DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: Sigz on September 03, 2011, 09:14:31 PM
-
https://www.tnr.com/article/94477/ron-paul-distorted-libertarian-ideology?page=0,1
(This is only part of it, as it's a bit too long to fully paste here)
...it irks me that, as far as most Americans are concerned, Ron Paul is the alpha and omega of the libertarian creed. If you were an evil genius determined to promote the idea that libertarianism is a morally dubious ideology of privilege poorly disguised as a doctrine of liberation, you'd be hard pressed to improve on Ron Paul.
Much of Paul's appeal comes from the impression he conveys of principled ideological coherence. Other Republican presidential aspirants are transparently pandering grab-bags of incoherent compromise. Ron Paul presents himself as a man of conviction devoted to liberty, plain and simple, who follows logic's lead and tells it plain. The problem is, often he’s not.
According to Paul's brand of libertarianism the inviolability of private property is the greater part of liberty. And Paul is crystal-clear about the policy implications of his philosophical convictions about property rights. As Paul writes in his 2009 book Liberty: A Manifesto, the income tax implies that "the government owns you, and graciously allows you to keep whatever percentage of the fruits of your labor it chooses." To Paul, the policy upshot is evident: "What we should work toward ... is abolishing the income tax and replacing it not with a national sales tax, but with nothing." Whatever you think of this, you can't accuse Paul of dancing around the issue. However, Paul is not so dogged in consistently applying his principles in other domains.
In the Appendix to his most recent book Liberty Defined, Paul usefully lists "The ten principles of a free society." First among these is the proposition that "Rights belong to individuals, not groups..." The second asserts that "All peaceful voluntary economic and social associations are permitted..." So, if groups have no rights, Americans as a group have no collective right to impede non-American individuals in the exercise of their rights to free movement and association (which, Paul insists, "derive from our nature and can neither be granted nor taken away by government"). These are principles that ought to lead straightaway to the conclusion that anything but a policy of open borders and open labor markets is violation of fundamental individual rights, and Paul does recognize this, sort of. "In the ideal libertarian world, borders would be blurred and open," he admits in the immigration of Liberty Defined.
But suddenly we find Paul dancing daintily around the policy sombrero. "Civilization,” he writes, “has not yet come even close to being capable of such a policy, though it engages in some historical discussion."
So when it comes to protecting the wealth of propertied Americans, Paul is an absolutist who will brook no compromise. Taxation is slavery! But when it comes to defending an equally basic, principled commitment to free immigration and unrestricted labor markets, Paul develops a keen sensitivity to complicated questions of feasibility, hemming and hawing his way to a convoluted compromise that would continue to affirm the systematic violation of the individual rights of foreigners who would like to live and work in America, and those of Americans who would like to live and work with them.
"I strongly believe in the principle of peaceful civil disobedience," Paul begins in a chapter on that subject. "Those who resist the state nonviolently, based on their own principles, deserve our support," he says. But when it comes to mostly poor foreigners who break immigration laws that straightforwardly violate Paul's own principles, the congressman can hardly summon a flicker of sympathy. "The toughest part of showing any compassion or tolerance to the illegal immigrants … is the tremendous encouragement it gives for more immigrants to come illegally and avoid the wait and bureaucracy," Paul writes. In other words, if we allow ourselves to go soft on brown people with bad English, even more of them may wish to exercise their "individual rights that derive from nature and cannot be granted or taken away by government." (cont'd...)
Thoughts from our libertarian peeps (or anyone else)?
-
I must admit that this is the most tricky aspect Ron Paul. I have never understand it precisely of what the article said.
-
I think in those questions even the great Ron Paul realizes that implementing the Libertarian ideal is a recipe for disaster. Opening the borders would render the United States a madhouse within weeks.
rumborak
-
Libertarianism is a good concept, but I don't think it's functionally viable in this society. And that's probably why libertarian candidates rarely crack double-digits in any major elections.
-
I think a lot of people get that anarchist vibe a bit when they listen to Libertarians (abolish all government!). And I think most people have their heads screwed tightly enough on their necks to know that anarchism is usually a very undesirable state of things.
rumborak
-
I don't support Ron Paul because I want to live in his dream-world. I support him because that's where I find the greatest overlap between my ideas and a politician's. Basically, when (and if) I cast my vote I'm usually willing to bet that Ron Paul will be able to bring the troops home and keep the government from spying on me before he's able to obliterate the FDA and replace public schools with a Bible-centered home-school voucher program.
-
I think a lot of people get that anarchist vibe a bit when they listen to Libertarians (abolish all government!). And I think most people have their heads screwed tightly enough on their necks to know that anarchism is usually a very undesirable state of things.
rumborak
This. And I'd say this goes more for some of my average libertarian friends than for actual politicians (for quite obvious reasons).
-
I don't support Ron Paul because I want to live in his dream-world. I support him because that's where I find the greatest overlap between my ideas and a politician's. Basically, when (and if) I cast my vote I'm usually willing to bet that Ron Paul will be able to bring the troops home and keep the government from spying on me before he's able to obliterate the FDA and replace public schools with a Bible-centered home-school voucher program.
This is the reason I'm considering voting for him. I realize his economic ideas are wacky and some his social views perhaps wackier, but I think the social stuff is rather insignificant when compared to all the really important stuff he wants to TRY to do that the other candidates wouldn't dare touch.
It's definitely a tough spot, though. If it's not for him, I don't know what fringe candidate I'll have to vote for.
-
I don't support Ron Paul because I want to live in his dream-world. I support him because that's where I find the greatest overlap between my ideas and a politician's. Basically, when (and if) I cast my vote I'm usually willing to bet that Ron Paul will be able to bring the troops home and keep the government from spying on me before he's able to obliterate the FDA and replace public schools with a Bible-centered home-school voucher program.
This is the reason I'm considering voting for him. I realize his economic ideas are wacky and some his social views perhaps wackier, but I think the social stuff is rather insignificant when compared to all the really important stuff he wants to TRY to do that the other candidates wouldn't dare touch.
It's definitely a tough spot, though. If it's not for him, I don't know what fringe candidate I'll have to vote for.
But isn't that just the same as hearing a Republican or Democrat making all those same promises on the campaign road? Might he not also go back on his promises, like any other presidential candidate?
-
But isn't that just the same as hearing a Republican or Democrat making all those same promises on the campaign road? Might he not also go back on his promises, like any other presidential candidate?
Kinda seems like they had their shot and have been continuously and without fail, fucking the entire situation up more. Most republicans and democrats for all their talk generally stick to the same fundamentals which means they will never ever do something a previous candidate has not done before. I for one think that with the current state of things it would be cool to see if given the chance what exactly Polly would be able to accomplish and if whatever changes he makes early on will have positive turnouts, which I believe they will. Aside from that, he sells himself as a reliable and honest man who doesn't change day by day depending on what gets him the most press very well which is evidenced in how he is always saying and voting for the same shit consistently.
-
Aside from that, he sells himself as a reliable and honest man who doesn't change day by day depending on what gets him the most press very well which is evidenced in how he is always saying and voting for the same shit consistently.
Actually, that would be a concern from my side. Ideals are nice, but we've seen what misguided consistency of ideals can do under GWB. He wouldn't change his approach, despite the changing circumstances.
rumborak
-
To be fair and trying to be balanced, can anyone post an article that thoroughly explains the logic behind his argument? At least it would contribute to the discussion.
-
I'm with PC. I don't agree fully with Ron Paul, but in general he represents the direction in which we need to be heading.
-
I'm with PC. I don't agree fully with Ron Paul, but in general he represents the direction in which we need to be heading.
I'd buy that. I think his Libertarian utopia is a fairytale, but combined with forced realpolitik moderation, he'd probably do alright . The bigger selling point for Paul is that he actually has a fair amount of integrity, though, which is actually remarkable in this day and age.
-
Seems oxymoronic to me, a combination of utopianism and realpolitik. Either you're detached from reality or you live in it, it's that simple.
-
You will never agree with someone 100% of the time, but Dr. Ron Paul comes close in the 90%s for me. He's the only one in D.C. who is not a puppet of the banksters or some other special interest.
Even the huffing-and-puffington post likes him:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/laura-trice/ron-paul-elections_b_939004.html
-
Even I'm considering voting for him, but wow that a horrific article. Of course, I guess that's what happens when your 'healthy living' writer decides to write a political article :lol
-
Even Bill Maher likes Ron Paul and he doesn't like anyone lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUYDt7kC3Z0
-
I would definately vote for the man but, I have to wonder if the obstruction that we're seeing from congress now wouldn't be that much worse if he were to be elected.
-
I feel like the article in the original post is really reaching to find its criticisms.
-
If it weren't for Sigz clarification anyone would think that the title of this thread is really misleading :lol
-
I think even if he was elected he wouldn't be able to implement a lot of his ideas, but even if he were, I guess I'm one of the few that kind of hopes for it. Regardless of his personal opinions on a given issue, I like that he hampers the ever-growing assumption that we must have a national solution/law to every issue. "He's a whackjob that wants to abolish the government!" Even though that's hilariously untrue, he's said repeatedly that even though he envisions much smaller federal government, it's not like it would happen at a finger snap. But I do think if he actually were elected, like others have mentioned, he would at least be able to use the power of the pen to veto a lot of otherwise pretty messy stuff the Congress typically slams through, the kind of things quite a few from both sides would agree needs to be reigned in - endless overseas interventionism and instrusive domestic surveillace.
tl;dr: We've been piling on government debt/obligations without remorse for a long time now with ever worsening results. At least give the guy a freaking chance. Maybe, just maybe, a smaller federal government wouldn't mean societal catastrophe.
With that view in mind, I think articles like the one posted offer really silly, ultimately meaningless criticisms. At the end of the day, he's the only guy that isn't just another plastic figurehead.
Ugh, so much for de-politicizing myself. I'm outta here. :lol
-
I'm not a big fan of "spite voting", since I've seen in Austria what that can do (Haider). You don't hand an extreme figure power, and then hope that others will hold him back.
rumborak
-
I think the problem lies inherently in libertarian thought, because libertarian thought is so extreme. Especially with the Ayn Rand objectivists, who make government and social cooperation a moral sin. At bottom, objectivist thinking seems to be the basic underpinning of most libertarian arguments, as it eventually always comes down to "what right do you have to take someone's money," or tell him what he cannot and cannot do with it. They don't want anarchy, they just seem to want things which make anarchy the only likely result.
Really though, I think the word libertarian is horribly vague when it comes down to it. On one side, you have people like Praxis who favor basic anarchy; on the other side you have people who just want a much smaller government, like PC. Hell, I can fall into the latter definition, but I'm labeled a liberal around here.
Our political terms are so horrible in America. They explain nothing, and cover up far too much. It's rather 1984ish if you ask me.
-
Whatever. Paul irks a lot of people all over the political spectrum, and they pick at any weakness they can find. His platform, as others have mentioned, is the most substantial and consistent of any proposed by any politician in recent history. That's deserves a vote as far as I'm concerned. He's not perfect. So what? He's a better choice, and not just less terrible, than anybody else.
-
I think the problem lies inherently in libertarian thought, because libertarian thought is so extreme.
That all depends on who you're basing your opinion on. You can put any movement/belief in negative light by being selective about who you choose to shine that negative light on. It's an easy trap to fall in and I've been guilty of it myself at times.
-
I think the problem lies inherently in libertarian thought, because libertarian thought is so extreme.
That all depends on who you're basing your opinion on. You can put any movement/belief in negative light by being selective about who you choose to shine that negative light on. It's an easy trap to fall in and I've been guilty of it myself at times.
Meh, if you honestly think Ayn Rand has an overall valid and good world view, I'd say extreme fits fairly well. I did back up in the second paragraph, to say that what I'm calling libertarianism isn't going to fit to all people who may qualify as "libertarian" by their voting habits.
-
I don't support Ron Paul because I want to live in his dream-world. I support him because that's where I find the greatest overlap between my ideas and a politician's. Basically, when (and if) I cast my vote I'm usually willing to bet that Ron Paul will be able to bring the troops home and keep the government from spying on me before he's able to obliterate the FDA and replace public schools with a Bible-centered home-school voucher program.
This is the reason I'm considering voting for him. I realize his economic ideas are wacky and some his social views perhaps wackier, but I think the social stuff is rather insignificant when compared to all the really important stuff he wants to TRY to do that the other candidates wouldn't dare touch.
It's definitely a tough spot, though. If it's not for him, I don't know what fringe candidate I'll have to vote for.
But isn't that just the same as hearing a Republican or Democrat making all those same promises on the campaign road? Might he not also go back on his promises, like any other presidential candidate?
Like people have said above, he has the record to back it up. All I want is an honest effort. He would stir things up, and I think that would be refreshing. I don't see how voting for any of the other Republicrats will be any better.
-
I mean personally that's not a problem for me because I won't be voting for a Republican candidate anyway. :P
-
I mean personally that's not a problem for me because I won't be voting for a Republican candidate anyway. :P
lol I first read that as "I'll be voting for a republican", and I was gonna "What kind of jew are you?!?!"
-
I mean personally that's not a problem for me because I won't be voting for a Republican candidate anyway. :P
by Republicrat, I meant a Democrat or a Republican.
-
I mean personally that's not a problem for me because I won't be voting for a Republican candidate anyway. :P
by Republicrat, I meant a Democrat or a Republican.
Oh, I didn't even notice that until you just pointed it out, my bad.
-
Ron Paul's vice presidential running mate should be Gary Johnson.
-
As Paul writes in his 2009 book Liberty: A Manifesto
???
He meant: "The Revolution." It's hard to give weight to criticism when the critic shows such little regard to detail, that he gets the title of the book he is critiquing wrong.
Despite the authors error, there are different levels of libertarian theory. Ron Paul would be considered a constitutional minarchist; not an anarcho-capitalist like Murray Rothbard, or an objectivist like Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand didn't even like private charity, Ron Paul loves private charity and provided it for extensive periods of time as an M.D. Rothbard hated the constitution, Ron Paul likes it.
-
As Paul writes in his 2009 book Liberty: A Manifesto
???
He meant: "The Revolution." It's hard to give weight to criticism when the critic shows such little regard to detail, that he gets the title of the book he is critiquing wrong.
Despite the authors error, there are different levels of libertarian theory. Ron Paul would be considered a constitutional minarchist; not an anarcho-capitalist like Murray Rothbard, or an objectivist like Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand didn't even like private charity, Ron Paul loves private charity and provided it for extensive periods of time as an M.D. Rothbard hated the constitution, Ron Paul likes it.
We're all the same; we fit into a neat little anarchistic box and can be ignored because of it. Stupid libertarian, abrahamclark.
-
Maybe so, but maybe those of us who reject libertarianism do so because we reject its unifying attributes?
-
Maybe so, but maybe those of us who reject libertarianism do so because we reject its unifying attributes?
There are typically two main unifying attributes:
A belief in self ownership and the right of the self to acquire needed properties to sustain self.
A belief in the non-aggression principle.
Are these the attributes being rejected?
-
We're all the same; we fit into a neat little anarchistic box and can be ignored because of it. Stupid libertarian, abrahamclark.
Ah... how I've missed the forums. :corn
-
As Paul writes in his 2009 book Liberty: A Manifesto
???
He meant: "The Revolution." It's hard to give weight to criticism when the critic shows such little regard to detail, that he gets the title of the book he is critiquing wrong.
Despite the authors error, there are different levels of libertarian theory. Ron Paul would be considered a constitutional minarchist; not an anarcho-capitalist like Murray Rothbard, or an objectivist like Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand didn't even like private charity, Ron Paul loves private charity and provided it for extensive periods of time as an M.D. Rothbard hated the constitution, Ron Paul likes it.
We're all the same; we fit into a neat little anarchistic box and can be ignored because of it. Stupid libertarian, abrahamclark.
Isn't that the point of the article? That Ron Paul is essentially being the poster boy for libertarianism and unfortunately not being a very good one?
And welcome back AC!
-
The problem as I see it is that the way libertarians argue, the principles they put forward, don't leave room for government, not really. Even those who believe in limited government will go off about how taxing is a horrible evil, how regulation is stupid and makes things worse, and how anything the government get's its hand into ends up going to shit. That logic doesn't say, "lets have some government," it says, "let's have no government."
Maybe so, but maybe those of us who reject libertarianism do so because we reject its unifying attributes?
There are typically two main unifying attributes:
A belief in self ownership and the right of the self to acquire needed properties to sustain self.
A belief in the non-aggression principle.
Are these the attributes being rejected?
I don't reject these idea's, I reject their real life veracity. There are places where this ideal works great places where it doesn't. As I've said elsewhere, there's also the fact that liberal and libertarian theory envisions and requires us to be true individuals - which doesn't seem to hold much scientific water.
It's not the ideals, it's the extremity of those idea's. Virtue is found between two vices.
-
We're all the same; we fit into a neat little anarchistic box and can be ignored because of it. Stupid libertarian, abrahamclark.
Ah... how I've missed the forums. :corn
Welcome back, buddy. My previous post was joke by the way. ;D
Isn't that the point of the article? That Ron Paul is essentially being the poster boy for libertarianism and unfortunately not being a very good one?
Yeah, and the author's wrong. Paul's not particularly engaging in public. But he's intelligent and his views are much more than the canned responses that the other candidates call their platforms.
-
Now we need Jobe and we can all make a party.
-
I don't agree with all the things Ron Paul proposses. But I really like the guy's frame of mind. He seems like he is truely in it for sake of making America a better place to live, and not to just have the posisition of president of the united states. I think the fact that he continues to go on fighting every election, regardless of how much he gets bashed. The thing I give him the most respect for is that he tells how it is. He doesn't just say these are problems that need to be fixed. He has no problem saying that it's the governments fault (mostly congress) who got us into the mess that we are in today. That's all I want from my president. I want him to have the balls to say "yes, we have a fucked up system, it is corrupt, it has stollen from you. I'm here to put an end to that.".
-
I do admire him for his steadfastness to his ideals; I sometimes wonder though whether it also isn't a bit easy for him, since he doesn't really stand much chance in the race, so he doesn't need to appease anyone.
rumborak
-
I'm curious: do Libertarians just ignore the history of the United States from 1781-87? I've always wondered about that.
-
I'm curious: do Libertarians just ignore the history of the United States from 1781-87? I've always wondered about that.
What are you referring to? It could be a number of things, but I'm not sure exactly what you have in mind.
-
I get what GP is saying. I've seen few satisfying explanations for how something Ron Paul is talking about would be very different from the way the nation existed under the Articles of Confederation.
-
I get what GP is saying. I've seen few satisfying explanations for how something Ron Paul is talking about would be very different from the way the nation existed under the Articles of Confederation.
Not to reveal my radical credentials, but is that such a terrible thing? A federal government actually constrained by another entity (a state, or several of them) besides itself? The unimaginable horror! But Paul typically uses the Constitution as his anchor point, so I think your concern is unwarranted.
-
I get what GP is saying. I've seen few satisfying explanations for how something Ron Paul is talking about would be very different from the way the nation existed under the Articles of Confederation.
Not to reveal my radical credentials, but is that such a terrible thing? A federal government actually constrained by another entity (a state, or several of them) besides itself? The unimaginable horror! But Paul typically uses the Constitution as his anchor point, so I think your concern is unwarranted.
Trade under the articles of confederation was greatly hindered because there wasn't a uniform policy; states printing money created even greater havoc in trading between states, and people, and it caused a lot of problems. After ratification, these issues were resolved by the federal government, and you can actually see this in economic data available at the time. By forming a stronger central government, and one more clear as to it's role, things became better, not worse, in the United States.
The Constitutional Convention didn't form because everyone was happy with the way things were going.
-
Look at pre-Euro Europe to see the same thing really. A multitude of currencies that only hindered things. Despite its current problems, the Euro was a boon for Europe. It's amazing that somebody like Paul wants to revert the US to something like that.
rumborak
-
Shay's Rebellion is the same thing. Without a unified response by people to an uprising, it was allowed to fester.
-
I get what GP is saying. I've seen few satisfying explanations for how something Ron Paul is talking about would be very different from the way the nation existed under the Articles of Confederation.
Not to reveal my radical credentials, but is that such a terrible thing? A federal government actually constrained by another entity (a state, or several of them) besides itself? The unimaginable horror! But Paul typically uses the Constitution as his anchor point, so I think your concern is unwarranted.
Trade under the articles of confederation was greatly hindered because there wasn't a uniform policy; states printing money created even greater havoc in trading between states, and people, and it caused a lot of problems. After ratification, these issues were resolved by the federal government, and you can actually see this in economic data available at the time. By forming a stronger central government, and one more clear as to it's role, things became better, not worse, in the United States.
I agree; dozens of governments restricting trade with one another is problematic. But my point was that at the time none of the colonies would have stuttered before telling the Congress to suck itself if they felt encroached upon. It would be refreshing to see states taking similar stands today when necessary. We could certainly have the latter without the former.
-
My point is that it only took 5-6 years for everyone to realize that a system which is pretty close to the libertarian ideal - strong state rights, almost no taxation, no executive branch, no military force except self-organized militias - was a complete and utter failure and no way to run a country.
When the federal government tried to collect taxes, the states told them to fuck off. There was no judiciary, and Congress didn't even have the real authority to legislate the States. The government had no authority to conduct diplomacy with foreign powers. Complete and utter mess, and a situation that made itself untenable.
-
To me, the discussion of state vs. federal, or might as well even put city level into the fray!, is a function of what I would call "interaction reach" of the interacting entities. 150 years ago, while there certainly was international trading going on, I would argue that state-to-state trade made up a significantly higher percentage than it does today. In that mindset, "Us" and "Them" was "our state" and "their state".
These days international trade and interactions dominate by far, and the Us and Them has shifted towards "our country" vs. "their country". A state on its own in that scenario will simply get mowed over politically by bigger countries, just like the pre-European Union countries were mowed over by the US' influence, because the federal US had much bigger pull than the (combined GDP actually stronger) European countries, and just like the US is starting to get mowed over by China because China is unified whereas the US wastes precious time and resources with these state vs federal debates.
So, to me, the shift towards more federal gov't is a result of globalization and plainly a necessity, not caused by power hunger or whatever else conspiracy theory.
rumborak
-
Welcome back, buddy. My previous post was joke by the way. ;D
Thank you
And welcome back AC!
And thank you
-
My point is that it only took 5-6 years for everyone to realize that a system which is pretty close to the libertarian ideal - strong state rights, almost no taxation, no executive branch, no military force except self-organized militias - was a complete and utter failure and no way to run a country.
Ron Paul has never publicly advocated a return to the Articles of Confederation. Quite the opposite, he advocates for a return to the constitution. Also, we should forgive the Founders for not developing a concrete constitution while simultaneously defeating the world's power; a seemingly impossible task.
The constitution is a very libertarian document, and with that being said, it still holds some weight to this day.
-
To me, the discussion of state vs. federal, or might as well even put city level into the fray!, is a function of what I would call "interaction reach" of the interacting entities. 150 years ago, while there certainly was international trading going on, I would argue that state-to-state trade made up a significantly higher percentage than it does today. In that mindset, "Us" and "Them" was "our state" and "their state".
These days international trade and interactions dominate by far, and the Us and Them has shifted towards "our country" vs. "their country". A state on its own in that scenario will simply get mowed over politically by bigger countries, just like the pre-European Union countries were mowed over by the US' influence, because the federal US had much bigger pull than the (combined GDP actually stronger) European countries, and just like the US is starting to get mowed over by China because China is unified whereas the US wastes precious time and resources with these state vs federal debates.
So, to me, the shift towards more federal gov't is a result of globalization and plainly a necessity, not caused by power hunger or whatever else conspiracy theory.
rumborak
The Federal Government already controls the U.S. economy and trade to the nth degree. The U.S. isn't being mowed over by China because of state rights; quite the contrary.
-
The US is currently politically deadlocked, and has been for quite a while now, partially because the right wing of the spectrum wants to oppose any federal activity. And that deadlock is causing it to fall behind (look at stem cell research for example, which essentially moved out of the US as a result of the constant uncertainty).
rumborak
-
My point is that it only took 5-6 years for everyone to realize that a system which is pretty close to the libertarian ideal - strong state rights, almost no taxation, no executive branch, no military force except self-organized militias - was a complete and utter failure and no way to run a country.
When the federal government tried to collect taxes, the states told them to fuck off. There was no judiciary, and Congress didn't even have the real authority to legislate the States. The government had no authority to conduct diplomacy with foreign powers. Complete and utter mess, and a situation that made itself untenable.
As Abe just alluded to, the government they replaced the confederation with is very libertarian. The government was granted a specific set of powers to avoid the difficulties you mentioned, but the constitution would never have been ratified had the state's felt their autonomy was threatened.
-
I get what GP is saying. I've seen few satisfying explanations for how something Ron Paul is talking about would be very different from the way the nation existed under the Articles of Confederation.
Not to reveal my radical credentials, but is that such a terrible thing? A federal government actually constrained by another entity (a state, or several of them) besides itself? The unimaginable horror! But Paul typically uses the Constitution as his anchor point, so I think your concern is unwarranted.
Trade under the articles of confederation was greatly hindered because there wasn't a uniform policy; states printing money created even greater havoc in trading between states, and people, and it caused a lot of problems. After ratification, these issues were resolved by the federal government, and you can actually see this in economic data available at the time. By forming a stronger central government, and one more clear as to it's role, things became better, not worse, in the United States.
I agree; dozens of governments restricting trade with one another is problematic. But my point was that at the time none of the colonies would have stuttered before telling the Congress to suck itself if they felt encroached upon. It would be refreshing to see states taking similar stands today when necessary. We could certainly have the latter without the former.
I actually agree, that I think states should stick up for themselves more. Often though, when I make my arguments, I'm not saying so much which governments needs to be doing something, only that "government" needs to do something.
But let's not ignore the very very very simple fact that things were worse under a constitution when there wasn't' as strong of a federal government, and that things got better with some centralization of power. It's balancing act, and you can go too far in one direction, which I what I think libertarians forget.
Because there's things that the constitution gives the federal government the power to do that you libertarian don't like on ideological grounds, and you and I both know that.
-
Honestly, I don't get how "Constitutional Republicanism" is really supposed to be compatible with Libertarianism. In fact, I kinda the two ideas to be pretty incompatible with each other. Let's take abortion: plenty of libertarians play that "states right" card when it gets brought up, including Ron Paul until recently. What does that even mean-- people are entitled to certain liberties and the bigger scale, but your local government is authorized to tyrannize you however they want, granted there's no Constitutional precedent on the issue? Likewise, I saw Rick Perry get rebuked in last weeks debate for letting immigrants working towards citizenship drive their cars.
"Liberty" means "liberty for everyone," not just "liberty for members of the state." Ultimately, ideas about state and even national boundaries are outdated according to the libertarian view, but for very obvious reasons they can't be completely done away with-- especially when the most influential libertarians these days seem to be heavily tied with the US political establishment. The end result is a pretty weird way of approaching certain issues, like the contradictions I noted above and the ones in the OP.
Is the solution offered by US libertarians better than the current establishment? Certainly yes, at least in some ways. But it also can be worse, sometimes. I've been thinking about the question a bit since the topic was posted and, I've got to say, I'm started to see what the author was talking about.
-
I'm not an American or anything, but the constant constitution BS is something I hate. Seriously, does anyone really give a crap if it's in the constitution or not? I only care if it's right or not.
Paul made the statement about states having a say in marriage laws, while he doesn't support any federalization of marriage. But isn't it kind of the same thing, just less centralized? As he has said on many occasions it's the best if marriage is left up to private contractors and churches themselves - get any government out of the business.
Paul is just another one who is too fixated on the constitution, but at least he adheres to a lot of the libertarian principles in it.
-
Its true, you aren't going to find a politician, including Ron Paul, who has a set sense of principles which he then derives his social policy. We aren't going to see someone who had a set core of beliefs like Milton Friedman or Mises running for president. This counts for both sides.