-
Website
http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle -
Original page
http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/01/10/the-shame-of-ron-paul/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
In the face of continuous encroachments on our civil liberties, undeclared war, a collapsing dollar and spiraling national debt, you're worried that Ron Paul is *too* concerned with the Constitution?
The Mises Institute as neo-confederate? Obviously, you can support secession without supporting slavery, and for libertarians living in a two-party democracy, secession is a valid topic to discuss.
I'm not happy with Paul's response, but there really is no good response to smears like this.
Originalism as a method of Constitutional interpretation is so fraught with difficulties that it is almost useless. Further, what do you do if the Constitution turns out to not support your libertarian position? And don't tell me that it always would. A document that explicitly contemplates owning people is not libertarian.
There are certainly places where Paul disagrees with the Constitution, and he's quite forthright about that. His libertarian beliefs do, however, match the Constitution about 95% of the time, which is about 90% more than the other candidates do. In such a situation, calling himself the "champion of the Constitution" is correct.
Where Paul disagrees with the Constitution, he advocates amending the Constitution, since he firmly stands behind the rule of law. These days, most folks who disagree with the Constitution just ignore it. Again, Paul's stance is much more 'constitutional'.
I don't understand why Will is saying that Paul is nationalist or populist. Maybe he's using these words to mean something different than I've commonly understood them. I thought 'nationalist' meant 'devotion to the nation'; and while Paul certainly is that, his nationalism pales in comparison to the jingoistic attitude of the other candidates. As for 'populist', most populists advocate government spending on social programs for the common people, not dramatic reduction in government size.
As for Will's allegations of racism or homophobia, I've been looking at Paul's writings, and the writings of Rockwell and the Mises Institute, for several months now, and haven't run across anything of the sort. It may be buried in there somewhere, I don't know; but it's certainly not something they're broadcasting or pushing widely, and so I don't see how it could tarnish the libertarian movement in general.
So I look forward to Will's defense his remarks.
http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/cat_the_feve...
It is not a pleasant experience.
There are very valid reason to despise Ron Paul and say he is harming libertarianism, first of which is his immoral position on immigration. I'm also glad you mention his dangerous fetishism of sovereignty and constitutionalism.
To make it clear, I despise Ron Paul, and I have been telling libertarians that supporting him would be harmful for 6 months or so.
Some of your criticisms however are merely a rant.
How did Ron Paul deplore the abolition of slavery? Spooner, whose abolitionist credentials are undeniable also was a fierce opponent of the civil war and blamed the Northern states for it.
And cranky? I support a stateless society, to most people this is a very cranky positions. If you feel he is cranky, then it should be easy to attack the ideas directly rather than labelling them.
And what's with the opposition to the gold standard? While not intrisically libertarian, gold might be the most practical (not easy but the most practical) to severely limit government power through the control of money.
But I've done some more reading about the paleolibertarians. I also sent an e-mail to a list including all the econ faculty here asking about those allegations and haven't heard anything back. So I'm beginning to think you might be right.
Wait, wait wait...
What???!!!
So there's *more* godawful Paul nastiness? Or are you just not making distinctions (that I consider important)? Anti-immigration of course, but is Paul anti-right-of-exit too?
I'm a pro-immigration extremist, but I can have a reasonable discussion with people who think high immigration is pragmatically bad, or who think the right to immigrate to the US is not a negative right in the same way as (say) the right not to be invaded for violations of US drug policy. I find it much harder to have a reasonable discussion with people who deny the right of exit. And it's not like it's a negligible issue compared to immigration: test cases huge (Communist countries especially) and merely large (USA penalizing emigrants at a level and for a period of its own choosing, Saudis famously and other other countries less famously doing all sorts of creative things with women and guest workers...) are sadly easy to find.
The right of exit is the first thing that I associate with the phrase "freedom of movement," and as far as I know, that's a pretty common usage. So are you saying Paul opposed right of exit? It could be, since after all it seems dismayingly common: one reason I tend to be grouchy at leftists is having been on campus when Reagan's stand over the Berlin Wall was a live issue, and the tendency doesn't seem to've gone away since then.[*] But Paul? If so, it's nastiness I hadn't heard; if not, I think you should make the distinction.
[*] Libertarians take flak for being critical of Lincoln and the Civil War even when the upshot was to end slavery. I can certainly see the point --- the Civil War was a horrible bloody mess, but on net it sure seems like the outcome was worth it. But I also think there's a pretty good excuse in that Lincoln (very clearly) and the North generally (fairly clearly) gave nationalism precedence over emancipation. Anyone who knows the first thing about libertarians should understand how they'd naturally find this really bad, and a moment's thought should show that particularly intense hatred of slavery isn't going to make it seem any better. As far as I know, paleocons (and, alas, a nonnegligible number of self-identified libertarians) who wax nostalgic about the South and play down the significance of slavery have no such excuse. Do liberals have any such excuse for playing up the good points of modern states which hold people captive and force them to work?
I don't understand this cynical attitude of yours towards him even when there was a blogger on the internet who exchanged e-mails with Kirchick who personally doubted that Paul was a racist homophobe and was just trying to rile the "Paultards". Ron Paul has taken personal, moral responsibility. I think it's stupid to have this man go through great lengths to apologize for a deed that he felt bad for. He comes from a time where words were honorable enough, not use to the media spinning stories and profuse apologies to be forgiven by this Colosseum crowd.
Get off your high horse, man.
Liberty is not license, as Locke pointed out, and we libertarians too often express political positions that are perceived as being licentious, even hedonistic. Worse, the libertarian is marked by a fear and subsequent hatred of government, just as the socialist is marked by a fear and subsequent hatred of humanity. Both ideological positions are known for their hates, and how does one build an anabolic movement based upon core hate? The American public is NOT going to support any political movement based upon hatred for the alternative point of view, which is actually the core principle of libertarianism.
Thus, we libertarians shelter, in the name of 'principle,' the very elements that assure us of never being more than a 'fringe': we are known for our ideological purity (itself a deadly phenomenon), and our hatred for those who disagree with our thinking. Dr. Paul personifies the unpragmatic, ideological puritan.
Freedom is not about 'purity,' and never will be. Freedom is never a monism or about the epistemology of One; freedom is about pluralism and the epistemology of Two. Again and again, the libertarian movement demonstrates its internal contradictions to the American public, and the public is understandably turned off.
Which is how it should be. That a freedom-loving people should be repelled by a freedom-espousing movement makes sense if one understands that the public finds ideological extremism and hedonism to be frightening. There is a solid 10-20% of the American electorate who are freedomists, and such a base can decisively influence which policies are implemented or what legislation gets adopted. But the libertarian movement is so rigid, so proud of its impracticality, and so misunderstanding of its own contradictions that it dooms itself to te 4-5% 'fringe' of electoral politics.
Racism in libertarianism is illustrative of the self-contradiction condemning the movement to the fringe. How any libertarian can perceive the MLK civil rights movement as anything other than freedom-seeking is rigid thinking (bias) at its worst. Dr. Paul's candidacy is, net-net, a terrible setback to freedom as a political agenda.
If political candidates had freedom as a philosophy instead of as an ideology, the American public would vote for such thinking with great enthusiasm. But the libertarian movement constantly demonstrates that it has freedom as an ideology, not as a philosophy--as license, instead of as liberty--and the voting public responds accordingly.
'Be free.'
The UN is also a statist organization, with large membership dues. They try and grab guns, raise taxes, and enact alarmist environmental policy on a global basis. We could try and make a libertarian UN, but I don't know who would join. The lack of a libertarian homeland is kind of a problem.
Fin, I would also point out that just because something is allowed in the constitution doesn't mean it is a good idea. The constitution allows for an income tax, but it doesn't require one. A libertarian society would be constitutional, and a strictly constitutional society would be more libertarian.
It seemed to me that the Mises people certainly associated themselves with folks who had abhorrent ideas, without endorsing those ideas. Of course, as the Mises people pointed out, Cato associates itself with the likes of Donald Rumsfeld -- again, without endorsing his agenda.
The overwhelming impression I got from the whole mess was that there was a lot of bad blood between Cato and Mises, and they were mostly talking past each other. It's a terrible shame, because the cause of liberty is so important; I'd have hoped that folks could look past differences and work together.
Isn't this always the problem for the enemies of the State? They end up hating each other as much or more than they hate the State, and cannot put up a unified front.
Ron Paul isn't running on homophobia, he isn't running on racism; in fact, he's spoken eloquently against these things. He's running on a sane foreign policy and a drastic reduction of government. Why not look for common ground with him, and support the things you support, and try to help him spread the parts of his message you agree with?
I'm neopagan, not Christian. I don't agree with some of Paul's stated positions on immigration, abortion, and religion. But I agree with SO MUCH of the rest of his platform, as opposed to anyone else who's run for president since... since... since whenever -- that it would be ludicrous for me not to support him.
If you are willing to allow your association with a bunch of people who believe in "X", then what you are saying is that you think "belief in X" isn't as important as the rest of whatever else has brought you together. You are giving out a signal to the rest of the word as to what is important to you and what isn't.
And there are probably a lot of people out there who believe that hanging around with neo-Nazis just shows bad judgement, no matter how nice, kind, and twinkly-eyed Ron Paul is.
I consider myself a CATO libertarian. But it obvious beyond obvious that the Mises Institute is full of good libertarian allies. It is petty and dumb to throw away some of the few allies we have just because you disagree with some of their politics or even all of their moral philosophy.
The whole point of libertarianism is that we don't want to impose our moral philosophy on others. It makes sense that this could include people who hate the gay lifestyle but respect their equal rights. Tolerance does not require endorsement... or do all CATO members endorse using drugs? Even if Ron Paul is a homophobe (and I don't know either way) -- he is the only Republican calling for the legalisation of gay marriage. So who would a gay person prefer in the white house?
I'm Australian so the civil war doesn't mean much to me. But from my brief research the war was about the right of States to leave the union -- which seems reasonable enough. The North decided to oppose slavery after the war started. Opposing the war in no way represents an endorsement of slavery -- and the only reason to say otherwise is to intentionally try to create tension, distrust & confusion. That is very unfortunate.
Your brand of Liberty is really just closet Globalism and has no place in a Free America.
CATO equals NeoLibertarianism