Category Archives: libertarianism

Ron Paul Vs. The ‘Revirginizing’ Republicans

libertarianism, Political Philosophy, Republicans, Ron Paul

John H. Richardson of Esquire Magazine has a great line about the Republicans’ hollow commitment to constitutional principles: “Once Obama became president, the hymen of their small-government ideals spontaneously regenerated.” Richardson follows with a fabulous piece about Ron Paul:

“[Ron] Paul chose to use the new Congress’s ceremonial reading of the Constitution — a tribute to him — to chastise his colleagues for the hollowness of the stunt. ‘Will there be no more wars without an actual congressional declaration?’ he asked. ‘Will the Federal Reserve Act be repealed? Will only gold and silver be called legal tender? Will we end all the unconstitutional federal departments, including the Departments of Energy, Education, Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, and Labor? Will the Patriot Act be repealed and all the warrantless searches stopped? Will the TSA be restrained or abolished? Will the IRS’s unconstitutional collection powers end? Will executive and judicial quasilegislative powers be ended? Will we end the federal war on drugs? Would we end the federal government’s involvement in medical care? Will we end all the federal government’s illusionary insurance programs? Will we ban secret prisons, trials without due process, and assassinations? Will we end our foreign policy of invasion and occupations?'”

The feature about Ron Paul is well-worth reading. (While you’re at it, here’s a defense of Representative Paul, one of many, written during the heyday of the attacks against him launched by Beltway libertarians.)

Other good lines by Richardson: “Words that other politicians used like screeches of chimpanzee code, Paul actually meant and could explain so that everything from the economic collapse to marijuana legalization to terrorism actually connected and made sense. Like the words on everyone’s lips these days, small government. The way Ron Paul explains it, the U. S. Constitution was all about setting up a balance of powers in order to prevent a recurrence of government tyranny, a purpose emphasized by the Bill of Rights….”

A not-so-good line, because arguably incorrect (the accretion of the state has been the ruin of the USA): “He doesn’t care that it was a powerful American government, based in Washington and willing to invest in its people, that ultimately made the United States into the world-historic power that it is today, with a huge economy and a vast middle class. Nor does he care that it was that strong central government that ensured the survival of the young country” …

Finally:

The difference is that a lot of conservatives just say this stuff without meaning it. It was conservatives, after all, who said that you can have small government along with two wars and seven hundred overseas military bases. But Ron Paul goes the other way. Philosophical and systematic and pure in a way that young people may be best qualified to understand, he lays bare the contradictions. That is the reason his ideas have spread like hidden veins throughout our culture, the reason he has become such a stunning challenge to the existing order. He means the words that everyone else just uses. He’s flinty as a Founder and solid as the gold standard — not just the messenger but also the message.

UPDATE II: Beck Bucks The System (If “Incoherent & Meandering”)

Glenn Beck, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, libertarianism, Media, Uncategorized

Yes, I’ve been critical of the irrational, illogical twists and turns in the thinking of Glenn Beck in recent months. (Here). “Skeptic” (the magazine) could use Beck’s conspiracy building tactics to fill an issue on irrational thinking. However, besides exuding goodness, Beck also radiates rebellion. Whatever one thinks of Beck, he is a rebel. And like all real rebels, he too must secede from the system. Glenn’s departure from FoxNews is an act of secession. FoxNews is the system. Beck is no longer able to abide by the ideological and disciplinary constraints imposed by the Republican establishment’s megaphone.

Beck has promised his jubilant adversaries that they were “going to pray for the days of 5:00PM,” intimating that a force of nature has been unleashed on the world. Or as the Judge put it, “Bigger, better and more Beck.”

Go Glenn! Of course, as I had hoped (see “Beck has Left the Building”), The Judge may stand to inherit the slot.

UPDATE (April 7) I: I hear here, and on Facebook, lots of cheerleading for one program, The Judge’s. Or Stossell’s—who is marvelous, but still very much within the remits of conventional, by-the-book libertarianism. I love them both to bits. But none of you so-called “independent thinkers” has noticed that these shows tolerate, 1) the must-have, establishment Tea Partiers, and 2) the Reason and other narrow-faction libertarianism. The shows are still within the, admittedly, wonderful box. Those who say Beck is part of the system are as insane as Beck (who is a good type of insane; a lovable goof, as Huggs put it). Beck is a natural secessionist.

I’m surprised that you’ve all fallen to your knees before (our) ideological correctness, dismissing Beck’s brave act of secession, b/c of his errors of thought. I have news for you: In the liberty-oriented community, people tend to huddle in atrophying intellectual attics, and quibble about detecting and expelling contrarians. Dare to dissent on this or the other point of purity, and keepers of the flame will take it upon themselves to read you out of the movement. This, naturally, makes for tribalism, not individualism. The bad, moreover, have a nasty habit of crowding out the good. Or as one wag once said to me (was it Randy Barnett? I can’t recall), “Quality is never the result of intellectual purges: the most creative and independent thinkers are the first to go.” That makes perfect psychological sense: those who remain feel more secure, group cohesion having trounced intellectual vitality.

UPDATE II (April 9): Larry Auster:

Glenn Beck’s announcement that he is going to “transition off” his daily TV program later this year, whatever that means, is about as coherent as Sarah Palin’s July 2009 announcement of her reasons for resigning from the governorship. Has anyone noticed that Beck, like Palin, is inveterately incapable of forming a cogent sentence, and that one of the reasons for this, as with Palin, is that almost everything he says revolves around himself?

Indubitably true.

UPDATE II: A Capsizing Debt

Debt, Economy, Federal Reserve Bank, Inflation, libertarianism, Republicans

“The United States is facing a crushing burden of debt – a debt that will soon surpass the size of the entire U.S. economy and ultimately capsize it if left on its present course. This is not the future of a proud and prosperous nation. It is the future of a nation in decline.” Republikeynesians have come a long way; this is their description of the debt crisis in “Path to Prosperity: Restoring America’s Promise” (PDF)—the House Republicans’ 2012 budget proposal, authored by the House budget committee’s chair, Paul Ryan (R-WI). And although the role of the Federal Reserve Bank in monetizing the debt is finessed—this is still more than we’ve come to expect from the GOP:

“The lenders who buy much of the federal government’s debt have noticed the disconnect between the government’s perilous fiscal situation and the low rates of interest it is paying on the bonds that constitute the government’s debts. Some have even decided to purge their portfolios of U.S. debt, and others are advising their clients to do the same.

“Through its interventions into the economy, the Federal Reserve has recently become the largest buyer of government debt in the country, and these purchases have helped keep interest rates low. But the Fed is scheduled to stop making these purchases this summer. Congress must show the market that it has a credible plan for getting the national debt under control, in order to ease concerns over the government’s creditworthiness and stave off an interest-rate spike.

… nearly every fiscal expert and advisor in Washington has warned that a major debt crisis is inevitable if the U.S. government remains on its current unsustainable path. The government’s failure to prevent this completely preventable crisis would rank among history’s most infamous episodes of political malpractice. …”

Of course, the actual steps proposed to ward off stagflation and hyperinflation are not nearly as drastic as they ought to be.

MORE.

UPDATE I (April 6): Vox Day, on Sean Hannity’s radio show, warns of “The Return Of The Great Depression.” A good reality check is my interview with Day, my WND colleague, “Great Depression 2.0’: An Interview with Vox Day.”

Mr. Hannity seemed eager to pick Vox’s brain about prudent investments during a depression. Asset protection, says Vox, is essential, over and above a focus on returns: metal and companies with a real business model; companies that also provide real services.

Listen to the interview. Notice the alarm in Sean Hannity’s voice. Austrian economists such as Vox Day have not wavered in the “apocalyptic” predictions they’ve been making. This column was warning in 2003, if not earlier, of the consequences of endless debt, credit expansion, and the dangers of hyperinflation. As did I explain to those who bothered to listen that production, not credit-fueled consumption, was whence came wealth.

UPDATE II: To Myron, below: Your cynicism alert and my point are not mutually exclusive. The GOP has come a long way, thanks to the Tea Party, in accurately describing the coming, and calamitous, effects of the debt. We both agree that it’s too little too late.

Natural Law Vs. The War Powers Resolution

Constitution, Foreign Policy, Just War, libertarianism, Natural Law, Neoconservatism, War

Modern statutes like the War Powers Resolution, the Iraq Resolution, and the Use of Force Act do not displace the constitutional text and the framers’ intent. But even if the Constitution approved of Barack Obama’s subterfuge in the matter of war powers—the natural law does not. Because it is rational and rooted in the very nature of man, natural justice is immutably true; it is the ultimate guide to what is right or wrong. And it certainly informs the work of historian Tom Woods and the mission of the King Dude (aka Mike Church).

Woods and Church (against the Imperial Presidency) are sparring with talker Mark Levin (in support of it). Woods has repeatedly deferred to the work of Louis Fisher, senior specialist in separation of powers at the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress, whose work I too galvanized during the Bush era war-powers abuse, in “UNNATURAL LAWLESSNESS” (here).

Tom Woods, The King Dude, and Fisher follow the framers and are thus formidable forces for liberty. To the debate between Messrs. Woods and Levin, I would add—and emphasize—only this point:

To the extent that the Constitution comports with natural law, to that extent it is good. To the extent that it does not jibe with natural justice, to that extent the Constitution is flawed. Even if the Constitution could be shown to support the many naturally illicit military forays conducted by successive American governments—it does not mean that these wars are/were just; only that they are/were legal. Contra classical natural law theory, legal positivism equates justice with the law of the state. However, while it may no longer guide most Americans, natural law must never cease to inform libertarians.