 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
++++++++++
I believe you. Ron Paul is not an anarchist either intellectually or in his heart. He's a Taft Republican.
++++++++++
Clarity,
You misunderstand me. How can you believe in that misunderstanding?
Ron Paul IS an anarchist as far as I am concerned. As far as I am concerned Ron Paul is befitting the title of ANARCHIST as I define ANARCHIST. As Ron Paul defines the term ANARCHIST he is not (and as he defines anarchist I do not consider him to be one) an anarchist.
If that is not clear, then, we could make it so with some effort.
++++++++
The internet is not an example of a free market. There is regulation all over the place for broadband, for equipment, and so on.
++++++++
I find that above to be quote inaccurate and much of our inability to find agreement can be attributed to some very basic differences in our respective viewpoints.
The internet excludes the least people compared to, say, the legal ‘dollar’ currency production market and the legal violence market.
If ever a free market did exist, other than perhaps the market of sunlight, the internet is one according to my understanding of the ‘things’ involved. Certainly by comparison to the market of sunlight the internet is not quite as free; however – people on the dark side of the earth are excluded from sunlight on a regular basis.
++++++++++
I agree. The whole emphasis on Ron Paul is an error, in my opinion, in more ways than one. It damages a good many libertarians. Of course, many others have already damaged themselves considerably by supporting the war, by unprincipled stands, and so on.
++++++++++
As I wrote the words that were quoted above your quote above it occurred to me that my position on Ron Paul could be taken wrong because I was not very careful to guard against that probability. I see that my lack of care has contributed to the confusion.
Ron Paul is truly the lesser of many evils to a point where (by comparison) he is extremely good. The ‘revolution’ moves our species from the brink of extinction so how can that be bad?
My answer: It is only bad when compared to an anarchistic approach (rather than the approach based upon ‘doing harm on purpose’) and it remains to be seen if Ron Paul is an anarchist ‘does no harm on purpose’.
Take the immigration issue for example. If Ron Paul merely removes the ‘entitlements’ from the Federal coffer (stolen purchasing power), then, the immigration issue removes the incentive to cross the border to get those ‘entitlements’ and that is just one of the ways to deal with that issue in an anarchistic manner where the only one’s ‘harmed’ are those who are ‘harming other people on purpose’ and, as I have stated, that is not ‘harming on purpose’ that is merely defending against those who ‘harm on purpose’.
In other words: don’t play the ‘blame the victims’ game where the defender is accused of starting the ‘harming business’.
You, and I assume, a lot of people do not understand the principle behind libertarianism. There is a pledge whereby each libertarian either makes the pledge fraudulently (they lie) or they make the pledge seriously, honestly, and with principled discipline.
The pledge is an easy one that I can remember without having to go back and see what it was that I pledged when I ran for congress on the libertarian ticket.
I will not initiate violent aggression upon an innocent person.
How can that not be synonymous with anarchism?
Answer (among many confusing possible answers): It depends upon how you define anarchism. So far, in my opinion, Ron Paul defines anarchism with his actions and his words.
You may not share my definition of anarchism and therein defines the challenge of anarchism. How do we manage to find an agreeable definition of anything?
What means do we employ? Do we lie to each other on purpose? Do we harm each other on purpose in order to get our definitions ‘imparted’ in each other?
I have no problem with Ron Paul’s definition of anarchism. It just happens not to be accurate when applied to me. I could use the word ‘harmless person’ and bridge the gap some. That is not to say that Ron Paul does not threaten someone’s POWER to PUNISH and PROFIT from that POWER to PUNISH. I am very confident that Ron Paul is now HARMING a lot of legal criminals. Those legal criminals that Ron Paul is now harming will have a much harder time getting away with torture and mass murder directly resulting from Ron Paul’s anarchistic tendencies.
Am I being clearer now?
++++++++
I agree. I don't think he knows what to do about currency. I had an exchange with one top person close to Paul about one proposal. As written, I thought the method suggested would be a disaster! The idea should indeed be complete competition in money markets and ability for anyone anywhere to create currency.
+++++++
Again – you misunderstand my position. You say you agree and then you say something that I do not agree to. Ron Paul writes how he will shackle the STATE with a legal tender AS GOLD requirement in one piece and in another piece his words suggest a possible allowance of the STATE to continue printing paper currency backed by gold. That is a flip flop of opposites to me. How ‘that’ will be done by Ron Paul if elected remains to be seen. The question remains to be seen if Ron Paul (in POWER) would exercise that power to remove restrictions on currency production by individuals; in other words will Ron Paul make currency an open, free, and anarchistic market, or will Ron Paul’s power in office be used to enforce the currency monopoly?
On the one hand Ron Paul could serve the interest of the bankers (Murray Rothbards) or would Ron Paul allow anyone to be a banker?
See?
One solution to the currency problem is solved anarchically (Ludwig Von Mises’s proposal) or the other ‘so called’ solution won’t be ‘solved’ by fraud and force (Murray Rothbard’s ‘proposal’); however – either action will be considerably ‘different’ than the current currency monopoly called ‘Dollar Hegemony’ which has served the interest of some people at the expense of so many other tortured piles and piles and piles of human bodies.
++++++++
Some libertarians simply push too hard on one or a few lines or ideas, thinking they explain everything. This is the case with the Austrian banking theorists. Even if there is merit in some of their views, it is ridiculous to keep forecasting the end of the world (or the US economy) for 30 years and never see it happen. The theory hasn't worked out yet, and you'd think they stop and figure out why it hasn't. And this undermines their credibility.
+++++++
I’ve posted more than once the link to an article written by someone who exposes the divide between anarchistic (not his term) libertarians and the STATE types. I can link that again if requested. Suffice to say that Mises got it right; where – anyone can compete in the currency market as a rule and the only ones who are not allowed to compete are those who fail to provide the least costly currency that supplies the demand for currency most efficiently and failure is relative. I may supply my own currency well enough for my own needs according to my own customers. This is, in effect, the same viewpoint presented by both Warren and Andrews with ‘Equitable Commerce’.
On the other hand you have the Carl Menger inspired SATISTS who fraud and enforce the scarcity monopoly commerce SYSTEM and Murray Rothbard was certainly one of those types.
+++++++++++
Both libertarianism, whatever it is, and anarchism, whatever it is, if they are to be terms that resonate with people, they need a good deal of sober and well-considered exposition.
+++++++++++
I think each person will soon find how better to define life and how better to interact with other people to a more mutual benefit as a direct result of the market anarchism in currency that exists because most of the barriers preventing that ‘equitable commerce’ are being torn down and the internet is on measurable reality the proves that current condition taking place as we speak and accelerating toward a new age.
There is no need to ‘make’ these things more attractive or ‘user friendly’ because these mutually beneficial things are self-evidently mutually beneficent.
The problem is inaccurate currency fraudulently created and maintained by legal criminals and their power is waning.
http://www.anarchism.net/forum/board_entry.php?id=21122&page=0&order=last_answer&descasc=DESC&category=0