Why Should Leftists NOT Support Ron Paul?

Does Socialism work?

I understand the premis of taking care of the people of a country and making sure they are provided for, but what country is using this formula that I could visit and be impressed by.

It seems to me these socialist countries always fail and the poverty level is astronomic. The more of a welfare state you offer the worse the conditions for the poor. The rich sure do thrive though.

I would really like someone to explain to me the benefits giving examples of places where it is thriving.

Thanks,
Darren Donahue

This article makes a strong case as to why a socialist can support Ron Paul.
Take Socialized Medicine for example:
Since the federal government will take in less tax, states can afford to raise taxes as high as they see fit and use it to implement socialized healthcare. Now you do not need to convince the entire United States that socialized healthcare is better, but you only need to convince the people of your state, a much simpler task.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/016107.html

CHURCH & STATE: Ron Paul is correct that The Consititution does not set a rigid separation between Church and State. The Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The purpose of this is to ensure that the State does not prohibit the exercise of religion. Really to say that you cannot exercise Christianity says you must exercise atheism/agnostisism, which violates the constitution.

"....THIS BURGEONING CONSTITUENCY SURE AS HELL IS"
Please see http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.html.
Are you trying to say that Ron Paul is responsible for the thoughts or actions of others? And if so, are you responsible for the actions of your friends, family, or neighbors?
I caution readers to be skeptical of this inference, as it is A FALLACY in LOGIC known as Guilty By Association.

"OH AND KISS FREE SPEECH GOODBYE. KISS PEACEABLE ASSEMBLY GOODBYE. KISS PUBLIC SPACE GOODBYE. KISS LIVEABLE WAGES GOODBYE. KISS RELIGIOUS FREEDOM GOODBYE. KISS REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS GOODBYE. KISS GAY RIGHTS GOODBYE."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-fear.html
Again you use an intellectually dishonest argument known as Appeal to Fear

Here you make baseless accusations to make people scared without any proof (and the burden of proof is certainly on you). Just a small investment of time would have revealed just the opposite to these claims.

To anyone that visits who really wants to learn about Ron Paul, please visit:

http://WWW.RONPAUL2008.COM

After you've learned about Ron Paul, be sure to share your thoughts with the writer of this article.

Sincerely,
Mike

Why the slander? Why the irrational arguments? Why all the mud-slinging? The poor man is only telling us what he believes in unlike most other politicians. You wanna get mad at someone get mad at the guy who says one thing but believes another.....That's essentially the entire field of candidates. Did you realize that the ONLY democratic condidate that wants to legalize gay marriage is Dennis Kucinich? The rest of the democrats only want civil unions. (Bill richardson doesn't know if you're born gay or become gay.....thi is presidential material??) Wanna know the only OTHER guy who doesn't see any problems with gay marriage? RON PAUL! because he believes in freedom and that everyone should do what they want to do as long as it doesn't hurt the next guy.....That includes......If I want to pray in school I can. If i want to get inebriated by chemical or natural substances in the privacy of my own home I can. If I want to marry another man I can. if I want to buy a gun to protect my property I can. I get to keep all the money that I make and get to CHOOSE what charity I give it to instead of becoming complacent and assuming the government knows best where to spend my money.

He's not only against the Iraq war, he's against everything the leftists/Michael Moore crowd HATE! Military industrial complex, CIA, War on drugs lobbyists and subsidies to corporations (such as Halliburton).

I don't think anyone expects you to agree with everything he says. I certainly don't (not a big 2nd amendment fan), HOWEVER I do believe that he's the least divisive and the least partisan of ALL the candidates on both sides of the aisle. You owe it to yourself to whatch him speak. Start with the google interview.

Thanis for your time and I hope that you will give Ron Paul a second look.

Cheers,
Beef

P.S. With regards to abortion. He is personally against it BUT does not believe that it should be a federal issue. he believes that individual states should make their own decisions. He believes that on very difficult problems should be solved at local levels instead of the federal government coming up with 1 answer for the entire country. That's why America is so divided.

Quoting single sentences is ignorant at best, and devious at worst. You display a lack of understanding of basic facts and it does not reflect well upon you. My time is too valuable to show you ALL your bad logic, so we'll start with the first thing I read:

The constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". That is what Ron Paul believe. Congress shall make NO LAW establishing religion or preventing people from exercising their religion. When Ron says things like "Churches should eclipse the state in importance" he means that the federal government's powers are so narrowly defined by the Constitution that a person's belief system holds MUCH MORE SWAY in their day-to-day lives than the federal government.

You take quotes out of context to fit your ignorant preconceived views. You should be ashamed of yourself because you fail as a logical, thinking human being.

Your blog is filled with faulty reasoning, who cares who a forum poster posts up as his Presidential choice on storm front, I noticed a lot of other posters who responded were not Ron Paul Supporters. It carries no more weight than if a Neocon Republican responded that he'd never vote for a liberal because Charles Manson lived in a commune. You are trying to tie the candidate to a group that he doesn't belong to in an attempt to smear him personally in the hopes that others will not notice and accept your lies as facts. The fact that you attempt this either reflects poorly on your moral standards or on your intellectual acumen. Either way, you lost any credibility you might have had with your readers.
Taking quotes out of context, not knowing the principles behind them means little and is easy to spin. Ron Paul takes the Constitutional position, which means power returns one step closer to the people. Constitutionally Abortion is not a federal matter, it is a state or personal one. I think roe vs wade would have been much stronger if the supreme court had upheld the 9th amendment as ruled by the district court, if it had I believe we wouldn't still be having the debates we are today.
But that doesn't matter, the abortion issue isn't going anywhere, even if Ron Paul were elected and Republicans made gains in the House and Senate and passed a Constitutional Amendment that would still need to be ratified by the states, very unlikely, and there are much more serious issues at stake. Most of the rest of your post is juvenile at best and shows that you have done no real research on Paul's Position, I know this because most of your "assessments" are so off base as to be laughable.
You can read my Piece, "A Democrat on the Constitution" at OpEd News to learn a little about what those issues are.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_jered_ta_071013_a_democrat_on_the_im.htm

Huffines Communities $9,700
US Navy $6,405
US Army $6,350
Microsoft Corp $4,906
US Air Force $4,800
Dunn Capital Management $4,600
Packaged Concrete $4,600
City of Providenct Ri $4,600
Andres Re $4,600
Geocapital Partners/Equity Mgmt Assoc $4,600
Deutsche Bank North America $4,400
Northern Tier Orthopedic Assoc $4,200
Google Inc $3,550
ITT Industries $3,300
Morgan Stanley $3,300
FedEx Corp $3,300
Verizon Communications $3,251
Cadence Design Systems $2,800
Ford Motor Co $2,800
Walker Die Casting $2,800

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp

End the WAR???? With all that cash from the ARMY NAVY and AIRFORCE, I think not!

Oh and don't forget about Deutsche Bank, here is an article about them and a protest against them!
http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/139309/index.php

Oh and Huffines Communities from their own website looks like LUXURY HOMES/MANSIONS for WHITE PEOPLE. I looked at every link and all the pictures and not one single person of color was shown and their team is 12 men and 5 women all white! I am just putting forth my observations but when your top donor seems to be for RICH WHITE PEOPLE it just seems to only help the truth that Ron Paul is a racist and not working for the people!

Having a hard time coming up with your own original material?

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/259335.htm

"…and wrong about everything else, including abortion, separation of church'n'state, most of your biggies."

So you must be for Federal mandated laws supporting abortion, bet you love the idea of late term abortions; their screaming little faces as they're gingerly tossed into a biohazard recepticle. You must also be for federally subsidized funding to Churches also, funny how Ron Paul is actually against it, not to mention wanting the government to not have laws that either favor or oppose religion. Who needs to make decisions when we can just have the government decide for us, right? Dolt.

"Oh, and kiss free speech goodbye. Kiss peaceable assembly goodbye. Kiss public space goodbye. Kiss liveable wages goodbye. Kiss religious freedom goodbye. Kiss reproductive rights goodbye. Kiss gay rights goodbye."

You must be absolutely excited about these things which are already occuring by our current administration! Now go back to your Free Speech Zone before I have the police taser you to death, bro.

"Ron Paul's "libertarianism" is the libertarianism of racists, oligarchs and greedheads, not that of people who actually love liberty."

Proof, proof, and more proof? Oh some fringe group who happens to have racist views that support Ron Paul. Who cares about your CFR (Council on Foriegn Relations) goons willing to destroy America's soveriegnty to become the North American Union. Which goon are you voting for? Clinton, Obama, Julia Annie? People who actually love Liberty do their research, not uttering the gutteral surrender of your yellow journalism.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec07/paul_10-12.html

JUDY WOODRUFF: I mean, in effect, would you like to see abortion banned everywhere? Or what's your position on that?

REP. RON PAUL: I'd like to ban the federal government intervention in abortion. So since I've only been a federal official -- a congressman and then running for the presidency -- I say that we should keep our hands out of it.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Prayer in the schools, you would restore it through an amendment to the Constitution?

REP. RON PAUL: No, I wouldn't restore it.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Not true?

REP. RON PAUL: I would remove the ability of federal courts to prohibit it.

JUDY WOODRUFF: OK, thank you for clarifying.

Exactly! That is a prime example of what Dr. Paul is firmly about, despite his religious beliefs. If what you're saying was even remotely true, then he would amend the consitution. The Federal Government has no place in determining what people can or cannot do, especially if it doesn't violate others' freedom.

I digress, as is glaringly obvious in your hit-piece, you need the Gov. to take care of you from cradle to grave, you need them to tell you who to vote for, cause you're too inept to decide on your own. Would be a shame for Faux News and other Neo-con affiliates to lose their corporate welfare checks.

"No shit, Sherlock."

Keep digging, Watson. Maybe after a few feet of your tired old uneducated and borrowed rhetoric, you'll get to the truth. Maybe only then can you become a real journalist and back your claims without using ad hominum attacks, but with statements like "No duh. Well, smack my fanny." I doubt it.

THe donations list is encouraging.

That doesn't look like big enough donations to pull any weight.

The Armed Forces are way different than defense contractors. THe Armed Forces are the people of our nation's defense.

I'm glad you posted that, I feel great if these are the only contributions that he was given by non individuals.

Why should the lefty who wrote this article NOT support Ron Paul? Apparently they don't their you-know-what from a hole in the ground.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=40271

This article almost made me shed a tear, and even reinforced my belief that the time of voting apathy is over! Your article on the other hand, reminds me exactly why I don't watch Faux News, CNBC, or any of the other corporate shills. Hopefully you can take your precious time from watching American Idol and focus it on things that really matter... the truth would be a good start.

'Oh and Huffines Communities from their own website looks like LUXURY HOMES/MANSIONS for WHITE PEOPLE. I looked at every link and all the pictures and not one single person of color was shown and their team is 12 men and 5 women all white! I am just putting forth my observations but when your top donor seems to be for RICH WHITE PEOPLE it just seems to only help the truth that Ron Paul is a racist and not working for the people!'

Awwwwh, I know in your black mind: White people supporting him = He's racist

But that's just not so. Like you supporting Obama = Because he's black is not so.

I understand! See, we have so much to learn from one and other...

"including abortion, separation of church'n'state, most of your biggies. "

Ok, so that cites two of most of the biggies. What about Ron Paul's stance on abortion and seperation of church and state would you dispute?
Is it a bad thing for states to decide amongst their respective voters if a state will support or prohibit abortion?
As an Atheist (I'm rather hostile toward Christianity) & Ron Paul supporter, I see him as any other with faith in the gOD thing...weird. But, I have no sense what-so-ever of him being preachy, let alone a worry that he'd intend for everyone in America to pick up a bible and read along.
Ron Paul doesn't roll like that. Libertarians don't roll like that.
We're very much a too each their own as long as they don't tread on me, sort of crowd.

The temporal government has laws which extend no further than to life and property and external affairs on earth, for God cannot and will not permit anyone but himself to rule over the soul. Therefore, where the temporal authority presumes to prescribe laws for the soul, it encroaches upon God's government and only misleads souls and destroys them. We want to make this so clear that everyone will grasp it, and that our fine gentlemen, the princes and bishops, will see what fools they are when they seek to coerce the people with their laws and commandments into believing this or that.
Martin Luther

Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.
Frederic Bastiat


These are the facts about capitalism. Thus, if an Englishman-or, for that matter, any other man in any country of the world-says today to his friends that he is opposed to capitalism, there is a wonderful way to answer him: "You know that the population of this planet is now ten times greater than it was in the ages preceding capitalism; you know that all men today enjoy a higher standard of living than your ancestors did before the age of capitalism. But how do you know that you are the one out of ten who would have lived in the absence of capitalism? The mere fact that you are living today is proof that capitalism has succeeded, whether or not you consider your own life very valuable."
Ludvig von Mises.

Hi- I am thrilled about the donation list! Do you realize the mere pittance those amounts total?

HRC had to return $850,000.00 to Norman Hsu after he was indicted...that was just ONE guy! Helps me realize just how much support Dr. Paul has- his average donation was 40 bucks. Big deal if Hillary raises 27 million- could just be 30 people writing the checks!

You do realize that those are individual donors, not corporations, but where the donors work, don't you? The people that donated work for the Army, Navy, etc. Try learning to read.

Ron Paul doesn't want the federal government be involved in various things that should instead be decided on the state level. He might have some personal views that differ from yours but his political position is clear.
Accusing Ron Paul of him maybe being a National Socialist is ridiculous, he is AGAINST big government. But sure, in the eyes of the left libertarianism is some sort of Nazi ideology.
Oh, and when you think that Ron Paul does not stand for liberty then please give your definition of liberty.

I guess you are just depressed because someone who is against government spending gets so much attention.

I am not sure if you are all American or from India. Because of Bush, his administration and big government, America is in serious, serious, trouble. Ron Paul is waking people up to this fact. He is more than just a viable candidate. He is a candidate for the people. Ron Paul is constitutionalist. A champion of the constitution. 100% strict constitutionalist. Our constitution limits the government. Keeps it in it it's place. Ron Paul wants to downsize big government making it much easier to manage. He stepped outside his constitutional powers and he should have long ago been impeached for it. I am not sure what you believe this stormfront to be, but one thing I know it is not is truthful. It's just a propaganda site. Ron Paul is about ending the war in Iraq, saving the Republic, (We are a republic, not a democracy) securing our borders, liberty and freedom, bringing home the troops, (not just from Iraq, but from all over the world) We have troops in 130 countries, some 750 bases in the world, (DO NOT NATION BUILD) which Bush by ran on this same platform and he lied about it; Getting rid of taxes, the IRS, and the Federal Reserve. Ron Paul wants to restore the constitution; repealing the patriot act which is unconstitutional. Protecting the sovereignty of the American people. Bringing the safety of sound money, getting rid of NAFTA. Ron Paul is a man who would be a great leader, not only in America but he has taken worldwide recognition as well. People from all over the world have written to me asking me how to help this man get elected. Of course people in other countries are commended for being able to recognize freedom, liberty, and peace when they see it. Ron Pauls popularity grows by the minute because his message is Freedom, Liberty, and Peace! He doesn't want to control peoples lives because he doesn't know what they want. He believes that government should leave people alone. Let them be and let them live their own lives. He believes your freedom comes from your creator. Which it does. We need government to protect us, not to rule our lives. This is exactly what the constitution stands for also. Government should be limited. When you have a bad government, you need to get rid of it. A good government will stay within the guidelines of the constitution. When it doesn't you have bad government and it is time to stomp it out! Americans are waking up to the fact that government has tried to use an iron fist to rule the country. They are tired of this. We want to be left alone and Ron Paul offers a good foreign policy. To change things you must change policy. If your reading here and your american, google search Michael Badnarik. If you think you know your constitution, you may actually not have a clue as to what it stands for. This guy has videos that are actual classes on the constitution. Ron Paul is right on MOST all of the issues. No one person is perfect and everyone has the capacity to learn. Visit Ron Paul's library. Talking about a storm front, Ron Paul has sure created a storm on the net. He is the most searched for and most watched on UTUBE. They don't come better than Ron Paul. We need this man.

God, it's amazing the drivel that gets widely read these days simply because it mentions Ron Paul.

I almost gave up when I read this:

...with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance.

Um, wouldn't something have to be separate from the state before eclipsing it?

And then I read the imbecilic "National Socialist" barb, and decided that leaving a comment would be a better use of my time.

I'm disgusted by your attempt to smear Ron Paul, your quotes are taken out of context and you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You're as pathetic as the commentators on Fox News.

Uh, hello to the dummy who listed a smattering of Ron Paul's postings, and then got hysterical because the "ARMY" is donating!

That silly moonbat obviously don't realize that the list they cited is merely showing the employers of INDIVIDUAL donors, not corporate contributions. Come on, I mean, if the Army wanted to donate to Ron Paul, wouldn't it have more resources at its disposal than a piddling $6,000? LOL.

The $6,000-odd dollars from the Army represent the total contributions from every donor who listed "U.S. Army" as his/her occupation. I am one. With an average donation of $40 per donor, that would represent 150 individual soldiers who actually care enough to donate. No other candidate has as much military support as Ron Paul -- why should this be odd?

Ron Paul wants to end the war immediately, not evade the issue as Clinton and Obama have done. Why wouldn't I, as an Army officer who knows the war is a $600 billion waste of money and my brothers' and sisters' lives, want to get behind that?

By the way, unless you somehow WANT the Clinton-Bush dynastic succession to continue -- because I'm sorry to say that the Dem nomination is a done deal -- you should support Ron Paul. Yes, as a Democrat or whatever variant of leftist you happen to be. Why? Because none of the mainstream GOP candidates can defeat Clinton (the media's precious "polls" already show this) and because Ron Paul wants many of the same things that you want.

I am an old school conservative. I want the state out of my private life. I want federal power to decentralize. I want to end the Patriot Act. I want to end the Electoral College. I want to pay fewer taxes, and stop fighting in shitty places we don't need to be. Ron Paul feels as I do, and if that's not something you can support, then step the hell out of the way and get behind Clinton, because she's unbeatable without Ron Paul as the GOP nominee.

Firstly, I want to thank you for your service to the United States.

About the electoral college, this is from something Ron Paul wrote in 2004

"The president was to be elected by the 50 states rather than the American people directly, to ensure that less populated states had a voice in national elections. This is why they blended Electoral College votes between U.S. House seats, which are based on population, and U.S. Senate seats, which are accorded equally to each state. The goal was to balance the inherent tension between majority will and majority tyranny. Those who wish to abolish the Electoral College because it’s not purely democratic should also argue that less populated states like Rhode Island or Wyoming don’t deserve two senators."

What is funny about the Republican/Libertarian thing about the "free market" is that the "free market' requires a much stronger government to exist than do social programs.

Private property mainly exists because a government exists to enforce it. Police prevent people from stealing items from local stores (without them you end up with businesses hiring private militias as in Iraq or Russia right after the fall of the USSR). Businesses also spend a lot of their time pushing for things like copyright laws and patent rights that would be meaningless without government enforcement. When businesses disagree on things they end up fighting things out in court which requires a judicial branch to exist (and a legislative branch to define the rules). Local governments pave the streets that let you get to businesses and without a government of some form to print money and keep it from devaluing everyone would have to barter.

Even food regulation came out of the desire of businesses for a fair playing field more than consumer complaints. Large food companies actually pushed for standards(and the creation of the FDA) since companies that made sure everything was ok with what they produced were having to spend more and thus charge more than those that didn't (you can actually hear a bit of this now following the bad food from China scares)

Pushes for protectionism have also often comes from domestic businesses and that is definitely not a free market idea.

Its a weird contradiction in free market ideology in assuming that the world would be better if everyone were to act in their own self-interest without government interference yet for even big business, self-interest often results in demanding government interference.

LIbertarianism may seem at first sight to be anti-war but that assumes that wars require states. With the recent rise of private sector armies (like Blackwater) it should be a bit clear that armed groups can exist on their own, but it is worth looking back at US imperialism in Central America to see how nonstate wars played out when the US federal government had less power:

Evading the federal U.S. authorities charged with preventing his departure, Walker sailed from San Francisco on May 4, 1855 with 57 men, to be reinforced by 170 locals and about 100 Americans upon landing. On September 1, Walker defeated the Nicaraguan national army at La Virgen and, a month later, conquered the capital of Granada and took control of the country. Initially, as commander of the army, Walker controlled Nicaragua through puppet president Patricio Rivas. U.S. President Franklin Pierce recognized Walker's regime as the legitimate government of Nicaragua on May 20, 1856. Walker's agents recruited American and European men to sail to the region and fight for the conquest of the other four Central American nations: Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, and Costa Rica. He was able to recruit over a thousand American and European mercenaries, many of whom were transported free by the Accessory Transit Company under the control of businessmen Cornelius K. Garrison and Charles Morgan.

At the time, a major trade route between New York City and San Francisco ran through southern Nicaragua. Ships from New York would enter the San Juan River from the Atlantic and sail across Lake Nicaragua. People and goods would then be transported by stagecoach over a narrow strip of land near the city of Rivas, before reaching the Pacific and being shipped to San Francisco. The commercial exploitation of this route had been granted by a previous Nicaraguan administration to Wall Street tycoon Cornelius Vanderbilt's Accessory Transit Company. Garrison and Morgan had wrested control of the company from Vanderbilt and then supported Walker's expedition. Vanderbilt spread rumors that the company was issuing stock illegally in order to depress its value, allowing him to regain controlling interest. As ruler of Nicaragua, Walker then revoked the Transit Company's charter, claiming that it had violated the agreement, and granted use of the route back to Garrison and Morgan.

Outraged, Vanderbilt successfully pressured the U.S. government to withdraw its recognition of Walker's regime. Walker had also scared his neighbors with talk of further military conquests in Central America. Vanderbilt helped to finance and train a military coalition of these states, led by Costa Rica, and worked to prevent men and supplies from reaching Walker. He also provided defectors from Walker's army with free passage back to the U.S. In April of 1856, Costa Rican troops penetrated into Nicaraguan territory and inflicted a defeat on Walker's men at the Battle of Rivas, in which Juan Santamaría, later to be recognized as the country's national hero, played a key role.

In July 1856, Walker set himself up as president of Nicaragua, after conducting a farcical election. Realizing that his position was becoming precarious, he sought support from the Southerners in the U.S. by recasting his campaign as a fight to spread the institution of black slavery, which many American Southern businessmen saw as the basis of their agrarian economy. With this in mind, Walker revoked Nicaragua's emancipation edict of 1824. This move did increase Walker's popularity in the South and attracted the attention of Pierre Soulé, an influential New Orleans politician, who campaigned to raise support for Walker's war. Nevertheless, Walker's army, thinned by an epidemic of cholera and massive defections, was no match for the Central American coalition and Vanderbilt's agents.

"Anarcho"-capitalists aim for a situation in which "no land areas, no square footage in the world shall remain 'public,'" in other words everything will be "privatised." [Murray Rothbard, Nations by Consent, p. 84] They claim that privatising "the commons" (e.g. roads, parks, etc.) which are now freely available to all will increase liberty. Is this true? Here we will concern ourselves with private ownership of commonly used "property" which we all take for granted (and often pay for with taxes).

Its clear from even a brief consideration of a hypothetical society based on "privatised" roads (as suggested by Murray Rothbard [For a New Liberty, pp. 202-203] and David Friedman [The Machinery of Freedom, pp. 98-101]) that the only increase of liberty will be for the ruling elite. As "anarcho"-capitalism is based on paying for what one uses, privatisation of roads would require some method of tracking individuals to ensure that they pay for the roads they use. In the UK, for example, during the 1980s the British Tory government looked into the idea of toll-based motorways. Obviously having toll-booths on motorways would hinder their use and restrict "freedom," and so they came up with the idea of tracking cars by satellite. Every vehicle would have a tracking device installed in it and a satellite would record where people went and which roads they used. They would then be sent a bill or have their bank balances debited based on this information (in the fascist city-state/company town of Singapore such a scheme has been introduced). In London, the local government has introduced a scheme which allowed people to pay for public transport by electronic card. It also allowed the government to keep a detailed record of where and when people travelled, with obvious civil liberty implications.

If we extrapolate from these to a system of fully privatised "commons," it would clearly require all individuals to have tracking devices on them so they could be properly billed for use of roads, pavements, etc. Obviously being tracked by private firms would be a serious threat to individual liberty. Another, less costly, option would be for private guards to randomly stop and question car-owners and individuals to make sure they had paid for the use of the road or pavement in question. "Parasites" would be arrested and fined or locked up. Again, however, being stopped and questioned by uniformed individuals has more in common with police states than liberty. Toll-boothing every street would be highly unfeasible due to the costs involved and difficulties for use that it implies. Thus the idea of privatising roads and charging drivers to gain access seems impractical at best and distinctly freedom endangering at worse. Would giving companies that information for all travellers, including pedestrians, really eliminate all civil liberty concerns?

Of course, the option of owners letting users have free access to the roads and pavements they construct and run would be difficult for a profit-based company. No one could make a profit in that case. If companies paid to construct roads for their customers/employees to use, they would be financially hindered in competition with other companies that did not, and thus would be unlikely to do so. If they restricted use purely to their own customers, the tracking problem appears again. So the costs in creating a transport network and then running it explains why capitalism has always turned to state aid to provide infrastructure (the potential power of the owners of such investments in charging monopoly prices to other capitalists explains why states have also often regulated transport).

Some may object that this picture of extensive surveillance of individuals would not occur or be impossible. However, Murray Rothbard (in a slightly different context) argued that technology would be available to collate information about individuals. He argued that "[i]t should be pointed out that modern technology makes even more feasible the collection and dissemination of information about people's credit ratings and records of keeping or violating their contracts or arbitration agreements. Presumably, an anarchist [sic!] society would see the expansion of this sort of dissemination of data." [Society Without A State", p. 199] So with the total privatisation of society we could also see the rise of private Big Brothers, collecting information about individuals for use by property owners. The example of the Economic League (a British company which provided the "service" of tracking the political affiliations and activities of workers for employers) springs to mind.

And, of course, these privatisation suggestions ignore differences in income and market power. If, for example, variable pricing is used to discourage road use at times of peak demand (to eliminate traffic jams at rush-hour) as is suggested both by Murray Rothbard and David Friedman, then the rich will have far more "freedom" to travel than the rest of the population. And we may even see people having to go into debt just to get to work or move to look for work.

Which raises another problem with notion of total privatisation, the problem that it implies the end of freedom of travel. Unless you get permission or (and this seems more likely) pay for access, you will not be able to travel anywhere. As Rothbard himself makes clear, "anarcho"-capitalism means the end of the right to roam. He states that "it became clear to me that a totally privatised country would not have open borders at all. If every piece of land in a country were owned . . . no immigrant could enter there unless invited to enter and allowed to rent, or purchase, property." What happens to those who cannot afford to pay for access or travel (i.e., exit) is not addressed (perhaps, being unable to exit a given capitalist's land they will become bonded labourers? Or be imprisoned and used to undercut workers' wages via prison labour? Perhaps they will just be shot as trespassers? Who can tell?). Nor is it addressed how this situation actually increases freedom. For Rothbard, a "totally privatised country would be as closed as the particular inhabitants and property owners [not the same thing, we must point out] desire. It seems clear, then, that the regime of open borders that exists de facto in the US really amounts to a compulsory opening by the central state. . . and does not genuinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors." [Nations by Consent, p. 84 and p. 85] Of course, the wishes of non-proprietors (the vast majority) do not matter in the slightest. Thus, it is clear, that with the privatisation of "the commons" the right to roam, to travel, would become a privilege, subject to the laws and rules of the property owners. This can hardly be said to increase freedom for anyone bar the capitalist class.

Rothbard acknowledges that "in a fully privatised world, access rights would obviously be a crucial part of land ownership." [Op. Cit., p. 86] Given that there is no free lunch, we can imagine we would have to pay for such "rights." The implications of this are obviously unappealing and an obvious danger to individual freedom. The problem of access associated with the idea of privatising the roads can only be avoided by having a "right of passage" encoded into the "general libertarian law code." This would mean that road owners would be required, by law, to let anyone use them. But where are "absolute" property rights in this case? Are the owners of roads not to have the same rights as other owners? And if "right of passage" is enforced, what would this mean for road owners when people sue them for car-pollution related illnesses? (The right of those injured by pollution to sue polluters is the main way "anarcho"-capitalists propose to protect the environment -- see section E.4). It is unlikely that those wishing to bring suit could find, never mind sue, the millions of individual car owners who could have potentially caused their illness. Hence the road-owners would be sued for letting polluting (or unsafe) cars onto "their" roads. The road-owners would therefore desire to restrict pollution levels by restricting the right to use their property, and so would resist the "right of passage" as an "attack" on their "absolute" property rights. If the road-owners got their way (which would be highly likely given the need for "absolute" property rights and is suggested by the variable pricing way to avoid traffic jams mentioned above) and were able to control who used their property, freedom to travel would be very restricted and limited to those whom the owner considered "desirable." Indeed, Murray Rothbard supports such a regime ("In the free [sic!] society, they [travellers] would, in the first instance, have the right to travel only on those streets whose owners agree to have them there." [The Ethics of Liberty, p. 119]). The threat to liberty in such a system is obvious -- to all but Rothbard and other right-"libertarians", of course.

To take another example, let us consider the privatisation of parks, streets and other public areas. Currently, individuals can use these areas to hold political demonstrations, hand out leaflets, picket and so on. However, under "anarcho"-capitalism the owners of such property can restrict such liberties if they desire, calling such activities "initiation of force" (although they cannot explain how speaking your mind is an example of "force"). Therefore, freedom of speech, assembly and a host of other liberties we take for granted would be eliminated under a right-"libertarian" regime. Or, taking the case of pickets and other forms of social struggle, its clear that privatising "the commons" would only benefit the bosses. Strikers or political activists picketing or handing out leaflets in shopping centres are quickly ejected by private security even today. Think about how much worse it would become under "anarcho"-capitalism when the whole world becomes a series of malls -- it would be impossible to hold a picket when the owner of the pavement objects (as Rothbard himself gleefully argued. [Op. Cit., p. 132]). If the owner of the pavement also happens to be the boss being picketed, which Rothbard himself considered most likely, then workers' rights would be zero. Perhaps we could also see capitalists suing working class organisations for littering their property if they do hand out leaflets (so placing even greater stress on limited resources).

The I.W.W. went down in history for its rigorous defence of freedom of speech because of its rightly famous "free speech" fights in numerous American cities and towns. The city bosses worried by the wobblies' open air public meetings simply made them illegal. The I.W.W. used direct action and carried on holding them. Violence was inflicted upon wobblies who joined the struggle by "private citizens," but in the end the I.W.W. won (for Emma Goldman's account of the San Diego struggle and the terrible repression inflicted on the libertarians by the "patriotic" vigilantes see Living My Life [vol. 1, pp. 494-503]). Consider the case under "anarcho"-capitalism. The wobblies would have been "criminal aggressors" as the owners of the streets have refused to allow "subversives" to use them to argue their case. If they refused to acknowledge the decree of the property owners, private cops would have taken them away. Given that those who controlled city government in the historical example were the wealthiest citizens in town, its likely that the same people would have been involved in the fictional ("anarcho"-capitalist) account. Is it a good thing that in the real account the wobblies are hailed as heroes of freedom but in the fictional one they are "criminal aggressors"? Does converting public spaces into private property really stop restrictions on free speech being a bad thing?

Of course, Rothbard (and other right-"libertarians") are aware that privatisation will not remove restrictions on freedom of speech, association and so on (while, at the same time, trying to portray themselves as supporters of such liberties!). However, for them such restrictions are of no consequence. As Rothbard argues, any "prohibitions would not be state imposed, but would simply be requirements for residence or for use of some person's or community's land area." [Nations by Consent, p. 85] Thus we yet again see the blindness of right-"libertarians" to the commonality between private property and the state we first noted in section F.1. The state also maintains that submitting to its authority is the requirement for taking up residence in its territory. As Tucker noted, the state can be defined as (in part) "the assumption of sole authority over a given area and all within it." [The Individualist Anarchists, p. 24] If the property owners can determine "prohibitions" (i.e. laws and rules) for those who use the property then they are the "sole authority over a given area and all within it," i.e. a state. Thus privatising "the commons" means subjecting the non-property owners to the rules and laws of the property owners -- in effect, privatising the state and turning the world into a series of monarchies and oligarchies without the pretence of democracy and democratic rights.

These examples can hardly be said to be increasing liberty for society as a whole, although "anarcho"-capitalists seem to think they would. So far from increasing liberty for all, then, privatising the commons would only increase it for the ruling elite, by giving them yet another monopoly from which to collect income and exercise their power over. It would reduce freedom for everyone else. Ironically, therefore, Rothbard ideology provides more than enough evidence to confirm the anarchist argument that private property and liberty are fundamentally in conflict. "It goes without saying that th[e] absolute freedom of thought, speech, and action" anarchists support "is incompatible with the maintenance of institutions that restrict free thought, rigidify speech in the form of a final and irrevocable vow, and even dictate that the worker fold his arms and die of hunger at the owners' command." [Elisee Reclus, quoted by John P. Clark and Camille Martin (eds.), Anarchy, Geography, Modernity, p. 159] As Peter Marshall notes, "[i]n the name of freedom, the anarcho-capitalists would like to turn public spaces into private property, but freedom does not flourish behind high fences protected by private companies but expands in the open air when it is enjoyed by all." [Demanding the Impossible, p. 564]

Little wonder Proudhon argued that "if the public highway is nothing but an accessory of private property; if the communal lands are converted into private property; if the public domain, in short, is guarded, exploited, leased, and sold like private property -- what remains for the proletaire? Of what advantage is it to him that society has left the state of war to enter the regime of police?" [System of Economic Contradictions, p. 371] 1

Thank you for an insightful article on Ron Paul. After reading all the smear attempts made by the author and the support given by the commenters, I am now a Democrat for Ron Paul. He will end the Iraq occupation faster than anyone. Although I don't agree with some of his positions, I am comforted by the fact that he would need a concensus from the House and Senate if he wanted to get more of his "extreme" ideas enacted. He is the only candidate I wouldn't have to hold my nose for when going to vote.

Decreasing systems of democratic power and replacing them with market forces not only allows large companies to limit personal freedoms based off their control over others forced to live on their property (as in the case of company towns) but it also gets rid of the democratic structures that have been built up over the years to limit more personal forms of oppression.

Libertarian Economists can argue that discrimination and oppression are not effecient and thus will be done away with with a free market but that is a view of the free market that is at a complete disconnect with human experience. There are enough other factors that can make people succeed or fail economically that without some democratic structure to prevent it, there would likely be much more human traficking, slavery, oppression of women and even local attacks on minority groups than exist now in a system where nothing can step in to prevent such things except "market forces" (which work "on average" and "in the long run" because they are abstractions that ignore human psychology, nonmonetary interests and the tendency for most people to care about personal short term gain over proofs that less exploitative ways of acting can benefit more people)

Mafia type groups always tend to come into being in the absense of real popular power and they do so in most cases in societies that openly disagree with such groups existing. Why would one assume that with less state power such groups would lose power rather than take over even against the wishes of an unorganized majority... (assuming an organized majority is in a sense a democratic state structure)?

Admittedly, most current inequality is tied to previous actions of states and without inqueity the incentives that drive people to violent organized crimes would not exist at their current levels. The problem with such an analysis is that without a state and with private property passing down without taxes between generations, accumulation of wealth over a few generations would quickly result in worse inequality than we have now even if you got rid of the current inequalities that could be seen as tied to past state actions. If you look at regions of the world with very weak state power you can find some with lower inequalities (usually small communities with a high birthrate preventing accumulation between generations or without a strong belief in private property ) but on the whole you find "strongmen" who control militias and essentially act as absolute rulers at a local level (think Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Somalia etc..).

The problem with ideologies like libertarianism is that while on the surface pretending to be pragmatic (and even based around an idea of humans all acting purely out of self interest) they are naive in a belief that one can invent a set of rules for people to follow and everyone will not only accept the rules ideologically but also follow the rules in their personal actions. Power structures always seem to emerge in human societies and even in the most egalitarian society you will have a few individuals who want to use personal power to get a little bit more than everyone else. Preventing the accumulation of power requires power and even if one doesn't call it a state, the need for some organized structure to prevent the accumulation of individual power risks being worse than a state because the means to control it are less well defined (an all volunteer police force to deal with violent individuals is likely to also abuse power but unlike such structures under a state one cant simply elect someone to change things... one would have to form one's own militia to limit the power of the pre-existkng abusive ones etc..)

Are those donations not from individuals who work at those companies?

It seems that Yep is posting a lot of arguments against anarcho-capitalism. I can only conclude that this is because Ron Paul is being supported by some or that Yep equates anarcho-capitalism with libertarianism, and that libertarian Ron Paul might believe these things, thus don't support him.

Well, anarcho-capitalism is not libertarianism. Libertarianism is classic liberalism (before progressives usurped the term liberal) and it means you can do what you want as long as you don't infringe upon the rights of others. While many libertarians are capitalist, we are not necessarily anarcho-capitalists. Libertarians require a government to protect the rights of every individual from the infringement upon those rights by others. Anarchists of any economic theory require no government and in fact, argue against them. Ron Paul is a libertarian Constitutionalist meaning he maintains the rule of law as derived from the US Constitution. He will not lead us to anarchy, nor dictatorship, nor corporate elitism. He wants to return power to the people and the states in which they live. If a locality or state wants a road, public park, or highway they can build it, and fincance it as the people in those state choose, be it through tolls such as the New York State Thruway or through taxes such as Route (instert # here). State and local laws would still allow and/or require the free passage of people on those roads.

I am a libertarian who rejects anarcho-capitalism for the very reasons Rothbard supports in your citings. Don't paint us all with the same brush because it only highlights your mistakes. I expect many anarcho-capitalists support Ron Paul because he is much closer to their way of thinking than the big government statism of the other candidates.

As for free markets requiring government, I reject that notion. It is not that free markets require government, but instead it is businesses lobbied government to gain unfair advantages and that was allowed because the government officials were willing to be bought and paid for in exchange for granting special privileges. Ron Paul is acceptable to me, because he is not for sale. He has even admitted there are things he would like to vote for in Congress but that he is not permitted to vote for them because they are not permitted by the Constitution. Most other politicians vote in favor of them anyway, Ron Paul does not. This is why I will vote for him, even though I am a left-leaning agnostic.

If you accept that government led by socialists is better, just remember that by granting them such tremendous power, that same power can be voted out and you will again be led by a different form of tyranny than the one you support. A government restrained by the Constitution (and a man who understands those restraints) can reduce the existing tyranny of usurped power, and place limitations on the government so that future presidents can not regain that unconstitutional power.

Lefists, please do not support Ron Paul. You reduce Paul's credibility and tarnish his image. He's against your big government, high tax, forced welfare statism ideology. Only those who believe in LIBERTY, which includes the liberty of individuals to spend the fruits of their labor how they wish, should vote for Ron Paul.

I am a secular Ron Paul supporter. I know from Ron's own words that he is not interested in imposing Christianity on the masses. It's funny how people that are railing Ron for his supposed bias against religious freedom, are in effect attempting to eliminate religious freedoms from those who do believe. Ron is not an anarcho capitalist, he is a Libertarian. Go back to college...

If the left cares more about government handouts than ending the war, then vote for Hilary. We will sit back and watch her destroy this country, and then revolt and create a better one...

It's infantile posts like this that lead me away from the left several years ago. Brainless...

P R E S I D E N T I A L C A N D I D A T E
Ron Paul (R)
Representative

Total Receipts: $3,009,997
Total Spent: $655,142
Cash on Hand: $2,354,855
Debts: $0
Date of last report: July 15, 2007
Totals may include compliance fund receipts

Source of Funds:

Individual contributions

$3,002,818
100%

PAC contributions

$4,074

0%

Candidate self-financing
$0

What a joke Mike's piece is. And who does he lavish his coveted favor upon? Hillary? Obama? I once voted for Angela
Davis, but it didn't help, things still got worse. See, I was young and foolish once, too. You don't have the patent on inexperience whipped with arrogance, which is a heady but dangerous brew. Please Mike, tell us who you think is the real deal, so the depth of your foolishness can be enjoyed by all.

So Ron Paul receives more individual donations from the Army, Navy, and Airforce than anyone else? OH NO!!!

You think that means he WONT end the war? lol Wow you need to get away from your tv and your cable news and crack some books PRONTO. So who might your alternative candidate be?

I ask because if its Hillary Clinton (well...if its her then I think youre an idiot. No one smarter than a brick would elect the same immediate family members- father, son/husband, wife- into office 16 years in a row hoping for actual "change.") then youre voting for the CFR to take over this country's foreign policy for another 4-8 years.

If you vote Obama, youre also voting for the CFR to once again run the country.

Thats right...Im sure you dont even know what the CFR IS and who its members are, or else you'd have spent your time reading up on it and supporting Paul, Gravel, or Kucinich instead of getting on here and doing the establishment's hatchet work for them.

Actually, nevermind. Just go on supporting your favorite bought-and-paid-for special-interest-made CFR elitist socialist cut-out that best bleats back the same bullshit youve been buying into for so long. Keep on taking the red or blue side and thinking the political stereotypes youve been fed so far actually matter. Dont ask questions about our nation's debt, the CFR, the Federal Reserve, the WTO, Codex Alimentarius, the NAU, etc. just accept it all.

* PS - After reading what you wrote I have to say you have no place at all calling someone a racist, you pathetic bigot.

I am in the Air Force and I want the war in Iraq to be ended. Ron Paul is the only guy that will do that. I joined the USAF to to protect our nation against all enemies foreign or domestic. Not to help build a middle eastern empire to assure the United States a future supply of oil. To say that because the many of contributions Ron Paul receives are from military donors means that he won't bring the war in Iraq to a swift end is preposterous. Ron Paul is true to his word. What he has said in the pas the has always stuck to. And in the future he will stick to it as well.

I forgot to mention I donated to the Ron Paul campaign so I guess I am part of your statistic.

You spend a lot of energy bashing Ron Paul. Even though he is the only one with a voting record to support what he says. I consider myself socially liberal, but you guys are just dumb not to support Ron. Let me just spell this out for you since you may be too dumb to understand. Ron Paul can and will end the war if elected, Hillary, Obama, and most of the candidates will not. Ron will not be able to outlaw abortion, etc. Ron supports legalizing hemp and medical marjuana. Would you like to be at war for the next ten years with Hill Dog or maybe you just don't care?

there is a crowd of about 50 folks who happen to be all white and all racist called the Keystone State Skinheads and MD State Skinheads who say Ron Paul is great

http://dc.indymedia.org/usermedia/image/1/large/harrisburgsep0207-01.jpg

Would you like for me to list for you all the racist groups and churches that support Hillary and Obama or even that Bill Richardson BELONGS to one of these hate groups?

Everyone has the right to vote and they have to support someone.

SO WHAT if people you don't happen to like support also lower taxes and less government? I could list a lot of criminals and people like George Soros who would be on YOUR side.

As for the church and state thing, Ron Paul would allow FREEDOM of religion which you can't seem to tolerate. Your kind of tolerance only goes one way.

I have never seen him use religion in the context of government.

Your article is pathetic.

UM RON PAUL does NOT take money from corporations so that list was just created out of thin air.

Stop posting lies please.

The military support him because they want OUT of Iraq...LOL

He's being skewered by the GOP for that, and you missed it?

Ignorant

1. This contribution is made on a personal credit or debit card for which I have the legal obligation to pay, and is made neither on a corporate or business entity card nor on the card of another.

2. I am a United States citizen or a lawfully-admitted permanent resident. If a foreign national, I have permanent resident status and hold a green card.

3. I am making this contribution (and paying this credit charge) with my own personal funds, and I am not using funds provided by any other person or from any corporation, labor union or national bank to make this contribution.

4. I am not a federal government contractor. This donation is not from the personal or business funds of an individual or sole proprietor who is a federal contractor. (Personal contributions are allowed from employees, partners, shareholders and officers of businesses with government contracts)

5. This contribution is not made from the funds of a political action committee. This contribution is not made from the funds of an individual registered as a federal lobbyist or a foreign agent, or an entity that is a federally registered lobbying firm or foreign agent.

6. I am at least 18 years of age. If a minor (over the age of 16), I am voluntarily making this contribution, which consists of my own funds; my contribution is not controlled by another individual and is not made from a gift given to me to make this contribution.

This is the most asinine comment of all time. You see a picture of white people donating money to someone who is white so he must be a racist. You have lost your mind. Using your numbers, their donation is .01%. 99.99% came from other people. I'm pretty sure there are 'people of color' in the Navy and the ARMY.

Obama is a racist because Oprah is his biggest donor?
Please immediately stop using your computer. Stop the lies and hate.

You know whats funny. I remember numerous family memembers and friends, who all mostly agree with the anarcho-capitalists/Paleo-Conservative/Libertarianism bullshit and I dont know if this is the general with conservatives/libertarians but at least the ring wingers that I know always talk about communists in the anti-war movement i.e answer and troops out now being a front group for world workers party, party for liberation and and socialism, ISO, and what ever other commie group that helps front these groups. Well, how many conservatives would jump on the fact that these groups have connections with fucked up people, but then because they agree with Ron Paul they dont point this out. Ron paul is supported by known nazis. That is relivant that you claim to be for freedom but your ideas of freedom seem to be attracting known fascists and white nationalists. Well that is an issue a big one and you need to look inside. Also, libertarians also you need to not ignore history the U.S prior to the progressive area was extremely statist. Remember the rockafellers and what they had done? Well, it was fucked up, that to me is libertarianism.

Let's not forget, Ron Paul's own articles (his OWN writing)opposing immigrant rights appear on Lew Rockwell with his permission or by his choice! If he did not want to be promoted on Stromfront, he would be demanding that Stromfront remove all references to himself from their website, or at least disowning their support. Since Libertarians are notorious supporters of copyright law, he would be unlikely to have any political or legal reason not to sue Lew Rockwell if they were reposting his copyrighted articles without his consent.

Shit-I remember back in 1984 when the Ku Klux Klan endoresed Ronald Reagan, saying that severa planks in the GOP platform were "Pure Klan!" This raised quite a stink when it hit the mainstream papers, in part because what the Klan was saying about Reagan being just like them was, in fact, true. None the less, GOP'er were screaming about it! Ron Paul's silence on disassociating himself from Stormfront is deafening...

First off here is a little light reading from Mao:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_17.htm

Now ask yourself what is more important: entitlements for Americans/smashing racism/abortions for all/erasing the border/whatever the hell it is that leftist are supposed to be for these days or ending the slaughter carried out abroad by the US? If you think that the support that Ron Paul gets from a small number of people on a white pride website is a bigger issue than stopping the coming war with Iran and rolling back imperialism then you are the bad leftist. Do you think the world's exploited majority cares about some stormfronters supporting Ron Paul more than they do about the violence the US and its allies dish out and the repressive governments they prop up?

Until basic survival needs can be met the other stuff needs to go on the back burner. When people are being slaughtered for super profits its tough to get worked up about issues like Gay Rights, abortion, or whoever David Duke supports.

If you told the victims of US imperialism that you had to publish disinfo on an anti imperialist candidate because he wasn't sufficiently pro queer/anti stormfront/pro welfare state... they probably wouldn't be to sympathetic.

Last I checked, RON PAUL SUPPORTS A CONSTITUTIONAL BAN ON GAY MARRIAGE.

"Last I checked, RON PAUL SUPPORTS A CONSTITUTIONAL BAN ON GAY MARRIAGE"

YOU LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
RON PAUL SUPPORTS THE CHURCH AND THE STATES TO DECIDE INDIVIDUALLY. HE STATES NO MERIT TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION

Oh well Ron Pauls buddie Patrick J. Buchanan is a commentator on Fox News how funny a fellow extremist racist right winger and Ron Paul fan is a Fox News commentator. Those comments must have been taken out of context I am sure Ron Paul said before the comments was I love those black people but... 95% of them are fleetfooted criminals... who don't know how to vote for me!

In fact maybe you could ask Ronnies buddies over at Stormfront.com and they can tell you those comments were spot on correct and Ron Paul might just be the closest thing they will have to a robed white man on his white stallion leading the charge to white revolution!