Thu, Sep 27 2007 6:14 AM JonBostwick

In Defense of Ron Paul

 Strike-The-Root blogger Robert Kaercher charged Ron Paul with "converting people to statism" in response to him attracting people to political activision for the first time. His assertation lies on a several assumptions that I don't believe are valid.

  1. That people who ignore the political system are part of the solution.
  2. That participating in politics means you approve of the system.

Robert Kaercher's actions are not inline with the first assumption, he does not ignore politics, he critiques it. Kaercher's outlet for his views is the internet, Ron Paul's is his campaign's platform. Nonparticipants in the political process are not de facto anarchists. Complacency is what enables the establishment. They have gone from complacent subjects to vocal opponents of the status quo, powerful allies even if not "true believers."

Contrary to Democratic doctrine, casting a vote does mean you willingly surrender your rights should you lose the election. Clearly the system works so that you will lose your rights whether you vote or not.  To claim that this tyranny is more legitimate if we participate in the process, is to buy into the tyrants' own propaganda. If the whole country were to vote to abolish the federal government, would that process be inconsistent with our anarchist beliefs? It would not, because my vote is consistent with my opposition of the State. When it comes to electing a representative this is still true. As anarchists we believe that some governments and some rulers are worse than others.  A vote for Ron Paul, or other politician, can be consistent with our opposition to the State.

As the ever quotable Murray Rothbard put it

I didn't ask for these institutions, dammit, and so don't consider myself responsible if I am forced to use them. In the same way, if the State, for reasons of its own, allows us a periodic choice between two or more masters, I don't believe we are aggressors if we participate in order to vote ourselves more kindly masters, or to vote in people who will abolish or repeal the oppression. In fact, I think we owe it to our own liberty to use such opportunities to advance the cause. 

 

 

 

Filed under: , ,

# re: In Defense of Ron Paul

Thursday, September 27, 2007 5:13 PM by csullivan

Great post, Jon. I think I'd missed that Rothbard quote before, but I'd heard him voice similar sentiments. It's nice to have something to run back to to back this belief! Keep it up!

# re: In Defense of Ron Paul

Thursday, September 27, 2007 5:24 PM by Jim OConnor

For most people Ron is the only person that they've heard making a persuasive, logical and passionate argument that more government makes us worse off, and less government makes us better off. Eventually, having had their eyes open they may figure out that they don't need that last little bit either, but first they have to get used to the idea of looking someplace other than Washington DC for the solutions to their problems.

# re: In Defense of Ron Paul

Thursday, September 27, 2007 8:47 PM by JonBostwick

Thanks for the kind comments.

Jim,

Thats a good point. I thought of a similar one after I had already posted.

There is certain amount of elitism in the idea that none of yesterday's disenfranchised, who are Ron Paul supporters today, will be tomorrow's anarchists.

# re: In Defense of Ron Paul

Friday, September 28, 2007 1:39 AM by JonBostwick

When trying to deleting the trackback, I clicked delete twice, so deleted the next comment as well.

I can't recall the user who left it, but it was definitely not intentional. Sorry!

# re: In Defense of Ron Paul

Saturday, September 29, 2007 9:07 PM by Niccolò

My hero Rothbard is correct, the matter is morally neutral, whats more all morals are in fact now void.

The state has taken away our innocent by its own existence.

If I kill a man I am no less moral than I already had been.

The only thing voting makes a person is stupid, the only thing that political involvement makes a person is waster of time.

# re: In Defense of Ron Paul

Sunday, September 30, 2007 6:00 PM by Paul Grad

Like Ron Paul,  Lord Bertrand Russell also believed in non-violent political agitation, of which voting is but one form.

Perhaps Mr. Bostwick's excellent blog might have been called "In Offense of Ron Paul" for this surely is the first time so much truth has been thrown at the public for many years, and they are shocked. His performance on the committee dealing with the sub-prime mess on 9/20 was magnificent. He just kept throwing those jabs of truth out there like Ali throwing lefts in his opponents face (or was it rights?).  Bernanke looked stunnedand shaken.

I'm quite optimistic that President Paul will be inaugurated in Jan. 2009 for quite a few reasons: No president has been elected since Eisenhower with a non-British Isles name, or a name over 8 letters long.  The shorter the better.  Hilary's voice is so irritating to listen to after a few minutes, that sub-consciously she will alienate millions of voters. The youth of America is getting pretty rylled up about taxes and Social Security, as it dawns on them that they are being exploited.  The Clinton-Bush war on cannabis, continuing a long Dem/Rep tradition, makes them realise who their real enemies are.  But perhaps tops will be the economic chaos caused by the plunging dollar. 14 more months of this and they will be in the streets. The massive inflation that is just beginning, as signaled by gold and the rise of such socialist rag currencies like the Euro and Cannuck Buck, will cause widespread hostility to the establishment. The war will drag on and the public's hate of Dem/Reps will surge, in contrast to the 'McGovern of the Old Right', Dr. Paul, the only peace candidate.  Also, the common sense of Dr. Paul's proposals appeals directly to many who are exploited by the current system (tax free tips, or even better, abolishing the income tax). He also appeals to a lot of other groups: the far-right Christian anti-abortionists, states rights groups whose arguments suddenly seem a lot more leftist as Oregon has its medical-marijuana and assisted-suicide laws threatened by the anti-constitutionalists of the supreme court, the neo-fascist militia types who think he is their buddy, the 9/11 conspiracy theorists who make a very convincing argument and want questions answered, the gold backed dollarists,

anti-environmentalists, and finally those who understand and applaud the basic tenents of Austrian economics.

But perhaps tops is that people see a family man who obviously loves his wife and kids (like Truman who got a lot out of this image), has the guts to say what he thinks instead of constantly mincing before the public and worrying about his looks (Edwards $300 haircuts), and who believes in dialogue, civility and non-violence in debating the issues.  He is the best of America, even if you disagree with him.

# re: In Defense of Ron Paul

Thursday, November 20, 2008 11:29 AM by Robert Kaercher

I'm positively amazed at what can be inferred from a five-word blog post.

Paul Grad: Got your tickets to the Ron Paul inaugural yet?