Does Ron Paul speak for libertarians?
Interesting editorial in the Wall Street Journal, by libertarian lawyer Randy Barnett, about the anti-war stance of internet-darling Ron Paul. Of the libertarian contender for the Republican nomination, he asks:
While the number of Americans who self-identify as “libertarian” remains small, a substantial proportion agree with the core stances of limited constitutional government in both the economic and social spheres–what is sometimes called “economic conservatism” and “social liberalism.” But if they watched the Republican presidential debate on May 15, many Americans might resist the libertarian label, because they now identify it with strident opposition to the war in Iraq, and perhaps even to the war against Islamic jihadists.
…
This raised the question: Does being a libertarian commit one to a particular stance toward the Iraq war? The simple answer is “no.”
It describes rather well my own views on the war in Iraq.
Ron Paul Speaks for Americans who love America and want to preserve it for future generations.
With all ideological labels, there is going to be a Left and Right, so to speak. Rightwing libertarians are anti-war since they realize being able to make war requires central planning, an income tax, and debt financing.
Big Government Libertarians (Left libertarians) were birthed with the French Revolution and, in the moments that they are honest, want a central state to enforce “rights” and are okay with Imperial projects if marketed correctly, but they tend to get cold feet and pretend they didn’t know such-n-such imperial project would go bad, which is a contradiction since libertarians by definition assume the government will screw up anything it touches and accomplish the exact opposite of its intent.
I won’t go as far as conceding that any description of libertarian could in fairness include the phrase “big government”, but otherwise I agree. There is a divide between those who accept minimal government to at least fund technical public goods (and possibly provide them), and those who oppose any collective action whatsoever. There are what you call the “rightwing” libertarians who oppose even common defence or enforcement of law (property and contract law, in the strict libertarian sense) as a sound purpose for government. Although intellectually appealing, this view is idealistic - i.e. unrealistic - in my view. I’m also not at all convinced that this is the basis for Ron Paul’s opposition to the war in Iraq. Either way, I agree with the WSJ editorial that opposition to the principle of war, waged on behalf of citizens by a government or government agency, should not be considered common to all libertarians.
Defense collectivists, let’s call them libertarians with one exception, violate their own thinking, at a philosophical level, so clearly something else, besides philosophy is driving the support for war, this war, which the government lied about regarding the threat level.
If there were some of these alleged libertarian pro-war folks demanding Bush et al hang for lying the country into war, perhaps I could have some faith in them, but rather they seem to prefer seeing and article from a random guy claiming to be a libertarian in a Court Newspaper then actually defend rank treason.
The concepts of “technical public goods” and “vital public goods” are well defined by libertarian thinkers. What they include and how they can best be provided are matters of debate, but accepting their existence is not necessarily inconsistent with libertarian philosophy, any more than accepting some private property rights is philosophically inconsistent with advocating a highly regulated welfare state.
Maybe those libertarians who support the war are motivated - as I am - by agreement that global liberty, prosperity and peace face a grave threat threat from dictators, extremists and theocrats in the Islamic world. That freedom is not some cultural idiosyncrasy of the West, but is common to all humanity, and is worth defending and promoting worldwide.
Maybe they also believe - as I do - that Bush didn’t “lie”, nor commit “rank treason”, and that if this had been the case, his vocal political opposition could, and would, have secured his impeachment long ago. Nixon was hounded out of office for lesser crimes, and Clinton was impeached by Congress for lying about very little indeed.
I’m speculating, of course, but I also suspect that though such libertarians may appreciate the high status you accord the Wall Street Journal, they may also dispute that a privately owned newspaper with a strong free market, small government editorial stance can accurately be described as a “Court Newspaper”.
[…] defend its people. To show that freedom is a common dream of all humanity, and not - as I wrote in this comment - just some cultural idiosyncrasy of the West. And even if you also disagree that there are […]
The WSJ favors mercantilism and fiat currency. Last I checked, it really had no objection to the income tax or the fed, to central planks of Marxists thinking. It would be nothing short of a lie to call it a “free market” newspaper, but then, that is what we are talking about, lying,
You say Bush et al didn’t lie, which is fundamentally absurd, and offer your “logic” as if the Dems aren’t in on the scam. You either are naive, and still believe in a the two party fairy tale democracy, or you are lying. The Dems voted for the war and could defund it if they wanted to but they don’t because they are in on the rank treason–it’s quite obvious to any sober third party viewer. I mean, we can be adults about it, but don’t be silly with the ‘he would have been impeached.’
If you do call yourself a ‘libertarian’ in good faith and support the war, your heritage is the French Revolution’s Fraternity, Equality, Liberty at the point of a gun, not the tradition of rebuplican virtue as the vanguard against tyranny, or the Burkian concerns of ‘then who shall watch the State”? It’s something alien, and the pro war ‘libertarians’ don’t have the intellectual honesty to say as much.
[…] defend its people. To show that freedom is a common dream of all humanity, and not - as I wrote in this comment - just some cultural idiosyncrasy of the West. And even if you also disagree that there are […]
He not only speaks for the “Third Party” but the whole disenfranchised populous.
We have all seen what happens to a country when a small powerful minority governs without concern for “The People”. This man is the voice of the common man. My hope is that they do not do to him as “they” did to the last populous backed President in 1963. He wanted to restore the country to a Constitutinal Republic as the founding fathers had discribed. FIAT CURRENCY is the vehicle of theivery.
God Bless him and keep him safe.
I’m not convinced on the comparison with JFK, nor do I support his views on the war. But you’re right about fiat currency. That’s where I start liking Ron Paul very much. I’d love to see a serious challenge to the notion that establishing the Federal Reserve, abolishing the gold standard, and adopting Keynesian economics were great, progressive ideas.
KENNEDY TRIED TO CHANGE IT
In 1963, President John Kennedy wanted an end to the Federal Reserve System, which had a strangle-hold on the United States and virtually the world. By a simple stroke of the pen, President Kennedy dismissed the Federal Reserve System and ordered the U.S. government to restore its Constitutional-mandate of controlling the money. President Kennedy was dead three weeks later. When President Lyndon Johnson took office, he immediately rescinded Kennedy’s order and the Federal Reserve won another round.
No matter what party you are apart of Dr. Paul makes some pretty amazing points I think. A large following is an understatement lol.
James Taranto’s description of Ron Paul is both amusing and germane to this post: “However fun-crazy Ron Paul’s domestic views may be, his scary-crazy foreign-policy notions disqualify him even as a protest vote.”