I built this website over two years ago with a few predictions in mind, so far all of which have come true. First, that Ron Paul would, in fact, run for President again. Second, that he would not become President. Third, that Obama would get re-elected. And fourth, that the most die-hard Paul supporters would soon thereafter discover anarcho-capitalism, thus continuing the movement to its logical conclusion.
The majority of Daily Anarchist community members came out of the Ron Paul Revolution, myself included. I donated $2,300 to the campaign in 2008, got over a dozen of my family and friends to read A Foreign Policy of Freedom
I had never even heard the term “anarcho-capitalism” until 2009 when I stumbled across this interview with the highly respected Tom Woods.
Dr. Woods, having an impeccable libertarian reputation, spouting anarchism made me do a double-take. So, when the Campaign For Liberty had their Regional Conference in Las Vegas Nevada I took the opportunity to ask Woods which book(s) make the case for a stateless society. He recommended Democracy: The God that Failed
In my quest for knowledge I devoured those three books within a few weeks. I had become a convert. I no longer saw the state as necessary. I had come to the conclusion that all goods and services “provided” by governments could be done more qualitatively and efficiently by free enterprise.
I knew then that the individuals most likely to take interest in free-market anarchism would be young Ron Paul supporters. So, I built this site to help “spread the message” as Dr. Paul says. At first I advertised on Daily Paul and Lew Rockwell, just to pick up those who were already on the same page as myself. Our numbers have grown steadily but surely since Daily Anarchist has come online. But I knew that many were not yet ready for anarcho-capitalism. Ron Paul had another round left in him.
We voluntaryists have been eagerly awaiting your arrival. For those of you who have lost hope in “the system” there is another way. It is called agorism. There will be plenty of time and resources to learn about that later. For those who still desire to change the system from within, many of us, myself excluded, still vote and run for office. Yet while our tactics may differ, we anarchists all agree that the state is an unnecessary evil and must be abolished.
We hope you will continue the revolution and your quest for truth by studying what anarcho-capitalism is all about. There is a sizable community waiting with open arms. Welcome!
Great article, Seth!!!!
Love it!
Great article. What about the LPers?
Shared. Also sharing Stefan Molyneux, Jeff Berwick, a few silver and hard money people and free marketers on Facebook daily. 8)
Thanks for the great interview and information!
Any good links to learn about agorism?
Here’s a great start! =)
http://www.kopubco.com/pdf/An_Agorist_Primer_by_SEK3.pdf
Ha! Well you hit the nail on the head with this one. I have come through the looking glass to this like so many others via the gateway drug known as Ron Paul. I hope he stays active once he is outside of the political realm and continues to advocate for liberty, it will only help our numbers grow.
Nice interview on Anarchast by the way. Keep spreading the good word.
Seth, you were at the C4L conference in Vegas back in 2009? Um, do you realize that you and I were in the same room together? Hell, I wouldn’t be surprised if we had passed by each other a few times in the halls!
Small world.
Hi there,
please consider these facts:
Ron Paul wants to:
* define life as starting at conception: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2597
* build a fence along the US-Mexico border: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll446.xml
* prevent the Supreme Court from hearing Establishment Clause cases or the right to privacy (a bill which he has repeatedly re-introduced: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.300:
* pull out of the UN: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1146:
* disband NATO: http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr033004.htm
* end birthright citizenship: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.J.RES.46:
* deny federal funding to any organisation “which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style”: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.7955:
* and abolish the Federal Reserve: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2755:
* in order to put America back on the gold standard: http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm
* He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-764
Oh, and he
* believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html
* is against gay marriage: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul197.html
* is against the popular vote: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul214.html
* wants the estate tax repealed: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul328.html
* is STILL making racist remarks: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/02/ron_paul/
* believes that the Panama Canal should be the property of the United States: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:h.con.res.231:
* and believes in New World Order conspiracy theories: http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo/ron_paul_first_bush_was_work ing_towards_nwo.htm
* not to mention his belief that the International Baccalaureate program is UN mind control: http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r109:E14AP5-0007:
Those aren’t facts. They’re a shotgun blast of vague hyperbole. Pick one, and I’ll discuss it with you.
believes that the Panama Canal should be the property of the United States: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:h.con.res.231:
What about this?
I don’t agree that the Panama Canal is or ought to be part of the sovereign territory of the United States, and I oppose expenditure of U.S. tax dollars for its maintenance and security. I understand the position that Paul took in 1999, but I didn’t agree with him then either, and I would have opposed the building of the canal at taxpayer’s expense in the first instance. I don’t know how Paul votes on these expenditures now.
As a long-time AnCapper, I’m often suprised that any anarchist, at all, could want to have anything to do with politics… Sounds like a doctor who sidelines as a hired killer to me…
Anyway, I’ve got to say that Honest Ron is the rare anomaly out there on our side that is the only politician in, well, recorded history that has spent over 30 years voting in the most unpopular way possible for the cause of less government.
If he loses this 2012 election (There is still hope yet, check out news about the huge Lawsuit against the GOP and Rmoney!) then I feel that both Minarchists and Anarchist have lost their last chance to escape a violent future in the USA… The dollar crash is coming a lot sooner than most people think.
*walks in, looks around*
So uh….can someone point me to the r3VOLution refugee camp?
Ha! Click the forum icon in the upper right hand part of your screen.
Done.
Oh, and I wanted to say that I think its SO much better to have the oldest comments posted first, as opposed to the Daily Paul. You can actually follow the conversation on this site.
Also, I’ve registered on the forums, but do we need to fill out this form every time we make a comment on one of these articles?
I have read Ron Paul’s stuff for many years now and have always thought of him as more conservative than libertarian. He is certainly no anarchist. I do find it humorous how most libertarians claim to be minarchists, but their arguements for minarchy taken to their logical conclusions are usually arguements for anarchy. I think that the old saying agnostics are atheists with no balls can be accurately paraphrased for libertarians as libertarians are anarchists with no balls.
Thomas Huxley coined the term “agnostic”, and he did not mean by it what you mean by it. Huxley’s agnostic does not believe that a particular God, like a literal interpretation of the anthropomorphism in Hebrew tradition, might or might not exist. An agnostic believes that the nature of existence itself is fundamentally unknowable or that “the problem of existence” (Huxley’s words) is fundamentally insoluble. An agnostic is agnostic toward the problem of existence generally, not toward a particular theology. At best, we can theorize. We can never know the nature of existence. We can only know our theories of it. Agnosticism toward some literal view of a particular religion is only the tip of Huxley’s iceberg.
I would rather say that most people calling themselves “anarchists” are actually minarchists denying a minimal state that they advocate, but they aren’t minarchists without balls. They’re minarchists wearing blinders, so they can’t see their own balls.