Category Archives: libertarianism

Derb On The Irrelevance of Libertarianism

Elections 2008, libertarianism, Political Philosophy, Ron Paul

In “High Priests of Pomposity Pan Ron Paul” I contended that whatever was revving the Ron Paul Revolution, it was not the ideas or the “energy” of Beltway libertarians, represented by the Cato and Reason claque. In fact, there was almost no overlap between “the [Ron] Paul and the [Virginia] Postrel solitudes”:

“Ron’s Revolutionaries have coalesced around the illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional invasion of Iraq, against America’s hegemonic overreach, and for a sovereign, less ‘cosmopolitan,’ America.
Beltway libertarians, conversely, are moved in mysterious ways by gaping borders, gay marriage, multiculturalism, cloning, and all else ‘cool and cosmopolitan.’”

John Derbyshire goes further. In a new VDARE.com column, Derb contends that, “Paradoxically, Ron Paul’s candidacy is proving the irrelevance of libertarianism.”

Particularly courageous, given the commentariat’s general allergy to the truth, is Derb’s daring defense of Paul’s association

“with people, fifteen or twenty years ago, who thought that we were all better off when homosexuals had to be discreet, and that black Americans are prone to civil disorder, and that Martin Luther King was a philandering plagiarist, and that the Confederacy had a right to secede from the Union, and that the Korean storekeepers of Los Angeles behaved in true American spirit when they defended their property with guns against rioters. People really seem to have believed such things! And Paul gave them space in his newsletters! Euiw!”

As I’ve said in this space, “Derb’s Da Man.”

Derb also adds an “affirmations of undying political correctness” to his indictment of the Girls and Girly Boys of the Beltway.

That has to be particularly painful to a collective—and they do act and think as one—that likes to think of itself as ultra-rad (man).

The article is “Paradoxically, Ron Paul’s Success Proving Irrelevance of Libertarianism

High Priests of Pomposity Pan Ron Paul

Elections 2008, libertarianism, Ron Paul

“What are the odds that Rep. Paul’s followers have come to the philosophy of freedom through Reason Magazine? Is it remotely possible that the passionate soldiers of the Paul Army enlisted after chancing upon a dispassionate, desiccated, dry-as-dust disquisition on a free market in kidneys (I’m all for it)? I think not…

Picture a Venn diagram. The overlap between the Paul and the Postrel solitudes is invisible to the naked eye. Only in the atrophying attics of mainstream intelligentsia and media does Postrel’s stuff resonate.

Ron’s Revolutionaries have coalesced around the illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional invasion of Iraq, against America’s hegemonic overreach, and for a sovereign, less “cosmopolitan,” America.

Beltway libertarians, conversely, are moved in mysterious ways by gaping borders, gay marriage, multiculturalism, cloning, and all else “cool and cosmopolitan…”

In “High Priests of Pomposity Pan Ron Paul” you can read why “the Reason Magazine and Cato Institute claque,” as well as others “in the atrophying attics of mainstream intelligentsia and media,” don’t count much in the Ron Paul Revolution.

Ron Paul: ‘No More Student Visas from Terrorist Nations’

Classical Liberalism, Elections 2008, IMMIGRATION, Individual Rights, libertarianism, Political Philosophy, Ron Paul

The Paul immigration ad stated, “No more student visas from terrorist nations.” For this, these same dubious libertarians hysterically condemned him for being a collectivist—he had blanketed certain nations rather than address on merit each and every individual seeking a visa. There we go again.
A clear thinker remains wedded to reality. Libertarians who pride themselves on levitating forever between their theory as to what the world ought to be like and what it is like are anything but clear thinkers.

Policy by definition addresses the collective, not the individual. Duly, the reality-based libertarian will seek to minimize political overreach, not reach for the political Promised Land. Immigration policy by its very nature targets broad categories of individuals: educated as opposed uneducated; law-abiding versus outlaws; healthy, not unhealthy.

The idea that a presidential candidate with a libertarian sensibility—remember, Paul is running as a Republican, not as a Libertarian—must support only policies that treat each and every immigrating individual on his merits is ludicrous, although it allows the lazy libertarian his theoretical purity.

The notion that by saying to a Saudi national “Sorry, you’ll have to study in Riyadh,” one is violating his individual rights is positively stupid.

Back on terra firma a “highly selective immigration policy” can act as “an effective, non-aggressive tactic against terrorism … the perfect complement to a peaceful foreign policy.”

Updated: Ron Wrong on Islam, Right on Foreign Policy

Elections 2008, Islam, libertarianism, Ron Paul

Does it follow that because Ron Paul is wrong about the threat of Islam, and about the cause of Islamic terrorism, that he is also wrong about foreign policy? Not at all.
I cannot stress enough that I depart from Rep. Paul on quite a few issues, chief of which is the cause of Islamic terrorism. True, our foreign policy doesn’t help matters.
Still, irrespective of where one’s sympathies lie; regardless of how one views the cause of Muslim insurrections the world over, one must surely recognize that—for whatever reason—Muslims are at the center of practically every bloody conflict in the world today.
Is it possible that Muslims are right and that the “infidels” of Lebanon, Israel, India, Russia, Sudan, Indonesia, The Ivory Coast, Kenya and Nigeria all deserve to be visited by Islamic violence? Not if you live on terra firma.
Scholars such as Efraim and Inari Karsh, for example, have shown that “Middle Eastern history is essentially the culmination of long-standing indigenous trends, passions, and patterns of behavior rather than an externally imposed dictate.”
It’s a great shame Paul has adopted the received wisdom of the far-left, according to which the Arabs were (and remain) hapless and helpless victims of the West.
Strategically, moreover, it’s unwise for a presidential candidate to keep sounding as though he blames America first. That gets people’s backs up and is not conducive to his sensible message with respect to foreign policy.

Update: New participants on the blog are always welcome. However, I am getting tired of the odd individual who stumbles on my blog and website, and post facetious, rude csious comments withough familiarizing himself with hbut can we ask politely that before you post about Islam and Dr. Paul’s perspective, that you familiarize yourself with your host’s perspective first. I think you will find a far more comprehensive analysis of what is at stake vis-à-vis the West and Islam here than in Dr. Paul’s writings.

So if our foreign policy is just the minor player what is the major cause of Islamic “terrorism”. Our freedoms? I am interested…