Michelle Bachman pretty much called Ron Paul an imbecile last night.
The Founding Fathers rejected anarchy because they knew that in the long run it would evolve into gang warfare and a form of statism of gang rule.The Founding Fathers were seeking a golden mean of freedom between big government statism and anarchy.
The only good Paul does is to expose the “high level” nut bars that support him. That way we can keep track of them...:)
Along with dead Poles, Russians, Ukrainians, etc. (Of course Stalin was doing a good job with those races as well), and in the end without our intervention, most likely we would have been dealing with either an All-Nazi Europe, or an All-Red Europe, neither of which would have been good.
When Hannity tried to interview him after the debate, all he did was dodge and weave. I tried to listen to his views with an open mind, but they just crashed and burned for me...
1. Governor Mitt Romney and Rep. Michele Bachmann are the most conservative candidates in the race.
As the article you cited to notes, "Murray Rothbard used the term anarcho-capitalism to distinguish his philosophy from anarchism that opposes private property,[21] as well as to distinguish it from other forms of individualist anarchism."
Rothbard's theoretical analysis of the role of the state in fact supports many fundamental concepts of conservatism. For example, as the article you cited notes:
"Anarcho-capitalists see free-market capitalism as the basis for a free and prosperous society. Murray Rothbard said that the difference between free-market capitalism and "state capitalism" is the difference between "peaceful, voluntary exchange" and a collusive partnership between business and government that uses coercion to subvert the free market.[13] "Capitalism," as anarcho-capitalists employ the term, is not to be confused with state monopoly capitalism, crony capitalism, corporatism, or contemporary mixed economies, wherein market incentives and disincentives may be altered by state action.[14] So they reject the state, based on the belief that states are aggressive entities which steal property (through taxation and expropriation), initiate aggression, are a compulsory monopoly on the use of force, use their coercive powers to benefit some businesses and individuals at the expense of others, create monopolies, restrict trade, and restrict personal freedoms via drug laws, compulsory education, conscription, laws on food and morality, and the like."
In large part isn't that what conservatives believe in? Or don't you really believe in free markets, less taxes, private property, and the fact that people own themselves, and aren't the property of the state?
He’d be a good choice for appointment to some position where he can effectively push his government-cutting ideas (which are good) but has no bearing on national defense.
If that meddling fool, Wilson, had not gotten us involved in the Great War, there would have been no Hitler, no Treaty of Versailles, no betrayal of promises Wilson made to Germany, and the Europeans would have had to learn to settle their differences among themselves.
Ron Paul opposed the landmark 2010 McDonald v Chicago gun rights decision. And he supported the Kelo decision.
In both those cases he agreed with the liberals on the supreme court. Any case where the SCOTUS enforces the Bill of Rights on the states, Paul opposes it. Because Ron Paul doesn’t believe in “incorporation of the Bill of
Rights”.
Paul on incorporation and the 1st Amend:
“The phony “incorporation” doctrine, dreamed up by activist judges to pervert the plain meaning of the Constitution, was used once again by a federal court to assume jurisdiction over a case that constitutionally
was none of its business.”
http://ronpaulquotes.com/Texas_Straight_Talk/tst070102.html
Re the McDonald decision and 2nd Amend:
“Congressman Paul’s DC office said he didn’t sign the brief because he believes that it interferes with state’s rights, whose policies shouldn’t be dictated by the federal government.”
http://lonelymachines.org/2009/12/07/still-a-ron-paul-fan/
On the 5th Amend regarding the Kelo decision:
“If anything, the Supreme Court should have refused to hear the Kelo case on the grounds that the 5th amendment does not apply to states. If constitutional purists hope to maintain credibility, we must reject the phony incorporation doctrine in all cases...”
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul259.html
That was the view of George Washington.
Since 1945 we have not had one declared war and yet have been fighting all over the place with nothing to show for defending US interests.