Author Topic: A Libertarian’s Lament: Why Ron Paul Is an Embarrassment to the Creed  (Read 5375 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16265
  • Gender: Male
Re: A Libertarian’s Lament: Why Ron Paul Is an Embarrassment to the Creed
« Reply #35 on: September 14, 2011, 08:10:10 PM »
Maybe so, but maybe those of us who reject libertarianism do so because we reject its unifying attributes?
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.
:superdude:

Offline abrahamclark

  • Posts: 538
  • Gender: Male
  • Signer of the Declaration of Independence
Re: A Libertarian’s Lament: Why Ron Paul Is an Embarrassment to the Creed
« Reply #36 on: September 14, 2011, 08:41:54 PM »
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?

Offline abrahamclark

  • Posts: 538
  • Gender: Male
  • Signer of the Declaration of Independence
Re: A Libertarian’s Lament: Why Ron Paul Is an Embarrassment to the Creed
« Reply #37 on: September 14, 2011, 08:42:45 PM »
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

Offline Sigz

  • BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13537
  • Gender: Male
  • THRONES FOR THE THRONE SKULL
Re: A Libertarian’s Lament: Why Ron Paul Is an Embarrassment to the Creed
« Reply #38 on: September 14, 2011, 08:49:39 PM »
Quote
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!
Quote
The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: A Libertarian’s Lament: Why Ron Paul Is an Embarrassment to the Creed
« Reply #39 on: September 14, 2011, 09:00:27 PM »
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.

Offline William Wallace

  • Posts: 2791
Re: A Libertarian’s Lament: Why Ron Paul Is an Embarrassment to the Creed
« Reply #40 on: September 14, 2011, 09:19:38 PM »
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


Quote
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.

Offline emindead

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11053
Re: A Libertarian’s Lament: Why Ron Paul Is an Embarrassment to the Creed
« Reply #41 on: September 14, 2011, 10:30:54 PM »
Now we need Jobe and we can all make a party.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 25282
  • Gender: Male
Re: A Libertarian’s Lament: Why Ron Paul Is an Embarrassment to the Creed
« Reply #42 on: September 15, 2011, 10:20:30 AM »
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.".

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26664
Re: A Libertarian’s Lament: Why Ron Paul Is an Embarrassment to the Creed
« Reply #43 on: September 15, 2011, 11:01:52 AM »
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 liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline GuineaPig

  • Posts: 3754
  • Gender: Male
Re: A Libertarian’s Lament: Why Ron Paul Is an Embarrassment to the Creed
« Reply #44 on: September 15, 2011, 03:43:05 PM »
I'm curious: do Libertarians just ignore the history of the United States from 1781-87?  I've always wondered about that.
"In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad idea."

Offline William Wallace

  • Posts: 2791
Re: A Libertarian’s Lament: Why Ron Paul Is an Embarrassment to the Creed
« Reply #45 on: September 15, 2011, 09:42:22 PM »
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.

Offline Perpetual Change

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12264
Re: A Libertarian’s Lament: Why Ron Paul Is an Embarrassment to the Creed
« Reply #46 on: September 15, 2011, 09:43:46 PM »
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.

Offline William Wallace

  • Posts: 2791
Re: A Libertarian’s Lament: Why Ron Paul Is an Embarrassment to the Creed
« Reply #47 on: September 15, 2011, 10:53:11 PM »
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.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: A Libertarian’s Lament: Why Ron Paul Is an Embarrassment to the Creed
« Reply #48 on: September 16, 2011, 12:24:32 AM »
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.

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26664
Re: A Libertarian’s Lament: Why Ron Paul Is an Embarrassment to the Creed
« Reply #49 on: September 16, 2011, 12:29:19 AM »
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
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: A Libertarian’s Lament: Why Ron Paul Is an Embarrassment to the Creed
« Reply #50 on: September 16, 2011, 12:34:03 AM »
Shay's Rebellion is the same thing. Without a unified response by people to an uprising, it was allowed to fester.

Offline William Wallace

  • Posts: 2791
Re: A Libertarian’s Lament: Why Ron Paul Is an Embarrassment to the Creed
« Reply #51 on: September 16, 2011, 01:04:12 AM »
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. 




Offline GuineaPig

  • Posts: 3754
  • Gender: Male
Re: A Libertarian’s Lament: Why Ron Paul Is an Embarrassment to the Creed
« Reply #52 on: September 16, 2011, 06:33:41 AM »
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.
"In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad idea."

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26664
Re: A Libertarian’s Lament: Why Ron Paul Is an Embarrassment to the Creed
« Reply #53 on: September 16, 2011, 07:19:54 AM »
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
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline abrahamclark

  • Posts: 538
  • Gender: Male
  • Signer of the Declaration of Independence
Re: A Libertarian’s Lament: Why Ron Paul Is an Embarrassment to the Creed
« Reply #54 on: September 16, 2011, 08:05:10 AM »
Welcome back, buddy. My previous post was joke by the way.  ;D

Thank you

Quote from: Sigz
And welcome back AC!

And thank you


Offline abrahamclark

  • Posts: 538
  • Gender: Male
  • Signer of the Declaration of Independence
Re: A Libertarian’s Lament: Why Ron Paul Is an Embarrassment to the Creed
« Reply #55 on: September 16, 2011, 08:15:44 AM »
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. 

Offline abrahamclark

  • Posts: 538
  • Gender: Male
  • Signer of the Declaration of Independence
Re: A Libertarian’s Lament: Why Ron Paul Is an Embarrassment to the Creed
« Reply #56 on: September 16, 2011, 08:18:53 AM »
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.

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26664
Re: A Libertarian’s Lament: Why Ron Paul Is an Embarrassment to the Creed
« Reply #57 on: September 16, 2011, 08:30:39 AM »
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
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline William Wallace

  • Posts: 2791
Re: A Libertarian’s Lament: Why Ron Paul Is an Embarrassment to the Creed
« Reply #58 on: September 16, 2011, 11:55:01 AM »
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.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: A Libertarian’s Lament: Why Ron Paul Is an Embarrassment to the Creed
« Reply #59 on: September 16, 2011, 12:47:45 PM »
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.

Offline Perpetual Change

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12264
Re: A Libertarian’s Lament: Why Ron Paul Is an Embarrassment to the Creed
« Reply #60 on: September 16, 2011, 10:58:09 PM »
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.

Offline jsem

  • Posts: 4912
  • Gender: Male
Re: A Libertarian’s Lament: Why Ron Paul Is an Embarrassment to the Creed
« Reply #61 on: September 17, 2011, 03:25:56 AM »
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.

Offline livehard

  • Posts: 311
Re: A Libertarian’s Lament: Why Ron Paul Is an Embarrassment to the Creed
« Reply #62 on: September 18, 2011, 10:04:22 AM »
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.