A Libertarian’s Lament: Why Ron Paul Is an Embarrassment to the Creed

[Sigz]

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)?

[emindead]

I must admit that this is the most tricky aspect Ron Paul. I have never understand it precisely of what the article said.

[rumborak]

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

[kirksnosehair]

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.

[rumborak]

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

[Perpetual Change]

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.  

[Super Dude]

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).

[antigoon]

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.

[Super Dude]

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?

[Nigerius Rex]

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.

[rumborak]

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

[emindead]

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.

[Nick]

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.

[El Barto]

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. 

[Super Dude]

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.

[PraXis]

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

[Sigz]

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

[PraXis]

Even Bill Maher likes Ron Paul and he doesn't like anyone lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUYDt7kC3Z0

[PowerSlave]

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.

[pogoowner]

I feel like the article in the original post is really reaching to find its criticisms.

[emindead]

If it weren't for Sigz clarification anyone would think that the title of this thread is really misleading

[MetalMike06]

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. 

[rumborak]

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

[Scheavo]

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.

[William Wallace]

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.

[PowerSlave]

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.

[Scheavo]

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.

[antigoon]

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.

[Super Dude]

I mean personally that's not a problem for me because I won't be voting for a Republican candidate anyway.

[Adami]

I mean personally that's not a problem for me because I won't be voting for a Republican candidate anyway.

lol I first read that as "I'll be voting for a republican", and I was gonna "What kind of jew are you?!?!"

[antigoon]

I mean personally that's not a problem for me because I won't be voting for a Republican candidate anyway.

by Republicrat, I meant a Democrat or a Republican.

[Super Dude]

I mean personally that's not a problem for me because I won't be voting for a Republican candidate anyway.

by Republicrat, I meant a Democrat or a Republican.

Oh, I didn't even notice that until you just pointed it out, my bad.

[jsem]

Ron Paul's vice presidential running mate should be Gary Johnson.

[abrahamclark]

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.

[William Wallace]

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.