Ron Paul And Anarchy, PART II

In my last post I described the fissure among "small 'L'" philosophical libertarians, some of whom consider themselves anarchists and others, minarchists. The debate between these two factions has always been intense and heated, and prior to the turn of the century the minarchists clearly, at least in my opinion, had the best of the argument.

The anarchists, known as anarcho-capitalists, were considered radical and impractical dreamers in search of a libertarian nirvana. They were really "out there," relying on the political experience of medieval Iceland to buttress their almost laughable point of view that anarchy once existed and that the free market is able to provide not only the best value in bread but also in law making. Yet, the two sides still communicated. That all changed on September 11, 2001.

After Islamists destroyed the twin towers of the World Trade Center, the libertarian debate between anarchists and minarchists seemed over for most, as both sides coalesced around their respective positions. The anarchists became more convinced than ever that statism precipitated the New York attack. Many felt that the US government organized the attack covertly. They thought the time for argument was over. They gradually excluded minarchist argument from the well respected website of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. The fledgling LewRockwell.com became the gathering place for the anarchist wing of the libertarian movement. LewRockwell, an ardent "anti-state anti-war pro-market" anarchist was the guiding force of both organizations. Moreover, websites which used to foster internecine anarchist/minarchist debate vanished from the web.

For their part, the libertarian minarchists went their own way as well. Many supported George W. Bush's aggressive response to 9/11. Some took positions in think tanks that were free market in their economic orientation, but supported secure US borders (anarchists favor open borders) and a somewhat interventionist US foreign policy. Some founded similarly aligned websites and blogs. The division between anarchists and minarchists had become institutional. If they existed at all, any continuing arguments between the two camps consisted of slurs and ridicule. Why? The fight began to pivot on questions regarding patriotism and genuine libertarianism, subjects that stir the emotions of American libertarians like few others.

One side, the anarchist faction, was convinced allegiance to the policies of George W. Bush was treasonous to the libertarian principle of non-aggression. The other side, the minarchist side, pointed out the nonsense of having open borders and an open immigration policy in a world full of crazed Islamist fundamentalists bent on terrorizing America. Many of these libertarians were even willing to give Bush's Iraq adventure the benefit of the doubt. Anarchists and minarchists alike thought that was nuts and un-libertarian. The fault lines in libertarianism grew wider, deeper and more diverse than ever.

Nowadays, in general, the anarchist libertarians are riding high while the minarchists are silently licking their wounds. Anarchists believe ten years of a tenuous, bloody and almost futile war in Iraq and Afghanistan vindicate their non-interventionist foreign policy philosophy. Moreover, they have simultaneously been able to co-opt the libertarian "free market" agenda as their own.

The fiscal and monetary crisis which occurred at the end of the Bush presidency convinced them more than ever before that government -- the huge bureaucracy, the Federal Reserve, Fannie and Freddie and the like -- is inherently destructive and evil. Of all libertarian and semi-libertarian opinion mills, the Ludwig von Mises Institute and LewRockwell.com were two of the few that steadfastly opposed government bailouts of the economy. Their fervent anti-war and unflinching pro-market positions gradually melded into the anti-state rhetoric which is so popular these days on campuses and on the internet.

Today it is virtually impossible for minarchists to get a word in edgewise much less gain a philosophical foothold. Any attempt to do so is immediately slandered as the hated and mystical neo-conservatism.

This is not to say all is quiet on the Western front among the anarchists. Today most anarcho-capitalists, especially those who have not gone apolitical or anti-political, prefer calling themselves "Voluntaryists." They apparently want to disassociate themselves from the bad connotations of the word anarchism, which tend to conjure up images of freaks tossing Molotov cocktails through department store windows in places like Seattle. Such images are counterproductive to winning hearts and minds in actual, real political campaigning.

My mention of apolitical or anti-political anarcho-capitalists was not accidental. It seems the latest schism in the libertarian faith is the divide between voluntaryists, who seek to establish a libertarian nirvana in the US by means of political action within the system, and fundamentalist anarchists who believe running for political office and even voting is statist aggression. These fundamentalist anarchists, who I will refer to, in the interests of clarity, as the all-in anarchists, are the true problem children of the libertarian anarchist movement. Let me explain.

The crux of the anarchist argument against minarchism is that anarchism is the logical extension of the first principles of libertarianism: first, the famed non-aggression principle; and second, the principle of self-ownership. According to Wikipedia, the non-aggression principle “asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate. Aggression…is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately owned property of another.” Wikipedia says self-ownership “is the concept of property in one's own person, expressed as the moral or natural right of a person to be the exclusive controller of his own body and life.”

Since almost by definition "government," or the "state," is in the business of coercing individuals to act in a particular way and forcing individuals to forfeit their property to the state by means of taxation, anarchy—the absence of government—is held by its advocates to be most logically consistent with libertarianism. However, one needn’t be a logician to see the contradiction in a voluntaryist, who believes in the absence of government but, at the same time, runs for political office. Voluntaryists rationalize their political action by arguing that one may be active in politics in order to ultimately eliminate the need for politics.

The all-in anarchists are quick to point out that such a position is merely pragmatic and strictly illogical. Ultimately, logic dictates that, if the state is in the business of aggression against person and property, then becoming part of the state through political action is aggression as well. Thus, all-in anarchism is THE ultimate and logical extension of the prime libertarian directives.

This is the kind of esoteric, internecine argument that takes place nowadays on websites like LewRockwell.com and the Ludwig von Mises Institute: Which faction of anarchism is genuinely libertarian? Any mention of minarchism has passed by the wayside.

What does all this have to do with Ron Paul and his run for the Presidency in 2012?

Plenty!

Ron Paul comes from the Voluntaryist wing of libertarian anarchism.

(Believe it or not, Paul’s candidacy is criticized and opposed by doctrinaire all-in anarchists like Stephan Molyneaux. Molyneaux’s archive of articles has apparently been purged by LewRockwell.com which supports Paul’s run for the Presidency.)

I don't think Paul’s status as a voluntaryist anarchist is debatable. It certainly seems like a settled fact among Paul's political supporters.

Consider this video...

Paul may disavow his controversial newsletters of 25 years ago by saying he took a hands-off approach to publishing them, and that he disagrees with the iconoclastic rhetoric and political positions in them, but the fact remains he allowed two aggressive and confirmed voluntaryist anarchists virtual free rein to produce and write the newsletters: Lew Rockwell and Jeffrey Tucker. Now Paul is suffering the political damage that Rockwell, Tucker and anarchist political theory have rained down on him.

Deservedly or not, Paul is being tarred and feathered by the company he kept and continues to keep.

Don't misinterpret what I am saying. Yes, I believe Ron Paul is both emotionally and intellectually a “voluntaryist" anarchist. I believe he participates in politics because he does not want to reform the Washington power structure, but wants to make it completely obsolete. In short, he wants to eliminate government by political means and, thereby, avoid a violent revolution. If Ron Paul is anything, he is committed to non-violence.

I am a minarchist. Yet, I support Ron Paul for President. I support his candidacy not because of his voluntaryist anarchist beliefs, but in spite of them. I’ll try to explain why as I continue this series of posts. First, however, I want to explore the damage being done to Ron Paul’s credibility and to his campaign by the likes of Lew Rockwell and company, along with the outrageous political philosophy of voluntaryism.

More to follow.