Options
Libertarians Read, Right? Then Read This
godpt3
Posts: 1,020
Tony Long
What to make of Ron Paul, the internet's poster boy for the presidency?
The Texas Republican, whose campaign traction seems confined almost entirely to the internet, is lagging after Iowa and New Hampshire. While he's no threat to win the GOP nomination, let alone the White House, the phenomenon of his online popularity bears scrutiny. For some of us who look more than 20 feet beyond our noses, it’s troubling.
If the internet has the power to legitimize the national candidacy of someone as extreme as Ron Paul, then maybe it should be regulated. (Kidding. Just kidding.)
It's not hard to understand Paul's appeal to the internet cognoscenti. He's a libertarian (to use the word in its simplest form), and if any political philosophy can be said to broadly appeal to inveterate online devotees, that's the one. And he brings impeccable libertarian credentials to the table, which manifest themselves in some very beguiling ways.
To wit:
* He opposed the Patriot Act, breaking ranks with his own party to do so.
* He voted against the imposition of a national ID card.
* He's on record opposing the National Security Agency's domestic-spying program.
* He favors lifting the embargo against Cuba. (I threw that one in for me, not you.)
This is catnip for many of you, I know. For me, too, actually. (Politics does make strange bedfellows, eh, comrades?)
He almost sounds rational. But he's not.
Like all absolutists -- and make no mistake, libertarianism is absolutism as surely as atheism is faith -- Paul is ill suited for this particular job. He's running for president of the United States, remember, not for a seat in some gerrymandered Texas congressional district. If elected, he would be leading the most powerful nation on earth, one whose every action has repercussions in every corner of the world.
We’ve already seen what happens when that trust is placed in the hands of the incompetent.
You can't be a good president in the 21st century when your chief concerns are the sovereignty of the American taxpayer and his right to bear arms. It’s too insular. Isolationism is no longer an option, and hasn't been for years. The world is too small and you can thank, or blame, technology for that reality. The stakes are far too high, as we've learned since Sept. 11, 2001, to act like we can do anything we damned well please anytime we damned well feel like it.
And this guy wants to pull us out of the United Nations. Terrific. The United States as rogue elephant. What a splendid idea.
Applaud Paul for championing your privacy rights if you will, but consider some of his other views, well documented, before throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Speaking of babies, his libertarian defense of individual rights doesn't extend to women, apparently. Paul, an obstetrician in another life, opposes abortion. More specifically, he supports a state’s right to ban abortion. In other words, he doesn’t want Washington telling you that you can’t have an abortion, but if Montgomery, Austin, Salem or Richmond say you can’t, that’s OK.
He also equivocates on stem cell research, supporting it "generically" but again fobbing it off as a states-rights issue (like the old Confederacy, states rights is a major plank in the Paul platform). His chief concern isn't so much the morality of the research as who pays for it.
That's a new one on me: turning the stem cell debate into a taxpayer-rights issue.
But there’s more.
Domestically, a Paul administration would be so extreme in the defense of individual property rights as to make the Reagan years look like socialism. Paul says the federal government has helped damage the environment by “facilitating polluters, subsidizing logging in the national forests and instituting one-size-fits-all approaches that too often discriminate against those they are intended to help.”
He’s right in the sense that the Bush environmental record is abysmal, but Paul’s solution -- let the private landowner protect his own land -- is naivetè bordering on sheer lunacy. If Chauncey Moneybags owns 40,000 acres up near the Idaho-Montana border and decides to cash in by letting the timber boys do a little clear-cutting, who’s going to stop him? Paul says Chauncey can do whatever he wants to with his land. How is that helping the natural environment? (I’m assuming here that’s the environment Paul refers to.)
There are 300 million of us now, not 30 million, and we can’t all go running around unsupervised. This is where libertarian ideals get a little unwieldy. Besides, we’re not all John Waynes, saddled up and gazing with flinty eyes across the prairie. Some of us can barely cope. Sometimes, Ron, them dad-gum polecats in Washington jest have to step in and take charge. Dang it all.
And the foreign policy of a Paul administration? Replace the eagle with an ostrich and you'll have some idea.
Paul says he’s for free trade and he wants “to be friends,” but rejects the idea of the United States being part of any convention that subjects us to international law or restraint. He likens the United Nations to a modern-day Simon Legree -- that's my hyperbole, not his -- straddling Lady Liberty with a bullwhip and coldly, gleefully, stripping her bare.
The U.N. has been the bogeyman for American conservatives since the end of World War II because of its internationalist mandate. The right has never accepted that a U.N. vote contrary to the wishes of the United States does not translate to anti-Americanism. If there is anti-American sentiment along the East River these days, it's because we're swaggering around like the high school bully, and we've pissed a lot of people off.
As for military matters, Paul’s objection to the U.S. invasion of Iraq was not that we ignored world opinion and attacked unilaterally, but that we violated the Washingtonian-Jeffersonian doctrine of “avoiding foreign entanglements.”
Iraq was deliberate aggression, a crime, but here’s a news bulletin just in for strict constitutionalists like Paul: George Washington and Thomas Jefferson have been dead for two centuries. Our world is just ever so slightly different from the one they knew. Realities have changed. If Virginia Sen. Tom Jefferson were roaming the halls of Congress today, he'd probably be a Democrat. Hell, he might not even own any slaves.
But this is the consciousness that Ron Paul would bring to the arena of international relations, the consciousness of 1796. The modern world is all about interaction, interdependence and active engagement, not isolationism. Sorry, Ron. I miss candlelight and hoop skirts, too, but you can’t go back.
Anyway, those two big oceans that used to insulate us from all that foreign chicanery have shrunk to the size of Walden Pond. Half my e-mail comes from “out there,” where people talk funny. We drink French wine, drive German and Japanese cars, and talk to our service reps in Bangalore, India. The guys making shepherd’s pie at the Irish pub down the street are from Central America, and all the meter maids in this town are Chinese.
Avoid foreign entanglements? Who’s kidding whom here? If we avoid foreign entanglements what do we plan on doing for an economy? Who are we going to offshore all our jobs to?
I’ve been called a utopian and a fool and worse for my own humanistic philosophy, which, like libertarianism, preaches the value of a single human being (but in the the more rational context of one being part of the whole). Fine. I’m a fool. But when push comes to shove, I’d rather be my kind of fool than yours.
May the best candidate win. Oh, wait. I don’t have one.
Tony Long is copy chief at Wired News.
What to make of Ron Paul, the internet's poster boy for the presidency?
The Texas Republican, whose campaign traction seems confined almost entirely to the internet, is lagging after Iowa and New Hampshire. While he's no threat to win the GOP nomination, let alone the White House, the phenomenon of his online popularity bears scrutiny. For some of us who look more than 20 feet beyond our noses, it’s troubling.
If the internet has the power to legitimize the national candidacy of someone as extreme as Ron Paul, then maybe it should be regulated. (Kidding. Just kidding.)
It's not hard to understand Paul's appeal to the internet cognoscenti. He's a libertarian (to use the word in its simplest form), and if any political philosophy can be said to broadly appeal to inveterate online devotees, that's the one. And he brings impeccable libertarian credentials to the table, which manifest themselves in some very beguiling ways.
To wit:
* He opposed the Patriot Act, breaking ranks with his own party to do so.
* He voted against the imposition of a national ID card.
* He's on record opposing the National Security Agency's domestic-spying program.
* He favors lifting the embargo against Cuba. (I threw that one in for me, not you.)
This is catnip for many of you, I know. For me, too, actually. (Politics does make strange bedfellows, eh, comrades?)
He almost sounds rational. But he's not.
Like all absolutists -- and make no mistake, libertarianism is absolutism as surely as atheism is faith -- Paul is ill suited for this particular job. He's running for president of the United States, remember, not for a seat in some gerrymandered Texas congressional district. If elected, he would be leading the most powerful nation on earth, one whose every action has repercussions in every corner of the world.
We’ve already seen what happens when that trust is placed in the hands of the incompetent.
You can't be a good president in the 21st century when your chief concerns are the sovereignty of the American taxpayer and his right to bear arms. It’s too insular. Isolationism is no longer an option, and hasn't been for years. The world is too small and you can thank, or blame, technology for that reality. The stakes are far too high, as we've learned since Sept. 11, 2001, to act like we can do anything we damned well please anytime we damned well feel like it.
And this guy wants to pull us out of the United Nations. Terrific. The United States as rogue elephant. What a splendid idea.
Applaud Paul for championing your privacy rights if you will, but consider some of his other views, well documented, before throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Speaking of babies, his libertarian defense of individual rights doesn't extend to women, apparently. Paul, an obstetrician in another life, opposes abortion. More specifically, he supports a state’s right to ban abortion. In other words, he doesn’t want Washington telling you that you can’t have an abortion, but if Montgomery, Austin, Salem or Richmond say you can’t, that’s OK.
He also equivocates on stem cell research, supporting it "generically" but again fobbing it off as a states-rights issue (like the old Confederacy, states rights is a major plank in the Paul platform). His chief concern isn't so much the morality of the research as who pays for it.
That's a new one on me: turning the stem cell debate into a taxpayer-rights issue.
But there’s more.
Domestically, a Paul administration would be so extreme in the defense of individual property rights as to make the Reagan years look like socialism. Paul says the federal government has helped damage the environment by “facilitating polluters, subsidizing logging in the national forests and instituting one-size-fits-all approaches that too often discriminate against those they are intended to help.”
He’s right in the sense that the Bush environmental record is abysmal, but Paul’s solution -- let the private landowner protect his own land -- is naivetè bordering on sheer lunacy. If Chauncey Moneybags owns 40,000 acres up near the Idaho-Montana border and decides to cash in by letting the timber boys do a little clear-cutting, who’s going to stop him? Paul says Chauncey can do whatever he wants to with his land. How is that helping the natural environment? (I’m assuming here that’s the environment Paul refers to.)
There are 300 million of us now, not 30 million, and we can’t all go running around unsupervised. This is where libertarian ideals get a little unwieldy. Besides, we’re not all John Waynes, saddled up and gazing with flinty eyes across the prairie. Some of us can barely cope. Sometimes, Ron, them dad-gum polecats in Washington jest have to step in and take charge. Dang it all.
And the foreign policy of a Paul administration? Replace the eagle with an ostrich and you'll have some idea.
Paul says he’s for free trade and he wants “to be friends,” but rejects the idea of the United States being part of any convention that subjects us to international law or restraint. He likens the United Nations to a modern-day Simon Legree -- that's my hyperbole, not his -- straddling Lady Liberty with a bullwhip and coldly, gleefully, stripping her bare.
The U.N. has been the bogeyman for American conservatives since the end of World War II because of its internationalist mandate. The right has never accepted that a U.N. vote contrary to the wishes of the United States does not translate to anti-Americanism. If there is anti-American sentiment along the East River these days, it's because we're swaggering around like the high school bully, and we've pissed a lot of people off.
As for military matters, Paul’s objection to the U.S. invasion of Iraq was not that we ignored world opinion and attacked unilaterally, but that we violated the Washingtonian-Jeffersonian doctrine of “avoiding foreign entanglements.”
Iraq was deliberate aggression, a crime, but here’s a news bulletin just in for strict constitutionalists like Paul: George Washington and Thomas Jefferson have been dead for two centuries. Our world is just ever so slightly different from the one they knew. Realities have changed. If Virginia Sen. Tom Jefferson were roaming the halls of Congress today, he'd probably be a Democrat. Hell, he might not even own any slaves.
But this is the consciousness that Ron Paul would bring to the arena of international relations, the consciousness of 1796. The modern world is all about interaction, interdependence and active engagement, not isolationism. Sorry, Ron. I miss candlelight and hoop skirts, too, but you can’t go back.
Anyway, those two big oceans that used to insulate us from all that foreign chicanery have shrunk to the size of Walden Pond. Half my e-mail comes from “out there,” where people talk funny. We drink French wine, drive German and Japanese cars, and talk to our service reps in Bangalore, India. The guys making shepherd’s pie at the Irish pub down the street are from Central America, and all the meter maids in this town are Chinese.
Avoid foreign entanglements? Who’s kidding whom here? If we avoid foreign entanglements what do we plan on doing for an economy? Who are we going to offshore all our jobs to?
I’ve been called a utopian and a fool and worse for my own humanistic philosophy, which, like libertarianism, preaches the value of a single human being (but in the the more rational context of one being part of the whole). Fine. I’m a fool. But when push comes to shove, I’d rather be my kind of fool than yours.
May the best candidate win. Oh, wait. I don’t have one.
Tony Long is copy chief at Wired News.
"If all those sweet, young things were laid end to end, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised."
—Dorothy Parker
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6902/conspiracytheoriesxt6qt8.jpg
—Dorothy Parker
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6902/conspiracytheoriesxt6qt8.jpg
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
This is a ridiculous statement. One does not have to be a bat shit crazy anarchist to like libertarian ideals.
This is a ridiculous statement. One does not have to be a bat shit crazy anarchist to like libertarian ideals. One can be rational live within a system and still be a libertarian.
This is a ridiculous statement. One does not have to be a bat shit crazy anarchist to like libertarian ideals. One can be rational live within a system and still be a libertarian.
Shall I equate humanism to Communists and Socialists and bring up Stalin and Pol Pot?
Or Bring up the Nazis and Facism?
Way to go socialism.... eveyone pick up a shovel... everyone look exactly the same.... the powerful will take all your money and decide how you should live your life...much better system.
Everyone toegther for the common good... you know who is the problem... The fucking rich Jews... those bastards.... let's kill them all so we can get to the master race utopia. THen everyone will be happy.....
There is no perfect system.... everything must be balanced. Utopias do not and will not ever exist due to the human condition.
Humans are not and will not EVER be equal. Ambition, Greed, Lust.....Humanism is a nice theory, just like true free trade and captialism or libertarianism....or hell Communism....they NEVER make it to where they are supposed to go due to the failures of humans.
I liked Ron Paul before the entire internet phenomonon because he was focused on the econonmy when no one else was. Obviously he's the neuvo Ross Perot... at least the guy is bringing up ideas.... just like Nader... just like Kucinich...
If anything the Paul internet movement is off putting... at least one guy in politics is focusing on his ideas and not simply status quo or whatever the easiest path is to election.
I don't think he meant that libertarians are crazy people. What he meant is that the main points of the libertarian ideology are non negociable : such as the constitution or your freedom to dispose of your life and your wealth as you wish. I kind of agree with him, if a libertarian says "I have the right to own guns, it's my life and it's garanteed in the constitution", well the debate ends there because there is no place to discuss this.
He does make interesting points inside all of the insults though (thank you ffg, I learned a new word) such as : is isolationism still possible today?
This kind of argument against libertarianism or capitalism drives me crazy, as it's a total red herring. Not wanting to be in the UN doesn't make you an isolationist any more than not wanting to be in the British Commonwealth makes you an isolationist.
Those who demand trade restrictions, immigration restrictions, international censorship and empirialism are isolationists. Those who advocate for open trade, easy immigration and a free exchange of culture are those truly interested in open international engagement.
Ok, but retrieving from the UN, aside from killing the UN which would become useless without the US, would be political isolationism, the "Avoid foreign entanglements" part. It doesn't seem that clear to me what the world would like without the UN and political and diplomatic work from the US.
"if chauncey money bags wants to clear cut 40,000 acres, Paul says it's his land and he has every right."
Bullshit.
What about STATE and LOCAL laws.
Paul says IF THE STATE SAYS ITS OKAY, its okay.
IF.
IF IF IF!
and even then. a private citizen or group could bring suit against that landowner for any runoff damages etc that are suffered.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Kann, I can't state it any better than the above.
The issue with the UN is probably more about soveringty and giving control of a soverign nation to the will of the UN acting as if it is a soverign world government when it in it's purest form is a forum created mainly to provide a place for diplomats to discuss problems to hopefully avoid major world conflicts. I like the UN in that sense... I don't like the UN as some kind of giant soverign global government with control and power over all.
I am not an Isolationist by any means nor do I stand by any canidate whole heartedly. I do not find it possible to completely cut off all "entanglements" with the rest of the world, but there has to be a way to do it more effectively and efficiently. Price Supports and Tarriffs to protect a certain group of workers from a particular region have the effect of harming a group of workers from another particular region. We need balance. I'm not a purist that's why I took offense to the absolutionist comment. Workers rights and humanists make great points about working conditions and living conditions they also get a bit myopic in a global economy when they want to increase tarriffs and price supports for certain groups or unions and don't think that this in itself is harming another group of people. I don't think any of these governmental ideals ever achieve purity and that's why our systems and beliefs must constantly be tweaked.
I enjoy roads, and protection from the military from outside invaders, state and federal parks and the like, I'm not against some government interference, but it needs to be checked. Giving all power, property rights and control over to some body of government with hopes they will dole it out more fairly than capitalism or free trade is about as rational as anarchy. You trade one large group of rich or moderately wealthy people for a small group of extremely wealthy people who may throw a bone or two to the poor masses who do all the work while limiting most of the choices in society. No one gets jealous of course because everyone suffers equally except the ruling class. I like libertarian ideals but I'm not an extremist by any means... I want to see an efficient, effective balanced small federal government that generally leaves the economy alone and focuses on protecting liberties and or resolving interstate conflicts. I'd love to have states or smaller local governments become more powerful so local citizens can have more say in how they are governed overall. That way the body of government that has the most power over them is made up more representatively of the people in the particular area.
The UN would not become "useless" without the US. The UN is largely useless right now, in large part because of the US.
I'm all for an international body that helps foster dialogue between nations. But I'm not for an international body that pretends it has a sovereign mandate when none of its members are elected or even share a common purpose or interest with much of the world's citizenry.
Regardless, the actual effects of the UN and other international bodies pale in comparison to the effects of international trade and migration. Confining the definition of "isolationism" to one's support of a bunch of functionaries in New York City or Geneva seems a bit short-sighted or politically motivated.
the concept that modern day socialism is making everyone the same is about as far off kilter as it gets ...
i respect fully the concepts of libertarianism but let's see everything for what it really is ...
This is fair, but to be quite frank I'll always trust in Congress's reticence to relinquish power more than I'll trust its reticence to expand its power.
How so?
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Once you get past the basic needs (food, clothing shelter) everyone wants something different. Hell, even people who want the same thing want to be able to go about getting it in different ways. Some want it handed to them, some want to work hard and earn it.
I think the best we can do is provide people as much freedom a possible and be willing to give a helping hand to those who are struggling.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Absolutely! I don't know many constitutionalists that disagree with amending the Constitution. (I know many people (myself included), that are all for rewriting the entire thing). However, the beef most contitutionalists have is that amending the Constitution isn't an optional step in increasing the government's mandate. Rather, it's a prerequisite.
Wars were fought long before the above mentioned individuals were ever born, the semantics or war, and laws of human nature supersede this entire argument and prove it to be incorrect.
That was a pretty weak article in general imo. He kept saying "oh...and there's more" but I kept waiting to see his first "stop the presses" type argument.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
What powers does the Constitution grant the federal government, in your opinion?
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
agreed. Europe does a fine job of it in many areas. They also pay a great deal for it. I love what they have done with public transit and conditions in many cases. While they might lean towards socialism at the same time, a lot of what they do is capitalist it's a blend of ideas but it's pretty much like that in any 1st world country at this point. No one political system is completely dominating. The fact remains that total unchecked government control or total unchecked corporate control of the economy are generally bad for most of the citizenry and it has been proven over the ages.
I'm not against government and or government programs that help people. I'm for efficiency and as much liberty and freedom as is socially and economically possible.
Nice post, Pacomc79. I agree with a lot of what you just said here.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
The power to enact laws to which everyone is subject, the power to tax, the power to incur debt, the power to enter into foreign treaties as an indivisible agent, the power to make war and to defend American land. My opinion of the subject doesn't really matter -- the text is certainly widely available.
I think the libertarian philosophies on such matters certainly begged the question. How could one claim what you mentioned above 'unconstitutional', if the constitution grants the feds power in such matters?
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Any political philosophy that includes adherence to a Constitution begs that question. Certainly the federal government has vastly expanded its power in the last 100 years and much of that expansion has absolutely no constitutional basis unless one effectively believes that there is no constitutional limit to federal power. The latter position is certainly arguable, though that argument must be logically consistent. I've never seen one that is.
Haven't the vast majority of federal government expansions been contested before the Supreme Court as unconstitutional? Sometimes the Supreme Court has agreed they are unconstitutional, sometimes not. I understand if you disagree with the rulings, but what other kind of system would be better that would produce the results you desire? A congress that just passes laws on a whim without the interference of that pesky Supreme Court?
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
i believe in modern day socialism and i don't want everyone to be the same
absolutely ...
I'm not criticizing the judicial review process. That's both warranted and wise. What I would criticize, however, is the subjective position the court is put in. Courts function best with objective measures, and too often Congress expands the federal government without Constitutional amendment, thereby putting the Courts in a much more difficult position to determine the Constitutionality of the expansion. It's cowardly and often times done deliberately because they know the amendment would never pass if it needed to face the full amendment process. Furthermore, over time, this establishes contradictory interpretations of the same statutes. Effectively, the Supreme Court is put in the position of actually making the laws, as opposed to simply interpreting them.
Ok...what is "modern day socialism"?
This is the very reason we rely on the courts. You see, the constitution is not a specific document. It is meant to describe general principles of governance, not specific laws. I think this is a good thing as specific language would be too rigid in an ever changing social and economic society. Do you feel that we should only change the constitution through the amendment process? Wouldn't that politicize the constitution and take the experts on the law, constitutional or otherwise, out of the equation?
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
See, here's where you lose me. This vague "ever changing social and economic society" language is frankly BS. What it practically means is "ever changing selective justifications". Society most certainly changes, but it doesn't often change in such fundamental ways as to require constant reinterpretation. Effectively wiping away any objective measures through this logic of "practical realtities" only invites the legislative and judicial chaos we see.
Fifty years ago, "practical realities" led the Supreme Court to determine that a woman has a Constitutionally protected right to private medical decisions. Ironically, many of the same people who will adamately defend that right will then turn around and lament the "practical realities" of today's society and its need for a government run healthcare system in which privacy of one's medical decisions and history would be impossible. Do you see the hypocrisy and doublespeak I'm getting at here? If you want legal abortions via rights protected at the federal level, that's cool. Amend the constitution. If you then want free healthcare provided by the federal government, that's cool too. Amend the constitution. But don't pick and choose statutes that support you, ignore statutes that don't, or ignore the entire document altogether in just some cases. It's dishonest.
I'm perfectly ok with those who demand a strict interpretation of the Constitution. Furthermore, I'm also perfectly ok with those who advocate ignoring the Constitution. But I have no respect for people who selectively pick and choose whichever path happens to justify whatever they really want at a given place and time.
If you believe the Constitution defines the structure of our state and if you believe Congress and the Supreme Court should be servants of the Constitution, then use it where you can and amend it where you and others want. It's not complicated.
That's the only way to change the constitution, per the constitution (short of violent revolt, per the Declaration of Independence).
No more than they already are today.