Will Wilkinson - Latest Comments in Ron Paul: Good for “the Blacks”?

Re: Ron Paul: Good for “the Blacks”?

Karen Smilski — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 18:51:30 -0000

All this just shows that libertarianism can work well only in a monoracial society. Which is why is stands no chance in the USA.

Re: Ron Paul: Good for “the Blacks”?

Gene Callahan — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 17:26:07 -0000

"He is arguing for something much closer to rule consequentialism, or institutional consequentialism"

Either rule consequentialism collapses into act consequentialism or its not really consequentialism at all.

Re: Ron Paul: Good for “the Blacks”?

Micha Ghertner — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 11:00:48 -0000

Brian Macker writes,

I’ve aways disagreed with those libertarians who have claimed that individuals have a right to discriminate against others based on race.

As I recall, you've also disagreed with those libertarians who have claimed that individuals should have a legal right, but would be committing a moral wrong, to discriminate against others based on country of origin.

Re: Ron Paul: Good for “the Blacks”?

surprisemetwice — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:08:42 -0000

Although I have read your bio page, I am otherwise unfamiliar with anything else you may have written to the points addressed here, and am responding only to his post.

I agree with your perspective that "a regime of strong negative rights is the best guarantee of positive liberty," and in your assessment that "this is really an empirical question about what really does maximize individuals’ chances of formulating and realizing meaningful projects and lives." Although such goals are highly subjective in nature, it does seem safe to say their chances face a net opportunity loss when confronted with an organized belief that the aspirant is inherently worthless, and that such beliefs therefore represent "clear evils."

Perhaps I misunderstand the positions, but it would seem to me that an argument which categorically prohibits all coercion necessarily permits all voluntary association, an ugly manifestation of which could be some form of "structural discrimination". You said that you are ambivalent about the state stepping in - but why? How could voluntary association - however structured - be more harmful than the coercion of government regulation - however "ticky-tack"? After all, as you and others at Reason are well aware, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force.." Without this force (e.g. in the form of a century of Jim Crow laws), racism, sexism, etc. are just ideas that, like all others, must stand ultimately on their own merits - which, of course, they can't.

As a self identified decent person concerned with liberty, I also agree with the responsibility to denounce, "if not actively tear down" (assuming sans coercion) "racist beliefs and norms that enable liberty-killing structural discrimination." However, I also believe that among the most pernicious liberty-killing beliefs and norms is the status quo opposite to our shared perspective about negative rights. Whatever the intention, Government almost always couches its' intervention as "attempts to guarantee the worth of our liberties". The belief and norm that to so save us from ourselves is the just purview of Government enables such horror shows as the "drug war". It seems clear that this belief strikes much closer to the root of liberty than beliefs which foster discrimination, as I am sure that any individual - whatever their race, gender, creed - would readily consider the four walls of the prison cell a far greater obstacle to their "chances of formulating and realizing meaningful projects and lives."

Lastly, you say that "serious forms of structural discrimination are much worse for liberty than certain kinds of coercion," and that "Libertarians make themselves look ridiculous when they claim that everyone is fully and equally free as long as no one is coercing anyone." To my mind, for reasons mentioned, all forms of structural discrimination are serious. However I disagree in principle, again for reasons mentioned, that they are worse - let alone much worse - than "certain kinds" of coercion. There is only one kind of coercion: "persuasion" through force or threats of force. As for libertarians looking "ridiculous when they claim that everyone is fully and equally free as long as no one is coercing anyone," I can only say that from what I've seen, they more accurately and often say that everyone is as fully and equally free as possible so long as this is the case.

Ron Paul has a clear track record as a decent person concerned with liberty. Whatever incidental enabling his negligence or supposed closet racism* has provided for liberty-killing racist beliefs (*his repeated reference to racism as "an ugly form of collectivism" and a "spiritual malady", as well as his repeated championing of MLK, Gandhi, Rosa Parks, etc. as heroes, suggest a piss-poor record as a closet racist), it clearly pales in comparison to the enabling that his voluminous efforts, over decades, have provided for beliefs which promote that very positive individual liberty you believe "most worth caring about".

Re: Ron Paul: Good for “the Blacks”?

Brian Macker — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 22:45:02 -0000

Will, I fell out with libertarianism a while ago because based on my exploration of the concept of morality I found that there were certain rights that went beyond purely negative ones yet were not truly positive rights.

I discussed this over a catallarcy once with regard to good Samaritan law, and in quite a bit of detail.

I've aways disagreed with those libertarians who have claimed that individuals have a right to discriminate against others based on race. I don't have lots of time to discuss it but I think it should be clear that within a society a person of one race can buy a piece of property from someone of another race and then turn around and place some kind of deed restriction on future owners not to sell to that other race.

This obviously violates reciprocity and therefore is not moral. Furthermore it violates others rights to free association and the like.

The problem I see with this however is that if you take a wrong turn it can lead one into the realm of positive rights. Which I believe is a mistake. As much as these rights may look like classical positive they are not.

Re: Ron Paul: Good for “the Blacks”?

Brian Macker — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 22:22:28 -0000

Will,

Does this mean you are going to become a social liberal? You know positive rights and all.

Re: Ron Paul: Good for “the Blacks”?

Carl — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 11:02:14 -0000

Good post! Basically the same thing I said at The Free Liberal.

Re: Ron Paul: Good for “the Blacks”?

Patrick Stephens — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 09:36:14 -0000

Will,

Interesting post. I wonder, could you clarify how you distinguish liberty from freedom? It has always seemed to me that when we're wading into political philosophy, we use freedom to refer the total range of possible free action available to an individual, while we use liberty to refer to the range of action in which the state refrains from meddling.

To be sure, the question of where to draw the bound for liberty is an empirical question, but it's a question of how best to bound liberty, not how to expand freedom. While we generally hope to expand both liberty and freedom as much as possible, the expansion of liberty is necessarily political and the expansion of freedom essentially private.

Thoughts?

Re: Ron Paul: Good for “the Blacks”?

TGGP — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 22:52:26 -0000

Lots of comments here at the Distributed Republic.

he has actually helped cultivate a cultural climate hostile to the prospects of “the blacks”
I never came across any of those newsletters in meatspace and don't know how prevalent they were, but my suspicion is that they had negligible impact on cultural attitudes towards African Americans. If you're going to diminish Paul's stand against the drug war by the possibility that he will get elected, might as well take a similarly utilitarian attitude toward the newsletters.

Horwitz, regarding whether someone should be allowed to say something that may or may not result in harm to you, I would point out Kinsella's Causation and Aggression.

Re: Ron Paul: Good for “the Blacks”?

Brian T. Traylor — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:55:40 -0000

Will,

Libertarians make themselves look ridiculous when they claim that everyone is fully and equally free as long as no one is coercing anyone. Now, this isn’t obvious. At least it wasn’t to me. It took me a good while to come around to this view—to see just how much structural bias does deprive people of their freedom or of the value of their freedom. But I am embarrassed that it took me as long as it did.

Setting aside that liberty is the absence of coercion, I'm curious to know the path you took to come to a more positive rights approach. I found this section of your post a bit circuitous and could never really tell whether you were advocating a 'minimum existence' provided by the state or not.

If you could share a bit about the journey towards the realization that structural bias deprives some of their freedom (and perhaps define/elaborate on what you see as structural bias), I'd love to read about it. Was the journey experiential, philosophical, etc.?

Re: Ron Paul: Good for “the Blacks”?

Francesco — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:51:17 -0000

guys, guys, guys,
very interesting arguments.
i'm sure we could have a wonderful time discussing all these issues over a nice Italian dinner with some red wine, but it seems to me most of you are entirely missing the point.

Why focus on 15-year old posts (especially if Dr. Paul did not write them, as he does not strike me as a racist) when all the other candidates (republicans and democrats) are unrepentant warmongers NOW and want to continue the war in Iraq (150,000 innocent Iraqi civilians have died so far) and possibly attack Iran?

are 15-year old writings more important than an unjust war that all the other candidates want to continue? are 15-year old words more important than 150,000 Iraqi lives?

Hello? Hello? HELLO?

are you to tell me that i should drop Ron Paul and vote for any of the other candidates? Dude, are you serious?

Besides, if this is all that the Establishment has found on Ron Paul to attack him, that's pretty good. I would not want to know what skeletons all the other candidates have in their closets.

Nobody ever said tha Ron Paul is perfect. He's not. noboby claimed is Jesus reborn. Okay, granted.

But dude, have you seen the other candidates? have you listened to their policies? have you seen that they are all backed by the CFR? have you seen them?

Dude, RP is all we've got, and besides, John McCain once said RP is the most honest person in congress. that's pretty good. good enough for me.

Re: Ron Paul: Good for “the Blacks”?

Russell Hanneken — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:29:40 -0000

Please stop trying to redefine "liberty" so that it encompasses everything you think is good. If you want to say, "Liberty is usually, but not always, the best policy, because it's usually the best way to promote human flourishing," or "Liberty is a good thing but it's not the only good thing," then say that. Corrupting perfectly clear ideas like "liberty" creates confusion and makes it easier for the enemies of liberty to advance their cause. (Remember "libertarian paternalism?")

If you're not convinced, I recommend reading Dan Klein's article "Mere Libertarianism."

Re: Ron Paul: Good for “the Blacks”?

Christopher Rasch — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:24:15 -0000

So who are you voting for, if anyone? What will you be signaling if you vote for one of the other candidates?

It seems to me that the results of the ideology actively promoted by the other Republicans--pre-emptive war, torture, the surveillance state, and unchecked growth of government--are at least as objectionable and more of a realistic threat than Paul's bigotry.

Whatever Paul's newsletter said in the past, he's campaigned on a platform advocating extremely limited government, the restoration of civil liberties, and a humble foreign policy. Knowledge of the racist newsletters wasn't even widely known until after the New Hampshire primary.

Given that, will Paul's success in the elections be seen as an endorsement of racism? Or as dissatisfaction with the Iraq war and unhappiness with the loss of freedom?

In my opinion, it will be the latter. Therefore, Paul is deserving of our support, whatever mistakes he's made in the past.

Re: Ron Paul: Good for “the Blacks”?

Steve — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 19:52:47 -0000

>>One obvious difficulty with this line of reasoning is that Ron Paul will never be elected President of the United States, and has about as much chance of ending the drug war as I do. He is little more than a symbol for a set of ideas—ideas his complicity with racism has tainted in many people’s minds, whose prospects he may have damaged. I want to end the war on drugs, therefore I’d rather people not associate that idea with Ron Paul.

I think this sort of reasoning is exactly right. But I'd like to change the wording to generalize it somewhat and swap out one other thing:

>>One obvious difficulty with this line of reasoning is that Thomas Jefferson will never again be elected President of the United States, and has about as much chance of ending the current authoritarian state as I do. He is little more than a symbol for a set of ideas—ideas his complicity with racism (you know, with the actual owning slaves and all) has tainted in many people’s minds, whose prospects he may have damaged. I want to end the current authoritarian state, therefore I’d rather people not associate that idea with Thomas Jefferson.

There. That looks pretty good.

Re: Ron Paul: Good for “the Blacks”?

shecky — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 19:32:44 -0000

Paul ratcheted up his "not-to-be-taken-seriously" factor all himself, by his association with cranks. By doing this, he's jeopardized expanding his base to reasonable folk. His loss.

The first step to being good for "the blacks" is to actually pique their interest. In a positive way.

Re: Ron Paul: Good for “the Blacks”?

Single Issue Voter — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 19:25:25 -0000

Jeff, For one thing, I don’t think Paul is going to be able to spend all his money, and I’m worried some of it, in addition to mailing lists, will end up with Lew Rockwell at LvMI.

I promised myself no more $ to Ron Paul until he places 3rd of better in a GOP primary.Now I have to break it Will.

Re: Ron Paul: Good for “the Blacks”?

Steven Horwitz — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 19:25:21 -0000

GR,

I know the difference between free speech and a threat. You are just more certain than I am that a swastika on my neighbor's lawn constitutes an actionable threat against me. Standing up and saying "I'm a Nazi and think all Jews should die" is not the same as "I'm a Nazi and think Horwitz should die." I'll protect the first one but not the second.

Re: Ron Paul: Good for “the Blacks”?

Micha Ghertner — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 19:12:50 -0000

It’s a shame that you could be using your influence for good in the last election to save America as we know it.

The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Black Helicopters! Bilderbergers!

Where is Marshall Applewhite when you need him?

Re: Ron Paul: Good for “the Blacks”?

Micha Ghertner — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 19:07:13 -0000

Fluffy,

The “Somalia vs. Sweden” argument [or the “Manhattan vs. Kansas” argument, as it has been offered elsewhere] would only be relevant if the difference between Somalia and Sweden existed because of Sweden’s statism.

You miss the point I was trying to make, or perhaps, more charitably, I should have done a better job of making it. Mine was not a causal argument, attempting to explain why my imaginary Somalia and Sweden are the way they are. I completely agree with your analysis on this point. My argument, rather, is that, if given the choice, most of us do not place negative liberty as our sole, overriding value. Other things, like culture and wealth, can be just as important to us as the absence of coercion. This is Will's point about positive liberty.

Re: Ron Paul: Good for “the Blacks”?

Micha Ghertner — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 19:01:59 -0000

badmedia,

Equality is not freedom.

It depends on how you define the terms. Equality, if understood as equality in authority, is not only compatible with Spencerian maximum liberty, but both are required by and mutually reinforce each other.

Because equality isn’t what people want, Freedom is what they want.

Have you ever met a committed (in every sense of the word) Marxist? You speak as if the world was already populated with thoroughgoing Randians. If only.

The only thing I seen anyone guilty of in those newsletters was bad wording.

Mein Kampf would have been far more persuasive if Hitler had made better use of a thesaurus and a public relations agent.

Re: Ron Paul: Good for “the Blacks”?

Karen — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:48:22 -0000

"...but you are indifferent to racism and people who publish racist newsletters for financial and political gain..."

This shows how little you know about Ron Paul. Do a search on the minorities who have come forward saying that Ron Paul is the "least" racist of any candidate. These are people who have known him for decades, worked with him daily, witnessing his life-long conviction of constitutional freedom for all.

It's a nice article, but it's obvious you already have your mind made up. It's a shame that you could be using your influence for good in the last election to save America as we know it. But it's ok. Your choice to voice your opinion is exactly what Dr. Paul has stood for all these years.

Re: Ron Paul: Good for “the Blacks”?

Fluffy — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:44:13 -0000

Micha:

The "Somalia vs. Sweden" argument [or the "Manhattan vs. Kansas" argument, as it has been offered elsewhere] would only be relevant if the difference between Somalia and Sweden existed because of Sweden's statism.

There are an infinite number of historical variables that make up the difference between Somalia and Sweden that have nothing to do with our liberty debate, per se.

Why not ask, "Where would you rather be - exposed on the surface of Mars with no equipment, or in a Soviet-era labor camp?" and then offer the fact that the latter is preferable as an endorsement of the gulag? It's not a "liberty" question.

I would tend to look at places like Sweden and Manhattan as places where the wealth of the underlying society has allowed the populace to toy with statism in ways that have [so far] failed to destroy the polity. And places where I would tolerate a certain amount of injustice in order to participate in the economic, social and cultural life of the area. You are asking me to consider the statist tendencies of these places as instrumental and as fundamental, and I don't think that they are.

Re: Ron Paul: Good for “the Blacks”?

badmedia — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:21:35 -0000

Equality is not freedom. We can all be equal and not be free. Pushing equality at the expense of freedom just isn't a valid solution, and never will be. Because equality isn't what people want, Freedom is what they want.

It is a lack of freedom that drove the civil rights movements, not simple equality. While being able to show some people have rights others don't, is the basis for the equality argument, taking the rights away from the ones that had wasn't the idea. And that is what is going on today.

What Ron Paul stands for is that freedom. And for giving that freedom to everyone. Did you happen to actually read the newsletter, or did you just read the quotes provided and make an opinion? Honest question, but I know at least one of the quotes was actually a quote from a government report in the newsletter.

And the basis of the so called racial article was actually talking about how bad and screwed up the judicial system is, and the numbers were pointed out as evidence of the bias in the judicial system, yet in the hit piece it was made out as if the other way around. The only thing I seen anyone guilty of in those newsletters was bad wording.

As an intellectual, I like to think I look at all the facts before making a decision. And I encourage you to do the same. Especially since we basically have 1 candidate with a chance in hell of representing anything remotely close to what America was founded on this election.

If I truly thought for a minute that Ron Paul was racist, or would do anything with the purpose of promoting such, he would lose my support in a heartbeat. But excuse me if I don't fall for hit pieces and quotes by another author taken completely out of context. The timing of these articles, the lack of real evidence and many flat out lies just isn't going to cut it.

I hope you take a better look at what your choices are here.

Re: Ron Paul: Good for “the Blacks”?

Dan K. — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:09:34 -0000

Addendum: I realize you are not suggesting the government make it anybody's job, but I hope my point still gets across. You have your conception of the good, other people have theirs. If you want them to leave you alone than don't suggest they have any type of obligation to support your good.

Re: Ron Paul: Good for “the Blacks”?

Dan K. — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:07:52 -0000

"If you don’t think ending discrimination is the government’s job–that this is the sort of thing that should be done by persuasion, not force—then you should take this responsibility extra seriously. It’s your job to persuade"

No, it is absolutely not my job to persuade. I think most decent people agree racism is wrong and many people might decide to help out, but it isn't my job to eliminate this bad thing called racism anymore than it is my job to eliminate other bad things, such as un-insured single mothers and her un-insured kids. Otherwise when the government forces you to pay 75% of your income to support the coming social program budget crunch in the future I don't want to hear a word of it - it will just be somebody else making it your job to make reality their conception of good.