With what very little time I’ve had today to look at this (that’s one example; you can chase links to your heart’s content), I’ve been nothing but amused. That’s not quite true: mostly disillusioned. It’s a hope killing sort of thing, kinda. Or; it’s not. In practical political terms, this can hurt Paul, have no effect, or help him. I fear it might help him, for all the wrong reasons. That’s partly the source of my disillusionment.
Listen: old hand libertarians will be the very last people on Earth to ever to win over anyone en masse, and this latest ordeal is a very pure example. They’re kooks; me included. That’s mostly because we don’t give a shit what you pathetically "think;" me included. But even that’s not it. The point is very simple, but it’s rarely detected or spoken of. What’s happening to Ron Paul is classically symptomatic of libertarianism.
Here’s the deal: lots of racists and other bigots are libertarians. So long as they don’t advocate a state to impose their "values" on you (as you advocate to impose yours on them), they can be perfectly consistent with libertarianism in a political context (the emphasis denotes an important distinction). That simply doesn’t mesh with the practicalities of politics in our as-yet primitive [d]evolution. True libertarianism is simply oil and water to practical politics. That’s why the Libertarian Party is a contradiction in terms and that’s why Paul is destined to have this sort of thing crop up time and again.
Why does Paul attract racists and other kooks? Because, and it must be said: Paul as politician is perfectly willing to leave them alone — or at least mostly. In a libertarian’s eyes, a racist ought to be perfectly free to be a racist: in his home, family, private affairs, and business dealings. Unequivocally. Ultimately, that’s what Paul will have to face up to explicitly admitting to if he’s to keep stating his principles as he’s done a fair job of unabashedly doing.
Paul is not a racist, I don’t think, and neither am I. But it doesn’t mean I want a state to stamp it out, any more than I want a state to stamp out anything else that’s a matter of people’s freedom to associate in their private affairs and business dealings. Explicitly: the owner of a private bus has every right in the world to send blacks to the back of the bus. …And any blacks who pay the bigot his fair anyway, are fools.
There’s no easy way around any of this. I’d just as soon that Paul confront it dead on and let the chips fall where they may. Maybe a few more people will start actually thinking. Long shot, but it’s possible.
It's more than just that. Look at the "paleolibertarian" position on "illegal" immigration. Look at the fetishization of the Confederacy.
The "paleolibertarians" and the Confederate-lickers should have been given the royal boot a long time ago. The shabby fraud of that fake "Mises Institute" should have been repudiated by all.
The very best chance libertarian ideals have had in decades to be presented fairly to a greater public – ruined, now, by the stupidity of Ron Paul and the treachery and two-faced double dealing of the so-called paleolibertarian crowd. When history apportions blame for our slide into slavery, do you think that some will be left for those fools who ignored the obvious, who tolerated the intolerable in the name of "solidarity" – and who lost the last, best chance to arrest that slide.
I have objected to the Rockwell crowd and been the target of their pitiful calumny for years precisely because I knew it would lead to this kind of thing. And now thabundeat I have been so painfully proven right, do you think I am pleased to see it?
"It's more than just that. Look at the "paleolibertarian" position on "illegal" immigration."
Which one? Seriously. That issue seems all over the map, to me. Anarchists such as myself ought not even concede the premise ("immigration"). Into what? The state is what gives rise to the issue, and only the state. Given the state, it's an effect.
I'm really new to the confederate issue. I always hated Lincoln, but that's because of the bullshit pretense of freeing the slaves, which is manifestly bullshit by his very own words. I'm still mulling over what I think about the confederates, in context of the times.
"The very best chance libertarian ideals have had in decades to be presented fairly to a greater public – ruined, now, by the stupidity of Ron Paul and the treachery and two-faced double dealing of the so-called paleolibertarian crowd."
Don't sell people who can actually think sp short. Listen, man: even if this is the end, there are now hundreds upon hundreds, if not thousands upon thousands of young people who have been exposed to sound and rational ideas about politics and economics. If they really can think — and I believe a lot of them can — then the first thing to occur to them will be the the ideas are independent of Paul. Those who don't weren't going to be of any help anyway.
"And now thabundeat I have been so painfully proven right, do you think I am pleased to see it?"
I'd wait to make sure, if I were you. And if it does prove the end, and the cause is reasonably linkable to what you claim, then no, I'm certain you're not pleased to see it. You know I'm not.
The very best chance libertarian ideals have had in decades to be presented fairly to a greater public…
You've gotta be kidding me, John. "The public" (read: the voting public) doesn't give a shit about libertarian ideals. They want their enemies crushed, their fears comforted, and they most of all want loot.
Libertarian ideals don't carry much weight when the alternative is free stuff on someone else's dime. And all Paul is peddling is reduced rations of free stuff.
…ruined, now, by the stupidity of Ron Paul and the treachery and two-faced double dealing of the so-called paleolibertarian crowd.
Not really. Paul's problem is the fundamental one that all libertarian movement types try to avoid: trying to instantiate a contradiction. It hasn't worked yet and won't work for Ron Paul.
JL:
I took JS to mean that people would be exposed to libertarian ideas via Paul's campaign and that has clearly taken place in very large number. It's safe to say it will stick with a lot. After all, every libertarian that's not born into the idea culture has to first learn it somewhere. For me, believe it or not, it was a mail order business opportunity book ($100; 1990).
In that respect, no matter what happens, I think Paul has already far exceeded what anyone thought he would be able to do.
Now, you're free to argue that having twice or three or four times as many libertarians isn't going to make an impact, and I think that would be a better argument for essentially the same reasons you state. On the other hand, if the ideas are honest and true, which they mostly are even for those who get the principles wrong, then there is at some point a critical mass dynamic. Nobody knows where that is. The only thing to do is keep trying to introduce people to libertarian ideas.
Also, the international Utube effect of this can't be discounted. I have always had this silly idea that if there ever is an explosive libertarian revolution that it will happen someplace other than America, though I have no idea where, anymore.
To be fair to a significant number of people, it's difficult to be rational about something as exoterically 'good' and esoterically (and truly) evil as political action.
"On the other hand, if the ideas are honest and true, which they mostly are even for those who get the principles wrong, then there is at some point a critical mass dynamic."
Only if a significant number of people are epistemically rational about politics. I see no evidence of that.
So you're saying that it's pointless to introduce the unwashed masses to libertarian ideas, even if incomplete and flawed?
Were you completely epistemically rational about politics before being introduced to libertarianism, ans was you introduction flawless and complete, or did you have to make your way once you got that spark?
…Or, maybe you're saying there's no point of critical mass.
I'd say your assertion that epistemic rationality about politics is required is unsupportable. What you have to show is that humans, in general, aren't capable of rationality at all, which is untrue. I don't think it always comes naturally, and I think we're naturally predisposed to ignore rationality whenever it's convenient, but I think we're all capable of it.
What we need is the proper motivation and incentive to get rational about politics, and that would essentially define a critical mass, i.e., where everyone gets on the bandwagon.
But don't worry. The pendulum would get to swinging the other way within decades, if that.
It's safe to say it will stick with a lot.
It's even safer to say that the number of libertarians, (not social security reformers, racist fruitcakes, or lets-tax-pot-growers LP candidates, but moral/ideological libertarians) will remain effectively zero percent despite Paul's candidacy.
I guess my point is, what's your metric for success? Seems to me that the whole prospect of rational evangelism (not you personally, but the whole concept) is awful vague as far as results go.
On the other hand, if the ideas are honest and true, which they mostly are even for those who get the principles wrong, then there is at some point a critical mass dynamic. Nobody knows where that is.
My guess: far enough away that it doesn't matter. See http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/one_law_1.htm>50 Ron Pauls And The Government With Only One Law.
I have always had this silly idea that if there ever is an explosive libertarian revolution that it will happen someplace other than America, though I have no idea where, anymore.
The hypothetical libertarian revolution will always be in direct competition for converts with free stuff on someone else's dime. We're well over a 200 years in after the Declaration of Independence and Free Stuff On Someone Else's Dime appears to be winning handily.
What we need is the proper motivation and incentive to get rational about politics…
OK, so what's the motivation? It turns out that everyone gets the same President no matter how hard they think about it.
My first URL got cut off above:
Please paste this URL in the search function of http://www.archive.org
http://www.independent.org/publications/
tir/article.asp?issueID=14&articleID=79
Rand may have gone berzwhacky with the idea, but "sanction" really comes into play here. Neo-Confederates and half-closeted racists are NOT friends of individual liberty or capitalism, period, and no one has any obligation to deal with them or associate with them. The only "duty" I have is to not use the government as a proxy to bust their chops.
Speaking to that point, someone like DiLorenzo not only makes bad citations:
http://web.archive.org/web/20050307233408/http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=14&articleID=79
but also jumps from "Lincoln was bad" to
"the Confederacy was good"…
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo5.html
in a sterling display of the fallacy of false dilemma. It's the same old dodge that the lefties ran in the 1940's, claiming that one could only be against Hitler if one was for Stalin. Jacques Maritain and Rand (two Aristotle-lovers on different ends of the political spectrum) tended to disprove that. (g)
I'm currently working on Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men: A History of the American Civil War by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, and it looks to make the case against Lincoln without unjustly ignoring the South's problems.
"Were you completely epistemically rational about politics before being introduced to libertarianism,"
Absolutely not (hell, I was an apologist for Stalin at 18 and carried the little red book!) and there is lttle reason to be epistemically rational about politics – you get negligible political return on effort invested.
Yet, I do have an unusually strong tendency toward epistemic rationality regardless of payoff and eventually I applied it to politics.
My observation of conversations on the net for ten years convinces me that hardly anyone demonstrates epistemic rationality in politics, even among libertarians who espouse positions more or less close to mine. And it's perfectly understandable why they're not. Paul's "converts" won't stick becuase there is no political return for sticking.
"was you introduction flawless and complete, or did you have to make your way once you got that spark"
It was very fast for me. I arrived on the net, saw ancap arguments for the first time and realized: "Oops, that looks correct." It' didn't take long to verify.
"I'd say your assertion that epistemic rationality about politics is required is unsupportable. What you have to show is that humans, in general, aren't capable of rationality at all, which is untrue. I don't think it always comes naturally, and I think we're naturally predisposed to ignore rationality whenever it's convenient, but I think we're all capable of it."
Virtually everyone is rational – instrumentally rational. They apply reason in pursuit of their goals to varying extents. You can't get a job, or a welfare check for that matter, without being rational.
Anyone capable of instrumental rationality is capable of empistemic rationality – when it pays.
But it doesn't pay in politics.
"What we need is the proper motivation and incentive to get rational about politics, and that would essentially define a critical mass, i.e., where everyone gets on the bandwagon."
This is a collective fallacy: "We" can't get epistemically rational. "We" don't need anything, anymore than "we" decide anything or "we" think anything. Only individuals need, decide or think. I do not need others to improve their politics in order for me to lead a decent, rewarding. and (yes) happy life. Heaven help anyone who does.
Escape from collective politcs is not a political process and political movements can't get there.
Alright, let's see if I can address some of this in one shot.
As to the issue of Paul's campaign resulting in more libertarians, whether that will ultimately have any effect, motivations, critical mass, and so on, I think we just can't know.
I think there's a distinction to draw between activist libertarians (in word and/or deed) and those who are philosophically so but nonetheless move along with things how they are. They participate in politics, vote for lessers of evils, and even benefit from the system in the form of various state services and programs, like medicaid and SS.
It's the second group that's largest, has the most growth potential, and has the largest potential to effect change by simply not opposing reforms, not actively, morally supporting further slide, and switching over to more direct activism when the time and opportunity is perceived right.
What I'm getting at closely parallels civil disobedience. The thing about civil disobedience is that you can never predict what's going to set it off, and it's completely ineffective right up to the moment where it's completely effective.
Ernest. Points noted. All I would say is that I have a very difficult time not seeing Lincoln and the North as ultimately the worst aggressor. There were tons of ways to deal with the South, it's economics, its secession, its slavery over time and that didn't need to kill 650K and essentially wipe out all pretense that the Constitution meant real boundaries to state action.
I haven't read any of your links, but I'll get to it.
JTK. I don't think that's a collective fallacy, as I simply meant it in terms of jumping-on-bandwagons critical mass. You can't deny there are political movements and changes that exist primarily because there's enough people that adopt an idea and want to do something about it. John Lopez is right that everybody wants free stuff at other's expense, but that's never going to change. That's not an idea, it's just an impulse, and it gives rise to "ideas" thinly veiled to satisfy that impulse.
They come in fashion and go out just like the latest diet craze or get-rich-quick scheme. At least individualism is an idea in itself, with sound moral footing.
I think the battle is one of patiently wining on fundamental ideas, like a sleeper virus. One day, just maybe it'll get activated and things will happen very rapidly.
You know, I went through the No Treason archives and notice that as early as 2006 readers in comments were saying that he'd sighted Ron Paul at "anti-Zionist dinners, Liberty Lobby events" and claiming he was a regular on the "reactionary racist right scene."
It's like the rumblings of the avalanche above, and down below in the ski lodge they're holding political rallies online with World of Warcraft.
Is the fucking urge for any kind of shabby political vindication so strong? To join a mob? To have "your guy" out there?
I told my friend S. what my worst fear about all this was.
Commentators will deplore the fringe baggage that Paul comes with but then say it's a hopeful sign that his core message of freedom resonated with so many people.
Well, what if it's the opposite? What if Paul is as sucessful as he is in spite of his message of freedom; it's the racialist and crank stuff that's stirring up the support. In other words, having a racist newsletter, getting on Alex Jones, pandering to the truthers, wern't mistakes – they are the basis of his success, and without them he'd be as completely ignored as any LP candidate. What if no one, or only a tiny minority, cares about his "message of freedom" at all?
"Success" in this case, being relative…but the facts have been out there for some time, and he's gotten way farther than any LP guy. And from about the same start.
Never underestimate just how awful people can be, especially when they form mobs and claw for political power.
"'There is a disgust in the world that reaches beyond death and will last to eternity." – Oskar Loenko, quoted in Fest's THE FACE OF THE THIRD REICH.
Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State, or the depositories of power, or any other fundamental value of the human community – however necessary and honorable be their function in worldly things – whoever raises these notions above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God; he is far from the true faith in God and from the concept of life which that faith upholds….Should any man dare, in sacrilegious disregard of the essential differences between God and His creature, between the God-man and the children of man, to place a mortal, were he the greatest of all times, by the side of, or over, or against, Christ, he would deserve to be called prophet of nothingness, to whom the terrifying words of Scripture would be applicable: “He that dwelleth in heaven shall laugh at them”
– Mit Brennender Sorge, Encyclical of Pope Pius XI, March 14, 1937
Are you getting ready to laugh then?
What would Christ say about "taking it to the towelheads"?
"Ragheads," John. Ragheads. {g}