"Side by side with the word 'property' in the program of liberalism one may quite appropriately place the words 'freedom' and 'peace.'" Ludwig von Mises, "Liberalism, In The Classical Tradition"
Mises believed that property, freedom and peace are and should be the hallmarks of a satisfying and prosperous society. I agree. Mises proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the prospect for general and individual prosperity is maximized, indeed, is only possible, if the principle of private property reigns supreme. What's yours is yours. What's mine is mine. When the line between yours and mine is smudged, the door to conflict opens. Without freedom (individual liberty of action) the principle of private property is neutered and the free market, which is the child of property and freedom and the mother of prosperity and satisfaction, cannot exist. Peace is the goal of a prosperous and satisfying society of free individuals, not peace which is purchased by submission to the enemies of property and freedom, but peace which results from the unyielding defense of these principles against all who challenge them.
In this blog I measure American society against the metrics of property, freedom and peace.
Showing posts with label Presidential Candidates. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Presidential Candidates. Show all posts
Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson’s presence in this year’s race has the potential to be a real plus in the battle to unseat Barack Obama.
Some Democrat voters might not like Obama but would have real problems voting for a Republican. Johnson solves their problem.
His positions make him attractive to Democrats but repulsive to all but the most ardent Mitt Romney haters – most of whom would likely stay home rather than vote for Johnson whom they will see as “Romney-lite.”
"Romney-lite?" I don't quite understand that. As I see it, the bottom line for the "Coach" is: if you're a pissed off Republican, hold your nose and vote for Romney. If you're a pissed off Democrat, vote Johnson. If you're a libertarian, you've never voted Republican anyway, so Romney won't miss your vote.
We all know that Americans are stupid and illiterate. Obviously, the common good would be best served if important events like a presidential election could take place without the participation of crude and workaday Americans.
Still, the Constitution insists that the dolts have a right to vote. So be it. But do they have the right to speak? On national television, I mean? On precious air time provided pro bono by the public-service-minded media? Why must the rabble be allowed to participate at such an austere and learned event as a debate among presidential candidates?
I suppose it boils down to ratings. Everything does. Reality shows are all the rage and what makes a presidential campaign more real than honest-to-God questions from various Joe Blows? Still, allowing audience participation is a great risk. The public's attention span is notoriously short. Things can go downhill fast. So, last evening CNN's John King risked chaos and ridicule by allowing the masses to air two questions in prime time.
Tragedy was narrowly averted! The questions were barely intelligible. How fortunate Mr. King, a trained and respected journalist, was there to translate. This is, after all, why journalists exist and why Mr. King was at the debate last night: to translate plebeian gibberish into sensible, nuanced, political infighting.
Here, then, from last night's debate transcript, are the two questions followed by Mr. King's deft and real time translations:
QUESTION: My name is Sonny Cohen (ph). I'm from Sevier County, Tennessee. My question to any of the candidates is: Do any of you sincerely believe that Obamacare can either be repealed or reversed in its entirety?
KING: Let me go first to Governor Romney on that one.
Governor, you had said you would do it on day one with an executive order that would free the states up to opt out, waivers essentially to get out of that program. I know your friend, the South Carolina governor might like to have that option.
Help me understand as you do that how would it play out? And what happens to those, someone with a preexisting condition for example, who now has coverage under the president's health care plan, or a young American, 22, 23, 24, who because of the changes in the law, can now stay a few extra years on their parents' health care? What happens to them when you sign that executive order?
-------------------------------------
QUESTION: Hi. I would like to ask on the issue of amnesty of the illegal aliens, would you -- how would you secure that the American citizens would get -- keep the jobs in line first for them?
KING: Mr. Speaker, let's start with you on that. She mentioned the word "amnesty." You have explained your position in this campaign. And as you know, some conservatives have said, "No, Mr. Speaker, you say you can't deport maybe it's 10 million, 11 million, some people say as high as 20 million people illegally in this country. You say it's unrealistic to deport them all. So some would have to be given a path to legal status."
And as you know, many conservatives say, "No, that's amnesty, Mr. Speaker."
Many thanks to John King and his fellow, professional journalists! Imagine what life would be like without them. We'd be forced to think and speak for ourselves. Before long we'd perish from our own ignorance. Anarchy would reign supreme.
Nobody — I mean nobody — knows what is going on in the heads of “Republicans.” I think this is true mainly because nobody truly knows what a “Republican” is nowadays.
There is a base of party people, the ones who run the offices, the websites, fund raise and throw corn roasts. These are the McCain people who are now Romney people. Beyond that base, nobody knows.
We may be witnessing a re-make of the “Republican” party. I recently changed my registration from
Let’s talk about ethics. Like it or not, business ethics are not absolute, they change from age to age. For example, 300 years ago children worked in factories in conditions we now consider deplorable. It was ethical to employ children then, given the extreme hardship and poverty of the times. Today, children do not have to work to survive. It would be unethical to hire them to work as they did 300 years ago. That said, I am certainly not contending that, within the context of the times, every action of the so-called Robber Barons was ethical.
Were the actions of Bain Capital unethical? All I can say with certainty is that cutting wages and dismissing employees in and of itself is not evidence of unethical conduct.
1. "we are dangerous to the status quo of this country."
2. "And it’s only sound money and personal liberty that can solve the crisis that we have today."
3. "the monetary system...was a sneaky, deceitful way to pay the bills...an honest government that wants to be a big spending government would tax the people...if we had to pay taxes for everything...the people would rise up... So then they started borrowing money...and then people didn’t notice."
Listen to this New Hampshire victory speech. No apparent notes or teleprompter. He's saying all the right things, but does he believe what he says? Can he keep his promises? How will he keep them?
A selected transcript of the speech is posted below the video. He certainly knows how to differentiate himself from Obama. Is this man the second coming of Ronald Reagan, or a complete phony?
Transcript of Newt Gingrich's comments on "traditional capitalism" in an interview with NBC's Matt Lauer, from Real Clear Politics:
(Newt Gingrich) I think at some point Gov. Romney's going to have to hold a press conference and walk through, with considerable detail, some of the companies that Bain took over where they apparently looted the companies, left people unemployed and walked off with millions of dollars.
Look, I'm for capitalism. I'm for people who go in to save a company. I'm for people who take real risk. I'm for people who grow jobs, and I understand sometimes you fail. I've run four small businesses in the last decade. It gets tough out there. It doesn't always work. I get that. But if somebody comes in, takes all the money out of your company and then leaves you bankrupt while they go off with millions, that's not traditional capitalism.
The article is exactly what Dr. Newt ordered, a "walk through, with considerable detail," of Bain's takeover of a steel mill in Kansas City. Read the story more than once. It is a case study of capitalism at work, not free market capitalism by any stretch of the imagination, but crony capitalism as it exists in the United States. It's a
In last night's debate in New Hampshire, all the candidates told the voters what they would do with regard to the Middle East.
Rick Perry said: "I would send troops back into Iraq."
How nuts is that?!
Mitt Romney said: "I would bring our troops home [from Afghanistan] as soon as we possibly can." He said it three times, as if he thought it might make sense the more he said it.
How nuts is that?! It's like saying the check's in the mail. Does
In the first post of this series I discussed the anarchist/minarchist divide in libertarianism. In the second post I made my argument that Ron Paul is a voluntarist (or at the very least a minarchist on the anarchist fringe). In my third post I discussed Lew Rockwell and his counter-productive, anarcho-capitalist influence on Ron Paul's campaign. In this post I will explain why I am voting for Ron Paul despite these anarchist tendencies and influences. My explanation will be short and sweet.
People who oppose Ron Paul fall into one of several categories:
Money Grubbers -- These people are apolitical or military or Washington insiders of virtually all political stripes and parties. What unites them is their dependency on big government for their pot of gold. They work in government as bureaucrats, politicians and staff. They work for government as contractors or consultants. They work through government as lobbyists or academic grant-seekers and subsidy receivers. They work by the grace of government as toadies and cronies who enjoy government largesse. They are extremely happy with the status quo and, if they think at all about Ron Paul, they scratch their heads and wonder why anyone would choose not to ride on the gravy train too.
Snobs -- These people have a category all their own because they are mainly in the political game for status and power. Some may double as Money Grubbers, but would never, ever see themselves so. These people feel lording over others is their birthright. They feel they deserve power because they've earned it through a costly education at Harvard or Yale and through generations of blue-blood breeding. They've probably never heard of Ron Paul and, if they do, they turn up their noses or snicker.
Crusaders -- Commonly known as the religious right, these people rule their lives by their religious beliefs and they want to rule other people's lives by those same beliefs. Some agree with Ron Paul's economic agenda, but they consider his laissez faire attitude to personal liberty as evil and licentious. They think Ron Paul's foreign policy is the work of the devil.
Saber Rattlers -- These people agree with many of Ron Paul's economic proposals. The detest big government except for the military. Not only do they want the US to be second to none militarily, they want the military to project US power to end disputes throughout the world. They see foreign relations as a continuous war and they don't want the US to lose it. They're often mercantilists who see trade as a continuous war, and they don't want the US to lose that battle either. They think that at worst Ron Paul is anti-American and at best he is an isolationist whose policies would allow this country to be overrun by hoards of Islamist fundamentalists, Euro terrorists, Chinese peasant capitalists and God knows what else.
Poll Watchers -- These people oppose anyone they don't think can win enough votes to be elected to the Presidency. They think Ron Paul is a loser.
Loyal Democrats -- No explanation needed.
All-in Anarchists -- These people are not only against government, they are against anyone who participates in the process of government, which includes voting. They regard Ron Paul as naive because he thinks the system can be changed from within. They advise simply dropping out.
People who support Ron Paul fall into these categories:
Stupid Racists, Homophobes and Anti-Semites -- These are people like David Duke who actually believe Ron Paul is a racist, homophobic anti-Semite, groundless slurs propagated by the main stream press and Ron Paul baiters.
Anarcho-capitalist and Voluntarist Libertarians -- These people are willing to participate in politics if it means one of their own could get elected to lead the process of dismantling government.
Pacifists -- These people are single issue voters and their single issue is pacifism. They mistakenly interpret Ron Paul's foreign policy as pacifism.
Shock Troopers -- These people are patriotic, liberty-loving Libertarians, Republicans and Democrats (yes, there actually might be one or two!) who want to see profound change for the better in this country sooner rather than later. A great deal of these people consider themselves members of the Tea Party. They believe fervently that the United States is on the verge of social and economic collapse. They see our economic and personal freedoms being taken away from us by the proliferation of progressivism in our culture and in our governments (federal, state and local). They believe the only cure is an immediate and potent shock to the root system of the power elite. Some agree completely with Ron Paul's political philosophy and recommended policies. Some have major disagreements with one or two of his policies but feel the need for the shock treatment outweighs their disagreements. They know that, if by some miracle Ron Paul is elected and allowed by the power elite to serve, that -- contrary to mainstream opinion -- the sky will not fall on America or the world. They know Ron Paul loves the principles upon which our founders built this country. They know he will abide by the Constitution he has faithfully and literally served and defended in Congress, and that he will do what is required to defend this great nation from actual foreign attack. But these people know more than anything else that if the entrenched ruling elite is going to be defeated, the man leading the charge must not be and must not have been a member of that ruling elite. He must not be wishy-washy or tentative or palsy-walsy with Wall Street and its cronies. His must not have the faux courage the comes with pragmatic opportunism or political advantage. He must have the true, steely-eyed courage that comes from within, from principles etched in his heart by a lifetime of believing in property, freedom and peace. He must be a Doctor No!
I have a simple question for all honest and discriminating readers: Who wrote and published the following paragraph on June 15, 2000?
But for a true American individualist, most don't pass the test. Labor Day is out. Don't you hate those NPR tributes to union thugs? So is Memorial Day, which celebrates a Union victory over the seceding South. So is Veterans Day, increasingly a propaganda parade on behalf of a federal bureaucracy. And there are plenty of others not worth even noticing including Presidents Day (I'm anti-president) and MLK Day (a "hate whitey" day, in the parlance of David Horowitz).[emphasis added]
The answer is: the same person who wrote and published this on April 13, 2000:
In contrast, the framers envisioned a society protected by state-level militias. The national defense would be put together only when U.S. soil was directly threatened, and the expenses would be a drop in the bucket... ...If the U.S. had a constitutional system of defense today, we would start with a 90 percent cut in the budget and go from there. Trust no man who says he favors the Constitution and also advocates current levels of spending, much less any new military spending. If we care about the future of American liberty, we should advocate putting the U.S. military machine on cinder blocks. [emphasis added]
And the same person who said this in a speech in Washington in 1996:
The presidency must be destroyed. It is the primary evil we face, and the cause of nearly all our woes. [emphasis added]
And the same person who wrote and published this on March 6, 2008:
I can see only one possible justification for having a president of the United States: to preside over the dismantling of the federal government.
And the same person who wrote and published this on August 29, 2008:
What is the alternative? It is pure liberty, a word that is used only as a slogan in public affairs these days. By liberty, I mean only one kind: a life without badgering from the state. There is nothing on God's green earth that the state can do better than we can as individuals and communities and voluntary associations. What I mean by liberty is no more or less than firing the state as the administrator of society. [emphasis added]
And the same man who wrote and published this on September 27, 2011:
However, in the end, what is really needed is a fundamental rethinking of the notion that the state rather than private markets must monopolize the provision of justice and security. This is the fatal conceit. No power granted to the state goes un-abused. This power, among all possible powers, might be the most important one to take away from the state.
Why would any society permit such a gang [government] to enjoy an unchallenged legal privilege? Here is where ideology comes into play. The reality of the state is that it is a looting and killing machine. So why do so many people cheer for its expansion? Indeed, why do we tolerate its existence at all?
And, finally, this on September 15, 2001, four days after the terrorist destruction of the Twin Towers:
It was the US foreign policy of unyielding empire that incited these attacks in the first place. It's hard to say when the turning point was. It might have been 1990, when the US gave tacit approval to Iraq to invade Kuwait and then bombed Iraq back into the stone age for doing so. It might have been the war on Serbia, or the bombs in Sudan, or the destruction of the Chinese embassy, or any number of other foreign adventures. [emphasis added]
If you listen to mainstream media, these quotes sound like something Ron Paul has written! But no. The man who wrote and published and said these things is Lew Rockwell, Paul's longtime friend and political adviser. The man who, reportedly, wrote and edited the infamous Ron Paul newsletters of 25 years ago. Here's what Wikipedia has to say about Rockwell's relationship with Paul and his newsletters:
Rockwell served as Ron Paul's congressional chief of staff from 1978 to 1982.[4][5] He has maintained a working relationship with Paul over the years, as a contributing editor to "The Ron Paul Investment Letter";[6] as a consultant to Paul's 1988 Libertarian Party campaign for President of the United States;[7] and as vice-chair of the exploratory committee for Paul's spirited run for the 1992 Republican Party nomination for president.[8]
In 2008, libertarian publication Reason published stories discussing several racially charged articles that appeared in Ron Paul newsletters c. 1989-1994. One Reason piece asserted that "a half-dozen longtime libertarian activists—including some still close to Paul" had identified Rockwell as the "chief ghostwriter" of the newsletters. According to Reason, Rockwell denied responsibility for the disputed material and called the accusations "hysterical smears aimed at political enemies."[9] The issue arose again during the 2012 Ron Paul presidential campaign with publications like the The Atlantic and the New York Times detailing Rockwell's possible involvement.[10][11]
Llewellyn Harrison "Lew" Rockwell, Jr. is the Chairman of the Board of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, which he founded in 1982. The banner of the Ludwig von Mises Institute is: "Advancing the concept of liberty in the tradition of the Austrian School." Rockwell also founded the website called LewRockwell.com. That site describes itself as follows:
Clearly Lew Rockwell is an unabashed anarchist. He has no use for "government" or the "state" in any way, shape or form. He is not shy in defense of his point of view. He is an iconoclast and, if the quotes above are any indication, he is proud of it.
Now, let me be perfectly clear. I disagree with much of what Lew Rockwell says and writes. I disagree with many of the articles published at LewRockwell.com and at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, mainly as they relate to anarchism and its corollaries. On the other hand, I've visited these sites fairly often. LewRockwell.com is an excellent source of out-of-the-mainstream insights. The Ludwig von Mises Institute is the gold standard of Austrian economic study. I admire Lew Rockwell's work in furthering Austrian economic theory and making the writings of Ludwig von Mises readily available to all who want to read them. I've given the website a plug in the banner of my own blog. However, as I mentioned in my response to a commenter here with regard to my last post, I detest anarchist theory and all it implies, whether free market or otherwise. I believe its premise is flawed and its logic is in error.
If I had to describe my own political philosophy it would be classical liberalism in the tradition of Ludwig von Mises as described by Mises in his book "Liberalism: In The Classic Tradition." (To claim anarcho-capitalism is in the tradition of Mises is a stretch worthy of Plastic Man.) I believe in private property and freedom. Consequently, I believe Lew Rockwell has the right to write and publish whatever he wants in his own, privately-owned outlets. I am not anti-state or anti-war, when "state" and "war" are properly defined and justified. My problem with Rockwell is his close-minded prostylization of a theoretical contradiction: anarcho-capitalism.
Here is Rockwell being interviewed by an obvious, anarchistic sycophant:
About 13 minutes 40 seconds into the video Rockwell says:
We don't have to stick on the present path. We can change things. People have changed things in the past. It's happened before and we better do it this time. ...You know you mention anarchism. When I first started this movement, to be an anarchist was ultra-controversial even within the libertarians. I mean it was considered something dangerous and off-the-wall. ...Today young people are all anarchists. ...The limited government thing which actually has no arguments for it.... [emphasis added]
Obviously, Lew Rockwell is convinced beyond argument that anarchism not only can exist but should exist, and he is convincing others of the same thing. When Rockwell suggests in the video above that "we can change things...and we better do it this time," the young anarchist interviewer sighs: "Yeah, I don't want to live on this planet if we don't do something." Perhaps this is the kind of feedback that convinces Rockwell that anarchism as a practical political philosophy and that it is no longer considered "ultra-controversial" or "off-the-wall."
Well, this may be true among the young people who frequent LewRockwell.com or maybe even the Ludwig von Mises Institute, but does Rockwell honestly believe it is true in mainstream America? Does he really believe that all young people in America are anarchists?
Rockwell can believe such things if he wants, but does anyone truly believe his anarchism will pass the smell test in the Republican mainstream? Apparently he does, because he feels no compunction at all about offering advice to Ron Paul and his campaign.
And so I ask the $64,000 question: What is Lew Rockwell, the avowed anarchist, doing offering political advice to Ron Paul? And, why does Ron Paul care to listen when he is, apparently, already being politically tarred and feathered by Rockwell's off the wall rhetoric?
I don't know who wrote Ron Paul's infamous newsletters. Frankly, if I had to speculate, I would say Paul ran his newsletters the way Rockwell runs his own website. Of LewRockwell.com Wikipedia says:
The website has sometimes provided a forum for fringe and heterodox science; the site has published critics of the 2009 swine flu vaccination and advocates of AIDS denialism.[10] However, the columns are deliberately idiosyncratic and therefore disclaimed as not necessarily representing Rockwell.[2]
Perhaps, Paul's newsletters were merely a dry run for Rockwell's website. I don't know. Does anyone disagree that Rockwell seems the likely author of Paul's "idiosyncratic" newsletter? I have searched but have never found a news article or a video in which Ron Paul is directly quoted as describing Martin Luther King Day as a "'hate whitey' day." Yet, there it is plain as day at the top of this post. Rockwell used these words in 2000 in his own column at his own website. Is it a stretch to believe he wrote them 10 or 15 years earlier in Paul's newsletter?
Honestly, I don't really care who wrote Paul's newsletters. But the mainstream media does. And mainstream American voters do. This is my point!
Words have consequences. In a Presidential campaign words can make a disaster of a candidate's credibility. Why does Paul continue to court disaster?
Paul has said he didn't write his newsletters, but why not simply name the author who did? Surely, he knows who did. If Rockwell wrote Paul's newsletter, why doesn't Rockwell fess up in the interest of furthering Paul's campaign?
Why does all this matter? Because Ron Paul's association with Lew Rockwell has probably already earned him the reputation of being a nut job. Because a continued association risks doing further damage to Paul's campaign.
For example, I don't know if Ron Paul has ever been asked point blank whether or not he is an anarcho-capitalist, or whether or not he believes in the political and social theory of anarcho-capitalism, or whether or not his ultimate goal in running for President is to completely dismantle the federal government, or to put the US military up on blocks, or to abolish the Presidency, or to privatize the provision of justice and security in this country.
I don't know if Paul has ever been asked if he believes the US government is actually a looting and killing machine that is capable of doing nothing on God's green earth that can't be done by individuals in voluntary association and, if he does believe the US government is evil by definition, why he is trying so hard to become the head of the US government.
I do not know if Ron Paul has ever been asked these questions, but I would not be surprised if he were asked them sometime before now and the end of his campaign.
In 2008 Barack Obama said he worshiped week after week in the church of Rev. Jeremiah Wright and that Rev. Wright was a good friend of his. When asked if he was aware of Wright's bombastic "God damn America" sermonizing, which was well out of the mainstream of the middle American experience, Obama lamely answered that he must not have attended church on those particular days. If the mainstream media hadn't covered Obama's butt during that controversy, Obama would have suffered irreparable damage to his campaign.
Does anyone believe the mainstream media has Ron Paul's backside in this campaign?
On December 27, 2011 the New York Times published an editorial dismissing Ron Paul as a serious candidate. The editorial began:
Ron Paul long ago disqualified himself for the presidency by peddling claptrap proposals like abolishing the Federal Reserve, returning to the gold standard, cutting a third of the federal budget and all foreign aid and opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Now, making things worse, he has failed to convincingly repudiate racist remarks that were published under his name for years — or the enthusiastic support he is getting from racist groups.
Mr. Paul, a Republican congressman from Texas who is doing particularly well in Iowa’s precaucus polls, published several newsletters in the ’80s and ’90s with names like the Ron Paul Survival Report and the Ron Paul Political Report. The newsletters interspersed libertarian political and investment commentary with racial bigotry, anti-Semitism and far-right paranoia...
...Mr. Paul has never given a full and detailed accounting of who wrote the newsletters and what his role was in overseeing their publication. It’s especially important that he do so immediately. Those writings have certainly not been forgotten by white supremacist and militia groups that are promoting his candidacy in Iowa and in New Hampshire.
Lew Rockwell is preaching to us (and is, perhaps, advising Ron Paul) that dismantling the federal government would be a good idea. But the New York Times can't even buy into the idea of cutting foreign aid! Rockwell wants to abolish the Presidency. The New York Times can't handle abolishing the Fed! Rockwell claims the concept of anarchism is no longer considered off the wall or controversial because people know that government is simply a looting and killing machine. Yet, the New York Times considers the tamest and most elementary tenet of Austrian economics -- sound money -- just another "claptrap" proposal!
Mr. Paul, I can defend your "claptrap." Please don't put me in the position of defending Rockwell's!
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.
In the late 70's and in the 80's I regularly participated in political activities of the "big 'L'" Libertarian Party. I was drawn to the Party by my interest in individualism, personal liberty, capitalism and free markets, cultivated by reading Ayn Rand, Harry Browne and Ludwig von Mises, among many others. I was anxious to put what I was learning into political practice.
My exposure to the "big 'L'" began one day, while ambling through the merchant's building at a state fair, when I noticed a booth manned by members of the Libertarian Party. I had considered myself a "small 'L'" libertarian and decided the organized, "big 'L'" political party might be a perfect fit for my budding political activism. Government was getting altogether too big and too powerful for my tastes. I wanted to do something about it.
That first meeting of the Libertarian Party that I attended was an eye-opener. The Party was barely a party at all. I was one of about thirty attendees, if I remember correctly. The group was a strange mix, about half were dressed as I was, businessman casual. This half was well-mannered and considerate. The other half was a rowdy collection of nerdy-looking hippies left over from the 60's. I truly had no idea what I was getting myself into.
When the meeting started, I quickly learned that the Libertarian Party was divided along a fault line. The business-like half represented individuals who were interested in political action. Most of us had been Republican activists disillusioned by Gerald Ford or Democrats disillusioned with Jimmy Carter, as I was. We were clearly looking to field and support Libertarian political candidates.
Unfortunately, the nerdy half of the Party had no such ambitions. They were far more radical in their libertarianism than I was and their interest was not in gathering votes but in changing minds. They wanted to "educate" the "sheeple," teach working class folks like the members of my family, why gambling, drugs and prostitution should be legalized, and why government in all its incarnations was the source of all societal evil. They were literally wild-eyed anarchists. I knew they had their work cut out for them.
Soon, every issue brought to the floor of the meeting devolved into a loud and angry argument between the anarchists and the minarchists, those libertarians who believed, as I did, in limited government, one which would provide police protection, judiciary services and military services, but little else.
The debate between anarchists and minarchists was irritating, frustrating and, I thought, a huge waste of time and energy. I soon realized that the Libertarian Party was going nowhere either politically or educationally. The fledgling Party had no money, scant organization and no real candidates. Those nominated as candidates were strictly figureheads. If I had wanted, I could have left that first meeting nominated as the Libertarian Party candidate for my Congressional District. Bizarre.
I didn't think the Party had much chance to "educate" ordinary folks either. I couldn't imagine my working class father being persuaded of anything by a loudmouthed, in-you-face ex-hippy. To my father, a blue collar union member and lifelong Democrat, Jimmy Carter had been a hard sell. Surely my business associates and suburban friends would have none of this. So I took another tack. I struck up conversations with the few reasonable souls in the room and decided to attend a local discussion group they had organized.
That experience proved extremely valuable for my own libertarian education, but it did nothing to satisfy my desire to be politically active, at least at first. Eventually, I became acquainted with others in my town who had similar political interests. We struck out on our own and we made a real difference in local politics. We threw out the entrenched and corrupt city officials, lowered taxes and city debt, opposed the expansionist dreams of these small town fat cats and brought a true "free market" prospective to city government, even electing an alderman or two. It was a heady time. I was convinced the future of libertarianism was at the local level.
Therefore, I slowly drifted away from the Libertarian Party as an outlet for national politics. Besides, Ronald Reagan had gained prominence in the Republican Party and he was saying all the right things. To my great disappointment, President Jimmy Carter had been an unmitigated disaster. I had thought Carter, as a businessman and Washington outsider, could turn things around. I was hoodwinked because at that time I had been philosophically naive. Now I knew how Carter was running the economy into the ground. Inflation was soaring. Interest rates were suffocating. Unemployment was rising. Business was at a stand still. The price of gold had skyrocketed.
Even as a novice Austrian economist, I knew Carter's Keynesianism was the exact opposite of what needed to be done. Reagan promised lower taxes, deregulation and less government, exactly what I knew was needed to avert a total economic collapse. I felt then, as people feel now about Obama, that Carter must be defeated at all costs.
With Reagan's election, the country began to breathe easier again, both economically and socially. Businesses thrived. Individuals prospered. Reagan's effect on the country's mood cannot be overestimated. He made individual Americans feel good again, about themselves and their country. Moreover, Reagan's foreign policy -- rebuilding the military and taking a tough stance against the Soviet Union, the "Evil Empire" -- gave people hope that, finally, the scourge of the Cold War might end. In addition, Reagan's foreign policy was compatible with Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism which still influenced my thinking. It was firm and principled. All seemed right with the world.
As Reagan succeeded, I became less and less interested in political activism and more and more interested in political philosophy. Besides my discussion group which was still going strong, I began to participate in internet forums. I also discovered the newly formed "Ludwig von Mises Institute" and various other Free Market websites. In these different venues, as I read and participated in philosophical discussions, I found myself reliving the old anarchist/minarchist debate of years before. Now, of course, the debate had become more sophisticated, but also more vigorous and hateful. I realized another serious fault line was developing, not merely in the "big 'L'" Libertarian Party, but in the "small 'L'" libertarian philosophy.
That fault line still exists today, and Ron Paul is squarely in the middle, straddling the chasm like the fabled Colossus of Rhodes. Wikipedia says that during an earthquake the famed statue "snapped at the knees and fell over." Ron Paul is hoping to avoid the same fate.
Ramesh Ponnuru, Senior Editor at National Review, echos his colleague in a Bloomberg News column giving readers a primer on Paul's radical political history before concluding, "the notion that he will be the Republican nominee is too absurd to spend a moment contemplating."
It’s no mystery, really: Ron Paul is, in many ways, the exact opposite of the Beltway fake-“libertarians.” He’s a populist: they suck up to power, he challenges the powers-that-be; they go along to get along – he has never gone along with the conventional wisdom as defined by the arbiters of political correctness, Left and Right. And most of all, he’s an avowed enemy of the neoconservatives, whom he constantly names as the main danger to peace and liberty – while the Beltway’s tame “libertarians” are in bed with them, often literally as well as figuratively.
In short, the Beltway fake-libs are in bed with the State, and all its works, while contenting themselves with the role of court jester and would-be “reformer” of the system. As long as they don’t challenge anything too fundamental to the continuation of the Welfare-Warfare State, the pet libertines of the neocon-led GOP “coalition” are deemed “urbane” and “cosmopolitan,” the highest compliment the Georgetown party circuit can bestow. Once they begin rocking the boat, as Paul insists on doing, they become fair game for the Smearbund.
It was Kroft who earlier said Obama had “some impressive accomplishments” that were “more than a lot of presidents who manage to get reelected.” It was the president who made clear later that he was talking about his “legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years” compared to those of other presidents. If Obama is guilty of anything, it’s that he took the bait to compare himself with giants when it is history that will be the final arbiter.
The notion that there was anything in Obama’s past or present temperament to suggest a political reformer was mythological to the core. Almost all his prior elections relied on a paradigm of attacking his opponents rather than defending his own record, from the races for the legislature to the U.S. Senate. He shook down Wall Street as no one had before or since — and well after the September 2008 meltdown. He was the logical expression of the Chicago/Illinois system of Tony Rezko, Blago, and the Daleys, not its aberration — from the mundane of expanding his yard to melting down opponents by leaking sealed divorce records.
Commentator Firas al Attrachi refers to it as "a new social contract". He states that "events in Tahrir Square, to some extent in January/February and more so in the past week, have forced the foundation of a new social contract along the lines of how nations were formed during the Greek city-state era", redefining the relationship between people and government, and the very meaning of citizenship in the country.
It was barely mentioned in the Israeli and global media, but the following event pertains to the whole of Western civilization: Last Saturday, violent groups of Islamic-Salafi radicals burned the famous scientific institute established by Napoleon in Egypt after its first encounter with the West. Some historians consider it the start of modern times in the Middle East.
Eight candidates, that I can understand. But why four moderators/questioners?
This was a media event, plain and simple. The questions were inane (I still can't believe Michelle Bachmann was asked if, as President, she would be submissive to her husband!). The answers were scripted as the candidates ripped off catchy sound bites in hopes of earning a headline on the Drudge Report. Romney said he won't eat Obama's dogfood. I wonder how much time he and his consultants spent coming up with that one?
Here's my impression of the candidates:
In general, they were weak. I thought to myself several times as the debate progressed: Is this the best we got?
Honestly, you have to hand it to Barack Obama. He is more comfortable in his skin and in his philosophy than any of the eight on stage last night. Obama has been steeped in Marxist thought since birth. He's personable and likeable. Except for a streak of obnoxious arrogance, Obama comes across as an ordinary guy who really believes what comes out of his mouth. When he responds off the cuff to individuals like Joe the Plumber the Marxist/leftist tripe he spouts seems natural and from the heart. This is the sincerity and genuineness that Americans are drawn to. Frankly, the Republicans on stage last night don't measure up.
Romney, the supposed frontrunner, is a man who would say anything to get elected. He did so in Massachusetts several years ago and now, when confronted, he must eat his words. He does so smoothly and without hesitation. Romney reminds me of his father, an establishment politician who talks a good game but in the end is a rudderless pragmatist, a stereotypical big government, elitist, compassionate conservative. You want another George Bush, vote for Romney.
Bachmann is a puzzle. I like her as a person, but I don't know if I'd like her as President. She reads von Mises at the beach, so her philosophy and economics are sound. However, she is a bit iconoclastic. Does she pick her fights because she believes in them or because she's trying to please her minions? She's a populist who, I think, listens too much to her "expert" advisors. That's a dangerous combination in any executive, much less a President. In the end, she's weak.
Pawlenty is Romney lite. And that's really, really lite.
Santorum is Bachmann heavy, in that he is a bigger enigma than she is. He speaks with sincerity, but is a sincere televangelist really what the country needs in a President? When the chips are down, I want a President who looks to the Constitution for guidance, not the bible. Beware of candidates prepared to do what is "right" come hell or highwater.
Ron Paul is Santorum heavy. He merely subscribes to the religion of libertarianism rather than Christianity. Don't misunderstand. Christians and libertarians are, in general, good people but they can be insufferable. If I were marooned on a desert island with a single companion, I wouldn't mind that companion being Santorum or Paul. On the other hand, it would have to be a huge island! I don't want a President who is so driven by ideology he can't see the forest for the trees. Both libertarianism and Christianity are flawed ideologies. On a desert island those flaws are inconsequential. However, those flaws in the mind of the most powerful politician on earth could be fatal.
Herman Cain is a nice guy and a great businessman. He'd make a poor President. He'd be the conservatives' Jimmy Carter. In business, the job of the chief executive is to identify problems and solve them. Not so in government. I don't want a problem-solver in the White House. I want a dismantler, someone who is inclined to say: This is not a problem government should solve. It is a problem best solved by the people. Therefore, I recommend we do away with such and such agency or program. Ron Paul is the dismantler type I want, but Paul doesn't know when to stop dismantling.
Gingrich and Huntsman were the most sincere and genuine candidates on the stage last night. Gingrich's problem is that he is a policy wonk, albeit a sincere and genuine one. I tend to trust his instincts, but too often his instincts are subsumed by wonky policy and slick program recommendations that are so convoluted they'd make Rube Goldberg proud. If Dr. Frankenstein could transfer Gary Johnson's sincere, genuine, level-headed management style and philosophy into Gingrich's personality, we'd have a winner.
Huntsman showed me something last night. I distrust his philosophy and his tendency to play ball too enthusiastically with the other side, but he talked a good game last night and showed the sincereity and genuineness we need in a candidate. Perhaps Huntsman is so much the gentleman that I've been mislead about his convictions. I'll keep my eye on him.
In the meantime, I think the Republicans must keep searching for the standard-bearer they need to defeat the Obama machine. This standard-bearer must be fearless, quick-witted, humble, humorous and a great communicator. He or she must be an experienced executive with sound judgement, an attachment to old school, traditional American culture and an instinctual love of property, freedom and peace.
