Right Libertarianism

I am on Murray Sabrin's mailing list, and was surprised to receive an email today about Sabrin, and some other Ron Paul Republicans, campaigning on May 5 for English as the official language.  Even if I agreed with this, I think I'd have to ask if there aren't perhaps more pressing issues to consider.  More to the point, though, what is libertarian about asking the government to legislate on what language people speak?

I raise this point because it's been pointed out that Ron Paul Republicans, unlike LP candidates, seem poised to actually win some races.  The point is constantly made (and I agree with it, to some extent) that Ron Paul supporters are actually accomplishing things, and really rolling back the state.  But then I see something like this, and I wonder - is this really a libertarian movement anymore, or is it just conservatism once again dressed like libertarianism?

I would wonder the same about Barr, except that there, I seem to already have an answer.  It seems like (no coincidence) the Ron Paul campaign came in a season where neocons were handed 2 "final 3" candidates, and conservatives had none.  The conservatives seem to have responded by either supporting Paul - while making him out to be more conservative than he is - or dressing like libertarians or Constitutionalists and trying to take over other parties, such as the CP and the LP.  This is unfortunate, coming as it does in a season of such great unrest, where those parties could actually do a lot education-wise, but instead are locked in battles for their own platforms, nominations, and officer slots.

I am on Murray Sabrin's mailing list, and was surprised to receive an email today about Sabrin, and some other Ron Paul Republicans, campaigning on May 5 for English as the official language.  Even if I agreed with this, I think I'd have to ask if there aren't perhaps more pressing issues to consider.  More to the point, though, what is libertarian about asking the government to legislate on what language people speak?

It's rather petty in a certain sense, actually caring about what language people speak. It belongs in the dustbin of absurd and conflict-driven cultural issues such as gay marriage and creationism in the public schools. And there's nothing libertarian about it. It's downright ridiculous and laughable that such matters are even political issues at all. One would think that language is a personal choice and this non-issue is resolved through free association.

I raise this point because it's been pointed out that Ron Paul Republicans, unlike LP candidates, seem poised to actually win some races.  The point is constantly made (and I agree with it, to some extent) that Ron Paul supporters are actually accomplishing things, and really rolling back the state.  But then I see something like this, and I wonder - is this really a libertarian movement anymore, or is it just conservatism once again dressed like libertarianism?

It has to do with what I consider to be the paleoconservative infiltration of the libertarian movement. And I've always thought that American libertarians tend to be far too associated with the contemporary "right", to the point where the conservative movement effectively starts to swallow/absorb the libertarian movement into itself and it merely feeds the contemporary political left's opposition to the concepts of a free market.

Ron Paul is not a libertarian.

This is why he supports statist things. Perhaps the ghost letters seem a little less... ghostly now?

I don't care. The less of the state the better

Andrew:

I don't care. The less of the state the better

You don't care about what specifically? If the state legislates or attempts to centrally plan language?

Wouldn't that imply more of the state rather than less?

Niccolò:

Ron Paul is not a libertarian.

 

This is why he supports statist things. Perhaps the ghost letters seem a little less... ghostly now?

 Yes I see what you mean, the fact that Ron Paul is associated with some people who want to make English the official language must mean that he in fact did write those racist letters. Now really how did you come to your conclusions on the matter of Ron Pauls supposed racism?

CopperHead:

Niccolò:

Ron Paul is not a libertarian.

 

This is why he supports statist things. Perhaps the ghost letters seem a little less... ghostly now?

 

 Yes I see what you mean, the fact that Ron Paul is associated with some people who want to make English the official language must mean that he in fact did write those racist letters. Now really how did you come to your conclusions on the matter of Ron Pauls supposed racism?

 

I believe Niccolo doesn't consider minarchists to be libertarians and/or consider's Ron Paul's particular deviations (paleoconservative ones) far too serious for him to qualify as a libertarian. I didn't see him bring race up.

CopperHead:

 Yes I see what you mean, the fact that Ron Paul is associated with some people who want to make English the official language must mean that he in fact did write those racist letters. Now really how did you come to your conclusions on the matter of Ron Pauls supposed racism?

Seems kind of obvious to me. Why else would he go after the Hispanic community so heavily? That's really not a libertarian trait - even if he believes libertarians can agree with borders. Why else does he seem to go after these very small, though controversial, issues so heavly? It's not because he believes they're important for libertarianism; it's because he believes they're important for his ethnicity, his culture, his brand of ethnocentrism.

Brainpolice:

 

I believe Niccolo doesn't consider minarchists to be libertarians and/or consider's Ron Paul's particular deviations (paleoconservative ones) far too serious for him to qualify as a libertarian. I didn't see him bring race up.

Well, not directly. The ghost letters were a reference to the very racist sentiments expressed under Ron Pauls newsletter many years before he decided to run for president - knowing that his ethnocentric ideas would not hold up well on a national level.

My position has always been that Ron Paul isn't a libertarian and he does express some sentiments that are negative towards members of a different race/culture for the very reason that they don't belong to his race/culture.

Maybe I'm way off on this, but isn't the national language only applicable to the government printing its documents and road signs and whatnot in that language? Considering we already just do that in English, is this anything more than symbolic?

Just a thought before we start purging the liberty movement.

Niccolò:

Seems kind of obvious to me. Why else would he go after the Hispanic community so heavily? That's really not a libertarian trait - even if he believes libertarians can agree with borders. Why else does he seem to go after these very small, though controversial, issues so heavly? It's not because he believes they're important for libertarianism; it's because he believes they're important for his ethnicity, his culture, his brand of ethnocentrism.

I certainly agree that some of Ron Pauls positions are not libertarian ones, however I don't know how you can infer that he is a racist just because he believes in a federal border. It is certainly an un-libertarian stance but it is not an inherently racist one either. In so far as I am aware RP sees border control as a national security issue that is obviously misguided and un-libertarian but again not racist.

Morty:

Just a thought before we start purging the liberty movement.

 I'm not purging anyone, I'm asking a question about why a libertarian movement would act as though this was more important than, say, an unjust war, wiretaps, torture...

Niccolò:

Ron Paul is not a libertarian.

 

This is why he supports statist things. Perhaps the ghost letters seem a little less... ghostly now?

More acurately Ron Paul is not an anarchist.  He is a good minarchist.  Not perfect but better than nothing in my book.  Really I would say he follows the classical liberalism of Mises and the constitutionist ideas of the Founders.  Thats certainly not unlibertarian.  Its just not anarchist.

CopperHead:

I certainly agree that some of Ron Pauls positions are not libertarian ones, however I don't know how you can infer that he is a racist just because he believes in a federal border. It is certainly an un-libertarian stance but it is not an inherently racist one either. In so far as I am aware RP sees border control as a national security issue that is obviously misguided and un-libertarian but again not racist.

How is it either obviously misguided or un-libertarian?

Morty:

Maybe I'm way off on this, but isn't the national language only applicable to the government printing its documents and road signs and whatnot in that language? Considering we already just do that in English, is this anything more than symbolic?

For the record, in certain areas the government prints things in languages other than english. For example, where i live, any public school letters to parents are available in both english and spanish so our large migrant-worker population can read letters from their kids' elementary schools without having to learn english. I assume this is the kind of thing being discussed here.

Obviously, the elimination of public schooling is the only way to solve this problem fairly.

CopperHead:

Niccolò:

Seems kind of obvious to me. Why else would he go after the Hispanic community so heavily? That's really not a libertarian trait - even if he believes libertarians can agree with borders. Why else does he seem to go after these very small, though controversial, issues so heavly? It's not because he believes they're important for libertarianism; it's because he believes they're important for his ethnicity, his culture, his brand of ethnocentrism.

 

I certainly agree that some of Ron Pauls positions are not libertarian ones, however I don't know how you can infer that he is a racist just because he believes in a federal border. It is certainly an un-libertarian stance but it is not an inherently racist one either. In so far as I am aware RP sees border control as a national security issue that is obviously misguided and un-libertarian but again not racist.

Well, I remain suspect of his motivations for supporting the war on immigration.

How does anyone that sees the United States government as guilty for declaring a war on Islam also see it as important to "secure borders" against the only enemy the US government has in a war that could easily be solved by just ending US imperialism?

Come on, use your reason, or at least your skepticism!

kingmonkey:

Niccolò:

Ron Paul is not a libertarian.

 

This is why he supports statist things. Perhaps the ghost letters seem a little less... ghostly now?

More acurately Ron Paul is not an anarchist.  He is a good minarchist.  Not perfect but better than nothing in my book.  Really I would say he follows the classical liberalism of Mises and the constitutionist ideas of the Founders.  Thats certainly not unlibertarian.  Its just not anarchist.

Anarchist and libertarian are one in the same. They always have been. They always will be.