Ron Paul’s Net Contribution to Liberty

Ron Paul is probably the most well known living libertarian in the world right now (who’s actually a libertarian). But has his total contribution been a positive sum gain for the advancement of liberty?

In my last article, I stated that:

Only time will tell if Ron Paul will end up being a solid boon to libertarianism, but I think, even with his faults, he’s done a decent job in the last few years.

But in context this may sound like a contradictory statement because the overall article was questioning the merits of political action as a means for advancing liberty. And since Paul’s fame clearly originated from his comparatively unique anti-war position stated during the Republican presidential debates, it would seem to follow that political action can be an effective means to our declared end. This led Steven Handel to question my premise:

“He’s Just Playing the Game”

I was a pretty huge fan of Ron Paul during the 2008 primaries. Even though I now oppose most political action, I still have a good deal of respect for the guy. His accomplishments in the House of Representatives are nonexistent -- he’s a lonely voice in a house of thieves after all. But he appears to be principled and that’s what really matters to me. Even if I think Mr. Smith is a sucker for wasting his time in Washington, I can’t fault the guy for doing what he thinks is right. To some extent, Ron Paul is taking us in the wrong direction by perpetuating the idea that the government can ever be controlled or used for good. At the same time, however, his principled stands against interventionist foreign policy and corporate welfare makes him popular amongst a wide variety people including leftists. And from his principled message, many have taken the time to delve deeper into the libertarian literature, bringing them to develop a more radical take on things. Only time will tell if Ron Paul will end up being a solid boon to libertarianism, but I think, even with his faults, he’s done a decent job in the last few years.

What makes Paul valuable to liberty, then, is that he has principled ideas and he is willing to talk about them even as the media writes him off as a prescient whack job. It’s his ideas and his pluralism which makes him stand out as someone on a genuine mission to make things better.

You Can’t Take Back What You Never Had

"We’ve come to take our government back!"

Apparently this is the Tea Party message Rand Paul is planning on taking with him to Washington DC when he’ll likely win in November. (He is the Republican in Kentucky after all.) Setting aside my problems with Rand as he is flimsy and seemingly unprincipled (unlike his father appears to be), how exactly can the government be "taken back" when "we" never had it in the first place?

When did "we" supposedly "lose" the government? Two years ago? Ten? Fifty? One hundred? Two Hundred?! Can a time be pointed out when the governed demonstrated ubiquitous approval of all the government did?

Some, constitutionalists mostly, might point to the 19th century. Oh, that great period of liberty (that never truly existed)! Sure, if you were a white, male property owner in the 19th century, it might be appropriate to say you were "free," you’d be exaggerating, but I’ll let it slide. However, freedom isn’t control of government, it’s never having to deal with government.

Hypocrisy Over Preferences?

There’s an interesting hypocrisy that I think I'm seeing in the “thick” versus “plumbline” libertarian debate and I’m surprised no one (that I’ve noticed) has picked up on it. This quote from Stephan Kinsella demonstrates it pretty well:

Röpke is right that we just have to be careful when we use the [“capitalism”]. We have to distinguish it from crony-capitalism or corporatism. Clearly “capitalism” denotes an important aspect of the economy of an advanced libertarian social order. (bold added)

Did you catch the irony? If you aren’t aware of the debate, then I doubt you would so I’ll briefly explain.

Plumbline libertarians generally associate strictly with the non-aggression principle: anything goes so long as property rights, usually non-Proviso Lockean property rights, and person are not aggressed against.

The “FairTax” is a Waste of Time

The thought had crossed my mind to call this post “The ‘FairTax’ is for Suckers.” I decided against it because that implies, at first glance, that those who are in favor of some other tax scheme aren’t suckers. They’re all suckers. At one point in my life, the plan may have appealed to me because I too was, well, a sucker.

Is it just me or do the “demands” for a “FairTax” seem highly pathetic? Its supporters are just kowtowing to their masters: “Mister politician, sir, we work real hard, you know, so that you don’t have to, and, well, you piss on us while we sleep and spit in our food and laugh at us when we fall down. And all we’re asking is that, if you could find it in your heart, that you wouldn’t call us bad names anymore.” Not a very effective strategy in my opinion.

Now don’t get me wrong. The “FairTax” is far and away better than the current system. It would be an amazing relief for no other reason than that it’s simple. The current income tax is among the most god awful laws on the books and one that should solidify its many authors’ places in hell. Some libertarians, for whatever annoying reasons, seem to want to deny or marginalize the relative superiority of the “FairTax.” That’s misguided. What isn’t misguided is pointing out the absurd nature of openly pushing for this alternative tax.

Where I (Supposedly) Stand

The Center for a Stateless Society released a quiz written by Gary Chartier to attempt gauging the taker's economic, social, and political philosophy. The quiz is pretty decent, but, as with all quizzes of this nature, there are some questions that seem like they'd generate answers that don't accurately express the taker's opinion because they are interpretable or ambiguous. I'd recommend taking it; at the very least, it's a moderately fun way to waste some time.

Here were my results:

No, The Non-Aggression Principle is Not Enough

Every day that passes sort of forces me to refine, in the most minute sort of ways, my libertarianism. If we got down to the really nitty gritty, I’m sure you could find plenty of people who would deny my libertarianism at all since I’m a rationalist, anarchist, localist, pluralist, and moral subjectivist before I’m a libertarian. I’ve prioritized this way for a variety of economic, ethical, and strategic reasons and all it really boils down to is that I don’t necessarily think free markets are the perfect, all-encompassing solution to every problem, everywhere. That doesn’t mean that I think violence is preferable, in any of those cases, but rather that the case could be made and I’m not in a position to declare absolutely that anyone arguing such would be wrong. That being said, libertarianism and the broad degree of value I place on liberty are very solid foundations of my personal philosophy.

So with that in mind, I accept the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) as a general rule of thumb. While I don’t accept the NAP absolutely due to issues of property and efficacy, it’s something that I think should be looked to first in the majority of cases. If we can define a decent standard of property/possession/whatever-you-want-to-call it, then for most disputes, reflecting upon the NAP will result in a relatively simple resolution. Since I’ve discussed my problems with the NAP before (linked above), I’ll spare a rehashed argument.

Libertarians Need To Embrace Sociology

A large part of my support for libertarian legal systems [for consequentialist reasons] is grounded in economics. This is fairly common. If you were to locate most self-identified “libertarians” in universities, you’d probably find the mode in economics departments. Not that all these self proclaimed “libertarians” actually are, but the association probably has to do a lot with how rationality is viewed in the field. Rationality is the key assumption in pretty much all economic theory. In most mainstream thought, the kind to which I was exposed to in order receive my bachelor’s, the concept of rationality is completely nonsensical and is often the primary criticism from anyone who disagrees with a conclusion derived from it. This is called the “homo economicus” fallacy. I realized quite early in my college career that the mathematically defined “rationality” popularized by mainstream economists had nothing to do with reality and that it was a counterproductive understanding of the world. When I discovered the Austrian School, things came to make much more sense, for rationality had been defined in a way that was characteristic of actual human beings. Even though both the mainstream and Austrian schools ostensibly defined rationality as “using means in the pursuit of predetermined ends,” the Austrians were actually humble enough to avoid implying that economists could pre-define the ends. Under the Austrian view, just like with the mainstream, people could be defined outright as psychological egoists. But unlike the mainstream, the Austrians maintained the independent will of the egoist with much more rigor.

The Language of Liberty

Trying to figure out exactly how to communicate libertarian/anarchist/what-have-you ideas is probably the trickiest part of advocacy. At the same time that you’re trying to gain attention, it is necessary to avoid fanning the flames of irrational biases. For the radical, this can be especially difficult since so many words are loaded by, rightly or wrongly, and for lack of a better word, propaganda. This requires us to be understanding of the words themselves and how they can be interpreted. Words function as labels that we use to identify certain aspect of existence, but the specific meaning of each word varies from person to person, place to place, and culture to culture and reflect every bias out there. Unfortunately, there is no way to avoid this: liberty will be acquired through communication and that alone. Before I offer my strategic advice, I want to examine a couple of words commonly used by advocates of liberty.

“Libertarian”

I view “libertarian” as the all encompassing word that describes people dedicated to liberty for all. Unfortunately, there are several problems. The first is that most people either don’t know what “libertarianism” is or have a very distorted view of what it means, essentially creating an image of Ronald Reagan or some other distinct non-libertarian. I wouldn’t be surprised, if upon asking ten random people to define “libertarianism,” at least one person replied “librarianism?” and two more said something about corporations and “privatizing” everything.