Comments on Knowing Humans: The Teflon Libertarian Moderate

Sorry, Starchild, but your lengthy comments are si...

2007-12-24T09:42:00.000-08:00

Sorry, Starchild, but your lengthy comments are simply hand-waving and wishful thinking. You say absolutely nothing on the substance of the 12 Paul heresies against radical libertarianism that I listed. Using/tolerating the word "revolution" in campaign rhetoric doesn't qualify Paul as an LP-style radical, or negate any of those 12 points. Ron Paul's appearance on Meet The Press resoundingly confirmed my claim that Paul is a serial heretic against radical libertarianism: http://libertarianintelligence.com/2007/12/ron-paul-backslides-on-meet-press.html .

Your claim that some of the 17 radicals on my list might not support Paul for the LP nomination against a more radical candidate is laughable. If you can get a single one of the other 16 radicals to say they would support some other LP candidate over Paul for the LP nomination, I'll donate $100 to that candidate. David Nolan even offered to be Paul's VP candidate!

I don't buy the flimsy excuse that radical enthusiasm for the heretic Paul is OK because Paul is not an LP candidate. These radicals are all promoting Paul as a great libertarian, and many of them don't even care about the LP brand. It's just hilarious that all these radicals can detect trace amounts of hypocrisy in others, but can't see it in the mirror when it's staring them in the face.

P.S. Saying the government steals doesn't make Paul a radical, either. I too say that a large part of what the government does is theft. Does that magically make me a radical?

Morey, Raimondo is still a radical anti-statist and anarchist, as far as I know. If you and Starchild are going to make the definition of radicalism dependent on party affiliation instead of on the substance of one's views, then it confirms the reformist charge that you radicals care more about badges of self-righteousness than about how one's views relate to, and might influence, the real world.

Scott, I'd love it if hordes of Paulists joined the LP, but I'm not optimistic that it will happen. The ones who try will find the LP too intolerant of non-anarchists whose initials aren't R.P.

It is entirely possible that the Ron Paul Horde wi...

2007-12-18T19:31:00.000-08:00

It is entirely possible that the Ron Paul Horde will, once Paul loses his GOP nomination bid, descend upon the Libertarian Party for use as a vehicle for further activities. The radicals will be numerically overwhelmed, and the Paullists will complete the de-radicalization of the party that has been happening in stages since 2002.

Then the radical libertarians who founded the party and gave it its intellectual rigor will be politically homeless once again. Meanwhile, the Paullists, without their object of adoration to hold them together, will splinter into a hundred factions and within six years, rip the party to shreds.

RIP LP.

Raimondo left radicalism behind when he left the L...

2007-12-18T17:05:00.000-08:00

Raimondo left radicalism behind when he left the LP. He's been a Republican ever since.

And when did Selzer turn radical?

Moderation in the Libertarian Party is a bad idea....

2007-12-18T06:45:00.000-08:00

Moderation in the Libertarian Party is a bad idea. It doesn't need to be reformed, it needs to be a stark contrast to the other parties.

Ron Paul is running as a Republican. He gets a pass on his many exceptions to the non-aggression principle, because he has a chance of winning.

Forget everything else. If he could do nothing else as president but issue pardons for all those convicted of victimless crimes, think of how many more of us would be on the streets?

P.S. - On the topic of Ron Paul's personal radical...

2007-12-15T18:48:00.000-08:00

P.S. - On the topic of Ron Paul's personal radicalism and how it goes beyond abstract beliefs, I meant to mention also the sign on his desk that reads "DON'T STEAL THE GOVERNMENT HATES COMPETITION." I find it extraordinary, and delightful, that a member of Congress would display such a sign so visibly in his office, and I think it speaks volumes about Ron Paul's commitment to radical libertarian values.

Brian,Your essay is amusing, but you do make some ...

2007-12-15T18:40:00.000-08:00

Brian,

Your essay is amusing, but you do make some good points, which I will try to address.

You assume that Ron Paul is a Libertarian moderate. Based on the policy positions that you cite, that superficially seems like a reasonable assumption. Note, however, that Ron Paul doesn't typically disavow radical libertarian beliefs, and sometimes even voices them (e.g. "I happen to think that the market can deliver any service better than the government can.") My personal assessment of Ron Paul is that his beliefs are more radical libertarian than comments about things like how getting rid of Medicare isn't high on the agenda would lead one to believe. Not that I think he is lying about stuff like that, but I do not think he has any ideological or image-based resistance to taking policy as far toward freedom as he can in most areas, and that whatever moderation he expresses is simply based on a realistic assessment of what he thinks is politically possible.

Some Libertarian moderates also express beliefs that are personally radical, but not only do they not think that candidates should run on those beliefs, they also seem to be afraid of taking stances or actions that would give them a radical image. Ron Paul does not seem to have this fear. He strikes me as being radical on a personal level that goes beyond mere abstract philosophical beliefs, but plays a vital part of who he is on a day-to-day basis.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, his campaign has a very radical, decentralist, DIY feel to it. He seems less interested in telling his supporters what to do than just about any candidate I've seen at any level. He has not objected to the "Ron Paul r3VOLution" slogan, but actively embraced it. The author of one profile piece I read on him noted that he even seemed reluctant to give orders to his campaign staff even on small matters like rolling up the windows in a car he's being driven in! Would that we had more politicians so hesitant about telling others what to do!

Another thing that sets Ron Paul apart from your typical moderate LP "reformer" is that I haven't heard him urging moderation on other libertarians. He doesn't seem interested in telling radicals they ought to moderate their radicalism, or telling other candidates they need to adopt the positions he does in order to get elected (other than admonishing fellow Republicans on the need to be against war, empire and big government to stop losing elections). He doesn't seem interested in trying to give the Libertarian Party a moderate makeover, water down its platform, or get rid of its pledge.

To the extent Ron Paul touches on the Non-Aggression Principle (though he hasn't talked about it by name that I'm aware of), he appears to see it as a good thing that he supports. I'm sure if nailed down he would cite exceptions, but as I have said, 100% consistency in supporting the NAP is not what's important. Even I admit at least one exception. What's important is that we embrace Non-Aggression in general as the heart of the libertarian approach, and I feel like Ron Paul essentially does that, even though I do think he has significant and regrettable shortcomings on it in some areas, such as his failure to support open borders, marriage equality, etc.

But also, of course, Ron Paul is running as a Republican. I have lower ideological standards for supporting someone running as a Republican than I do for someone running as a Libertarian. That is because the two establishment parties are already hopeless in terms of what they stand for, so there is nothing institutional to preserve or defend, and it's just a matter of one candidate's message. When someone runs as a Libertarian, it matters how the positions they take reflect on the party, because the party itself is associated with libertarianism, and it is, or ought to be, our bastion of speaking-truth-to-power in U.S. politics. Most of the "reformers" I would prefer not to see elected to internal party office or representing the LP as high-profile candidates, I would be happy to see running on relatively pro-freedom, Paul-like platforms as Republicans or Democrats.

Another big assumption you appear to be making (or if you are not, have at least failed here to make a distinction on) is that LP radicals who support Ron Paul now would (a) support him for the Libertarian Party's presidential nomination, or (b) support him as a Republican running against a more radical Libertarian in the general election. That's not necessarily the case. Simply supporting one candidate over others in the Republican primary does not radical hypocrisy make.

Now admittedly I'm not personally going to rule out supporting Ron Paul in the general election even if he's running against a Libertarian who is more radical on the issues, although I most likely would support the LP candidate. While I consider issue stances to be very important in choosing a candidate, I've never said they are the *only* thing that is important. Things like personal integrity and character are also very important.

Ron Paul has a proven track record of maintaining his principles, integrity, and continuing to articulate a philosophy which compared with virtually any other Republican or Democrat especially at his level of office is quite radical and libertarian, despite many terms in the U.S. Congress. If anyone in the libertarian movement can substantiate a claim to being relatively immune to the temptations of money and power, it's Ron Paul.

So if he were to get the GOP nomination and the LP nominated a candidate who was a bit more radical than Ron Paul, but had significant other flaws -- or, heaven forbid, if the party nominates someone equally or less radical than Ron Paul -- I might be tempted to go with Ron Paul. Not based on him having a greater chance to get elected -- one vote in a national election counts very little -- but based on keeping the momentum of the "Ron Paul r3VOLution" going, continuing to build ties with its supporters, and hopefully contributing to their further radicalization.

However I do not expect to support Ron Paul for the LP nomination unless it's a question of getting him versus someone arguably less radical or undesirable as a candidate in other ways, such as Wayne Allyn Root. Rather if Ron Paul wins the GOP nomination, I will likely encourage the LP not to run a presidential candidate, but rather to put its 2008 resources into state and local elections. If Ron Paul does not win the GOP nomination, I will encourage him to run as an independent, and seek to have the LP nominate a radical libertarian candidate like Steve Kubby whom I can support and vote for as clearly the best libertarian choice in the race.