Zion, IL
By A.B. Dada
—

Since I am a anti-voting anarcho-capitalist, many of my friends, family and readers wonders why I support Ron Paul for President so strongly. I get at least one to two e-mails per day asking if I have given up my stance on anti-voting. I have not.

My support for Dr. Paul is based on his message: contrarian, strongly anti-state, and meek. There are less than 10 politicians in the world that I respect, and Dr. Paul is one of them. If you watch a video of him today versus one 20 years ago, his message is strangely consistent. If it wasn’t for the greying of hair, you’d be hard pressed to figure out when the video was recorded. This is an amazing consistency.

This series of posts will reflect both positive and negative attributes on Ron Paul, from an anarcho-capitalist perspective. One of my biggest concerns on Dr. Paul is something that is a HUGE positive for most voters: Ron Paul is not anti-war. Supporters, and the campaign, should stop immediately in using the term anti-war.

Many pro-war conservatives attack Dr. Paul because they believe he is anti-war. Many anti-war conservatives and liberals support Dr. Paul because they believe he is anti-war. Many common Christians are fearful of a Ron Paul presidency because they believe he is anti-war. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Ron Paul is pro-peace. Being pro-peace means you strongly believe in peace, normally aiming in that direction. It doesn’t mean you believe peace is always the answer, 100%. Because of Paul’s support for a paleo-constitutional position on all things political, he has no reason to act peacefully 100% of the time. In cases of Iraq, Korea, Cuba, Syria, Bosnia, and other areas of warfare incidents, Paul is decidedly against military action. His primary solution is the peaceful one: open trade, open communications, and open rules regarding individuals contributing to causes abroad. He rightfully believes the State can not, and should not, ever give money, preferential treatment, or weapons to another State. Let the individuals contribute to the campaigns abroad that they support, and let individuals trade with any other individual in the world.

This is not an anti-war position! I am truly anti-war, seeing absolutely no cases where war is acceptable. I believe that World War I and II were not in the United State’s interest, and many wars before then either. My position is anti-war.

Should the People of the United States unite behind an aggressor, and intend to attack a foreign State, Dr. Paul as President would lead the military to action, but he would do it Constitutionally. This should be the position most voting Americans should take as the natural one. It is not an anti-war position. One Congress debates the issue of declaring war against another State, the People should and could have access to their Representatives to submit their opinions. Each Representative in the House would have to make an individually-recorded decision for or against the Declaration of War. Once a formal Declaration has been voted on, and passed, the President would immediately assume the role of Commander in Chief. He would call up reserve troops (who would naturally be working in the private sector, until orders are made), train and produce a plan of attack that would be submitted to Congress with a realistic budget and timeline, and order the attack.

A Ron Paul-run war would be quick, with the idea that a fast and aggressive attack being the best one to turn away offenders. It would not be an open-ended, non-budget, non-directed war waged by the Executive branch alone. By having Congress involved in the process at each step, many individuals would have to accept responsibility if the war did not work, or ran over budget or time. This is a Constitutional war position, still in step with a generally pro-peace position. Today’s actions in Iraq and the 130 other regions we have troops is decidedly NOT Constitutionally solid, since Congress took no vote to support any Declarations of War. Instead of being able to blame 436 politicians, we can currently put the blame on a handful who actively moved to action. I do think Congress is complicity in providing the Executive branch with the power to move militarily, and those Congressional Representatives should be removed from office and tried on treason to the Constitution, but the rest of the country is dumb and blind to the atrocities committed against the Rule of Law and the Constitution.

Thanks to Voice of John, I have accepted a pure pacifist position. I am truly anti-war, as I believe it would be impossible for a foreign country to over-run the United States due to the ideology of freedom that SHOULD exist. If the United States was attacked, I absolutely believe that millions of citizens would ignore the current infringements on the second amendment, and move to defend quickly. 330 million citizens can not be taken over by any State or force. It just isn’t going to happen.

Paul’s position coalesces with mine most of the time, so I do support his pro-peace message, even if it doesn’t go far enough. I do believe, though, that a pro-peace position still has some inherent evilness to it, based on my moral belief of assuming a fully anti-war position.

Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!