Austro-Athenian Empire

The Web Journal of Roderick T. Long

41 Comments »

1. David Miller said,

   December 4, 2007 at 6:03 pm

   Rod,

   As usual, I find your comments on your blog eminently sensible.

   If you managed to read through the whole long exchange of Steve’s and my sniping at each other, you’ll notice that I kept saying that I did not want Steve to become an RP supporter. For some reason, Steve seems to think this must be some sort of a sarcastic ad hominem attack, instead of realizing that I meant it literally. I’m not trying to change his mind (or yours or Wendy’s or…).

   I do think Steve grotesquely misrepresented the history of the libertarian movement by trying to paint it as predominantly “progressive” in the sense that this word is now generally used and, in particular, as that word is generally used by people such as himself and Ginny Postrel.

   As you and Wendy McElroy have so ably demonstrated in your writings, there was a culturally “left” segment of the libertarian movement during the nineteenth century. But to suggest, as Steve tried to, that that tendency has been the primary libertarian heritage from the inception of the libertarian movement is, I think, false to history.

   On the question of rejecting Ron Paul because of his position on the issues, I have to admit that I do find libertarians who reject Ron on minutiae connected to, say, NAFTA to be, at best, eccentric (though I don’t deny that they are libertarians). We all agree that free trade is in principle correct; we disagree as to whether NAFTA does advance the goal of true free trade. Given the complexities of NAFTA (and the same is true of immigration and abortion), it does seem to me rather silly to use this as a litmus test, especially given that Steve is willing to accept clear advocates of mass murder such as Ginny Postrel as political comrades (I know it offends some people to call aggressive war “mass murder,” but I am unrepentant).

   I really don’t think I am being eccentric in thinking that someone who sincerely cares more about the details of NAFTA than about mass murder has a humanly unbalanced perspective.

   Incidentally, my own cultural views are probably closer to yours than to Ron Paul’s: as fond as I am of capitalism, I particularly find the hierarchical, supercilious attitude of so many contemporary American business managers to be repulsive. My father, who was in management his whole working life, has a similar perspective: he feels that, as the American managerial class has become less competent, it has become more arrogant. I think a lot of governmental policies (there has for example been a real spill-over into industry of the militarization of American society) have enabled and encouraged this despicable behavior pattern.

   Part of what annoys me about Steve is that his attitude does remind me a great deal of most of the managers I have known in the business world: from his perch as a white-collar academic, he looks down his nose at the ordinary working-stiff Americans who try heroically to adhere to traditional values and who actually admire Ron Paul because Ron is a “square.”

   Anyway, I will continue to cheer on your own “left-libertarian” efforts while expressing my contempt for the “progressive libertarianism” of Ginny Postrel and her pals like Steve.

   For what it’s worth, I think this splintering of libertarianism is an extremely good thing. When everyone views the entire political spectrum as consisting of Objectivists on the far right to Longians on the far left, with Paulistas in the center right, the world will be a better place. (And, if you think I’m annoyed with Stevie, you should see some of the stuff I’ve said about the ARI Objectivists!)

   All the best,

   Dave

   (cross-posted from hnn since you cross-posted your initial comments there)

2. Bob Kaercher said,

   December 4, 2007 at 6:05 pm

   Whoa, whoa, whooooaaaaa….

   Mises was an advocate of the Cold War and conscription and was a Lincoln admirer? This I did not know.

   Man, I think I just felt another layer of my brain peel off…

3. Administrator said,

   December 4, 2007 at 6:40 pm

   Mises grew more conservative as he grew older. As many libertarians have, alas. (Lysander Spooner is a nice exception — he went the other direction.)

4. Max Raskin said,

   December 4, 2007 at 6:59 pm

   I don’t think that any radical libertarian supporters of Paul would claim that his deviations are consistent with libertarianism. They would more make the argument (as Walter Block has) that there are certain deviations that automatically disqualify you from calling yourself a libertarian/or soliciting votes qua a libertarian.

   I think Block is too lenient and allows too many into the “Big Tent,” but I would agree that if you support the war, you should be automatically kicked out.

   So now it becomes a question of why is the war a more important issue that immigration. I don’t think there is an a priori case for why immigration is less important than war…because I can imagine in peace time libertarians supporting Randy Barnett over someone like Dennis Kucinich.

   But I do think that at this moment, Paul has said (last night on CSPAN II at least) that immigrants are scapegoats and it is not a top priority for him. It’s not a perfect position, but left-libertarians would agree that if Paul was allowed to enact his various economic policies (that they agree with) the immigration issue would be much less important.

   Then there’s the argument that there is still debate within the libertarian community about immigration making it a “deviationable” issue, whereas no real libertarian believes that war is good. I think this is a “No True Libertarian” fallacy.

   But I think the point I’m trying to get at is that I think it is self-evidently true (or someone should write an article) that immigration is less important now that the other issues. Even if we don’t consider Paul a libertarian, we should still consider voting for/supporting him if we think that the war is the most important issue. Murray Rothbard has made this case when he supported LBJ over Goldwater, and I think it is a strong one. Immigration, free trade, abortion, and cosmopolitanism don’t really mean anything if any of the other candidates get elected and throw us into World War Five.

5. Jeremy said,

   December 4, 2007 at 7:08 pm

   Roderick, I think you’re 100% right on this one, and I support Ron Paul as an anarchist. The current political situation is extremely messy, and I don’t think anybody has any right to call out others for doing what they think is right or in their best interests - least of all for participating in a shallow ceremony that happens every four years. For those who wish not to support Paul, and wish to offer arguments criticizing his candidacy, I’d like to say that I admire them for following their convictions. Likewise to Paul supporters.

   The only real issue I have - and I plan on addressing this - is when people opposing Paul attack his supporters as unlibertarian or statist. I share the critic’s disdain for any unthinking adulation of politicians (although I think he and other critics a little unfair when he implicitly characterizes all of us on those terms). But as I stated above, I simply see no basis for questioning anybody’s motives or calling anybody out as unlibertarian or even un-anarchist based on their outward participation in what we all agree is a meaningless ceremony, anyway.

   We all do the best we can, support the movements that seem right to us, and try to make sense out of this late hour of empire. This drive towards ideological purity - as if *any* of us have the overthrow of the State figured out - will be the end of us.

6. Rich Paul said,

   December 4, 2007 at 7:57 pm

   I find Ron Paul an excellent candidate.

   On immigration, I have always said that I want open borders eventually, but that they would be disaster in the presence of the welfare state. The influx of people would be constant, increasing the supply of unskilled labor and thereby decreasing it’s price. This normally would be good, but in the presence of the welfare state, the economy could not grow fast enough to keep up, and the result would be an increase in the number of visibly poor people, and increased calls for Socialism. This is a problem. Once the welfare state is gone, I have no problem with open borders, because the economy will be capable of absorbing as much unskilled labor as it can get.

   On the “states rights” issues, I am a member of the Free State Project, which pins many of it’s hopes on Federalism. If I have to tolerate Kansas outlawing abortion in order for Kansas to tolerate New Hampshire legalizing drugs, then I think it a good trade. People are still free to move from state to state, and I’d like to see more of them moving to New Hampshire. On the other hand, I would take a much harsher view of someone who supported the “states rights” argument on abortion, and big federal government on everything else.

   As for Barnett, were he running for President and Paul not, and I felt he was more likely to be elected than the Libertarian offering, I would support him enthusiastically. My criteria are something like:

   1) Significantly more libertarian than the status quo
   2) Opposed to more gun control
   3) Opposed to further centralization of power in the hands of the Federal government
   4) If possible, likely to be elected. A non-zero probability of actually getting elected overcomes much in my book — but it never overrides #1

7. Otto Kerner said,

   December 4, 2007 at 10:32 pm

   1) To me, personally, it seems clear that federalism and opposing the war are much more important libertarian issues than immigration and abortion. Naturally, I would not expect anyone who disagrees with me on this point to accept an argument on this basis.

   2) Ron Paul is admired not only because of his platform but because of his personal character. He has demonstrated that he capable of operating in a position of responsibility in Washington over a long period of time while maintaining at least some degree of integrity. Most people can’t. Randy Barnett hasn’t proven that he can.

   3) Besides the principled reasons, opposing the war is phenomenally good politics right now. The timing couldn’t be worse for a libertarian who for some reason supports it. Opposing immigration is also excellent politics right now. If someone were (God forbid) designing a libertarian candidate with one un-libertarian position to enhance his chances of being elected, immigration would one of more obvious choices.

8. David Miller said,

   December 5, 2007 at 12:16 am

   Jeremy wrote:

   >But as I stated above, I simply see no basis for questioning anybody’s motives or calling anybody out as unlibertarian or even un-anarchist based on their outward participation in what we all agree is a meaningless ceremony, anyway.

   You know, Jeremy, I’d hope that no one’s self-esteem depends on whether or not someone else considers him to be “unlibertarian” or “unanarchist”!

   If I understand Wendy McElroy’s perspective correctly (and I may not), I think she thinks that all of us who support Ron Paul are certainly “unanarchist.” But this is an honest intellectual opinion on her part, and I’m pretty certain she does not hate or despise any of us who are supporting Ron. She merely disagrees with us, which is surely her right.

   Similarly, all of us who think it wise even for anarchists to support Ron have a right to criticize Rod or Wendy or anyone who disagrees with us and to question their judgment and even to cast aspersions on their character if we think that appropriate. There is an “ad hominem fallacy” fallacy that claims that one should never criticize an individual but only an individual’s ideas. However, when what one is talking about is not simply ideas about factual issues (let’s say superstring theory or business-cycle theory) but real actions, or proposals for action, judgments about the person as a person become relevant.

   For example, one reason I never would vote for Bill Clinton is that the guy is a pathological liar. That is an “ad hominem” statement. But it makes sense, because voting for a person is an “ad hominem” act: you’re voting for that particular person, with all of his personality traits, character faults, etc.; you are not voting merely for his ideas. but, “ad hominem,” for the person.

   When Steve Horwitz lashed out at Ron Paul and his supporters for not being “cosmopolitan” or “progressive,” he was engaged in an “ad hominem” attack, but that, in itself, does not make him wrong. In my opinion, the details of his attack made him look silly, and, of course, it upset him when I pointed this out in some detail. My pointing this out was also “ad hominem” and was also appropriate: politics and human action in general are intrinsically “ad hominem.”

   I also disagree with you when you wrote:
   >This drive towards ideological purity - as if *any* of us have the overthrow of the State figured out - will be the end of us.

   Nah, it won’t be the end of us. Steve Horwitz or Wendy McElroy accuses us of not being ideologically pure because they have, or think they have, reasons for thinking this. If their reasons are right, we need to listen to them. If they’re wrong, we should ignore them.

   Personally, I think Wendy’s arguments are basically correct, but I disagree with her specific application of them: I think the Ron Paul campaign is a useful vehicle for spreading general distrust of and disillusion towards the state.

   Personally, I think Steve Horwitz’s arguments are absurd, so absurd that I have trouble believing they are his real motive: I honestly suspect (and his comments give credence to this) that he just looks down his nose at people like Ron Paul who live normal, “bourgeois” lives.

   But just as Steve is wrong to suggest that I should not question his motives, it is wrong for any of us to claim that Wendy, Steve, or whoever should refrain from ideological purity tests.

   Just as politics and ethics are and ought to be intrinsically ad hominem, they are also intrinsically judgmental and intrinsically involve drawing comparisons and invidious distinctions. This is all about people and judging people. The proper study of mankind is indeed man (yeah,. “humankind” and “man and woman,” but that’s not how Pope put it), and, if taken seriously, this is going to be “ad hominem,” contentious, and sometimes disagreeable.

   So, let’s not impose our own purity test of insisting on no purity test. In the end, each person must decide for himself or herself whether a particular purity test makes sense or not. Each individual is, in the end, responsible for that decision.

   All the best,

   Dave

9. jmklein said,

   December 5, 2007 at 12:58 am

   Because he’s the incarnation of White Jesus ffs…

10. Stephen Gordon said,

    December 5, 2007 at 1:43 am

    I’m sure other libertarians will disagree, but…

    As I see it, the key reason Paul obtains the support but Barnett wouldn’t is because the Iraq War is the key driving motivator of Paul’s base. I know plenty of open borders and pro-choice Paul supporters; they are simply ignoring these issues because they find the war (and often erosions of civil liberties such as torture, wiretapping, Patriot Act) such a priority.

11. Bob said,

    December 5, 2007 at 1:46 am

    Ron Paul supporters like Otto baffle me when they shunt abortion, immigration, and gay rights into the category of less important issues as if they were on par with or even below privatizing garbage collection. Allowing even a few states to ban or restrict abortions condemns thousands of woman to slavery and even death for a few. Allowing even a few states to further infringe on the rights of non-heterosexuals through sodomy laws and similar measures would violate the rights of thousands of people. The federal gov. stringently enforcing international apartheid could violently displace over 12 million people from their homes. These are all things we can expect from a “libertarian” Ron Paul administration. Even when combined they may not be as bad as continuing the genocide America is perpetrating in Iraq and to a lesser extent in Afghanistan. But they would be awful. So I’d ask Ron Paul supporters when trying to convince critics and fence-sitters like myself to recognize and not belittle the importance of these issues and to make the case that Paul’s winning is worth the cost.

    Cheers,
    Bob

12. William H. Stoddard said,

    December 5, 2007 at 10:08 am

    I judge candidates first on what I consider the most important libertarian issue in current American politics: the right to abortion and specifically the preservation of Roe v. Wade. I will not vote for or support a candidate who opposes it or wants to weaken it. In other words, I’m a deliberate one-issue voter. Ron Paul falls hopelessly short on that one issue, and therefore I don’t find him acceptable as a libertarian.

    More generally, historically, libertarianism, like its sibling movement Marxism, is an outgrowth of the Enlightenment project of breaking the political power of religion—ideally, of destroying religion; pragmatically, of making it a purely private matter. The current struggle over abortion is an aspect of that; the overwhelming majority of people who want abortion restricted are religiously motivated, and want to have law and politics subordinated to religion. Given the historical record of religion in power, and the current behavior of Muslim countries where it still is, I consider that approach to politics an unmitigated evil. It’s clear to me that Paul supports it, and that his view of abortion grows out of that support. To my mind, that puts him into the radically antilibertarian camp, despite his taking some positions on specific issues that overlap with libertarianism.

    I might vote for a “don’t touch my money” Republican, if there were still any of those around. Paul doesn’t look like one of those to me.

13. Dain said,

    December 5, 2007 at 4:40 pm

    “More generally, historically, libertarianism, like its sibling movement Marxism, is an outgrowth of the Enlightenment project of breaking the political power of religion—ideally, of destroying religion; pragmatically, of making it a purely private matter. The current struggle over abortion is an aspect of that; the overwhelming majority of people who want abortion restricted are religiously motivated, and want to have law and politics subordinated to religion. Given the historical record of religion in power, and the current behavior of Muslim countries where it still is, I consider that approach to politics an unmitigated evil. It’s clear to me that Paul supports it, and that his view of abortion grows out of that support. To my mind, that puts him into the radically antilibertarian camp, despite his taking some positions on specific issues that overlap with libertarianism.”

    Libertarianism and Marxism are sisters? Wow. Are you positively associating libertarianism with Marxism? If so, your critique of religion in power becomes somewhat deflated, as Marxism and the virulently coercive anti-religious materialist “humanism” it represents has been responsible for far more deaths than Muslim society in the twentieth century (and with which brutal secularist centralizers in the mid east have been at odds). Like the imposition of French “humanism” in Algeria, the murderous neo-con spread of “democracy” and human rights ideology on an intransigent and defiant society can hardly be justified. This amounts to simply an all new religion of course.

    Marxism of course went far beyond making religion purely a “private” matter, unless by that you mean forcing people to meet in drab, cold modernist apartment buildings to read the bible with a very low voice.

    The history of libertarianism is more contested than you say. Property has been the central issue of libertarianism, not breaking free of cultural constraints. Mass muder (of physically seperable human beings) is mass violation of private property in ones body, and Ron Paul’s position on that is rightly a priority.

    Then again you’re an admitted single issue voter. Though even here I’d think that the inability of anti-choice activists to impose their vision at the federal level would be something to desire. And whether someone can be for federally imposed abortion rights while hoping that the assortment of other issues of leviathan can be disaggregated is another matter. Then again, you’ve admitted you’re a single issue voter…

14. Stephen W. Carson said,

    December 5, 2007 at 4:44 pm

    The war! The war! The war!

    As Rothbard usually (always?) did, I’ll support whoever will stop the killing. I’d support an otherwise Establishment candidate if all they had going for them was a believable stance against the war. But someone who really would stop the war… And do everything he could to abolish the IRS, shut down the Empire, end corporate welfare, free trade, etc.!?!? Sign me the fuck up!

    To those who support Paul but voice their criticisms of his positions on immigration, abortion, whatever… Hurrah! To those who don’t support Paul, for whatever reason, I have only one question: “What is your plan for stopping the killing?”

15. Eric Crampton said,

    December 5, 2007 at 5:44 pm

    Rich Paul is right.

    I can imagine a world in which Ron Paul and Randy Barnett were the prime candidates for the GOP nomination and that either one would then have a good shot at the Presidency. I would be deliriously happy in such a world. If we were in that world, I’d be thinking about packing my bags to move back to the States. I’d definitely take either Barnett or Paul over any of the other contenders. And I’m seriously confused about libertarians who’d sincerely prefer to live under a Giuliani or Clinton regime than under either Paul or Barnett. Sure, we can all IMAGINE an ideal candidate who’d we’d prefer to either. That can even be sufficient reason not to vote. But actually to prefer Giuliani to Barnett or Paul? Wow.

    Don’t like Paul’s abortion stand? There’s a dead simple solution: don’t live in Utah or South Dakota (or Kansas or Alabama or Georgia or Arkansas). How hard is that? Tiebout works, dammit.

    Sit back and think “Am I living in a place that’s likely to make abortion illegal if it had half a chance?” Look around your town. If the warehouse-sized evangelical churches outnumber the McDonalds, you should move. Why do you still live there? What’s wrong with you? If your state legislature has already done other Bible-crazy things like banning sex toys (I’m looking at you, Alabama) or adding intelligent design to the school curriculum, regardless of whether Roe v Wade is overturned, you should be moving. Moving isn’t hard. Just do it! There’s zero chance that you’re going to succeed in convincing the religious nutters where you live that they should leave you alone, so leave. Re-read Atlas Shrugged, and leave. JUST LEAVE. Economists have the axiom of revealed preference. If you can choose to move somewhere that you’d be more free, and you choose not to because you can make a little more money where you’re living, or just ’cause moving’s a hassle, it has to be the case that you don’t really like freedom all that much. Yeah, you can tell yourself stories that you’re helping to keep where you are more free. But stop self-deceiving.

    So saith the guy who moved to New Zealand four years ago. Where Californication and Deadwood air unedited on broadcast television. Where the 2006 census showed 35% of the population to be atheists (up 5 percentage points on the 2001 census!), outnumbering ANY of the Christian denominations: 1.3 million atheists for 580K Anglicans. It ain’t Galt’s Gulch, but it ain’t bad. Incomes are lower than in the States and the taxes are higher, but freedom’s worth something too and it’s about more than just tax rates.

16. Bob Kaercher said,

    December 5, 2007 at 5:54 pm

    I’m an anarchist libertarian who won’t support Congressman Ron Paul’s candidacy for president, but I found a couple of Steve Horwitz’s criticisms of Paul either silly or unfair. I don’t know that a “lack of cosmopolitanism” necessarily disqualifies a candidate (to me, just being a candidate for government office disqualifies a candidate), and as for the alleged KKK connection inferred by Horwitz (a really cheap shot, IMO), Paul obviously can’t exert control over who donates to his campaign. If the US Communist Party was known to make donations to the Paul campaign, would this make Paul a closet communist?

    Setting aside my more specific disagreements with Paul on his treatment of abortion (his legal positivist approach - proposing to legislate when human life begins - even anti-abortion people should beware of the potential long term dangers this law could present), and that horrible border fence, and his view of the constitution being “divinely inspired,” the fundamental reason why I won’t support him is because I think doing so is a miscalculation of tactics and strategy, as it’s a huge misallocation of scarce libertarian resources.

    Whenever I read about the millions of dollars Paul’s campaign has impressively raised on line, I ask myself how much could have been accomplished had all that money instead been invested in “gray market” enterprises that circumvent the state, or if it was spent on educating people on the evils of the state and the potential alternatives to it, rather than to a campaign to elect a man to the most powerful office in the Federal government? What could be accomplished if that money had instead been poured into the coffers of the Mises or Molinari Institutes, or to one’s favorite libertarian web site? I imagine many would object that most “mainstream” people who would donate to a presidential campaign probably would not be as easily persuaded to donate or invest it in the ways I just described, but the fact that they are donating money to the only libertarian candidate in the electoral field does obviously indicate a great frustration with the status quo, so who knows?

    To Stephen: What is your plan to stop the killing if Paul loses?

17. Micha Ghertner said,

    December 5, 2007 at 7:21 pm

    If you can choose to move somewhere that you’d be more free, and you choose not to because you can make a little more money where you’re living, or just ’cause moving’s a hassle, it has to be the case that you don’t really like freedom all that much

    Isn’t this an argument that if, you, Eric Crampton, are really serious about political liberty then you should move to Somalia or become a hermit in the isolated wilderness? Or maybe, just maybe, while freedom is important to you, it’s not the only thing that matters - the “positive freedom” of living in a particular society, whether these benefits are economic, cultural, whatever - outweigh the loss of liberty associated with pervasive “negative rights” violations. Coming to such a conclusion doesn’t at all indicate a dislike of freedom; only that political freedom is one of many values. If given the choice, we would have both, but that option isn’t on the table yet.

18. Eric Crampton said,

    December 5, 2007 at 8:02 pm

    Of course it’s all a question of tradeoffs. Moving to the bush is very costly; moving to New Zealand is moderately costly; moving across state lines is trivially costly. I’d choose Singapore-style restrictions with Singapore-style income over the hermit life in the bush every time. But, I’m not the one complaining that Ron Paul just isn’t libertarian enough. On the kinds of restrictions that only show up in states largely populated by religious nutters — they can be avoided at such trivial cost that if folks don’t take the very small step of moving away from them, I’ve gotta wonder.

    Imagine a person who rails all his life about how much he hates egg salad sandwiches. You see him eating an egg salad sandwich while sitting beside a vending machine that has other food. You ask him why he didn’t instead pay $2 for the ham sandwich; he replies that he got the egg salad for free. Pretty tough to take seriously the objections about the egg salad if it wasn’t worth $2 to avoid.

19. William H. Stoddard said,

    December 5, 2007 at 8:48 pm

    Libertarianism and Marxism are sisters? Wow. Are you positively associating libertarianism with Marxism?

    Of course libertarianism and Marxism are siblings. Read your Rothbard. Socialism, per Rothbard, is a movement that seeks libertarian ends (broadly, freedom, prosperity, and individual happiness) by conservative means (broadly, state control). The agreement on ends is important.

    In particular, a libertarian society would have freedom of conscience and freedom to choose one’s own beliefs. This is diametrically opposed to religion as the Near Eastern prophetic tradition has known it. Note the etymology of “heresy”: it comes from the Greek hairesis, a choosing. The heretic is the person who chooses for themself what to believe, rather than believing what they are told to believe by an authority; and for centuries, the Christian response was to shut them out of the world by fire, and consign their souls to Hell—it was agreed that religion could not exist without forced submission to authority. Libertarianism would destroy that form of religion.

    Now, of course, Marx himself was one of the most striking recent exemplars of the Near Eastern prophetic tradition in recent history; he effectively tried to achieve freedom of thought by religious means, with deplorable results. But the same is true of Ayn Rand, who was quite clearly libertarian. Indeed, Rand and Marx are a lot alike, in their admiration for the ancient Greeks, their choice of Prometheus as their central mythic figure, their admiration for industry, and, on the negative side, their suppression of dissent among their own followers and their taste for abusive rhetoric.

    I won’t draw out the parallels further. But I think there clearly are parallels.

20. Dain said,

    December 5, 2007 at 9:26 pm

    Well as much as I admire Rothbard, I know that he wrote of the seeming similarity between Marxism and Libertarianism during his overture to the Left. I think he overreached. Sure they’re the same in that they both want, in the “end”, a free society. And they were similar in that they didn’t suggest an eternal division betwen some in group and out group - after the revolution society is classless, etc. Just like libertarians who posit the division between the class of political means and the class of economic means, the overcoming of this conflict will usher in an age of harmony. But Marx was so laden with baggage that libertarians didn’t carry (historical materialism, necessary opposition to religion, etc.), and his means WERE so terribly different, that I hardly see them as sister ideologies. In fact his statism is so blatant that I can’t see him as an advocate of freedom of conscience and freedom of belief, unless of course you mean his ENDS valued these things. But that’s not saying much.

    Our difference probably lies in Ayn Rand, whom I scarcely give much thought to. She didn’t consider herself libertarian, though obviously Objectivism is a “sister” to libertarianism (lol). Her love of industry per se certainly binds her to Marx in at least one dimension.

21. Rad Geek People’s Daily 2007-12-05 – Let’s ask the experts said,

    December 6, 2007 at 1:15 am

    […] Roderick has a good post up called A Question for Critics of Ron Paul’s Critics, which does an excellent job of deflating one of the common rejoinders that Ron Paul boosters make to Ron Paul’s libertarian critics—specifically to those, like me, who consider Paul’s anti-libertarian position on abortion or immigration to be a poison pill. It’s well worth reading the whole thing. […]

22. Mike Linksvayer said,

    December 6, 2007 at 2:54 am

    I’m for abortion and against apartheid and am not even a Paul supporter (mostly for social and personal reasons — I don’t want to associate with kooks nor do I want to get worked up about electoral politics), but I don’t find abortion or immigration remotely equal to war in the current context.

    Simply put, a radical change in abortion or immigration policies, in either direction, is not remotely on the table, regardless of outrageous rhetoric, particularly from the side that disagrees with me. Getting out of Iraq is on the table, as is, in the other direction, an expansion of the terror war.

    If you’re going to have a litmus test it ought to be one that is a linchpin, and not only abstract one.

    That said, I’d welcome Paul or Barnett as temporary dictator, given the other applicants for the job. But it ain’t going to happen.

23. William H. Stoddard said,

    December 6, 2007 at 10:17 am

    Don’t like Paul’s abortion stand? There’s a dead simple solution: don’t live in Utah or South Dakota (or Kansas or Alabama or Georgia or Arkansas). How hard is that? Tiebout works, dammit.

    I live in southern California already, thank you.

    But that argument sounds to me rather like saying, “Don’t like legally enforced racial segregation? Don’t live in Alabama.” I don’t think it should have been a matter of indifference to libertarians in 1960 that many states legally mandated separation of black and white; it was both a denial of the basic ethic of equal liberty and an interference in private business operations in the name of “community values.” I think that it was an improvement in the freedom of the United States overall when such laws were struck down (and later when miscengenation laws were struck down) and when the National Guard was sent in to compel compliance. And I think the support of some libertarians and many conservatives back then for “states’ rights” was a discredit to the whole movement. Arguing for going back to letting state governments decide whether to enforce segregation as a matter of local policy would have represented exalting the state over the individual, provided the state was Alabama or North Carolina and not the United States. Abortion is a parallel case, and advocates of turning policy on abortion back to the states are antilibertarian.

24. Keith Preston said,

    December 6, 2007 at 12:58 pm

    The value of Ron Paul’s campaign is educational and nothing more. He is not going to be President of the United States. He is not going to be the GOP nominee. At best, Ron Paul will be another in a long line of maverick candidates like Buchanan, Perot, Nader, Eugene McCarthy, and George Wallace. Remember how excited everyone was about Perot? And he even had the greenbacks to back it up. How far did that go?

    Ron Paul’s efforts to educate Americans about the follies of imperialism, the dangers of present day fiscal and monetary polices, and the police state that has grown out of the wars on drugs, crime and terrorism are valiant and deserve support. Ron Paul is obviously not a plumb line anarchist, and there are valid reasons to be skeptical of politician-messiahs as the antidote to statism.

    But whatever his impurities, he is not going to be in a position to actually set policy on immigration, abortion, racism or other matters some may disagree with him on. For one thing, I doubt that the present regime would ever accept a Ron Paul as head of state. If by some miracle he were to be elected, the system would attempt to nullify the electoral results by fraudulent means, and if that proved unsuccessful, simply stage a Pinochet-like coup. The Ron Paul Revolutionaries may be an enthusiastic and admirable lot, but I doubt most of them are prepared to engage in Maoist/Hezbollah guerrillaism on behalf of Dr. Paul.

    That said, let’s give the guy a hand for making a sincere and honest effort, maybe even waking up a few of the zombies in the process.

25. Steve Horwitz said,

    December 6, 2007 at 1:19 pm

    I don’t want to rekindle all of the flames, but I do have to respond to one point.

    I don’t think it’s an ad hominem to ask the *question* about why Ron Paul is getting support from the KKK and Stormfront (the national KKK website has a Paul ad/link on the front page). I explicitly said that I do not think RP is a racist (nor an anti-Semite nor any of those things). What I *did* say, clumsily, is that it’s worth asking the question why these groups find Paul so supportable when so much of what they believe seems, to this long-time libertarian anyway, so at at odds with what I understand the policies and values of libertarianism to be. That was my point in invoking “cosmopolitanism” - if libertarianism really is committed to treating people equally under the law and respecting the rights of all individuals, shouldn’t it trouble us when we attract organizations that don’t seem to share those beliefs and the values that underlie them?

    If I’m an outlier in being troubled by this connection, then so be it. But the libertarianism that I know is one that would find the support of those groups to be something I’d want to run from as fast as I could, for both strategic and principled reasons.

26. Steve Horwitz said,

    December 6, 2007 at 1:19 pm

    Somebody close the open italics tag please

27. David Gordon said,

    December 6, 2007 at 1:50 pm

    I think a third meaning of “consistent with libertarianism” should be distinguished. Some positions, e.g., support for conscription, can’t be defended as libertarian; someone who favors conscription can still count as a libertarian, though, if he holds a sufficient number of other libertarian views. I think, though, that there are important issues, e.g.,abortion and immigration, in which libertarian principles don’t mandate a single position as the only permissible libertarian one. There may well be, on these issues, a single best interpretation of what libertarianism requires; but we can’t say that anyone who adopts a different view is to that extent unlibertarian.

    In my “Open Letter to Libertarians on Ron Paul”, I argued that libertarians who differ with Ron Paul on abortion or immigration should recognize that there was something to be said from a libertarian perspective for his views.
    I didn’t contend that those who differ with him should still support him because he still counts as a libertarian despite what these objectors would regard as his unlibertarian views. ( Obviously, someone who accepts the “Berlin Wall” argument on immigration wouldn’t accept my characterization of Ron Paul’s views on this subject.)

    If someone suggests that libertarians should support Ron Paul despite considering some of his views horrendous, then I think the Administrator is right that he shouldn’t oppose a Randy Barnett candidacy on the grounds that, even though he counts as a libertarian, he holds objectionable views on war and federalism.

    Randy Barnett, as I understand his views, doesn’t argue that aggressive war is justifiable. Rather, he thinks the Iraq war is defensive. His failing, then, is not that he adopts an unlibertarian principle but that he misreads the facts in a way that seems to me to show appallingly bad judgment. This provides sufficient reason to oppose him, should he run for President.

28. Anthony Gregory said,

    December 6, 2007 at 2:55 pm

    
    I am both anti-immigration controls and antiwar. I agree that, from a certain radical perspective, immigration controls can be seen as the equivalent of emigration controls — though it does depend on circumstance: a restriction against entering a small town, even if governed by an illegitimate city-state, still does not strike me as anywhere as bad as the Berlin Wall. Keeping someone outside a tiny town is not nearly as bad as keeping someone inside a tiny town. But I certainly oppose US borders.

    The thing is, under the same radical analysis, war is not just the equivalent of the Berlin Wall, but Stalin’s purges. It is not just tyranny but genocide. By any assessment, slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent foreigners is worse than forcibly keeping them out. To support something like the Iraq war is far worse, in my opinion, than supporting immigration controls, or universal health care, or gun control, on drug prohibition, or taxation. It is supporting the murder and displacement of millions of people and the destruction of an entire society. There can never be any justification for this. Even if all of the United States were a private property institution, it would have no right whatsover to conduct a US-style foreign policy, whereas it would have a right to keep people out.

    And so while I can see how, if we want to be very charitable, we can regard pro-war libertarians as simply people who in good faith have adopted an error, their error is far worse than the error adopted by immigration restrictionists.

    Under Ron Paul’s immigration policy, the most aggression you could argue that he has called for is the punishment of visa violators. He has not called for mass deportations or a police state to stop illegals. Most of his proposals are libertarian — cutting welfare and privileges — even if some of us might not agree with the priority. But in the case of war, the libertarian supporters have defended atrocities far worse than anything Ron Paul comes close to advocating. Shock and Awe alone was completely indefensible from a methodological individualist perspective. To be wrong about dropping explosives on children, no matter how charitably we construe the error, is much, much worse than being wrong about immigration.

29. TGGP said,

    December 6, 2007 at 4:39 pm

    I’m more paleo than Paul (I’m a minarchist but I want the Articles of Confederation rather than the Constitution restored) and more dovish than Chomsky. I would support Barnett to the same extent that I support Paul (I never vote or give money to candidates) if he were running and Paul were not, though between the two I would prefer Paul.

30. John T. Kennedy said,

    December 6, 2007 at 5:23 pm

    What does it matter if libertarians get behind Ron Paul, or Randy Barnett for that matter?

    By the way, while Ron Paul has certainly played to the Lew Rockwell/nationalist crowd on immigration, after seeing him discuss the matter with people on youtube I don’t think his heart is really in it. I saw him telling a voter the real problem was the incentives which attracted immigrants. I don’t think it would be too tough to convince him that it’s the real problem he needs to face.

31. John T. Kennedy said,

    December 6, 2007 at 5:28 pm

    Eric Crampton,

    Sit back and think “Am I living in a place that’s likely to make abortion illegal if it had half a chance?” Look around your town. If the warehouse-sized evangelical churches outnumber the McDonalds, you should move. Why do you still live there? What’s wrong with you? If your state legislature has already done other Bible-crazy things like banning sex toys (I’m looking at you, Alabama) or adding intelligent design to the school curriculum, regardless of whether Roe v Wade is overturned, you should be moving.

    But none of these things affect me much. I don’t need any abortions. Though I’m an atheist, churches don’t particularly offend me. I don’t use sex toys. My children are grown. I have Deadwood on DVD. So why should I move to Nw Zealand again?

32. Robert Paul said,

    December 6, 2007 at 11:51 pm

    As a left-libertarian who strongly supports Ron Paul, I feel oddly unrepresented after reading the posts here [at HNN] and at LRC.

    I missed most of the Cold War, so I’ve always found the link between conservatism and libertarianism in contemporary American politics to be absolutely ridiculous. I do understand the reason for its existence, of course.

    The way I see it, conservatives have been using the rhetoric of libertarianism to win elections for decades. That tactic is coming back to bite them now in the form of Ron Paul’s success. Many conservatives are flocking to Ron Paul because he delivers what they’ve always been promised but never actually received.

    I think Steven’s concerns are overblown. Ron Paul is usually careful to avoid calling himself a libertarian. This is probably for political reasons, but I suspect it’s also because he knows he isn’t a full libertarian.

    That being said, he comes shockingly close for a mainstream candidate, and he’s managed to bring one of the two biggest issues for libertarians, monetary policy, to the forefront in a way I hadn’t thought possible.

    He’s not as strong on education, the other big issue, in my view. His federalist stand on this and many other issues surely irks many libertarians. But if anarcho-capitalists can be expected to support gradual reductions in the size of government, surely minarchists and others can support Ron Paul.

    There’s no reason to worry about Ron Paul making libertarianism look bad. No one who wants him to win would introduce him as a libertarian anyway.

    Thanks for reading.

    Robert Paul (no relation)

    (cross-posted from HNN)

33. Irfan Khawaja said,

    December 7, 2007 at 5:05 pm

    This is not precisely on topic, but I guess it’s close enough: I’m curious if anyone knows whether Ron Paul has modified his view on the gassing of the Kurds at Halabja. In 2002, his anti-war speeches suggested that the Iraqi government was not responsible:

    http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ron_Paul’s_Iraq_Speech

    Does he still believe that? Does it matter to his supporters one way or the other?

34. Irfan Khawaja said,

    December 7, 2007 at 5:08 pm

    Sorry, bad link; try this one:

    http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ron_Paul%27s_Iraq_Speech

35. Som said,

    December 8, 2007 at 7:00 pm

    I think support for Ron Paul is legitimate no mater what type of libertarian you are. Being a libertarian anarchist gearing slightly left on the cultural barometer, and an avid reader of the LRC columns and the mises institute, I have had to find ways to reconcile what it actually means to be a libertarian among various disagreements. There is a simple (and mentally relieving!) litmus test that I personally use to determine if a candidate or activist is a real libertarian or not. It’s a principle really:

    1) If the candidate does NOT have any intention or position to increase the power of the state over any issue, while only decreasing it in any aspect(s), he’s a viable libertarian candidate

    2) If the candidate DOES have any intention or position to increase the power of the state over any issue, then he’s NOT a viable libertarian candidate.

    and Ron Paul definitely falls into the former. Even though Ron Paul sees immigration control as constitutional, I don’t ever see him advocating FEDERAL INCREASES of control over immigration. In fact he says over and over in his interviews that he would eliminate the CAUSES of resentment towards immigration by ending welfare privileges and otherwise allow states to deal with their own immigration issues, while not allowing the federal government to interfere with their decisions. He may not get rid of any current federal controls over immigration, but I have no reason to believe he is going to enact new FEDERAL laws against immigration. Ditto with Abortion.

    So my definition of libertarian support simply means that anyone who takes action to REMOVE any aspect of the state from our lives while not increasing state power in any other aspect, deserves support as a viable libertarian candidate. Ron Paul is spreading message of freedom whenever he can, which is all to the good!

    and yes, this also means a viable libertarian candidate to me could be someone running on the position of only cutting the spending bill on pennies, but NOT supporting any other increase in state power within his regime. (although I would not be nearly as enthusiastic about his candidacy!)

    Thus I disagree with the left libertarians that do not support Ron Paul’s candidacy. If say Randy Barnett spread the message of liberty as far as Ron has despite his own personal position on the war, and at the same time has no plans to INCREASE current state power towards the war or federal power over the states, then I would support his candidacy too.

    As far as cultural views goes on sex, natural hierarchies, “bourgeois values” etc. that a viable candidate has, I say, get over it! There is no NORMATIVE view of cultural values in Libertarianism that are ABSOLUTE, but that all must be kept out of the legal arena (a.k.a. Cultural Freedom, not conservatism or “progressivism” or whatever) Real Libertarians should UNITE, SUPPORT, and CELEBRATE any real and absolute decreases in state power that also promises no more state power in some other aspect! As a Leftward Rothbardian, I can say that Ron Paul’s Constitutionalist positions are a hell of a LOT better than we have now.

    By the way, I think one major difference between “right” anarcho-capitalists and “left” anarcho-capitalists is their definition of legal Personhood, where as the former would expand that legal status to corporations and human fetuses as where the latter would not have either one. Interesting

36. Eric Crampton said,

    December 10, 2007 at 5:51 pm

    Bill: if the choice is between a candidate who’ll restrict liberty at the federal level, requiring you to leave the country to avoid it, and a candidate who’ll allow states to augment or to reduce freedom, I’ll go with the latter.

    John: no particular reason you should move if you’re happy where you are. But folks who 1) complain loudly about easily-avoidable restrictions and 2) don’t move and 3) critique Paul as not being libertarian enough because he’d let some communities that are already nuts on N-1 dimensions also ban abortion, strike me as a little odd.

37. William H. Stoddard said,

    December 12, 2007 at 12:45 am

    2) If the candidate DOES have any intention or position to increase the power of the state over any issue, then he’s NOT a viable libertarian candidate.

    Ron Paul want to do away with Roe v. Wade and have abortion be decided on a state-by-state basis. That would materially increase the power of the State at the level of many of the several states, in an area I consider vitally important. I live in a state that isn’t at all likely to restrict abortion. But I don’t see any reason that Utah, or Kansas, or Alabama should be allowed to do so, any more than they should be allowed to institute established churches for their states, or impose racist measures such as segregation or anti-miscegenation laws.

    Ron Paul is not a viable libertarian candidate.

38. Som said,

    December 14, 2007 at 2:13 am

    “Ron Paul want to do away with Roe v. Wade and have abortion be decided on a state-by-state basis. That would materially increase the power of the State at the level of many of the several states, in an area I consider vitally important.”

    - Granted, removing the federal government’s influence from laws will automatically allow state governments to make whatever restrictions they want on the people. But libertarian theory states that decentralized power is actually less power than an overarching federal government that can take control of much more territory. So Ron Paul is still viable, because he will not use his OWN office or any of the federal government to enforce drugs, abortion, etc.

    I was concerned about this too, but this paper clarifies this issue quite nicely to me…https://www.mises.org/story/1872

39. Administrator said,

    January 1, 2008 at 5:11 pm

    Lots of fascinating comments here, which I hope to get to. At least I did fix the italics thing!

40. hentai adult lesbi said,

    September 4, 2008 at 11:12 pm

    hentai lesbo lesbi lesbi sex hentai

41. Construction News: Civil Engineering said,

    September 27, 2008 at 1:30 pm

    […]VGC’s extension of time claim was apparently no better. It had claimed an extension of time of 26 weeks calculated by reference to the date when the claimed additional works instructed by Jackson had been completed. This was supported by a four-page document that did little more than list the complaints that VGC considered were sufficient to justify an award of further time.[…]

Leave a Comment

• Pages

  • About

• Archives

  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006

• Categories

  • Uncategorized
  • Boring Administrative Stuff
  • Anarchy
  • Ethics
  • Science Fiction
  • Personal
  • Humor
  • Praxeology
  • Terror
  • IP
  • Rand
  • Online Texts
  • Feminism
  • Space
  • Democracy
  • Antiquity
  • Left and Right
  • Left-Libertarian
  • Lapsus Linguae
  • Jove’s Witnesses
  • Paterson
  • Thank You Please May I Have Another
  • Antiracism
  • No Borders

• Search

• Meta

  • Login
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • Wordpress
  • 
  •