Ron Paul on Government Owned Land
Here he expresses his position that the government should not own any land. From his chapter on Immigration in Liberty Defined:
- Reporter: “As you are reflecting back on your campaign, are you unhappy with your party?”
- Ron Paul: “Well, it’s not my party. I don’t like politics at all… As far as being pleased I am super pleased with what’s working… I am super-energized and optimistic about what’s happening, because the ideas are changing. What I’m talking about is an ideological revolution.”
Ron Paul on Lysander Spooner
Question: “You’re frequently an advocate for the Constitution. What are your thoughts of the Lysander Spooner statement: “But whether the Constitution really be one thing or another, this much is certain: that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”
Ron Paul: “I’ll tell you what: I don’t criticize Lysander. His point is very well taken, and someday maybe we will mature to that point. His claim was that if he himself didn’t agree to the Constitution, why should somebody in a remote body agree to the Constitution and he be pushed under it? It is a good idea, but under today’s circumstances, I have to work with the best that we have. Because who knows, I might have been an anti-Federalist at the time the Constitution was being written. But fortunately we ended up with a good Constitution [at least tries to limit government], and our problem is more that we don’t obey the good parts about it. I think it’s a very interesting philosophic issue, and I hope that someday we mature enough to have that argument.”
Ron Paul on Self-Government
At a huge rally in Seattle: “If you had a perfectly ideal world, and you had liberty passed on back to the individual, it would be self-government, that would be the ultimate test. As long as we accept one principle - that we don’t force other people to try to live the way we want to live. Stay out of meddling with these peoples lives.”
Self-government being synonymous with voluntarism and a private law society.
- “If Canada and the United States can be separate nations without being denounced as being in a state of impermissible “anarchy,” why may not the South secede from the United States? New York State from the Union? New York City from the state? Why may not Manhattan secede? Each neighborhood? Each block? Each house? Each person? But, of course, if each person may secede from government, we have virtually arrived at the purely free society, where defense is supplied along with all other services by the free market and where the invasive State has ceased to exist.”
— Murray N. Rothbard, No More Military Socialism.
Rothbard on Ron Paul
Murray N. Rothbard presented this speech at the Michigan Libertarian Party Convention, held in Southfield, Michigan, in May 1989. This is an excerpt where he discusses Ron Paul.
I’m currently working my way through Democracy: The God that Failed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. It’s kind of blowing my mind.
Ron Paul has it in his recommended reading list (in the Democracy section of Liberty Defined). For all those who are interested, here is the bootleg free pdf.
One argument made is presented here in this video, it is a compared to argument. Democracy is not the best system society has tried.
Where do Ron Paul’s ideas come from?
Ron Paul says that “ideas are the only things that count”. So where do Ron Paul’s ideas come from?
Ludwig von Mises, Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard stand behind Ron Paul and his message of peace and liberty. Their strategy is to awaken and educate the masses to the idea of liberty, for when the State is widely recognized as unethical and uneconomic, it’s days are numbered, since all States rest ultimately upon the support, active or merely passive, of the masses.
Ron Paul speaks to the masses, educates them, and introduces them for the first time to the ideas of liberty, in the hope that they will embrace the message and join the intellectual and moral battle against State power. He encourages all his supporters to discover for themselves the philosophy of liberty, directing them to Mises, Rockwell and Rothbard.
Ron Paul is a Voluntarist. Something I’ve been saying for years. If you’re not a voluntarist / anarcho-capitalist / natural law / private law supporter, I don’t think you can legitimately call yourself a Ron Paul supporter ;D.
Limited government supporters, it’s time to really question your premises. Needless to say this is partly in jest, if you support Ron Paul at all - welcome aboard the freedom train :).
I was told tonight that I seem to be alienating a lot of my libertarian friends by my stating that Ron Paul is a statist. Well, Doesn’t sound like a loss to me!
Ron Paul reconfirms he’s a voluntarist.
ADAM KOKESH: So you’ve described yourself as a voluntarist. Can you tell us what that means for the big picture, and what your ideal society would be, as a voluntarist?
RON PAUL: Voluntary means no coercion. So if you want to change people’s habits or change the world you should do it by setting examples and trying to persuade people to do it. You can use force only when somebody uses force against you. So voluntary use of information and persuading people, I think, is the best way to go; and no matter what kind of problem you’re looking at.
ADAM KOKESH: Do you think we have a chance of achieving a society based on those ideals in America?
RON PAUL: Not soon. We had a relative voluntary society (you know) in our early history, but steadily, even after the Constitution was passed, steadily it was undermined and it systematically grew, it grew certainly through the 20th century; that is the authoritarian approach, which is the opposite. That is: the government tells us everything we can do and can’t do.
Ron Paul and Anarcho-Capitalism… Hint: He’s not a statist (4min+ of video).
For a better justification see this Mises thread here and my responses:
Ron Paul’s real goal is self government / anarcho-capitalism, instead of a return to the Constitution. The strategy merely differs. His role is educational, i.e directing folks to Libertarianism and Austrian Economics. He acknowledges that voting (in Congress) won’t change anything.
Except he’s never advocated it, when compared to a voluntaryist society. Philosophically, the question you need to ask is “Compared to what?”
COMPARED to what we have now, would you prefer a return to the size of government as outlined in the US Constitution? (Obviously leaving aside the fact that it would only grow in size again).
“… In the name of practicality, the opportunist not only loses any chance of advancing others toward the ultimate goal, but he himself gradually loses sight of that goal—as happens with any “sellout” of principle. Thus, suppose that one is writing about taxation. It is not incumbent on the libertarian to always proclaim his full “anarchist” position in whatever he writes; but it is incumbent upon him in no way to praise taxation or condone it; he should simply leave this perhaps glaring vacuum, and wait for the eager reader to begin to question and perhaps come to you for further enlightenment. But if the libertarian says, “Of course, some taxes must be levied,” or something of the sort, he has betrayed the cause.” - Rothbard’s 1961 Confidential Memo to Volker Fund
“But one must use democratic means only for defensive purposes; that is, one may use an antidemocratic platform to be elected by an antidemocratic constituency to implement antidemocratic — that is, anti-egalitarian and pro-private property — policies. Or, to put it differently, a person is not honorable because he is democratically elected. If anything, this makes him a suspect. Despite the fact that a person has been elected democratically, he may still be a decent and honorable man; we have heard one before.” - What Must be Done, Hoppe
“In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written.” ~ Ron Paul, End the Fed
“Ideas are the only things that count, and politicians are, for the most part, pretty much irrelevant,” Ron Paul told the London Independent in December.
For those communicating with Ron Paul “supporters” who fail to see that he uses the Constitution as a rhetorical tool in an age of manufactured consent and that it is not his end goal (self-government)… calling them statists etc. is a completely flawed strategy. Pointing out what Ron Paul actually is - using his own words is much more effective at drawing others to voluntarism.