This video is disturbing. It has the feel of propaganda, and is perhaps the pinnacle expression of why objectivists disown libertarianism.
While I admit that this is a large topic requiring further discussion, I feel a need to defend Ron Paul from this complete and utter nonsense, at least on a basic level for the time being.
Ron Paul is not a voluntaryist, the same way he is not a :
- republican
- conservative
- anarchist
- objectivist
and anything else most people have the capacity to name.
I realize this runs contrary to even the standard contrarian thoughts on Ron Paul’s political philosophy, but never the less, it is true.
In the politico-legal sense, he is none of these things
The conclusion and sum total of Ron Paul’s political convictions make him a declarationist.
And when you create a video spouting this (false) nonsense about him being something he is not, in an attempt to sway those who follow him to your mis-guided political philosophy, your behavior is both destructive for Ron Paul, and yourself.
This applies to everyone, from the makers of the video above, to people like Adam Kokesh (who says this a lot).
I realize these actions are not malicious.
Regardless, they are destructive to Ron Paul, and to yourself.
So, “fucking stop”, immediately. It’s not true, and no matter how many times you sound this lie off, it will not become true.
Libertarians, especially the anarchist contingent, have done as much as anyone to try to discredit him. When conservatives attack him they usually play the guilt by association game (e.g. National Review). I think you nailed it right there when you identified him as a declarationist. And he is simply the best candidate among the presidential hopefuls. Period.
The austrian school wasn’t even pro-free market until the 1920s. Menger and Boehn-Bawerk advocated some kind of government intervention in the market if I recall correctly.
@julia. That is not true. Although only parts of the austrian school have embraced anarcho-capitalism, the tradition since menger has never advocated any more than a minimum state solely charged with protecting property rights. It is absurd and could not be more wrong to suggest they were ever anti free market. They have always been the most free market school.
I could have sworn that Hayek supported some kind of system where the state would provide things that the free market couldn’t. And to my knowledge, Carl Menger wasn’t exactly the free-market nut that some contend he was.
As much as it pains me, you can throw “president” to the top of the list of things Ron Paul isnt.
@Julia. Hayeks work in the 1930s was very free market, but you mentioned the 1920s. [he got squishy later-he has been severely criticised by Hans Herman Hoppe on this very question: http://mises.org/daily/5747. Mises, Bohm Bahwerk and Menger were wedded to classical liberalism and in fact, their economics was a flowering of this. Menger wasn't any form of nut-he was a brilliant and ardent advocate of free markets because that is the only rational order. In other words, you are a nut [irrational] if you are anti free market.
To be clear, Mises, Menger and Bohm-Bawerk did not advocate Anarchy, as Rothbard subsequently did. Hayek betrayed the minimal state tradition, but much later than the 1920s.