Ron Paul On the Inner Contradictions of Limited Government

[MrLenzi1]

The less government the better. I think most of us agree on that. So even if you're an an-cap, you should still vote for Ron Paul, rather than not vote at all.

[markdeming1989]

It is now dead, and it it hold no real authority any longer. But this New Constitution of Liberty is the biggest step towards enlightened governance in our times.

[markdeming1989]

All associations, institutions transactions and connections are permitted which are voluntary, and with do not infringe on the fundamental rights of others. This constitution was drafted be Joel Skousen along with his theories and principles of government. please visit his sight and check i out for yourself. email him through the site if you wish to improve upon what he has started. Our constitution was better than the previous tyranny, but it was too vague and had many issues.

[markdeming1989]

All other services provided by the government besides the universal ones (which are explicitly limited in the constitution) are paid for up with user fees, so as to assure that in every case, only founds from willing individuals will go to corresponding government programs. By the definitions in this constitution nearly all of out current welfare programs would be eliminated. There is no authority for a central bank and competing currencies are allowed and encouraged.

[markdeming1989]

It also has a strict and principled approach to taxation, based on the initial volition of the citizen in opting into citizenship. This as the only just, contractual basis for taxation at all. taxes that are uniform to all citizens can only go the functions the affect all citizens, such as national defense.

[markdeming1989]

It has legal definitions for the fundamental rights, but still recognizes that those rights reside in the individuals independent of government, and that the government only acts as an extension of the individual to protect those rights. It has more distinct separation and limitation of powers within the government, and shorter term limits for officials in office.

[markdeming1989]

But secondly, as i review earlier comments, I have determined that deity my not necessary to achieve my hope. For, since I have last posted, i have found a proposal for a legitimate state which has no inner contradictions in principle. This state is composed of a new constitution and citizen's compact. It is initiated by unanimous voluntary contract. Citizens and residents are distinguished by different levels of contractual obligations, with corresponding benefits and responsibilities.

[markdeming1989]

First off, i'm shoving nothing down anyone's throat. I'm just throwing out ideas. If one believes in liberty, while he may disagree with my statements he would also realize that i have the right to say it, and wouldn't be telling me to shut up or quench my opinion. The disagreeing isn't the real issue; the issue is if one believes in free speech he necessarily believes that speech foreign to him is allowed to exist, and actively thwart it by threat or coercion.

[glennd7962]

It's not much of secret. After all, he's been a lifelong partner and friend of Lew Rockwell the infamous bigot, homophobe and hysterical conspiracy monger and rabid anarchist. It's just that Ron has learned how to lie very cleverly to keep getting elected in Texas. He also if far too friendly to Dominionists and other rabid Christians.

[markdeming1989]

Depending on our performance to the agreement we would acquire property and protection. Disobedience would bring penalty. But some may never choose to covenant to any law: all that would mean is that they are outside of the jurisdiction of the diety, from protection of punishment; a state of neutrality.

[markdeming1989]

I think you could have a free society, without cohesion and with private property but it would have to require deity. Everything would have to be based on our voluntary contracts with the dirty. That would be the only just grounds for penalty. We must choose law before law can be acted upon our behave. Imagine of god rightfully owned the property of the cosmos, and then loaned or sold it to humans as an inheritance on certain agreed conditions.

[glennd7962]

@markdeming1989 But there is no God. Or at least no proof or a single shred of evidence. How does something that is completely absent from reality help us? What an insipid thought. Keep your God to yourself, nobody else wants it shoved down their throat. And it has nothing to do with being free.

[markdeming1989]

So the government itself can't qualify as a party really. But even if it could, the citizen has no choice but to be a citizen. I never signed the constitution. I made no contract, which technically means that I am bound by no law, niether of protection of punishment.

[markdeming1989]

I think the biggest flaw of government is compulsory citizenship. I don't believe a contract to be valid unless all parties agree to the terms. The government itself can't be called a party; it is transitory; it lacks cohesion or identity; it is just a name we give to a whole lot of other autonomous people who associate with that label.

[dieyoung]

Does anyone else think Paul is an an-cap in disguise?

[18bcarlsonify]

I always thought ron paul was full of hot air.

[JKwingsfan]

I'm fairly convinced Ron Paul is secretly an anarchist.

[TheSkunker]

@JKwingsfan Same here. Even if he is not, though, I will gladly vote for him. Minarchy is a means to an end, at least.

[JaredJosephHoag]

@JKwingsfan

What convinces you of that? I would be ecstatic if I could agree.

[anon136]

the simplest argument against anarchy is that the world as it exists now is the product of anarchy. To refute anarchy is to refute the universe, to praise it is to praise the universe. Can anyone say there was a law before there was man. Did man not arise out of such a lawless environment. Than it can be reasoned that the state is an emergent effect of anarchism thus proving the two terms are not mutually exclusive.

[Aliothemage]

@anon136

I think that's a pretty important insight.

[mortalisk]

@anon136 It is not an attemt to argue for anarchy, but to argue that one should not force other people to pay for your "services". If people think it is ok to force others, then yes, the state will emerge naturally. If people think that it is not ok than anarchy will emerge naturally. Ideas change, and it is not logical to assume that because the state emerged at one point, it must now stay for ever.

[MarmaladeINFP]

Every govt grows. Likewise, every capitalist system grows. Modern statism and capitalism are two peas in a pod. To speak in terms of reality and history, the only type of society that didn't grow and concentrate power is that of hunter-gatherer tribes.

[AustereAustrian]

@MarmaladeINFP didn't they learn to farm?

[MarmaladeINFP]

@AustereAustrian They may have developed into a different type of society. If they settled down to form farms and villages, then they were no longer hunter-gatherers. After that first transition, growth and concentrated power becomes inevitable. The only way a hunter-gatherer society can avoid the fate that happened to all other societies is to remain hunter-gatherers. Some hunter-gatherers never switched to settled farming life. The question is why didn't they.

[freepress666]

I do not claim to know anymore than anyone else, I view this reality with hart and not mind.

[freepress666]

The tribe works thousands of years for the betterment of the whole tribe despite their differences, demonstrating self rule. Then comes ownership of tribe property.

As you can see this brought down the tribe. Evil is in the act of claiming property.

And denial of the others right to do the same.

[selfrealizedexile]

@freepress666

That's a speculative observation of the history of Man and civilization. We simply don't know. I find Rothbard's own view that civilizations are the legacies of conquests, occupations, and extortions from the conquered to be far more likely.

I find the act of claiming property to have existed for as long as man has existed. We are inherently selfish and want to self-preserve. Your theory is very problematic; when and how did man begin claiming property out of the blue?

[freepress666]

We find ourselves in a reality that has natural laws to no prevail.

You must understand just because the original owner of this universe has not came down to tell you personally to get off his property, then it must be OK to claim it for yourself. Or until he comes back to reclaim what is his, or his descendants.

Here is where war breaks out, you have been destroying his property and it looks nothing like he left it, And you say I was born here so I own it now.

Whose theory, go deeper

[selfrealizedexile]

I happen to be a theist myself although not a particularly religious man in the technical sense. One interesting point you may want to ponder however is what man should be expected to do when he experiences hunger pangs. Is he to ingest plantlife, slaughter mammals, steal from weaker humans their food or simply starve to death?

[freepress666]

Are you going to conquer the one who made the universe and has lawful claim to it and everything in it. Well young man I think not.

So you see it is impossible to lay claim to own anything or anyone, or any thought.

You could say prove your claim, and he says OK I will destroy the planet and everything on it. Then it hits you no matter what you loose, so you ask what can we do to avert this confusion. Treat my property as if I was here all the time. I will forgive you and you do the same.

[selfrealizedexile]

Rothbard and my own view on the conception of property is a bit more nuanced than you're making it. Rothbard says that man owns himself and by extension he owns the alterations he makes to existing terrain or materials (land, paintings, cars, etc). That's not to say that all newly-acquired possessions are attained morally.  If you coercively attain it by stealing from someone, obv that's not really a property right. Finally, I find your conception of property to be unworkable if I'm

[selfrealizedexile]

understanding you correctly. I think God created what we see around us, but I don't think he would allow us to have access to these resources if he didn't want it. I have a need, namely hunger, that I cannot remove from my person; therefore, I'm to either acquire property to consume or cease to exist. This doesn't account for all kinds of property, but certainly one kind. You can thank God and pay homage, but to abstain from doing something until you receive a 'sign' from God seems foolish.

[freepress666]

I do not accept any dogma religion as bases of any claim, only natural law, we are not what we see in the mirror, what it is, is a machine of matter, that vibrates at a frequency to assemble a form, your belief system dictates your needs and wants, therefor thoughts alone create your reality, the vessel you find yourself in at the moment is an illusion of your own making.

Nothing in this reality is solid only your thoughts and belief make it appear that way, it is through conditioning.

[freepress666]

What was just speculation as theory in science now embraces this as fact. CERN is to find the door to another dimension IE reality, To illustrate this in action one should be able to walk across hot coals in fire, just by belief one is not burned. Quick as any doubt comes to mind you burn through conditioning.

[selfrealizedexile]

Your statements are either semantics on what constitutes reality versus 'conditioning' or is bordering on insanity. Once again, I cannot will hunger away unless ofc you mean to suggest my death as an instance of "willing it away." Finally, I also find it ironic that you use terms largely invented in the fields of science (machine, matter, frequency, etc) to define your own description of reality.

I personally hold myself to a higher standard than subjectivism or nihilism.

[freepress666]

Hey really good chatting with ya, hang in there.

[selfrealizedexile]

I however am not pursuing any kind of contradictory violence or coercion against the state to change the current reality. I will instead go on acting only out of self-defense, voluntary order, and freedom.

I wonder if Milton Friedman was a closet anarchist or would've in time become one; he certainly withdrew later his Keynesian sentiments before his death with regards to the Fed for example and other issues.

[selfrealizedexile]

I came to this conclusion myself a few days ago after restudying Hayek for pleasure. Libertarians are Anarchists; they just don't know it yet. The type of gov't they want is really just a market arrangement if it is to be "fair" or "just"; you do not need and do not want a coercive monopoly to oversee it and limited gov't is indeed inherently contradictory with what Libertarians believe.

[ABlanketforDeath]

good video

[Fruerik]

Smthngdffrnt nails it. I'm pretty convinced that Ron Paul is a anarcho-capitalist. Some of his hang-around buddies were, after all, Rothbard, Lew Rockwell and the like. However, I see his present Constitunional message as a fantastic way to wake people up - the "truth" if you will would probably be too "complicated, extreme and unrealistic" for most people to phattom. What's important to understand is the dynamic of the free market. When you grasp it you just apply it in all areas and voilá!

[junior00bacon00chee]

@Fruerik

exactly. i couldnt agree more.

i cant imagine reading rothbard and then not at least being sympathetic towards anarcho-capitalist views (the science speaks for itself). in my mind Paul's biggest contribution is delegitimizing the central bank. I don't think murray, or anyone else for that matter, could have ever hoped to do what paul has done to the banksters. they are scared shitless for the first time in a hundred years.

[358Liberty]

I thought Ron Paul and Murray Rothbard knew each other pretty well didn't they?

[seestuff09]

BRILLIANT!!!

[KommanderWill]

Ron Paul is a pretty good defender of liberty, I will give him that. But he cannot come close to Murray Rothbard.

The problem I see with the modern libertarian movement is that the anarchists may eventually be wiped out. The anarcho-capitalist, Murray Rothbard, is gone, leaving the anarcho-capitalist community without a leader(except maybe Lew Rockwell). Someone needs to step up to the plate, be it Walter Block, Kinsella, or whoever.

[KommanderWill]

Now, the libertarian community is rallied around Ron Paul, and who I see as his legacy, Peter Schiff.

The libertarian community is currently splitting on the issue of intellectual property, and to a lesser extent central banking. I just hope either Paul or Schiff eventually turn anarchist,

[spiggitybap]

I agree that Ron Paul is no Rothbard. But Rothbard proved that freedom is economically inevitable. Sure, we need a leader. But if we don't get one, we will still get freedom in the long run.

[DrSammyD]

This is all solved with artificial inteligence

[Nielsio]

Humans are intelligent as well. Violence doesn't solve it; at least not for the people who are supposedly helped.

[beowulfcicero]

If this is the voice of Jeff Riggenbach reading the writings of Murray Rothbard, then why is it labeled "Ron Paul"? It should be called "Murray Rothbard on the inner contradictions of limited government".

[WorBlux]

From what I understand, it's a bit of a joke.

[beowulfcicero]

So is it supposed to be a joke at Ron Paul's expense, ridiculing him by comparing him to the anarchist Murray Rothbard? If so, I think it's pretty weak. Few people would get the joke, and Rothbard's words are not instantly ridiculous.

[WorBlux]

It's the one thing that he would not say, but most needs to. It is not derisive sort of humor, but one of those things that bring a smile to those people in the know.

If he did say this he would be more likely to attract lovers of liberty rather than haters of the current government.

For this reason rothbardians have a sort of continual frustration in dealing with so called minarchists, and this video is a sort of catharsis for dealing with such ideology.

[elliotcheely]

well said.

[junior00bacon00chee]

@beowulfcicero

why would that be ridicule? i would be honored to be compared to such a principled man, so devoted to truth and justice that he turned down all kinds of money and prestige that he could have had in search of something much more important.

[beowulfcicero]

Beside the point: It would be perceived as ridicule by some substantial demographic, and such a person may have uploaded this video. At any rate "Ron Paul" is a misattribution, possibly (to judge by some of the comments) for rhetorical purposes.

[smthngdffrnt]

If it was called "Murray Rothbard on the inner contradictions of limited government" then the only people who would watch it would be those who already agreed and it would be useless. It's labeled "Ron Paul" so that minarchists will watch it and be exposed to the logical inconsistancies of their own political philosophy, rather than just preaching to the quire. At least that's my guess.

[Lichtfels]

hm, imo it´s more "humans corrupting power", power itself can´t corrupt. The devil has no influence on you as long as you don´t listen or obey.

[yomamalikedit]

i think the understanding of this video shuld be the measure of one's IQ lol... how is it hard to understand? unless u are an adolescent just learning the complexity of this language it is easy to follow... in a nutshell, government and State is implemented and embedded to enforce and ensure laws, yet in its own nature it breaks those same laws, so it is a contradictory concept within itself..... bottom line Power corrupts!

[Burningeordie]

hard to follow but it makes some awesome points.

[samuelmichaud]

Bit robotic. But it gets to the point. However, this wouldn't convince the common man as it makes use of high vocabulary.

[spawk1993]

what does this have to do with ron paul? i mean i know he is a minarchistic but this isnt him talking so why is he in the title?

[VinBorges87]

Read below. It's "something Ron Paul *should* be saying".

[clthinkingman]

This video is a total BS double speak, read your Mises and understand:-)

[Nielsio]

What's double speak about it? By the way, this is from Rothbard.

[Nielsio]

I deleted your comment by accident, still had it in the cache. It was:

clthinkingman:

Because is it so CONFUSING you do more harm then good. It makes one think you are doing it delibiratly to confuse, if you were trying to make good case it would not be so confusing. The confusion makes the double speak, I seen enough bs from the far left to know the pattern.

[Nielsio]

What you seem to be missing is that this is done on purpose. Because these are the words that RP *should* say.

[selfrealizedexile]

@Nielsio

Honestly, my personal belief is he's a closet an-cap. No one hangs around the Mises Institute or Rothbard and doesn't make the jump (ostensibly) from limited-gov't Libertarian (what he is publicly) to an-cap. Ron Paul would have to hold out irrationally as the move is wholly deducible. I believe he is a rational man. It then follows he's a closet anarchist who's taking the pragmatist pov by sabotaging gov't from within.

[Nielsio]

@selfrealizedexile Check out my video 'ron paul on ideas, self-government and activism (with pete eyre)'.

[selfrealizedexile]

@Nielsio

Yeah, I've already seen that. Was this supposed to be in lieu to a counter or in support?

[Nielsio]

@selfrealizedexile He says if people want to live without government control they should be free to do so. I don't think it can get clearer than that.

[selfrealizedexile]

@Nielsio

But, again, the question was whether he is a pragmatic closet anarchist sabotaging gov't from within or if he is a misguided limited-gov't proponent. The displeasure expressed in just this comment section alone elucidates an annoyance from pure anarchists, suggesting his ostensible misguidance.

[Nielsio]

@selfrealizedexile Right. That was the observation until Ron Paul finally was asked this direct question and answered it favorably.

[jimmyjoe1975]

@selfrealizedexile I'm not so sure that being limited government is necessarily misguided. Like the 20 yr old who espouses Marxism in its Utopian form, anarchists often focus on the end state. Even with a magnificent currency crisis and a global dismantling of the central state, humans will reorganize. The voluntarist philosophy is only workable if a vast majority agrees. So matter the Utopia that the anarchist pursues, it is probable that compromise will be a must. Educate. Readiness. Wait

[selfrealizedexile]

@jimmyjoe1975

Well, Anarcho-Capitalism makes sense from an intellectual coherence standpoint. Ofc, most people are not moral enough to handle it, but Marxism fails the same intellectual coherence test when it gets broken down by the price system and if it's not, Anarcho-Communism/Synd, then it's unethical, too.

[jimmyjoe1975]

@selfrealizedexile I am with you intellectually. But to focus on it to the point of eschewing societal structures only aids the movement away from the idea. Ron Paul's method, even if he was vehemently against Rothbardism, is practical. He must see that Constitutional government leads to state competition and possible further dismantlement of governmental power. But we cannot rant/rave against any participation unless we intend to take that other unspeakable step.

[guyjunk]

@selfrealizedexile ..I agree and Tom Woods as well

[numbcheese]

wtf, this is bullshit... why in the hell would you do this

[haobio]

I find this video difficult to understand.

[nurbSoldier]

Shouldn't this voice have a higher pitch? Preferably with a Texas accent?

[ybworld]

No, this is the voice of Jeff Riggenbach, he is probably reading a writing of Murray Rothbard.

[croat88]

He has a good voice, kind of like Don LaFontaine.

[murphycline]

Do folks think that Paul believes in the necessity of government? Or has he felt it necessary, or advantageous, to work within an inherently immoral system as opposed to taking the moral high ground and avoiding it completely? Wonder if Paul would push farther if the US ever operated under the system he purports to advocate? Is he a libertarian leaning conservative, a minarchist, or a closet anarcho-capitalist? I'm inclined to believe a mixture between one and two, but not sure.

[brainpolice2]

It is a bit ironic though that Ron Paul is the person you chose as the speaker here, since he favors limited government.

[Nielsio]

Look at my playlist 'Seeing the light' and you should be able to understand what's going on.

[boredanddumb]

omg , i am sooooooo confused here , some of the words said are too extravagant ..well..not extravagant more just...well..the whole video ,the pacing the title,the lenght and the words are a bit too ..ouch , a reply with the summary of the video with a title explanation wuld be nice, am srry for the inconvinience.

[kmksrh1275]

whered u hear tht?

[Dymaxionpz]

Great quick lesson in govt and individual liberty.

Thanks for posting!

I'm happy to subscribe.

[SlickExecutiveType]

Very well done sir.

Free Nielsio!

[jimlick]

I'm confused about the title. Did Ron Paul write any of this? I don't see anything saying that Ron Paul contributed to this book.

[Seiku]

No its by Murray Rothbard, though if you check out the mises channel there are some books or sections written by Ron Paul. This is though what Ron Paul studied.

[MatthewLeee]

Amazing he wasn't convinced.

[HarryNRubin]

this is very cool, but i still like ron paul :P

[BrightAnarchist]

After watching this, I'm going to go buy a copy of Rothbard's book.

[Nielsio]

hehe ;)

[BrightAnarchist]

Amazing vid, thanks for posting this.

[ProprietorOfSelf]

wow! ron paul has really come around hasn't he? lol.

[ShamanWS6]

Fantastic video.

[lukeev]

Great video, Nielsio.