Right Libertarianism

liberty student:

Niccolò:

lol

As for Ron Paul not being a libertarian, fine.

A libertarian must adhere to the non-aggression axiom and the principle of self-ownership.

Ron Paul advocates government. Government violates the first axiom, thus, Ron Paul cannot be a libertarian.

Btw. Overuse of the word "rational" is annoying.

Ron Paul seems to advocate government the same way Rothbard advocated govermnment.  As a means to an end.

That doesn't even seem close to the truth.

I've never read anything by Ron Paul that would suggest he even comes to the barline of a voluntary society.

liberty student:

Well of course he words things that way.  He's running in the Republican party.

We could use more populists, even if they are minarchists.

And I'm truly tired of the argument that he is doing it wrong by voting and participating in the process.

I awknowledge that, but he's not arguing the position of the republican party in his speeches.  The whole idea of a party is that there's some platform of Ideals attached to it. Ron Paul doesn't entertain those ideals.

I would concede the point that Ron Paul was putting on a show, being a political impostor, to get elected by the republican party if he was arguing points that might get him nominated, however he isn't, so the positions he's taking and words he's using aren't fake.

If, indeed, he was trying to get elected by the republican party to enact some secret plan of his, It seems to me that he should be arguing the neo-facist warmongering position of his colleagues. Then he could enact his libertarian plan of dismanteling the state until it ultimately failed on contention that some notion of "checks and ballences" is supposed to negate tyranny, and thus the actions of negating the state should be the joint operation of all three Branches of the government in order to be "just". I'd understand that. But the position he is arguing is not republican, it's paleoconservative, old right, nativist, Birchian propaganda, and he's been rejected by the majority of the republican party. This leads me to believe that the intent behind his words is not to uphold some republican ideal, they are entirely his own.

Now I'm sure he would be a better president than many of the other options, just like you might say the slave master who whips his slaves 19 times is better than the one who whips his 20. But the master who says he'll whip you less is not arguing for your freedom, nor is Ron Paul. And if he's not some concealed charlatan positing a belief that will get him elected, I cant help but believe the ideas he has spoken are genuine.

RP jumped the shark.  Yes, nowadays, I refer to him merley as an old "meme", because that's all thats essentially amounted by his campaign.

Honestly, I see more parallels between Ron Paul & The Laughing Man (Ghost in The Shell: Stand Alone Complex), than RP & any meaningful change.

banned:

liberty student:

Ron Paul seems to advocate government the same way Rothbard advocated govermnment.  As a means to an end.

Except then he uses terms like

"X is *unconstitutional*"

"The founding fathers wanted it this way..."

"We need to return to america's roots"

and explains away things as unamerican or hurtful to America or It's people. He's a populist statist as far as I'm concerned.

Exactly - though the mini-statists and reformists will just say, "oh he's just preaching to the audience," however, that particular argument seems to be used only when it fits in with the reformist argument. I.e. if that little piece of paper with words on it meant that much to the Republicans, it seems that it wouldn't really be necessary to bring it up - they would follow it because it's important.

It's quite clear that Ron Paul actually believes that the US Constitution is a legitimate form of authority and that people should be beaten or even murdered if they don't pay the US Congress' taxes, duties, excises, and tariffs.

Niccolò:

That doesn't even seem close to the truth. I've never read anything by Ron Paul that would suggest he even comes to the barline of a voluntary society.

Negative proof is the basis of your argument?

Niccolò:

My grandfather doesn't speak English, so what? If the government is representative then it must represent his needs without such malicious and indignant slurs like, speak English or die, WOP.

What's so hideous about expecting someone to learn the language in which they find themselves immersed?  If I move to Mexico or France, I would learn as much Spanish or French as I could, just for quality of life.  It's this expectation to cater to the needs of every "disadvantaged" minority that has allowed the state you so abhor to swell to it's current Leviathan size. 

Niccolò:

I swear, you people, you conservatives, are a pimple on the face of liberty.

Name calling is usually the last recourse of an immature mind.

banned:

I awknowledge that, but he's not arguing the position of the republican party in his speeches.  The whole idea of a party is that there's some platform of Ideals attached to it. Ron Paul doesn't entertain those ideals.

I would concede the point that Ron Paul was putting on a show, being a political impostor, to get elected by the republican party if he was arguing points that might get him nominated, however he isn't, so the positions he's taking and words he's using aren't fake.

If, indeed, he was trying to get elected by the republican party to enact some secret plan of his, It seems to me that he should be arguing the neo-facist warmongering position of his colleagues. Then he could enact his libertarian plan of dismanteling the state until it ultimately failed on contention that some notion of "checks and ballences" is supposed to negate tyranny, and thus the actions of negating the state should be the joint operation of all three Branches of the government in order to be "just". I'd understand that. But the position he is arguing is not republican, it's paleoconservative, old right, nativist, Birchian propaganda, and he's been rejected by the majority of the republican party. This leads me to believe that the intent behind his words is not to uphold some republican ideal, they are entirely his own.

Who said he was trying to get elected?  This is the false premise I see bandied about here frequently.  RP was never trying to get elected, he was never trying to win.

He was undermining and attacking the political process through the opportunities given to him.

The issue I am developing with many on this forum, is a form of extremism, that requires everything to be theoretically correct, with zero concern for practicality or progress.  We talk about how in a free market, X would emerge, and Y would become available, as though there is a process, and yet in each thread where someone questions the actual process to anarchy, the answer is always, "well, political change doesn't work because it hasn't", which in my opinion, is a non-answer.

The hostility to Ron Paul is counter-productive.  I believe Rothbard understood this, which is why Rothbard rejected Agorism.

banned:

Now I'm sure he would be a better president than many of the other options, just like you might say the slave master who whips his slaves 19 times is better than the one who whips his 20. But the master who says he'll whip you less is not arguing for your freedom, nor is Ron Paul. And if he's not some concealed charlatan positing a belief that will get him elected, I cant help but believe the ideas he has spoken are genuine.

If you believe everything he says is genuine, then you're sadly mislead, and I doubt you have paid much attention.

Paul is the match.  He only burns for a short time.  But he's started a brushfire.  Do you think it is only coincidence that Lew Rockwell is importantly positioned at Mises, and backs Paul?  Or that Rothbard was Paul's economic advisor in 1988?  Maybe Paul isn't "your kind" of libertarian, but he's certainly doing as much as anyone to advance libertarian ideals.  Because it's not a switch you can flip, from statism to libertarianism.  Many people come around to changing their thinking gradually.  And a paraqdim shift will have to occur in the mass conciousness if you ever hope to see anarchy,  It's people like Ron Paul that are creating the dialog that can bring part of the shift.

Nitroadict:

RP jumped the shark.  Yes, nowadays, I refer to him merley as an old "meme", because that's all thats essentially amounted by his campaign.

Honestly, I see more parallels between Ron Paul & The Laughing Man (Ghost in The Shell: Stand Alone Complex), than RP & any meaningful change.

By what standard are you judging him?  Do you realize how many votes he has gotten?  Or have you read his new book, and seen that it will be #1 on the NYT Best Seller list?

His supporters are causing chaos in the Republican party, fighting the state throgh infiltration and disruption in a significant way.

Again, he's the match.  He starts the brushfire.  You're not alone.  You have an opportunity to recruit RPers deeper into libertarianism.  Will you do it?  Or will you let the opportunity for your action to pass, and then claim that his campaign amounted to nothing?

The responsibility for squandering any momentum he has created, is born by all of us.  Not him.

Niccolò:

Exactly - though the mini-statists and reformists will just say, "oh he's just preaching to the audience," however, that particular argument seems to be used only when it fits in with the reformist argument. I.e. if that little piece of paper with words on it meant that much to the Republicans, it seems that it wouldn't really be necessary to bring it up - they would follow it because it's important.

It's quite clear that Ron Paul actually believes that the US Constitution is a legitimate form of authority and that people should be beaten or even murdered if they don't pay the US Congress' taxes, duties, excises, and tariffs.

The more I read from Paul's critics (particularly you), the more I realize, that many of you haven't been paying attention to what he is doing or saying.  Many seem to have preconceived ideas of what his goals and tactics are.

You couldn't be more wrong in my opinion.

I sometimes wonder if it is easier to attack "traitors" or to request a "purge" of "parlour revolutionaries" than to accomplish something meaningful that advances the cause of liberty.  Perhaps it's the problem man has faced since the beginning of time.  The sheer size of a challenge eclipses the scope of our ability to plan an attack.

To use a football analogy (that works for the CFL as well as the NFL, although perhaps better for the CFL), Paul is trying to get the liberty ball on the 2 yard line.  It will be someone else's job to pick up the ball and punch it in for the touchdown.

liberty student:

Paul is the match.  He only burns for a short time.  But he's started a brushfire.  Do you think it is only coincidence that Lew Rockwell is importantly positioned at Mises, and backs Paul?  Or that Rothbard was Paul's economic advisor in 1988?  Maybe Paul isn't "your kind" of libertarian, but he's certainly doing as much as anyone to advance libertarian ideals.  Because it's not a switch you can flip, from statism to libertarianism.  Many people come around to changing their thinking gradually.  And a paraqdim shift will have to occur in the mass conciousness if you ever hope to see anarchy,  It's people like Ron Paul that are creating the dialog that can bring part of the shift.

For a good argument of this check out Malcom Gladwell's Tipping Point.  It analyses trends and how they get started.  The point is that people are talking about this which does more to change things than anything else. 

liberty student:

Now I'm sure he would be a better president than many of the other options, just like you might say the slave master who whips his slaves 19 times is better than the one who whips his 20. But the master who says he'll whip you less is not arguing for your freedom, nor is Ron Paul. And if he's not some concealed charlatan positing a belief that will get him elected, I cant help but believe the ideas he has spoken are genuine.

Pandering do peoples baser emotions is not a good way to make an argument stick.  If, for example, you'd asked a Roman circa AD 40-AD 200 if they lived in the SPQR, they would have said yes.  It wasn't until the Imperator became the Emperor and embraced total power that the last vestiges of the Republic died out.  Even in the colonial era, the march towards a break with England took a bit of time.  We have had over a century of this collectivist crap shoved down our throats and an empire erected where there used to be a republic.  To expect people to do a complete about face is unrealistic.   Good ideas need time to weed out bad ideas.  It may not be orthodox Libertarianism, but look at what happens to good ideas when they become dogmatic.

liberty student:

The issue I am developing with many on this forum, is a form of extremism, that requires everything to be theoretically correct, with zero concern for practicality or progress.

Rothbard described it perfectly in Toward a Theory of Strategy for Liberty:

M.N.R.:

Right opportunism, in its pursuit of instant gains, is willing to abandon the ultimate social goal, and to immerse itself in minor and short-run gains, sometimes in actual contradiction to the ultimate goal itself. In the libertarian movement, the opportunist is willing to join the State establishment rather than to struggle against it, and is willing to deny the ultimate goal on behalf of short-run gains: e.g., to declaim that "while everyone knows we must have taxation, the state of the economy requires a 2 percent tax cut."

The left sectarian, on the other hand, scents "immorality" and "betrayal of principle" in every use of strategic intelligence to pursue transitional demands on the path to liberty, even ones that uphold the ultimate goal and do not contradict it. The sectarian discovers "moral principle" and "libertarian principle" everywhere, even in purely strategic, tactical, or organizational concerns. Indeed, the sectarian is likely to attack as an abandonment of principle any attempt to go beyond mere reiteration of the ideal social goal, and to select and analyze more specifically political issues of the most urgent priority.

Brainpolice:

liberty student:

Niccolò:

lol

As for Ron Paul not being a libertarian, fine.

A libertarian must adhere to the non-aggression axiom and the principle of self-ownership.

Ron Paul advocates government. Government violates the first axiom, thus, Ron Paul cannot be a libertarian.

Btw. Overuse of the word "rational" is annoying.

Ron Paul seems to advocate government the same way Rothbard advocated govermnment.  As a means to an end.

 

An anarchist, by definition, opposes government as a means to an end. Political and economic or social means are opposing forces. Anarchists propose economic or social means.

Citizens influencing their government is a social force.

Niccolò:

I've never read anything by Ron Paul that would suggest he even comes to the barline of a voluntary society.

If the federal courts refuse to abide by the Constitution, the Congress should emply this constitutional remedy. By a simple majority, Congress could trip the federal courts of jurisdiction over abortion, thereby overturning the obviously unconstitional Roe. At that point, the issue would revert to the states, where it constitutionally belongs, since no appeal to federal courts on the matter could be heard. (I have proposed exactly this in H.R. 300.)

Let us remember, though, that the law can only do so much. The law isnt what allowed abortion; abortions were already being done in the 1960s against the law. The courts came along and conformed to the social and moral changes that were taking place in society. Law reflects the morality of the people. Ultimately, law or no law, it is going to be up to us as parents, as clergy, and as citizens -in the way we raise our children, how we interact and talk with our friends and neighbors, and the good example we give- to bring about changes to our culture toward the greater respect for life.

Imperator03:

liberty student:

Now I'm sure he would be a better president than many of the other options, just like you might say the slave master who whips his slaves 19 times is better than the one who whips his 20. But the master who says he'll whip you less is not arguing for your freedom, nor is Ron Paul. And if he's not some concealed charlatan positing a belief that will get him elected, I cant help but believe the ideas he has spoken are genuine.

Pandering do peoples baser emotions is not a good way to make an argument stick.  If, for example, you'd asked a Roman circa AD 40-AD 200 if they lived in the SPQR, they would have said yes.  It wasn't until the Imperator became the Emperor and embraced total power that the last vestiges of the Republic died out.  Even in the colonial era, the march towards a break with England took a bit of time.  We have had over a century of this collectivist crap shoved down our throats and an empire erected where there used to be a republic.  To expect people to do a complete about face is unrealistic.   Good ideas need time to weed out bad ideas.  It may not be orthodox Libertarianism, but look at what happens to good ideas when they become dogmatic.

 

The quote you have there, is not from me.  I think it is from banned.

JonBostwick:

Niccolò:

I've never read anything by Ron Paul that would suggest he even comes to the barline of a voluntary society.

 

If the federal courts refuse to abide by the Constitution, the Congress should emply this constitutional remedy. By a simple majority, Congress could trip the federal courts of jurisdiction over abortion, thereby overturning the obviously unconstitional Roe. At that point, the issue would revert to the states, where it constitutionally belongs, since no appeal to federal courts on the matter could be heard. (I have proposed exactly this in H.R. 300.)

Let us remember, though, that the law can only do so much. The law isnt what allowed abortion; abortions were already being done in the 1960s against the law. The courts came along and conformed to the social and moral changes that were taking place in society. Law reflects the morality of the people. Ultimately, law or no law, it is going to be up to us as parents, as clergy, and as citizens -in the way we raise our children, how we interact and talk with our friends and neighbors, and the good example we give- to bring about changes to our culture toward the greater respect for life.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure what that had to do with it... But ok. Paul believes parents have an ability to influence their children not to abort... Am I missing something?