If I do not pay taxes I go to jail. If I don't give the mugger my money I get shot.. its theft. To take my money first, disperse it, and give me what they think they owe me back...
Still I am going to do more research but from the bit I have done today I am leaning towards that. If I can find anything really solid on classical libertarianism I will put it up or send it to you. I was even thinking of putting up work and info on it myself because many people don't know about it and it is history is very important not just as it influecned directly American creation it influenced so many countries and took away the out right powers of monarchy in a nutshell.
Sorry, I just remembered something. I mean its been some time for me so forgive me not being maximally sharp. Classical Libertarianism is I believe what is called in american and in "New World". I just remembered that I believe it is not called that in europe, so in the USA and many latin america. People versed in philosophy and economics might regonize when I use that term. Sorry, Its been a bit of time for me still as I tend to focus more on philosophical principals, not terms
@Ryukikon For your first question, watch the youtube video "Ron Paul and the six kinds of libertarian". For your second question, I'd check wikipedia.
I did check wiki and a few articles and videos about voluntarism before asking the question. I will watch the video(surety) however from you are saying to me conceptually their is little to no difference between a classical libertarian and a voluntarist. THis was my initial suspicion I will still read more and hold off on a final judgment that the use of these terms is conceptually interchangeable as they equal the same thing
@Ryukikon I am not familiar with the term classical libertarian. I know classical liberal, and I know libertarian. Libertarian and voluntarist mean pretty much the same thing (although some would use libertarianism in a more 'big tent' sense). Classical liberals generally supported small states. This distinguishes them from voluntarists. Libertarians had Austrian Economics available to them, and they applied it to law/security, whereas the classical liberals assumed the state is necessary.
When I heard about this term and as I became more famillar with it, there seems to be no difference between classical libertarianism and voluntarism or voluntaryism. liberalism and libertarianism differ but the classical verison is a more specific idea mold and is not changable for the times as people often do with the word liberal and libertarian. Classical Libertarianism is taught as a subject in coll/uni and has a big western back history.
we seem to be talking about the same thing anyway lol, just two different names for the same apple as I think I have seen some of the same historical names for classical libertarianism as Voluntarism and in my study of it as a course. I think the difference is Classical Libertarianism is more developed, socio-economic-polictical movement that stems from voluntaryism or voluntarism. Liberals being the more supporters of gov intervention as nessary and classic libterians saying no
I'm an AnCap and I am fully behind Ron Paul and campaigning for him. There is nothing wrong with political action if we can use it to actually reduce the power and size of the state. We should just sit back and wait for the people to withdraw their consent? I want to make our lives better now with less oppressive violence of the state. Let's end the police state, the warfare state, and start reducing the welfare state.
I believe in voluntarism over minarchism, but what motivates me to support Ron Paul and vote for him is the fact that the establishment conspire against him and are always trying to cheat him by rigging the debates and polls against him. My inclination is to fight against whatever the establishment tries to do, in this case they don't want people to vote for Ron so I'm going to vote for him. We should think militarily and not just philosophically, this IS a war.
I'd agree with this, and I might even put Ron Paul above Murray Rothbard because Paul seems open to the concept of "I don't know", where Rothbard thought you could easily define "Force" within a couple of pages. That's what pisses me off about all these "Anarcho-Capitalists" and newfound "Libertarian Objectivists", they seem to think that taking language for granted can somehow eliminate ambiguity in the world. Ron Paul & Von Mises = Good.
Yeah, Ron Paul is a closet AnCap/Voluntarist. I mean how else to you get such support from Murray Rothbard, Lew Rockwell, Walter Block, everyone involved in the Mises Institute, and etc... He is much more "radical" on his views of the state than he comes off in speeches. It comes out more in his writing.
Just came across this: To believe in liberty is not to believe in any particular social and economic outcome. It is to trust the spontaneous order that emerges when the state does not intervene in human volition and human cooperation. It permits people to work out their problems for themselves, build lives for themselves, take risks and accept responsibility for the results, and make their own decisions.- Liberty Defined intro
@Wesker1982 I found this last night too: If the government is granted a monopoly on the use of force to achieve these goals, history shows that that power is always abused. Every single time.
So unless he wants power to be abused, this is a clear endorsement for non-monopolistic law.
@darris321 you mean on unowned property? If you killed this person on someone's property, the property owner's defense agency would take care of it. If you murdered this person in the middle of nowhere on unowned land, whoever found the body would probably inform their respective agency. They would have interest in taking the case because it is in their interest to not have people being murdered. The more risk of being murdered, the more the cost of operation. Think of it like insurance.
@Wesker1982 I agree that they would have interest in stopping killers, however, I don't think it would prove to be financially viable to investigate a string of murders of non paying customers, especially since it would be a helluva lot of investigating that might not produce any results.
In the current system, a murderer is more likely to get away than not.
The state also provides the possibility of giving therapy to criminals so that they won't continue crime. I think in anarchy, the incentive
@Wesker1982 ... would more likely be to just execute them.
Why would you house someone in prison? Now, I'm not suggesting that people wouldn't ever be put in prison, but I think that, when the crime was big enough for the company to get away with it, a bullet to the brain is cheaper than a lifetime of prison/therapy.
@grahampwright I don't understand why you think that an open border policy is "forced integration." There is an open border between my city and the adjacent towns and cities around me. Does this mean that I and other people in the city I live in are victims of forced integration simply because anyone from the surrounding towns are free to cross the imaginary borders and enter the city? That doesn't make sense to me.
@WelcometotheUnknown That is one of Block's criticisms of Hoppe. Read their articles in the 1998 JLS, and then read Block's reply to Hoppe in 2007 to understand the argument better.
I'm not sure who is right, but my point is that a voluntarist argument can be made, and is made by the great HHH, in favor of restricted immigration.
Paul isn't compromising; he's standing with Hoppe. You or I may not agree with them, but I don't think that disqualifies them from being called voluntarists.
@grahampwright A voluntarist argument cannot be made for the government restricting immigration. Voluntarism is incompatible with government. Although I don't believe that we will be freed by political means, I believe that Ron Paul is a great educator of liberty.
@fnuzzoiv Yes, voluntarism is incompatible with government, but a voluntarist argument can and has been made for the government restricting immigration, given the existence of the state. Read Hans Hoppe's 'On Free Immigration and Forced Integration'.
Whether you agree with it or not, it does count as a voluntarist argument for the government restricting immigration, given that the government exists.
@grahampwright I will read it, but I still think that is a conservative argument. The government can't afford it, so initiate force against people. I believe that I should be able to allow a peaceful person onto my property regardless of governemnt granted citizenship status.
@grahampwright Ron Paul supports taxing people to fund his illegal immigration policies, does he not?
And the act of taxing someone is an act of aggression, is it not?
Thus, even if Hoppe's point is legitimate and the violence against the people who cross the government borders can somehow be justified in voluntarist/libertarian terms, it is still very clear that Paul's views are inconsistent with voluntarist/libertarian principles. So why call him one?
@WelcometotheUnknown Wait a minute. You said RP is taxing to fund his illegal immigration policy? Be more specific.
You also said taxing someone is a sign of aggression? Wow, do you even know what taxes are? There are tons of taxes that pay for tons of things such as teachers, freeways ect.
Very ignorant statements.
Although taxes may never always go to its right purpose its very ignorant to say someone is aggressive just because of a tax policy you fail to understand.
@TrueGreatness73 Hi, please consider for a moment that your understanding of taxation that is in error. To tax someone, whether it an income tax, a sales tax, or any other tax, and whether it be to fund an immoral genocide or to pay school teachers to educate impoverished children, is an act of aggression. This is because the person who is imposing the tax uses violent force or the threat thereof to steal the property of others. Taxation is incompatible with the non-aggression principle.
@grahampwright Hmm, I still disagree. I agree that there are different degrees of closed borders, yes, but I think the only kind of border that is consistent with voluntarism is a completely open border. Any other government border is a border in which the governments creates and enforces some restriction as to who is allowed to cross it and/or under what conditions it is allowed to be crossed. This necessarily involves coercing individuals unjustly and is thus inconsistent with voluntarism.
If my links don't work, all I did was find a couple of the sickening news stories about the government arresting people for hiring "illegal immigrants" or "harboring" them in their homes and about the government forcefully deporting these "illegals" from their voluntarily acquired jobs back to Mexico. Just because immigration would be a non-issue in a voluntarist society does not mean that there is not a voluntarist position on immigration--there is and Ron Paul opposes it.
@WelcometotheUnknown We've both been oversimplifying. There is much ground between "open borders / pro-immigration" and "closed borders / anti-immigration". The reality is a lot more complicated than that and I don't know the nuances of RP's position on this. I don't know whether RP supported government action in those particular instances. My whole point has been that its a non-issue from the voluntarist point-of-view so any stance he takes is going to be open to criticism from voluntarists.
@grahampwright I disagree with your claim that there is no voluntarist position on immigration. A voluntarist living under a state can still recognize that it's wrong to coerce "illegal immigrants" to prevent them from coming into the county or to remove them from the country.
An "open borders" policy could be viewed as forced integration. A "closed borders" policy could be viewed as forced exclusion. It all depends how you see it. No matter what stance Paul takes, he could be accused of advocating force. The only voluntarist position is to get rid of the state and then the whole borders issue disappears.
@WelcometotheUnknown In other words, asking a voluntarist "do you think the State borders should be open or closed?" is liking asking a non-wife-beater "do you still beat your wife, yes or no?". There is a faulty premise in the question, so no answer is possible.
@grahampwright Originally I thought that Paul's position on immigration was inconsistent with voluntarism because he supports having the government use force illegitimately against illegal immigrants.
"If the government excludes a person while even one domestic resident wants to admit this very person onto his property, the result is forced exclusion" (lewrockwell(dot)com/orig/hermann-hoppe1.html).
Paul supports such forceful exclusion, does he not? Therefore he is not a voluntarist.
@WelcometotheUnknown There is no voluntarist/libertarian position on immigration or border control, simply because in a free society, there is no such thing, it's a non-issue. But given that RP is positioning himself as a Constitutionalist, he must have some policy on immigration. Its invalid to try to measure his policy position against voluntarism because there is no voluntarist position on this.
Watch Paul's ad on securing America's borders and read the user comments. He's not a voluntarist for sure given his position on illegal immigration. Also, looking at the comments I am very skeptical of the amount of real education that he is responsible. I'm not going to vote.
@WideWorldOfWisdom Ha! I added it at the last minute actually, and I now kinda regret it because without the y it rolls off the tongue better. My thinking at the time was that I didn't want people to confuse it with "volunteerism", as in working for no pay at a soup kitchen or something. I dropped the y for my follow-up video.
Some more Ron Paul recommended Voluntaryists are: Mary Ruwart, Robert Higgs, Bryan Caplan, Terry Anderson (cowrote An American Experiment in Anarcho Capitalism: The Not So Wild West), Mark Thornton, and Henry David Thoreau. These were found in Liberty Defined except for Mary Ruwart, but Ron Paul is quoted on the back of her book Healing Our World (he recommends it obv lol).
@craigslistflow Incorrect! Voluntaryists believe that all human relations should be by mutual consent, or not at all--with NO EXCEPTIONS. Government--even "small" or "limited" is involuntary; otherwise, it would be a contract. VoluntaryistDOTcom.
@Jupitarius Not really true ... he may have strands of anarchism with huge loads of pacifism, non-interventionism, ovt. only as an umbrella which states and locals cannot cover, pro-activism, anti-coercive...and thats exactly what it is ..voluntaryism!
I believe the last 2 above are the key...being pro-active about doing good and thus inspiring others to do good!
BTW, anarchism is not a bad word to me! It does not convey a sense of anything violent and coercive to me!
@Jupitarius I think you're right. I'm a longtime RP supporter, yet this video was eye-opening to me, in a good way. I'm not sure if I'd even heard of `voluntaryist` until I saw this video. I guess I need to read more of his books!
excusable, though - you young people (yes, even at 31) are so full of energy but have few actual thought out ideas.It's all about iconoclasm and contrarianism of everything except the hip trendy alternative pop culture that rots the brain and consumes all time.A great country to never grow up in.
this is silly - just another great example of the deficit of intellect in this country. Even the smart people here are stupid.Just let this nation of sheeple go back to the time honored traditions of letting the corporations run the government and create the illusion of a giant pasture for the sheeple to graze in, and the government maintaining the veil of norms, traditions, and statist values that all have come to embrace as "normal."Pathetic...
Why would someone who doesn't believe in government run for government? It doesn't make sense, I like Ron Paul because he irritates all the other candidates so much that biased media sources try not to mention his name or try to say he is a cook with out any scratch of evidence but I am still skeptical.
But hey maybe I jam just suspicious of anyone calling themselves a politician nowadays
anyone making the argument that paul doesnt go far enough, in that he should trash the constitution, needs to have their head examined. "anarchists" need to stop acting like crabs in a barrel, the cause for reducing government is already stifled with misinformation and demagoguery. ENOUGH with your purity tests from utopia. we're all impressed with your knowledge on privatization, now quit rehashing tired characterizations from the likes of Molyneaux. quit sniping our friends. this is ridiculous
I can't believe Ron Paul is going to win. And that is why I support him. The moment I thought he had a chance, I would wote for whom ever was the other alternative. Unless it was clear that both he and most of the population REALLY understood what would happen if libertarian policies(that means no policies, everyone goes home) were enacted. I think too many people view Ron Paul as a knight who will save us all. That is not possible. So liberty will be blamed for the disaster with him in office.
@mortalisk Actually, I take that back. I would probably still vote for him. He is such a trustworthy and honest guy, I just wouldn't be able to vote against him no matter what.
The ideology of minarchists and voluntaryists/anarcho-capitalists are basically the same, and are grouped under the umbrella of the Libertarian Party. I think that we need to limit government before we can get rid of it. I haven't decided which of the sub-groups of libertarianism I am, but frankly I think that I'd support either and in this case Ron Paul is the man for the job, minarchist or voluntaryist. But it must be said that Ron Paul is a constitutionalist, so probably minarchist.
If Ron Paul was a true Voluntaryist, he wouldn't defend the Constitution, believe in the "rule of law," or be in office enabling and legitimizing a system that steals, kills and destroys. Get a clue.
@DougKendall He defends the Constitution when in the mainstream spotlight. He favors a limited Constitutional government over what we have now: Leviathan. He does not defend the Constitution against voluntaryist arguments, like those made by Lysander Spooner. Perhaps you should get one of the many clues Ron Paul leaves for you to find, and not judge him by how he presents himself to Statists.
@grahampwright He, himself, is a Statist; and more so than most people, since he is actually a part of the State apparatus. People have had over 200 years to vote for a better way of life, and it hasn't worked--and never will. The only way to beat this rigged game is by not playing it and letting it collapse. It will take time, and education, but there is no hope for change in voting. I have been on the inside and I have seen how it is played. Time to stop the cruel joke.
@DougKendall Yes, we are. Unless you start your own island or live in an unincorporated forest, you're a part of the state apparatus. I'm sorry, you're wrong about that. That isn't to say when the opportunity comes up, you wouldn't move, you might, but right now you're just complaining on the internet and your anti-statism is in your mind.
Being a congressmen doesn't mean one's ideology is sucked from their body, just as living in a state doesn't.
@s0beit No, we are NOT. I am not a part of government--and I hope that neither are you. Just because we are oppressed by a system doesn't mean we are a part of it (participate in it, employed by it, etc.). And I shouldn't have to uproot everything I have just to get away from people like you who would destroy my freedom. And if a person is in government, but claims to have an anti-government ideology, they are a hypocrite and a liar. Period.
@DougKendall Even if he actively votes against all infringements of rights? Tell me, there's been an explosion in the voluntarism movement and libertarianism movement, hasn't there? What do you attribute that to, exactly?
The government is an abstract, nobody is "part" of it, it isn't an entity separate from us, it's just a bunch of people taking part in a monopoly. To say that if somebody is a teacher in state sponsored schools, they are automatically a statist is a retarded position.
@s0beit Voting against infringements of "rights" is a retarded position; you shouldn't have to, in the first place, and history has shown it to be a wasted effort.
@DougKendall you clearly didn't understand the video you just watched. RP's point was that if he can make the point *by saying those things*, it is much more easily understand by the masses. not that your comment really warranted a reply, as @grahampwright already dealt with you quite handily.
@grahampwright -sounds like the theme song for a Lifetime channel miniseries on domestic violence starring jane Seymour or some other dimming female icon.
And that second video, so if I wanna live in a social enclave I get to be free? If I just eat berries and shit and churn my own butter, but if I wanna trade with anyone I'll get taxed, isn't that what he means?
I have a better way to be free, don't vote and don't pay my taxes and when the robbers come to rob me i shoot them dead. lots more efficient.
@gradiu3rox He's using the constitution as his political vehicle.. He's a full-blooded rothbardian at heart. In fact, he was good friends with rothbard. They saw eye to eye.
@grahampwright you can't argue with these people my friend. they're so entrenched. they're so far up the asshole of anarchism, they can't take a breathe of fresh air for what its worth. they sit around here theorizing about no state, while they reject someone honestly trying to reduce it, as if most people will even consider anti-statism without experiencing or dabbling in libertarianism. its mind boggling.
@abortabraham Mr. Self-Righteous, the People have had over 200 years to do things your way--voting--and what has it gotten us? More taxes, more street cameras, more war, more currency devaluation, more surveillance in our society, more laws, more regulations, more unemployment...and on and on. Have fun with that. I choose REAL freedom, and that means removing support and participation in political games and slavery systems. It's no "utopia"; it's about freedom--and with it comes responsibility.
@DougKendall i hate to break it to you, and i used to believe 99% of what molyneaux said too, but its pie in the sky. if someone wants to go into the mafia system and turn it into a charity, let the man do it. if he wants to have sound money, let him have sound money. if he wants to end the war, let him end the war. you will not have anarchism in your lifetime until the population believes in limited government, so what is the point of sharking at ron paul's heels?
@abortabraham You can't turn government into a charity, if money is forcibly taken from other people in order to fund it. Someone else telling me what my money will have to be is not a choice. Ron Paul would mysteriously die if he were to cut off war profiteering. The point is that people have tried it your way for a couple hundred years, and it hasn't worked. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. It's past time for a different plan.
@DougKendall it doesnt matter whether he can actually do it, what matters is the beliefs of the people, and it doesnt serve anarchism to throw purity tests on ron paul when it is evident through his words that he believes the same things, but isn't totally pie in the sky about it. liberatarianism is pie in the sky enough. the burden of proof that anarchy is better is on anarchy, not the state, and a philosophy that "anarchy is ok" is as close as its going to get to meet that burden of proof.
@abortabraham No, it matters a great deal whether or not "he can do it." And it's not about "purity tests"; it's about one simple thing: Other people are not your property, and they shouldn't be subjected to forced rule, by others--or have to vote (beg Master) for mercy. The system is evil, and nothing but well-dressed slavery. And I prefer Voluntaryism, not traditional anarchy.
@DougKendall the belief in restricting people's rule over others is best served by shafting ron paul. is that what you're saying? you have no responsibility in bringing down the state and saving lives by supporting bringing our troops home, nope, not at all. this is about an intellectual ivory tower, and some fictitious future scenario where the government collapses and people explore the philosophy of voluntaryism, here's the kicker, without even seeing libertarianism in action. am i wrong?
@abortabraham Strawman. I have seen the game from the inside (ran for Congress and State House; managed two state-level campaigns; was Executive Director of a state political party--before I woke up). The game is rigged, and most elections are already predetermined. It's all a cruel joke. Ron Paul is just another tool, being used to keep the disillusioned folks thinking they have another chance to make a difference. And RP recently said he can "only be so independent," anyway. He will not win.
@DougKendall its a strawman because i don't know what you're getting at! of all that political work you did, were any of them remotely like ron paul? did any of them have the influence & years of experience in teaching others about economy and constitution? did YOU? do you think RP supporters will stand idly by if he decides to let the fed go, or continue the wars? there's a huge investment in this man, more than obama. he echoes your same concerns about our system. do we ignore him for liberty?
@abortabraham Look, you're wasting your time with me when it comes to Ron Paul. I actually hosted an event for him, a few years ago, so I know where he stands. Now that I've seen behind the curtain, I no longer support him or ANY politician. Using force against others is evil, and I'm not going to perpetuated the system by supporting even "small" government candidates. Voting has been tried for over two centuries, and it has failed. Collapse is the only thing that will make a difference.
@DougKendall so if we want liberty, our best step is to ignore ron paul. imagine if ron paul never came into the spotlight. imagine if he did not exist. where would a liberty & free markets movement be? nowhere. on the fringe, and i mean FRINGE. would that benefit us at all? we wouldnt even "be" us today. to have the message of liberty be flooded out by statism? i see nothing you or i can possibly gain from that. imagine a "collapse" without any ron pauls. pure statism at the end of the tunnel.
@DougKendall and this whole idea of some grand collapse, its very teleological. i dont think its anything to bank on and its a disservice to say our solution is to do nothing and wait. not really do nothing, but get on youtube and talk about liberty, and convert liberals to our message by telling them they are gun-toting marxists and barbarians. it doesn't work!!!! you should know that by now. liberty will not go mainstream in chaos, it will be totalitarianism.
@abortabraham And you would have us go on for another 200 years (the country won't last that long) and continue to participate in a rigged game that has gotten us nothing but more taxation, wars, murders, assassinations, invasions, unemployment, currency devaluation, secret experiments on the population...and on and on? Is that what you would have us endure? Screw that. We've tried your way and it has failed. Time for something new. Step aside; you're holding up progress.
@DougKendall people will not support liberty if they dont know about it. its sad but true. when your doomsday SHTF scenario comes, liberty will not prevail. businesses understand the principle behind marketing, apparently you do not. your philosophy of government fails is true, but its unpopular and you're making it harder to get across. real libertarianism is 1 step away from anarchy, but if you're going to make it harder to expose people to these ideas, you're shooting yourself in the foot.
@abortabraham I am a business manager, and have taught college business classes, so, yes, I understand marketing. And a good business manager knows when to abandon a failed business model. Apparently, you do not. It's time for positive change, and voting isn't going to do it for you. Bringing new people into the fold, with the idea that politicians can help them, is not helping to restore freedom. I've made my points and I stand by them. Feel free to have the last word, if you feel so inclined,
@DougKendall my goal was never to convert you. i want to understand the logic behind your decision. i see it, but i don't think it yields the intended results. we can agree to disagree. i'm all for alternatives but i know damn well i wouldnt give any credence to them if it wasn't for my exposure to libertarianism. i want that opportunity to exist for others, if it means backing ron paul, so be it. also people have herd mentality, when they see ron paul winning, i think they'll consider our views
@grahampwright man, they sent an old lady last time, and cause i live in japan they don't let me buy guns, but as soon as they send a guy with a badge and a gun and I'll let you know how it goes. But I haven't paid my city tax since January or so and it's going pretty good. Got lots more money.
My point being I won't beg for freedom and until everyone has the same view as me we're not going to achieve freedom. Choosing leaders is the problem. Ron Paul is a distraction from the truth
@gradiu3rox Your strategy for achieving freedom is to shoot tax collectors... and yet you don't have a gun, because the government says you can't have gun. I can see a problem with your strategy. But yeah, let me know how it goes.
Ron Paul the Voluntaryist? That's like saying: "I'm against extortion, so I'm going to try to become the chief Mafia boss and abolish organized crime."
@furyofbongos Ron Paul has a platform to get heard. Keep shooting him down if you really feel you need to, and keep Voluntarism cliquish so that Voluntarists can be that cool, fringe element that can always defeat any internet argument. i for one, am ready to see Voluntarism become the status quo. I am tired of pointing out the obvious. winning internet debates gives me little satisfaction, compared to seeing my daughter have a chance to live in a free society.
@grahampwright - no, but I haven't seen anyone else yet be as clear as to the belief system that is government. His Tiny Dot video relates to my point. It's not the government that is the problem it's what's in people's minds. Rose's Tiny Dot Explained goes into this more clearly. That's why I have trouble w/ Ron Paul's approach. I'm still on the fence, actually, but it wasn't Ron Paul that got me to see the light. Lots see him as a kind of savior which is counterproductive IMO.
Graham, I noticed you read my blog post on Ron Paul Forums about Ron Paul and private courts. Did you agree with my analysis? I think I made a pretty strong case, but any criticisms would be appreciated.
To anyone who wants more strong evidence that Ron Paul is a Voluntaryist, go to Ron Paul forums and search for a blog post named "Ron Paul and Private Courts". You can either just search my screename Wesker1982 or go to the 2nd or 3rd page of the blogs page (should be at the top of page 2)
@Wesker1982 Great job. It will be useful for my next video.
To anyone who wants to help contribute to that, search my for my post "Follow-up to Ron Paul is a Voluntaryist" at The Voluntary City. Pictures and videos are needed.
The problem here is the guy posting this video is trying to persuade people that Voluntaryist is some sort of political party and not just a personal frame of mind. There is no contradiction with being a politician who bases all of his decisions on the Constitution that he swore an oath to abide by and believing in a Voluntaryist society where everyone has a choice to live how they want so long as it doesn't infringe on the personal rights of anyone else. That is why Taxes are considered illegal
@tytan01 The guy posting this video has created his own definition of Voluntaryist which is not only wrong but also does not fit with Paul. So I agree 100% with what you are saying. About the definition of Voluntaryist if anyone is interested in the real definition I refer them to Wikipedia or the Oxford English Dictionary.
@independence4wales Definitions are never RIGHT or WRONG. They are always either USEFUL for communicating ideas, or NOT USEFUL for communicating ideas. An objection to my definition is not an objection to the point I make in the video, which is that Ron Paul, despite how he presents himself to the mainstream, holds the IDEAS I list under my definition of 'Voluntaryist' and NOT the ideas I list under my definition of 'Minarchist'.
RON PAUL, WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR AN ANSWER! TELL AMERICAN PEOPLE HOW EXACTLY RU GOING TO CREATE JOBS? OK LETS SAY ALL TROOPS CAME BACK AND THEN WHAT? THEY ARE GOING TO SELL IPHONES AND BLACKBERRIES? DUDE BE A MEN, HOW RU GOING TO CREATE JOBS? POPULATION OF CHINA IS 1.4 B CHINESE WORK LIKE ROBOTS, BE HONEST TELL AMERICAN PEOPLE TO BUY UR BOOK U NEED CASH , U LOVE POWER, U LOVE CASH, U WILL NEVER CREATE JOBS, U HAVE NO ANSWER!
@grahampwright Yes, I do not label people. So going back to the original question, why your preoccupation with labeling people? In case your wondering why I am asking. You have made a 6min 29sec video dedicated to labeling someone.
@independence4wales I could not fit a DESCRIPTION of Ron Paul's philosophy in the title of this video. So I used a label which REPRESENTS the philosophy. That's why everyone uses labels, including you. Pretending you don't label people is silly. You label people with their names, don't you? Labels represent ideas. The label 'Voluntaryist' represents different ideas to different people, which is why I went to the trouble of providing the definition I am using.
@grahampwright Are you saying labeling someone with a name is the same as labeling someone with a philosophy/ideas? Of course you are free to define what your definition of something is but when you "label" someone with your definition it should be accurate. Again I ask where, in this video or anywhere else, has Paul ever said he doesn't believe in the state?
Ron Paul is not a Voluntaryist. A Voluntaryist renounces electoral politics in any way, shape or form, because even voting--let alone running for office--serves to strengthen the State in its hegemony over its citizen-serfs by condoning its usurped authority and confirming it in its falsely proclaimed legitimacy. If you would understand the principles of Voluntaryism, take a look at the website of The Voluntaryist.
@nednetterville Renouncing electoral politics is not part of the definition of a Voluntaryist. Non-voting is a strategy that some Voluntaryists choose to adopt. The problem with such principled non-voting as a strategy is that a principled non-vote cannot be distinguished from an apathetic non-vote.
@nednetterville Wiki says Voluntaryism is stateless. With no state there are no elections. Also Wiki says rejection of electoral politics. So I agree with you. Ron Paul obeys the constitution simple and believes in Austrian Economics, simple as that
@grahampwright So you have created your own "definition" of Voluntaryist which is different to what text dictionaries define it as. Bravo. On top of that you also misunderstand the subject you are talking about ie Ron Paul. 23seconds into the video for example you state Ron Paul's philosophy is that there should be no state. Which is completely false. If you have a reference supporting your statement I would take the time to read it.
@independence4wales Thanks for this substantive disagreement. This is much more interesting than bickering about labels and definitions. My reference is Ron Paul himself: the quotes and clips in the video. He opposes the initiation of violence (i.e. aggression) and believes taxation is theft. This is his philosophy, and it clearly precludes a state, because (unless you use some other definition of state) the state is necessarily aggressive and obtains revenues by taxation.
@grahampwright It sounds like you are saying your definition for something to be called a country/state (validly) it must attack other countries and it must take taxes from the people in that state/country with the use of force. I don't believe anyone on the planet would agree with that definition. Please state your source with regards to where you are getting your definition of a "State" from. Oxford Dictionary Definition "..an organized political community under one government"
@independence4wales I use the standard libertarian definition of a State, used by Rothbard and Hoppe, for example. See Rothbard's Anatomy of the State (audio is on my channel). Using State and country interchangeably as you do here is not useful for communicating ideas. Yes, States are necessarily aggressive (not necessarily against other states, but against their own subjects, to tax and to maintain their monopoly) under this standard libertarian definition.
@grahampwright I googled "Rothbard's Anatomy of the State" 1st result, interesting read. However the point still remains, you say Ron Paul wants to get rid of the state/government when he has said no such thing. He has said it should be kept small and out of peoples lives as much as possible but he has never said the USA should be without the government/state. If he has please send me a link.
@independence4wales He presents himself to the mainstream as a limited-government advocate for strategic reasons. But the quotes and clips I provide show that 'under the surface' he doesn't really believe in any State at all. He says taxation is theft. He opposes all initiations of violence. He says that security provision is best left to private institutions. He says that no Constitution can ever work to effectively limit government. He says his goal is self-government (aka voluntaryism).
@independence4wales Why would he say these things if he genuinely believed a small State to be preferable to no State at all? Has he ever argued against voluntaryist views, in favor of minarchism/constitutionalism? Doesn't it seem to you as though he is very deliberately trying to guide people towards the fullest expression of libertarianism, i.e. voluntaryism?
@grahampwright I think your reaching here. From your video, he doesn't say his goal is self government, he says if your goal is self government/socialism/etc then you should be free to do it. His goal is for people to be able to live the way they want to live. About the Constitution 2.32mins, he says many politicians have gone against the document they have pledged to obey, okay, what is your point?
@independence4wales Well he does say MY goal, but even your interpretation would make him a voluntaryist. Minarchists cannot allow individuals to secede from government and make their own law/security arrangements: their whole point is that law/security must be produced by a territorial monopoly, or else there is chaos. About the Constitution, the quote at 2.38mins is stronger: Constitutions can NEVER work. Pretty strange thing for a Constitutionalist to say, no?
@grahampwright I think you are deliberately misinterpreting what he says and writes to suit your own agenda, whatever that is. Of course you are free to do so but you have to expect people to pick you up on it
One quote I would have added on the security part from Liberty Defined: The government is incapable of doing what it's suppose to do. A job like the provision of security is something best left to private institutions. -Liberty Defined, Page 288
0. Ron Paul knows from his experience that the current Democracy cannot stop the government from growing itself. Our courts are corrupted to the point they do not follow the constitution, 75% of population is bribed by affirmative-action entitlements, CIA is unreachable. Is a simply better framework needed, or the "right" ideas will keep the populace in check for generations?
1. The ideas are indeed the most powerful forces. We, as people, just have to remember, that besides the ideas (products of our minds) there is a reality which we can never understand fully. So any ideas are just a blueprint for an framework that actually works. And we know that NOTHING is perfect. The private policing may result in mafia type consolidation or CIA-type secret superstructure in no time.
2. That is the challenge to intellectual minds to come up with SECURE, IRON-CLAD, workable frameworks. Otherwise, we are reduce ourselves to Marxian sects who fought each other for the purity of their "true" ideological nuance.
If I do not pay taxes I go to jail. If I don't give the mugger my money I get shot.. its theft. To take my money first, disperse it, and give me what they think they owe me back...
fiolds350 3 days ago
Good sound bites ..... however ....
your gawd/idol RP signed the GOP Persoonhood Pledge:
AND he authored a bill that would provide for the ESTABLISHMENT of a STATE RELIGION!!!
finnegante1 1 week ago
Still I am going to do more research but from the bit I have done today I am leaning towards that. If I can find anything really solid on classical libertarianism I will put it up or send it to you. I was even thinking of putting up work and info on it myself because many people don't know about it and it is history is very important not just as it influecned directly American creation it influenced so many countries and took away the out right powers of monarchy in a nutshell.
Ryukikon 2 weeks ago
@grahampwright
Sorry, I just remembered something. I mean its been some time for me so forgive me not being maximally sharp. Classical Libertarianism is I believe what is called in american and in "New World". I just remembered that I believe it is not called that in europe, so in the USA and many latin america. People versed in philosophy and economics might regonize when I use that term. Sorry, Its been a bit of time for me still as I tend to focus more on philosophical principals, not terms
Ryukikon 2 weeks ago
I would like to know what is the difference between a Classical libertarianism and voluntarism. Also Which came first as a term?
Ryukikon 2 weeks ago
@Ryukikon For your first question, watch the youtube video "Ron Paul and the six kinds of libertarian". For your second question, I'd check wikipedia.
grahampwright 2 weeks ago
I did check wiki and a few articles and videos about voluntarism before asking the question. I will watch the video(surety) however from you are saying to me conceptually their is little to no difference between a classical libertarian and a voluntarist. THis was my initial suspicion I will still read more and hold off on a final judgment that the use of these terms is conceptually interchangeable as they equal the same thing
Ryukikon 2 weeks ago
@Ryukikon I am not familiar with the term classical libertarian. I know classical liberal, and I know libertarian. Libertarian and voluntarist mean pretty much the same thing (although some would use libertarianism in a more 'big tent' sense). Classical liberals generally supported small states. This distinguishes them from voluntarists. Libertarians had Austrian Economics available to them, and they applied it to law/security, whereas the classical liberals assumed the state is necessary.
grahampwright 2 weeks ago
@grahampwright
When I heard about this term and as I became more famillar with it, there seems to be no difference between classical libertarianism and voluntarism or voluntaryism. liberalism and libertarianism differ but the classical verison is a more specific idea mold and is not changable for the times as people often do with the word liberal and libertarian. Classical Libertarianism is taught as a subject in coll/uni and has a big western back history.
Ryukikon 2 weeks ago
@grahampwright
we seem to be talking about the same thing anyway lol, just two different names for the same apple as I think I have seen some of the same historical names for classical libertarianism as Voluntarism and in my study of it as a course. I think the difference is Classical Libertarianism is more developed, socio-economic-polictical movement that stems from voluntaryism or voluntarism. Liberals being the more supporters of gov intervention as nessary and classic libterians saying no
Ryukikon 2 weeks ago
I'm an AnCap and I am fully behind Ron Paul and campaigning for him. There is nothing wrong with political action if we can use it to actually reduce the power and size of the state. We should just sit back and wait for the people to withdraw their consent? I want to make our lives better now with less oppressive violence of the state. Let's end the police state, the warfare state, and start reducing the welfare state.
Jingles2423x 3 weeks ago
But they are to use "justice", so they must defend others from "you" as well....and anarchists don't like that part. Tough shit, you commies...
ElCangri137 1 month ago
State force "is" self-defense. They are "hired" to defend you, mcfly!!!!
ElCangri137 1 month ago
Paul is a snake oil salesman. A fraud.
ElCangri137 1 month ago
I believe in voluntarism over minarchism, but what motivates me to support Ron Paul and vote for him is the fact that the establishment conspire against him and are always trying to cheat him by rigging the debates and polls against him. My inclination is to fight against whatever the establishment tries to do, in this case they don't want people to vote for Ron so I'm going to vote for him. We should think militarily and not just philosophically, this IS a war.
dubified89 1 month ago
I'd agree with this, and I might even put Ron Paul above Murray Rothbard because Paul seems open to the concept of "I don't know", where Rothbard thought you could easily define "Force" within a couple of pages. That's what pisses me off about all these "Anarcho-Capitalists" and newfound "Libertarian Objectivists", they seem to think that taking language for granted can somehow eliminate ambiguity in the world. Ron Paul & Von Mises = Good.
HappyWithWhatsThere 2 months ago
Yeah, Ron Paul is a closet AnCap/Voluntarist. I mean how else to you get such support from Murray Rothbard, Lew Rockwell, Walter Block, everyone involved in the Mises Institute, and etc... He is much more "radical" on his views of the state than he comes off in speeches. It comes out more in his writing.
Jingles2423x 2 months ago
What could forced taxation be other than theft/extortion?
graaaaaagh 2 months ago
Hey Graham,
Just came across this: To believe in liberty is not to believe in any particular social and economic outcome. It is to trust the spontaneous order that emerges when the state does not intervene in human volition and human cooperation. It permits people to work out their problems for themselves, build lives for themselves, take risks and accept responsibility for the results, and make their own decisions.- Liberty Defined intro
Wesker1982 3 months ago
@Wesker1982 I found this last night too: If the government is granted a monopoly on the use of force to achieve these goals, history shows that that power is always abused. Every single time.
So unless he wants power to be abused, this is a clear endorsement for non-monopolistic law.
Wesker1982 3 months ago
nice song
joshua1auhsoj 3 months ago
If I killed a homeless man with no family, what would happen to me under anarchy?
darris321 4 months ago
@darris321 you mean on unowned property? If you killed this person on someone's property, the property owner's defense agency would take care of it. If you murdered this person in the middle of nowhere on unowned land, whoever found the body would probably inform their respective agency. They would have interest in taking the case because it is in their interest to not have people being murdered. The more risk of being murdered, the more the cost of operation. Think of it like insurance.
Wesker1982 4 months ago in playlist Wesker1982's favorites
@Wesker1982 I agree that they would have interest in stopping killers, however, I don't think it would prove to be financially viable to investigate a string of murders of non paying customers, especially since it would be a helluva lot of investigating that might not produce any results.
In the current system, a murderer is more likely to get away than not.
The state also provides the possibility of giving therapy to criminals so that they won't continue crime. I think in anarchy, the incentive
darris321 4 months ago
@Wesker1982 ... would more likely be to just execute them.
Why would you house someone in prison? Now, I'm not suggesting that people wouldn't ever be put in prison, but I think that, when the crime was big enough for the company to get away with it, a bullet to the brain is cheaper than a lifetime of prison/therapy.
darris321 4 months ago
@darris321 and most likely their customers would have an interest in not letting killers roam around, etc.
Wesker1982 4 months ago in playlist Wesker1982's favorites
most excellent video thank you for making it. I love that RP subtly implies he is when he wears gold and black ties at the debates
peaceinliberty 4 months ago
@grahampwright I don't understand why you think that an open border policy is "forced integration." There is an open border between my city and the adjacent towns and cities around me. Does this mean that I and other people in the city I live in are victims of forced integration simply because anyone from the surrounding towns are free to cross the imaginary borders and enter the city? That doesn't make sense to me.
WelcometotheUnknown 4 months ago
@WelcometotheUnknown That is one of Block's criticisms of Hoppe. Read their articles in the 1998 JLS, and then read Block's reply to Hoppe in 2007 to understand the argument better.
I'm not sure who is right, but my point is that a voluntarist argument can be made, and is made by the great HHH, in favor of restricted immigration.
Paul isn't compromising; he's standing with Hoppe. You or I may not agree with them, but I don't think that disqualifies them from being called voluntarists.
grahampwright 4 months ago
@grahampwright Okay, fair enough. I'll read those articles eventually and in the mean time won't hold Paul's position against him.
WelcometotheUnknown 4 months ago
@grahampwright A voluntarist argument cannot be made for the government restricting immigration. Voluntarism is incompatible with government. Although I don't believe that we will be freed by political means, I believe that Ron Paul is a great educator of liberty.
fnuzzoiv 1 month ago
@fnuzzoiv Yes, voluntarism is incompatible with government, but a voluntarist argument can and has been made for the government restricting immigration, given the existence of the state. Read Hans Hoppe's 'On Free Immigration and Forced Integration'.
Whether you agree with it or not, it does count as a voluntarist argument for the government restricting immigration, given that the government exists.
grahampwright 1 month ago
@grahampwright I will read it, but I still think that is a conservative argument. The government can't afford it, so initiate force against people. I believe that I should be able to allow a peaceful person onto my property regardless of governemnt granted citizenship status.
fnuzzoiv 1 month ago
@grahampwright Ron Paul supports taxing people to fund his illegal immigration policies, does he not?
And the act of taxing someone is an act of aggression, is it not?
Thus, even if Hoppe's point is legitimate and the violence against the people who cross the government borders can somehow be justified in voluntarist/libertarian terms, it is still very clear that Paul's views are inconsistent with voluntarist/libertarian principles. So why call him one?
WelcometotheUnknown 2 weeks ago
@WelcometotheUnknown Wait a minute. You said RP is taxing to fund his illegal immigration policy? Be more specific.
You also said taxing someone is a sign of aggression? Wow, do you even know what taxes are? There are tons of taxes that pay for tons of things such as teachers, freeways ect.
Very ignorant statements.
Although taxes may never always go to its right purpose its very ignorant to say someone is aggressive just because of a tax policy you fail to understand.
TrueGreatness73 2 weeks ago in playlist Favorite videos
@TrueGreatness73 Hi, please consider for a moment that your understanding of taxation that is in error. To tax someone, whether it an income tax, a sales tax, or any other tax, and whether it be to fund an immoral genocide or to pay school teachers to educate impoverished children, is an act of aggression. This is because the person who is imposing the tax uses violent force or the threat thereof to steal the property of others. Taxation is incompatible with the non-aggression principle.
WelcometotheUnknown 2 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Comment removed
willkiely 4 months ago
@grahampwright Hmm, I still disagree. I agree that there are different degrees of closed borders, yes, but I think the only kind of border that is consistent with voluntarism is a completely open border. Any other government border is a border in which the governments creates and enforces some restriction as to who is allowed to cross it and/or under what conditions it is allowed to be crossed. This necessarily involves coercing individuals unjustly and is thus inconsistent with voluntarism.
WelcometotheUnknown 4 months ago
If my links don't work, all I did was find a couple of the sickening news stories about the government arresting people for hiring "illegal immigrants" or "harboring" them in their homes and about the government forcefully deporting these "illegals" from their voluntarily acquired jobs back to Mexico. Just because immigration would be a non-issue in a voluntarist society does not mean that there is not a voluntarist position on immigration--there is and Ron Paul opposes it.
WelcometotheUnknown 4 months ago
@WelcometotheUnknown We've both been oversimplifying. There is much ground between "open borders / pro-immigration" and "closed borders / anti-immigration". The reality is a lot more complicated than that and I don't know the nuances of RP's position on this. I don't know whether RP supported government action in those particular instances. My whole point has been that its a non-issue from the voluntarist point-of-view so any stance he takes is going to be open to criticism from voluntarists.
grahampwright 4 months ago
@grahampwright I disagree with your claim that there is no voluntarist position on immigration. A voluntarist living under a state can still recognize that it's wrong to coerce "illegal immigrants" to prevent them from coming into the county or to remove them from the country.
buffalonews(dot)com/city/police-courts/police-blotter/article582172.ece
wmtw(dot)com/r/29266698/detail.html
The government's actions in these two cases are examples of forceful exclusion, incompatible with voluntarism.
WelcometotheUnknown 4 months ago
@WelcometotheUnknown I'm getting 404 errors on both those links.
An "open borders" policy could be viewed as forced integration. A "closed borders" policy could be viewed as forced exclusion. It all depends how you see it. No matter what stance Paul takes, he could be accused of advocating force. The only voluntarist position is to get rid of the state and then the whole borders issue disappears.
grahampwright 4 months ago
@WelcometotheUnknown In other words, asking a voluntarist "do you think the State borders should be open or closed?" is liking asking a non-wife-beater "do you still beat your wife, yes or no?". There is a faulty premise in the question, so no answer is possible.
grahampwright 4 months ago
@grahampwright Originally I thought that Paul's position on immigration was inconsistent with voluntarism because he supports having the government use force illegitimately against illegal immigrants.
"If the government excludes a person while even one domestic resident wants to admit this very person onto his property, the result is forced exclusion" (lewrockwell(dot)com/orig/hermann-hoppe1.html).
Paul supports such forceful exclusion, does he not? Therefore he is not a voluntarist.
WelcometotheUnknown 4 months ago
@WelcometotheUnknown There is no voluntarist/libertarian position on immigration or border control, simply because in a free society, there is no such thing, it's a non-issue. But given that RP is positioning himself as a Constitutionalist, he must have some policy on immigration. Its invalid to try to measure his policy position against voluntarism because there is no voluntarist position on this.
grahampwright 4 months ago
thehill(dot)com/video/campaign/186245-paul-campaign-releases-new-national-security-ad
Watch Paul's ad on securing America's borders and read the user comments. He's not a voluntarist for sure given his position on illegal immigration. Also, looking at the comments I am very skeptical of the amount of real education that he is responsible. I'm not going to vote.
WelcometotheUnknown 4 months ago
@WelcometotheUnknown Great ad.
Forced integration is not libertarian. Paul takes the Hoppean position. Are you saying Hoppe is not a voluntarist?
grahampwright 4 months ago
Just curious....why do you add the "y"?
WideWorldOfWisdom 4 months ago
@WideWorldOfWisdom Ha! I added it at the last minute actually, and I now kinda regret it because without the y it rolls off the tongue better. My thinking at the time was that I didn't want people to confuse it with "volunteerism", as in working for no pay at a soup kitchen or something. I dropped the y for my follow-up video.
Do you prefer it with or without?
grahampwright 4 months ago
@grahampwright
Definitely without.
mises.org/Community/forums/p/25747/432940.aspx#432940
WideWorldOfWisdom 4 months ago
Some more Ron Paul recommended Voluntaryists are: Mary Ruwart, Robert Higgs, Bryan Caplan, Terry Anderson (cowrote An American Experiment in Anarcho Capitalism: The Not So Wild West), Mark Thornton, and Henry David Thoreau. These were found in Liberty Defined except for Mary Ruwart, but Ron Paul is quoted on the back of her book Healing Our World (he recommends it obv lol).
Wesker1982 5 months ago in playlist Wesker1982's Favorited Videos
Oh my god.
I never knew, thank you for the video.
SlipAllCityToy 5 months ago
@craigslistflow Incorrect! Voluntaryists believe that all human relations should be by mutual consent, or not at all--with NO EXCEPTIONS. Government--even "small" or "limited" is involuntary; otherwise, it would be a contract. VoluntaryistDOTcom.
DougKendall 5 months ago
@craigslistflow No such thing as a Statist Voluntaryist ("Constitutional Voluntaryist").
DougKendall 5 months ago 3
Excellent video! Thank you for composing it and posting it. Ron Paul is an inspiration to voluntaryists, anarchists, and even minarchists alike :)
TheTiffanyTrouble 5 months ago
Decided to not watch the 6-minute video and conclude on my own that he's a minarchist.
RKAddict101 5 months ago
@Jupitarius Not really true ... he may have strands of anarchism with huge loads of pacifism, non-interventionism, ovt. only as an umbrella which states and locals cannot cover, pro-activism, anti-coercive...and thats exactly what it is ..voluntaryism!
I believe the last 2 above are the key...being pro-active about doing good and thus inspiring others to do good!
BTW, anarchism is not a bad word to me! It does not convey a sense of anything violent and coercive to me!
LORDOFWARS8 5 months ago
@Jupitarius I think you're right. I'm a longtime RP supporter, yet this video was eye-opening to me, in a good way. I'm not sure if I'd even heard of `voluntaryist` until I saw this video. I guess I need to read more of his books!
gavinjengel 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
RP▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬RP▬▬
Dr. Ron Paul R[̲̅ə̲̅٨̲̅٥̲̅٦̲̅]ution 2012 Я☼N PΔUL ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑ON
▬▬▬▬▬RP▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬RP▬▬▬▬
TheEpoxyExpert 6 months ago
excusable, though - you young people (yes, even at 31) are so full of energy but have few actual thought out ideas.It's all about iconoclasm and contrarianism of everything except the hip trendy alternative pop culture that rots the brain and consumes all time.A great country to never grow up in.
bnfox 6 months ago
this is silly - just another great example of the deficit of intellect in this country. Even the smart people here are stupid.Just let this nation of sheeple go back to the time honored traditions of letting the corporations run the government and create the illusion of a giant pasture for the sheeple to graze in, and the government maintaining the veil of norms, traditions, and statist values that all have come to embrace as "normal."Pathetic...
bnfox 6 months ago
Why would someone who doesn't believe in government run for government? It doesn't make sense, I like Ron Paul because he irritates all the other candidates so much that biased media sources try not to mention his name or try to say he is a cook with out any scratch of evidence but I am still skeptical.
But hey maybe I jam just suspicious of anyone calling themselves a politician nowadays
Mrvoid100 6 months ago 2
anyone making the argument that paul doesnt go far enough, in that he should trash the constitution, needs to have their head examined. "anarchists" need to stop acting like crabs in a barrel, the cause for reducing government is already stifled with misinformation and demagoguery. ENOUGH with your purity tests from utopia. we're all impressed with your knowledge on privatization, now quit rehashing tired characterizations from the likes of Molyneaux. quit sniping our friends. this is ridiculous
abortabraham 6 months ago
I can't believe Ron Paul is going to win. And that is why I support him. The moment I thought he had a chance, I would wote for whom ever was the other alternative. Unless it was clear that both he and most of the population REALLY understood what would happen if libertarian policies(that means no policies, everyone goes home) were enacted. I think too many people view Ron Paul as a knight who will save us all. That is not possible. So liberty will be blamed for the disaster with him in office.
mortalisk 6 months ago
@mortalisk Actually, I take that back. I would probably still vote for him. He is such a trustworthy and honest guy, I just wouldn't be able to vote against him no matter what.
mortalisk 6 months ago
Excellent as always dr.paul
idahoman325 6 months ago
Ron Paul is probably a minarchist. But whatever, every libertarian should support Ron Paul.
303frankie 6 months ago
anarchistpovDOTwordpressDOTcom/2011/05/17/voting/
DougKendall 6 months ago 2
The ideology of minarchists and voluntaryists/anarcho-capitalists are basically the same, and are grouped under the umbrella of the Libertarian Party. I think that we need to limit government before we can get rid of it. I haven't decided which of the sub-groups of libertarianism I am, but frankly I think that I'd support either and in this case Ron Paul is the man for the job, minarchist or voluntaryist. But it must be said that Ron Paul is a constitutionalist, so probably minarchist.
handsockpuppet 6 months ago
If Ron Paul was a true Voluntaryist, he wouldn't defend the Constitution, believe in the "rule of law," or be in office enabling and legitimizing a system that steals, kills and destroys. Get a clue.
DougKendall 6 months ago 10
@DougKendall He defends the Constitution when in the mainstream spotlight. He favors a limited Constitutional government over what we have now: Leviathan. He does not defend the Constitution against voluntaryist arguments, like those made by Lysander Spooner. Perhaps you should get one of the many clues Ron Paul leaves for you to find, and not judge him by how he presents himself to Statists.
grahampwright 6 months ago 16
@grahampwright He, himself, is a Statist; and more so than most people, since he is actually a part of the State apparatus. People have had over 200 years to vote for a better way of life, and it hasn't worked--and never will. The only way to beat this rigged game is by not playing it and letting it collapse. It will take time, and education, but there is no hope for change in voting. I have been on the inside and I have seen how it is played. Time to stop the cruel joke.
DougKendall 6 months ago 4
@DougKendall We're all a part of the State apparatus. Maybe he just became tired letting statists control popular opinion.
s0beit 6 months ago
@s0beit No, we are NOT all parts of the State. Ron Paul certainly is, since he is actually in office. If he was a Voluntaryist, he wouldn't be there.
DougKendall 6 months ago 3
@DougKendall Yes, we are. Unless you start your own island or live in an unincorporated forest, you're a part of the state apparatus. I'm sorry, you're wrong about that. That isn't to say when the opportunity comes up, you wouldn't move, you might, but right now you're just complaining on the internet and your anti-statism is in your mind.
Being a congressmen doesn't mean one's ideology is sucked from their body, just as living in a state doesn't.
s0beit 6 months ago
@s0beit No, we are NOT. I am not a part of government--and I hope that neither are you. Just because we are oppressed by a system doesn't mean we are a part of it (participate in it, employed by it, etc.). And I shouldn't have to uproot everything I have just to get away from people like you who would destroy my freedom. And if a person is in government, but claims to have an anti-government ideology, they are a hypocrite and a liar. Period.
DougKendall 6 months ago 3
@DougKendall Even if he actively votes against all infringements of rights? Tell me, there's been an explosion in the voluntarism movement and libertarianism movement, hasn't there? What do you attribute that to, exactly?
The government is an abstract, nobody is "part" of it, it isn't an entity separate from us, it's just a bunch of people taking part in a monopoly. To say that if somebody is a teacher in state sponsored schools, they are automatically a statist is a retarded position.
s0beit 6 months ago
@s0beit Voting against infringements of "rights" is a retarded position; you shouldn't have to, in the first place, and history has shown it to be a wasted effort.
DougKendall 6 months ago 3
@DougKendall Do you know what the word "oath" means? It's his JOB to uphold the Constitution, even if he doesn't support it or like it.
CrimsonFlameRTR 6 months ago
@CrimsonFlameRTR Then he never should have taken the oath. Hello!
DougKendall 6 months ago
@DougKendall you clearly didn't understand the video you just watched. RP's point was that if he can make the point *by saying those things*, it is much more easily understand by the masses. not that your comment really warranted a reply, as @grahampwright already dealt with you quite handily.
Frettsy 5 months ago
@Frettsy I understand, completely, and no one has "dealt with me." Ignoring the facts--or acting like a Smart Alec--doesn't make them go away.
DougKendall 5 months ago
What is the name of that song?
ZorrisPorris 6 months ago
@ZorrisPorris "Prelude in C - BMV 846" by Kevin MacLeod. See the sources in the link in the description.
grahampwright 6 months ago
@grahampwright -sounds like the theme song for a Lifetime channel miniseries on domestic violence starring jane Seymour or some other dimming female icon.
bnfox 6 months ago
The first video, "I believe in the rule of law"
uhhhh, not very voluntary
And that second video, so if I wanna live in a social enclave I get to be free? If I just eat berries and shit and churn my own butter, but if I wanna trade with anyone I'll get taxed, isn't that what he means?
I have a better way to be free, don't vote and don't pay my taxes and when the robbers come to rob me i shoot them dead. lots more efficient.
gradiu3rox 6 months ago
@gradiu3rox He's using the constitution as his political vehicle.. He's a full-blooded rothbardian at heart. In fact, he was good friends with rothbard. They saw eye to eye.
EastCoastAvenger 6 months ago
@gradiu3rox How many tax collectors have you shot so far? Does the State leave you alone after you shoot their henchmen?
I'm just trying to work out how successful your strategy of shooting people is, compared to Ron Paul's strategy of educating people.
grahampwright 6 months ago 13
@grahampwright you can't argue with these people my friend. they're so entrenched. they're so far up the asshole of anarchism, they can't take a breathe of fresh air for what its worth. they sit around here theorizing about no state, while they reject someone honestly trying to reduce it, as if most people will even consider anti-statism without experiencing or dabbling in libertarianism. its mind boggling.
abortabraham 6 months ago
@abortabraham Mr. Self-Righteous, the People have had over 200 years to do things your way--voting--and what has it gotten us? More taxes, more street cameras, more war, more currency devaluation, more surveillance in our society, more laws, more regulations, more unemployment...and on and on. Have fun with that. I choose REAL freedom, and that means removing support and participation in political games and slavery systems. It's no "utopia"; it's about freedom--and with it comes responsibility.
DougKendall 6 months ago 7
@DougKendall i hate to break it to you, and i used to believe 99% of what molyneaux said too, but its pie in the sky. if someone wants to go into the mafia system and turn it into a charity, let the man do it. if he wants to have sound money, let him have sound money. if he wants to end the war, let him end the war. you will not have anarchism in your lifetime until the population believes in limited government, so what is the point of sharking at ron paul's heels?
abortabraham 6 months ago
@abortabraham You can't turn government into a charity, if money is forcibly taken from other people in order to fund it. Someone else telling me what my money will have to be is not a choice. Ron Paul would mysteriously die if he were to cut off war profiteering. The point is that people have tried it your way for a couple hundred years, and it hasn't worked. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. It's past time for a different plan.
DougKendall 6 months ago 2
@DougKendall it doesnt matter whether he can actually do it, what matters is the beliefs of the people, and it doesnt serve anarchism to throw purity tests on ron paul when it is evident through his words that he believes the same things, but isn't totally pie in the sky about it. liberatarianism is pie in the sky enough. the burden of proof that anarchy is better is on anarchy, not the state, and a philosophy that "anarchy is ok" is as close as its going to get to meet that burden of proof.
abortabraham 6 months ago
@abortabraham No, it matters a great deal whether or not "he can do it." And it's not about "purity tests"; it's about one simple thing: Other people are not your property, and they shouldn't be subjected to forced rule, by others--or have to vote (beg Master) for mercy. The system is evil, and nothing but well-dressed slavery. And I prefer Voluntaryism, not traditional anarchy.
DougKendall 6 months ago 3
@DougKendall the belief in restricting people's rule over others is best served by shafting ron paul. is that what you're saying? you have no responsibility in bringing down the state and saving lives by supporting bringing our troops home, nope, not at all. this is about an intellectual ivory tower, and some fictitious future scenario where the government collapses and people explore the philosophy of voluntaryism, here's the kicker, without even seeing libertarianism in action. am i wrong?
abortabraham 6 months ago
@abortabraham Strawman. I have seen the game from the inside (ran for Congress and State House; managed two state-level campaigns; was Executive Director of a state political party--before I woke up). The game is rigged, and most elections are already predetermined. It's all a cruel joke. Ron Paul is just another tool, being used to keep the disillusioned folks thinking they have another chance to make a difference. And RP recently said he can "only be so independent," anyway. He will not win.
DougKendall 6 months ago 2
@DougKendall its a strawman because i don't know what you're getting at! of all that political work you did, were any of them remotely like ron paul? did any of them have the influence & years of experience in teaching others about economy and constitution? did YOU? do you think RP supporters will stand idly by if he decides to let the fed go, or continue the wars? there's a huge investment in this man, more than obama. he echoes your same concerns about our system. do we ignore him for liberty?
abortabraham 6 months ago
@abortabraham Look, you're wasting your time with me when it comes to Ron Paul. I actually hosted an event for him, a few years ago, so I know where he stands. Now that I've seen behind the curtain, I no longer support him or ANY politician. Using force against others is evil, and I'm not going to perpetuated the system by supporting even "small" government candidates. Voting has been tried for over two centuries, and it has failed. Collapse is the only thing that will make a difference.
DougKendall 6 months ago 2
@DougKendall so if we want liberty, our best step is to ignore ron paul. imagine if ron paul never came into the spotlight. imagine if he did not exist. where would a liberty & free markets movement be? nowhere. on the fringe, and i mean FRINGE. would that benefit us at all? we wouldnt even "be" us today. to have the message of liberty be flooded out by statism? i see nothing you or i can possibly gain from that. imagine a "collapse" without any ron pauls. pure statism at the end of the tunnel.
abortabraham 6 months ago
@DougKendall and this whole idea of some grand collapse, its very teleological. i dont think its anything to bank on and its a disservice to say our solution is to do nothing and wait. not really do nothing, but get on youtube and talk about liberty, and convert liberals to our message by telling them they are gun-toting marxists and barbarians. it doesn't work!!!! you should know that by now. liberty will not go mainstream in chaos, it will be totalitarianism.
abortabraham 6 months ago
@abortabraham And you would have us go on for another 200 years (the country won't last that long) and continue to participate in a rigged game that has gotten us nothing but more taxation, wars, murders, assassinations, invasions, unemployment, currency devaluation, secret experiments on the population...and on and on? Is that what you would have us endure? Screw that. We've tried your way and it has failed. Time for something new. Step aside; you're holding up progress.
DougKendall 6 months ago 2
Comment removed
abortabraham 6 months ago
@DougKendall people will not support liberty if they dont know about it. its sad but true. when your doomsday SHTF scenario comes, liberty will not prevail. businesses understand the principle behind marketing, apparently you do not. your philosophy of government fails is true, but its unpopular and you're making it harder to get across. real libertarianism is 1 step away from anarchy, but if you're going to make it harder to expose people to these ideas, you're shooting yourself in the foot.
abortabraham 6 months ago
@abortabraham I am a business manager, and have taught college business classes, so, yes, I understand marketing. And a good business manager knows when to abandon a failed business model. Apparently, you do not. It's time for positive change, and voting isn't going to do it for you. Bringing new people into the fold, with the idea that politicians can help them, is not helping to restore freedom. I've made my points and I stand by them. Feel free to have the last word, if you feel so inclined,
DougKendall 6 months ago 2
@DougKendall my goal was never to convert you. i want to understand the logic behind your decision. i see it, but i don't think it yields the intended results. we can agree to disagree. i'm all for alternatives but i know damn well i wouldnt give any credence to them if it wasn't for my exposure to libertarianism. i want that opportunity to exist for others, if it means backing ron paul, so be it. also people have herd mentality, when they see ron paul winning, i think they'll consider our views
abortabraham 6 months ago
@grahampwright man, they sent an old lady last time, and cause i live in japan they don't let me buy guns, but as soon as they send a guy with a badge and a gun and I'll let you know how it goes. But I haven't paid my city tax since January or so and it's going pretty good. Got lots more money.
My point being I won't beg for freedom and until everyone has the same view as me we're not going to achieve freedom. Choosing leaders is the problem. Ron Paul is a distraction from the truth
gradiu3rox 6 months ago
@gradiu3rox Your strategy for achieving freedom is to shoot tax collectors... and yet you don't have a gun, because the government says you can't have gun. I can see a problem with your strategy. But yeah, let me know how it goes.
grahampwright 6 months ago 11
Ron Paul the Voluntaryist? That's like saying: "I'm against extortion, so I'm going to try to become the chief Mafia boss and abolish organized crime."
It's nonsense! Watch Larken Rose's latest video.
furyofbongos 6 months ago 4
@furyofbongos Ron Paul has a platform to get heard. Keep shooting him down if you really feel you need to, and keep Voluntarism cliquish so that Voluntarists can be that cool, fringe element that can always defeat any internet argument. i for one, am ready to see Voluntarism become the status quo. I am tired of pointing out the obvious. winning internet debates gives me little satisfaction, compared to seeing my daughter have a chance to live in a free society.
mouser98k 6 months ago
@mouser98k amen
independence4wales 6 months ago
@furyofbongos OK, Molyneux parrot, that metaphor is awful. If you construct a better one on your own accord, feel free to post it.
EastCoastAvenger 6 months ago
@EastCoastAvenger It's a great quote but he should have attributed it to Stefan
ih8ronpaulh8ers 6 months ago
@EastCoastAvenger -- ha ha, nice non-argument!
furyofbongos 6 months ago
@furyofbongos Could not have put it better
independence4wales 6 months ago
@furyofbongos Larken Rose is great. Has he spoken specifically about Ron Paul? What is your point?
grahampwright 6 months ago
@grahampwright - no, but I haven't seen anyone else yet be as clear as to the belief system that is government. His Tiny Dot video relates to my point. It's not the government that is the problem it's what's in people's minds. Rose's Tiny Dot Explained goes into this more clearly. That's why I have trouble w/ Ron Paul's approach. I'm still on the fence, actually, but it wasn't Ron Paul that got me to see the light. Lots see him as a kind of savior which is counterproductive IMO.
furyofbongos 6 months ago
Graham, I noticed you read my blog post on Ron Paul Forums about Ron Paul and private courts. Did you agree with my analysis? I think I made a pretty strong case, but any criticisms would be appreciated.
To anyone who wants more strong evidence that Ron Paul is a Voluntaryist, go to Ron Paul forums and search for a blog post named "Ron Paul and Private Courts". You can either just search my screename Wesker1982 or go to the 2nd or 3rd page of the blogs page (should be at the top of page 2)
Wesker1982 6 months ago
@Wesker1982 Great job. It will be useful for my next video.
To anyone who wants to help contribute to that, search my for my post "Follow-up to Ron Paul is a Voluntaryist" at The Voluntary City. Pictures and videos are needed.
grahampwright 6 months ago
The problem here is the guy posting this video is trying to persuade people that Voluntaryist is some sort of political party and not just a personal frame of mind. There is no contradiction with being a politician who bases all of his decisions on the Constitution that he swore an oath to abide by and believing in a Voluntaryist society where everyone has a choice to live how they want so long as it doesn't infringe on the personal rights of anyone else. That is why Taxes are considered illegal
tytan01 6 months ago
@tytan01 Voluntaryism is very clearly defined in the video. It is neither a political party nor a personal frame of mind, but a political philosophy.
grahampwright 6 months ago
@tytan01 The guy posting this video has created his own definition of Voluntaryist which is not only wrong but also does not fit with Paul. So I agree 100% with what you are saying. About the definition of Voluntaryist if anyone is interested in the real definition I refer them to Wikipedia or the Oxford English Dictionary.
independence4wales 6 months ago
@independence4wales Definitions are never RIGHT or WRONG. They are always either USEFUL for communicating ideas, or NOT USEFUL for communicating ideas. An objection to my definition is not an objection to the point I make in the video, which is that Ron Paul, despite how he presents himself to the mainstream, holds the IDEAS I list under my definition of 'Voluntaryist' and NOT the ideas I list under my definition of 'Minarchist'.
grahampwright 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
RON PAUL, WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR AN ANSWER! TELL AMERICAN PEOPLE HOW EXACTLY RU GOING TO CREATE JOBS? OK LETS SAY ALL TROOPS CAME BACK AND THEN WHAT? THEY ARE GOING TO SELL IPHONES AND BLACKBERRIES? DUDE BE A MEN, HOW RU GOING TO CREATE JOBS? POPULATION OF CHINA IS 1.4 B CHINESE WORK LIKE ROBOTS, BE HONEST TELL AMERICAN PEOPLE TO BUY UR BOOK U NEED CASH , U LOVE POWER, U LOVE CASH, U WILL NEVER CREATE JOBS, U HAVE NO ANSWER!
democratsaresmart 7 months ago
Why the preoccupation with labeling people?
independence4wales 7 months ago
@independence4wales So you're a non-labeler?
grahampwright 7 months ago 4
@grahampwright Yes, I do not label people. So going back to the original question, why your preoccupation with labeling people? In case your wondering why I am asking. You have made a 6min 29sec video dedicated to labeling someone.
independence4wales 6 months ago
@independence4wales I could not fit a DESCRIPTION of Ron Paul's philosophy in the title of this video. So I used a label which REPRESENTS the philosophy. That's why everyone uses labels, including you. Pretending you don't label people is silly. You label people with their names, don't you? Labels represent ideas. The label 'Voluntaryist' represents different ideas to different people, which is why I went to the trouble of providing the definition I am using.
grahampwright 6 months ago
@grahampwright Are you saying labeling someone with a name is the same as labeling someone with a philosophy/ideas? Of course you are free to define what your definition of something is but when you "label" someone with your definition it should be accurate. Again I ask where, in this video or anywhere else, has Paul ever said he doesn't believe in the state?
independence4wales 6 months ago
Ron Paul is not a Voluntaryist. A Voluntaryist renounces electoral politics in any way, shape or form, because even voting--let alone running for office--serves to strengthen the State in its hegemony over its citizen-serfs by condoning its usurped authority and confirming it in its falsely proclaimed legitimacy. If you would understand the principles of Voluntaryism, take a look at the website of The Voluntaryist.
nednetterville 7 months ago
@nednetterville Renouncing electoral politics is not part of the definition of a Voluntaryist. Non-voting is a strategy that some Voluntaryists choose to adopt. The problem with such principled non-voting as a strategy is that a principled non-vote cannot be distinguished from an apathetic non-vote.
grahampwright 7 months ago
@nednetterville Wiki says Voluntaryism is stateless. With no state there are no elections. Also Wiki says rejection of electoral politics. So I agree with you. Ron Paul obeys the constitution simple and believes in Austrian Economics, simple as that
independence4wales 7 months ago
@independence4wales I defined the term in the video. Ron Paul fits the definition provided.
grahampwright 7 months ago
@grahampwright So you have created your own "definition" of Voluntaryist which is different to what text dictionaries define it as. Bravo. On top of that you also misunderstand the subject you are talking about ie Ron Paul. 23seconds into the video for example you state Ron Paul's philosophy is that there should be no state. Which is completely false. If you have a reference supporting your statement I would take the time to read it.
independence4wales 6 months ago
@independence4wales Thanks for this substantive disagreement. This is much more interesting than bickering about labels and definitions. My reference is Ron Paul himself: the quotes and clips in the video. He opposes the initiation of violence (i.e. aggression) and believes taxation is theft. This is his philosophy, and it clearly precludes a state, because (unless you use some other definition of state) the state is necessarily aggressive and obtains revenues by taxation.
grahampwright 6 months ago
@grahampwright It sounds like you are saying your definition for something to be called a country/state (validly) it must attack other countries and it must take taxes from the people in that state/country with the use of force. I don't believe anyone on the planet would agree with that definition. Please state your source with regards to where you are getting your definition of a "State" from. Oxford Dictionary Definition "..an organized political community under one government"
independence4wales 6 months ago
@independence4wales I use the standard libertarian definition of a State, used by Rothbard and Hoppe, for example. See Rothbard's Anatomy of the State (audio is on my channel). Using State and country interchangeably as you do here is not useful for communicating ideas. Yes, States are necessarily aggressive (not necessarily against other states, but against their own subjects, to tax and to maintain their monopoly) under this standard libertarian definition.
grahampwright 6 months ago
@grahampwright I googled "Rothbard's Anatomy of the State" 1st result, interesting read. However the point still remains, you say Ron Paul wants to get rid of the state/government when he has said no such thing. He has said it should be kept small and out of peoples lives as much as possible but he has never said the USA should be without the government/state. If he has please send me a link.
independence4wales 6 months ago
@independence4wales He presents himself to the mainstream as a limited-government advocate for strategic reasons. But the quotes and clips I provide show that 'under the surface' he doesn't really believe in any State at all. He says taxation is theft. He opposes all initiations of violence. He says that security provision is best left to private institutions. He says that no Constitution can ever work to effectively limit government. He says his goal is self-government (aka voluntaryism).
grahampwright 6 months ago
@independence4wales Why would he say these things if he genuinely believed a small State to be preferable to no State at all? Has he ever argued against voluntaryist views, in favor of minarchism/constitutionalism? Doesn't it seem to you as though he is very deliberately trying to guide people towards the fullest expression of libertarianism, i.e. voluntaryism?
grahampwright 6 months ago
@grahampwright I think your reaching here. From your video, he doesn't say his goal is self government, he says if your goal is self government/socialism/etc then you should be free to do it. His goal is for people to be able to live the way they want to live. About the Constitution 2.32mins, he says many politicians have gone against the document they have pledged to obey, okay, what is your point?
independence4wales 6 months ago
@independence4wales Well he does say MY goal, but even your interpretation would make him a voluntaryist. Minarchists cannot allow individuals to secede from government and make their own law/security arrangements: their whole point is that law/security must be produced by a territorial monopoly, or else there is chaos. About the Constitution, the quote at 2.38mins is stronger: Constitutions can NEVER work. Pretty strange thing for a Constitutionalist to say, no?
grahampwright 6 months ago
@grahampwright I think you are deliberately misinterpreting what he says and writes to suit your own agenda, whatever that is. Of course you are free to do so but you have to expect people to pick you up on it
independence4wales 6 months ago
@RevJdubs Thanks man.
grahampwright 7 months ago
One quote I would have added on the security part from Liberty Defined: The government is incapable of doing what it's suppose to do. A job like the provision of security is something best left to private institutions. -Liberty Defined, Page 288
Wesker1982 7 months ago
What does Stefbot say to this? Wrong all these years stefbot, been setting up a strawman every single time. For shame! :)
Conza88 7 months ago
@Conza88
I just posted it on the FDR forum.
TheCapitalistdog 7 months ago
LETS HAVE A PERMENENT CAMP OUTSIDE CONGRESS
LET THEM FEAL THE FEAR WHEN THE LOOK OUT FROM CONGRESS
phoinix1 7 months ago
Ron Paul is a "Champion of Liberty" and defender of the Constitution.
At 39 seconds into this video "The purpose of the State is to provide security" is a lie.
The state's constitutions do not provide security.
travlyr 7 months ago
@travlyr Indeed.
"An expropriating property protector is a contradiction in terms" - HHH
mbarkhau 7 months ago 20
@mbarkhau Hunter Hearst Helmsley said that? He's smarter than he looks!
BelleAndTheBoy 6 months ago
0. Ron Paul knows from his experience that the current Democracy cannot stop the government from growing itself. Our courts are corrupted to the point they do not follow the constitution, 75% of population is bribed by affirmative-action entitlements, CIA is unreachable. Is a simply better framework needed, or the "right" ideas will keep the populace in check for generations?
ForLiberty888 7 months ago
1. The ideas are indeed the most powerful forces. We, as people, just have to remember, that besides the ideas (products of our minds) there is a reality which we can never understand fully. So any ideas are just a blueprint for an framework that actually works. And we know that NOTHING is perfect. The private policing may result in mafia type consolidation or CIA-type secret superstructure in no time.
ForLiberty888 7 months ago
2. That is the challenge to intellectual minds to come up with SECURE, IRON-CLAD, workable frameworks. Otherwise, we are reduce ourselves to Marxian sects who fought each other for the purity of their "true" ideological nuance.
LET RON PAUL DO THE JOB AT HAND! Day dream later.
ForLiberty888 7 months ago
great video
tcampain 7 months ago
@tcampain Thanks
grahampwright 7 months ago
It's hard for an Austrolibertarian to not be anti-statist.
reapfreak 7 months ago 2
@reapfreak yep
Wesker1982 7 months ago
@reapfreak Spot on
grahampwright 7 months ago