.

    As you said RW, there can be no appendages. No appendages for "minimal" government (whatever that means), no appendages for demanding taxes for certain uses, no appendages for people we like.

    I like Ron Paul despite the fact that he is a statist. I think we all have a lot to learn from him. He has probably introduced libertarianism to more people in modern history than anyone else but lets call a spade a spade.

    Ron Paul is NOT a pure libertarian, he is a statist.

    1. No, mr holier than thou, he was a good first step towards what we all want and given he was saying it in Mordor on the Potomac, maybe we should allow a pass in this case.

    2. And before you claim that it wasn't you who called Ron Paul a pure libertarian in some effort to pull a Krugman, you called Ron Paul a "principled" libertarian here.

      Sorry RW. You made the same mistake as Budowsky.

    3. Seriously, this exact same post again? Nowhere in your "proof" link does he say any of the things you claim. He does not mention taxes or national defense at all, but attacks federalized police.

      All he says about non-federal police is an honest admission that he doesn't know the exact system through which private police would compete. To claim there is a specific way is to play central planner. Even self-described conservatives I know, very far removed from anarchists, would say, "let the market sort it out," and know that it's a problem for entrepreneurs to solve, not themselves, economists, intellectuals, etc.

      Countless times, Ron Paul has said the following, with no sugar coating:

      -All government is coercion
      -All taxation is theft
      -All individuals have the right to secede

      He has repeatedly called himself a voluntarist on national TV and there are other videos where he states the long term goal should be for people to be able to choose their own form of government.

      Similarly, what he does say in your linked video is that he doesn't see point A being the US federal government and point B being anarcho-capitalism. He does not claim it is impossible, wrong, illegal, or that the federal government should have any sort of monopoly.

      So maybe he's a panarchist. Is Michael Rozeff a statist now, too? He openly calls himself a panarchist, rather than an anarcho-capitalist.

      This is just as bad as the "thick" thing because it is so ambiguous that there is no possible outcome other than excluding people.

    4. Federal taxation is not involuntary. The voters elect Congress every 2 years and the voters can easily elect a Congress that will not tax. They chose not to.

      Based on your definition of statist, a statist is anyone who is not a anarchist of the highest order. It's a ridiculous definition.

    5. Heath = butthurt RP fan that will make excuses for RP because he likes him. Typical.

      Jerry, are you even vaguely familiar with the definition of voluntary? If you elect to not pay your taxes knowing your "obligation" to do so you will be put in jail. How do they get you to jail? They come to your house and wave guns in your face. How does that make paying taxes "voluntary." If I walk up to you and stick a gun in your face and demand your money and you decide to fork over your wallet rather than being killed did you voluntarily give me your money?

      Statism is the belief that government should carry out x,y, or z. If you believe that government is necessary you are a statist. It is that simple. Statists are not all the same. Obviously RP is different than Nancy Pelosi but they are both statists.

      Whats your twisted definition of statism?

    6. Brandon Foreman, click the damn video, listen where I told you to, and apply the slightest bit of logical thinking. "I havent sorted all this out.... I havent been able to figure out this out about competing police forces.... I HAVENT GOTTEN TO THE POINT WHERE ALL PROBLEMS CAN BE SOLVED WITHOUT ANY GOVERNMENT WHATSOEVER. I think the competing police forces could become a problem."

      How black and white does it need to be for ya?

      Statism is the belief that government is needed to do X.

      Explain how someone supports government but isnt a statist? Stop making "appendages" for RP. He deviates from pure libertarianism.

    7. Brandon, you are just as bad as Jerry.

      RP says that government is needed. Once he admits that then the proof is valid.

      Explain how government acquires money in a voluntary mean? (please dont say borrowing because borrowing simply means future taxation).

      Of course he didnt say those things explicitly. My proof consists of things that are necessary to government. I feel like Im talking to third graders.

  2. Your premise is wrong. Taxation is not theft. It's what you pay for God's ministers to attend to maintaining some order of justice. Once upon a time, there were no governments. Man, with his corrupted nature, proved that he would devolve into even killing his own brother without the threat of the sword hanging over him. Hence, God instituted governments for this very purpose, and they're here to stay until Christ returns.

    1. "Your premise is wrong. Taxation is not theft. It's what you pay for God's ministers to attend to maintaining some order of justice."

      What an idiot. What do you call it when someone with a gun points it in your face and says, "Give me your money or I'll stick you in a cage. If you resist I'll put a bullet in your head". Quit being an idiot and THINK pal.

      And God's ministers? Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol pot, Genghis Khan, Caligula....these are God's minsters? Seriously? Pal, you need to get yourself checked out. That's just insanity.

      " Man, with his corrupted nature, proved that he would devolve into even killing his own brother without the threat of the sword hanging over him. Hence, God instituted governments for this very purpose, and they're here to stay until Christ returns"

      Oh, I see. So because one guy killed ONE person, God institutes a gang of thugs. result? 200 million dead in the 20th century alone! Yeah, big improvement. Idiot.

      Pal, re you really THAT brain dead? You REALLY think it's better to hundred's of people exterminated by governments around the world instead of the very occasional private murder? And BTW, not having a monopolistic government doesn't mean there is no order you fool. Here, start reading and get an education:

    2. Correction to a sentence:

      "You REALLY think it's better for hundred's of millions of people to be exterminated by governments around the world instead of dealing with the very occasional private murder?"

      I'd like to add that I don't understand this kind of "Christian" state worship. God institutes governments to prevent Cain from killing Abel? 200 million people were murdered by governments in the last century ALONE! Millions more tortured and impoverished. Many forced to prostitute themselves or steal just to survive. And this moron is claiming that God institutes a cure that is FAR WORSE than the disease?

      Take alcohol prohibition. A bunch of Protestant idiots argued that since drinking alcohol was sinful that government should prohibit it. What happened? It created ORGANIZED CRIME in the US. Yes, brilliant job "true believers". These idiots just don't bother to think through the consequences of their ideas.

      You idiots have a thing between your ears called a BRAIN. How about using it for a change?

  3. "He has probably introduced libertarianism to more people in modern history than anyone else but lets call a spade a spade."

    This is the reason I like Ron Paul despite the fact that he thinks we need the state. He didn't pussyfoot around with these neocon or Idiot Left maggots. He was VERY polite about it (too polite in my view) but he didn't sugarcoat things in order to win votes. In that way he wasn't a political whore like the rest of them.

    1. A big reason why I like him is how genuine and kind he is. Lots and lots to learn from RP. Just hope he becomes and anarchist before he passes.