Maestro

Right, but I think we're arguing semantics here. The dictionary definition of government does not say government has to be involuntary. The definition is simply "The system by which a nation, state, or community is governed." If we were to add an amendment to the U.S. Constitution stating that states, cities, or individuals may secede from the Union without penalty, would that suddenly transform the U.S. into anarchy? I think most people would still refer to it as the U.S. "government" because there are laws, taxes, and armies.

I've been trying to bridge the gap between the ideas of minarchist libertarians with pure anarchists. I think both sides agree on the non-aggression principle and advocate for personal liberty in economics, social interactions, and so on. The argument that pure anarchists use against minarchists is that government is by definition, a monopoly of force. I'm wondering if government is still a monopoly of force if you have the option of opting out or seceding. Minarchists think that government has a legitimate role in protecting the liberties of individuals against theft and aggression. Anarchists believe that these protections should not come from a monopoly of force but from a free market. But what if people voluntarily form a collective band of defense with the option of opting out? Is that a monopoly of force then? We recognize that society should have a certain degree of common standards (like no muder, theft, fraud, etc.), and should not necessarily follow a standard profit business model (like charity, or the FDR donation model). So what about having a certain standard of protection in a given locality with a collectively financed model? You could have a voluntary society that includes a justice/despute-resolution system, a police system, and a geographical defense system, and those within that society will pay certain fees and elect certain leaders for living in that society. We can argue semantics, but to me that sounds like a government. The one caveat is that states, cities, or even individuals have the option of leaving that society without penalties if you so choose to. Now obviously, people recognize that 300,000,000 individual "states" would be impractical, so people would probably voluntarily choose to band into certain geographical systems. Again, if individuals have the option of opting out, is this really a monopoly of force? Of course, I do recognize that with the current mindset of the U.S. government, the country would never allow a group to secede, but my hypothetical situation is meant to apply to the minimal, constitutional system that many mainstream libertarians argue for. *Edit: I mean secession, not succession. My spelling is bad.*

I understand the sentiments of your article, but I feel like it's a little unfair to Dr. Paul.Ron Paul was clear from the start that he never really wanted to get into politics to win. He wanted to spread his message of liberty. In many interviews, he talks about his wife saying "Be careful, you might actually win!" to him when he ran for Congress in the 1970's. This was a man talking about libertarian ideas for 40 years. He used his status as a congressman and his presidential runs to give him credibility to the public. The media driven internet as we know it did not exist in the 70's 80's or even really the 90's, so how else was he supposed to get the message out? When he ran for president in 1988 for the Libertarian party, he didn't expect to win. He wanted to use the run as a platform to spread his ideas. And since his run in 2008, he's been very successful in spreading his ideas. He's been to college campuses around the country talking about liberty, and tons of young Americans are waking up because of that. Even with the media against him, he still got his message across strongly. And today, he's recognized that his political action did little in terms of repealing laws and taxes. But what is he doing now? Hosting an internet show just like Stefan Molyneux.Ron Paul doesn't claim to be a pure anarchist, but he's often mentioned a very important principle, and that is the idea that you can opt-out. The video that Pelafina linked shows that, and he speaks about opting out of government entirely in other speeches and interviews. Government is not a monopoly of force if you have the option of opting-out. Government as we know it is a monopoly of force, but I don't see why you can't have voluntary "government" that collects fees, raises a defense, has a system of basic laws through an elected body, etc. all with the option of opt-ing out. Some would argue then, that by definition that isn't a government, but at that point we're just arguing semantics.