Ron Paul: A Complete Disaster for Libertarianism
Although I have some nuanced differences with Stefan Molyneux (his failure to distinguish between a free market and “capitalism” in the video below being one example), he does one of the better recent jobs of explaining part of the case for an “anti-political” (actually intensely political, but extra-parliamentary) approach to building Liberty. That understanding ultimately boils down to libertarianism being opposed root and branch to all forms of statism. The last thing we need is Ron Paul “saving the Republic”, as “the Republic” is a criminal enterprise.
“… if you wish to know how libertarians regard the State and any of its acts, simply think of the State as a criminal band…” — Murray Rothbard
I could go on about the subtleties of my differences with Molyneux, but what’s most important right now is to watch the man and learn — Ron Paul is a disaster for libertarianism.
But if not via “politics”, how then are we to win our Liberty? Revolution.
Share This
Brad, I am surprised that you of all people don’t see that the Ron Paul campaign might be our last opportunity to talk about the freedom message in public for a very long time (at least, until our movement takes off). And it’s probably the last reasonable choice voters will ever have in their lives. The Ron Paul campaign is backed and partially guided by the Mises Institute. Ron Paul’s message is an anti-government, pro-markets, pro-freedom messaage.
On top of all of the other reasons for radical libertarians not to support Ron Paul (for our own reasons), there’s also the matter of our opposition to Ron Paul being perhaps the best thing we, BEING WHO WE ARE, could do for his campaign. If you don’t get that, you don’t really get politics. It’s the same reason hard-core Marxists tended to oppose “bourgeois” mainstream leftists.
Look,the nature of political change is for substantial reforms to only come about in response to radical pressure for revolution. The ruling class hands stuff to the moderate reformers as a way of attempting to drain the growing support of the radicals. That’s why libertarians have been butting their heads against a brick wall for decades — the radicals are mostly acting like de facto moderates. Fighting directly for reforms won’t get you reforms. If you’re one of the few people who get the radical take on things, you’re not acting in your most high value role to the total movement by going around in reformist drag.
Suddenly, his immigration platform makes perfect sense.
He’s picked an issue which will unite the large Latino population, libertarian socialists, libertarian capitalists, authoritarian Marxists and others to oppose him, and to defend free markets…
Oh, wait, he could have let the other candidates do that without his help.
Of course this is going to be a controversial topic, but damn it, Brad, I applaud you for saying what needs to be said.
Whether or not Ron Paul is a “reasonable alternative for voters” or a “best possible case scenario” should have no relevancy to we Anarchists! Why? Because we’re ANARCHISTS! We accept no ruler, promote no bandit, we take from the rich and the corrupt, then redistribute it to the just - wealthy or not (I know that will be an issue for you, Mr. Tremblay) - in the face of all politicians.
What we have here with the Ron Paul movement isn’t some kind of “last chance, best opportunity for a while” its reformist garbage for parlor revolutionaries and compromised individuals.
Now, for my own perspective the Ron Paul failure - it will fail - will represent a greater victory for Anarchism as it will more than likely dishearten all those “Paulians” so much that they see no other way than violent revolution. But that aside, there’s no reason for us to become involved with Ron Paul. There’s no reason we should include ourselves in his stream. He’s a self-proclaimed protector of the republic, whereas we’re self-proclaimed enemies of it. There can be no alliance between enemies, at all times we will remain adversaries.
Niccolo says:
“we take from the rich and the corrupt, then redistribute it to the just…”
Is this decision something you simply take upon yourself - or does it require some form of tribunal?
Fwiw - I self-identify as an anarchist/individualist/voluntaryist - but there is no “we” between you and I regarding your proposed redistribution scheme. What you’ve stated - imo - reeks of theft and coercion.
I agree with much of what Molyneaux is saying. His invocation for us to live our personal freedom and engage in a personal crusade to educate others by both our words and actions is wonderful. This is obviously the basis for any sustainable movement against the State. He’s also extremely persuasive in demonstrating that political efforts to reform the State are doomed to failure. I mean, I’m convinced even more than I was before.
The problem I have with his message is that none of what he’s championing precludes supporting Ron Paul. To the extent that it takes energy away from people who would be pursuing other, more authentic anti-state activities, then maybe he has a point. But that’s NOT what I see occurring. Instead, Paul’s campaign is inspiring new activists to seriously think, learn, and act on the principles of individual liberty that we all support - many of them for the first time in their lives. This is not a zero sum game.
Like Harry Browne before him, Paul has openly said that there’s not much he’s going to be able to do, even if he were elected, without a widespread mandate for a libertarian agenda - but that he wouldn’t be elected unless this mandate existed in the first place. It’s not about reform - it’s about a symbol that people can get excited about and rally around to advance the libertarian, anti-state agenda.
And, yes, that’s all the candidate is - a symbol. Paul admits as much, stressing “the message” over his personality. I don’t like idolatry, but it occurs in any sort of movement. Paul will not “fix everything” and clearly there are some supporters who will be disappointed no matter what happens. But those kinds of misguided hopes would occur in any radical movement.
Supporting Paul does not mean that we think he’s a silver bullet. It’s just a good opportunity. Do I want revolution? Hell, yes! But that has it’s dangers as well without having the support of the population, just as the electoral reform path does. There is no substitute for the hard, personal work that Molyneaux exhorts us to take up - but the Paul campaign is not intended to be a substitute, at least for those of us anarchists who are standing behind him. It’s yet one more social phenomenon in which we should participate - as you’re doing in your own way - to propagandize against the State.
That’s my main thesis, but there’s one additional point I wanted to bring up. Molyneaux hinted that people’s understanding of the violence behind the State and it’s programs was similar to many people’s ignoring the violence occurring in some families. I thought that was a very, very astute insight. However, is the violence in both situations the problem or the symptom?
I think many libertarians erroneously single out a particular institution - the State - as the “root of all evil” to be forever vanquished. I think this is more than a bit utopian because it appears to me that the State is addressing real psychological, emotional, and social human conditions that cannot be “abolished”. Just as Ron Paul’s campaign is one of many “symbols” of the freedom movement, the State is just a “symbol” of something more fundamental and difficult at not just the social but the individual level. If we want to address these conditions in a different, more voluntary manner, then great - I’m all for that The latter is a positive task, the former a negative one. We should focus on building the alternative institutions with real human beings in mind instead of bitching about who’s evil and who’s not. And don’t worry, I’ve been as bad about this in my advocacy as anybody.
That’s why I see all this (forgive the expression) pissing on Ron Paul’s parade as incredibly ill advised. So what if the campaign is a less-than-perfect vehicle for bringing about change? It’s in good company with the other strategies we libertarians have tried and continue to think up. None of us have it figured out. None of us have enough success that we can go to these people and show them how stupid or misguided they are. We’re all trying to get it right, and it’s counterproductive to turn it into a debate over strategy when we haven’t even captured the majority’s hearts and minds yet!
No, the Ron Paul campaign is not the ideal vehicle for raising libertarian, anti-state consciousness, but it’s the best vehicle we’ve had in some time. Let’s admit it’s flawed and use it for our own ends rather than complaining that the unwashed masses haven’t figured out what we know so well.
Sorry if I come across as needlessly hostile; I assure you that I appreciate this exchange. I just want to try and communicate with you on an area of difference that I’ve noticed more and more between you and me. You and Molyneaux bring up excellent points, thus the wordy attempt on my part at addressing them.
I don’t know why anyone takes Stephen Molyneaux seriously.
Consider the straw man he spent a good point of his video expounding on.
1. Nearly everyone who is the recipient of government funds gets them via direct deposit. In fact since the mid-’90s most people have standard bills automatically deducted. Most of the rest are via phone or the internet. The media would be hard pressed to find the sorry senior, but maybe they could interview the publisher of the community shopping circular complaining on how his 4th class weekly flyer wouldn’t be delivered. Even illegal aliens here use wester union and not the mail to transfer funds back home. Maybe Canada is more backwards than Mexico.
2. There are a few historical examples of public strikers in the US. Public strikes may work in France and the UK (with limited success) but not the US. PATCO under Reagan is the closest example and it was a disaster for PATCO (Air Traffic controllers which threatened to stop all air-travel and air-freight). I can’t make him do simple google searches for historical evidence, but it is all to the contrary.
3. Somehow I don’t think Federal Express, DHL, UPS, and the various other carriers - now that there would be no 1st class monopoly and an emergency anyway - would strike in sympathy or disappear. For the very, very few things I’d need to get across the country in the form of paper I’d have no trouble. And for funds I could wire the money.
4. State workers and parasites tend to be demotivated at the best of times and quite credulous. Remember Katrina when the people were told to go to the SuperDome where they would be safe and being good little sheeple (I won’t insult sheep here) complied. Somehow people whom you complain about putting in 8 hours of effort for 8 hours of pay and avoiding effort are going to be magically transformed into active activists?
5. It also assumes that the 50%+ people who would put Ron Paul in office would - after making most of the existing activists seem lazy in the effort - go home and sit on their hands. Hardly. I’d personally get and deliver the mail for my building if no one else would. Who would back down in a confrontation? I think the ex-postal workers.
6. Several times in connection with Ron Paul, they’ve said “The Revolution won’t be televised”. But it will be all over the internet and You-Tube. I hardly watch any TV. Maybe some do, but it is already difficult for the MSM to pretend they are monopoly gatekeepers. Youtube, blogs, email, meetups, would all be listening for what Ron Paul wanted us to do, how he looked at the situation. It is like asking if the trains all stopped. Most people wouldn’t notice because that is so last century.
I could go on and on and refute everything else point by point, but this should be enough to show that Mr. Molyneaux only cares about listening to his own voice. He doesn’t even care for his point of view or the argument in support of it to even try to do basic proof-reading, fact-checking, or consider alternatives which would negate his point at the inception. An error in the beginning as Aquinas would say.
Stephen Molyneaux is a complete disaster for Anarchism or whatever you are calling the stateless society you are promoting (I can’t grace this with the word “advocating”).
If you just want people to say how wonderful and smart you are and help you in your hubris, you might attract a number to your mutual admiration society. But look at the above - he goes on to explain how the problems he proposes can’t be solved, where in a few minutes I’ve found several possible solutions. And it can’t be that every Anarchist is that uncreative or stupid. Praising bad argumentation is counterproductive.
And that is the difference between Ron Paul and his supporters - he and they are humble enough to admit they don’t know all the answers. That they haven’t thought of everything. That they can’t run things because they aren’t smart enough.
If you in your pride think you already know all the answers, how everything is going to happen, how everyone will behave in a given circumstance, (does this not describe the video?) you will never come to truth. Nor will even a fraction of what you want to come about ever occur.
One Anarchocapitalist (David Freedman) noted that apparently heretics are treated worse than pagans. So instead of coming up with reasons to go farther than Ron Paul would, you instead come up with not even a very good mythology as to why it will never work.
Time will tell and truth will out. Just watch us.
And yes, I may be wrong. But I won’t waste time complaining or tearing down other’s efforts. Perhaps Molyneaux has reasonable, rational arguments - at least reasonable to someone other than this inner circle. I’ve not heard one yet.
Whoa, tz, coming on a bit strong, aren’t we? I don’t think Molyneaux is being as much of an asshole as you seem to think. That said, I think his argument about what will happen is a little overblown and oversimplified. It is rare that somebody has a lock on what will happen in such an exceptional situation as this.
See, I agree with him that the task of anarchism is a long term one, but I just don’t see why we can’t make giant leaps while we’re at it. I’m not worried nearly as much about making strategic errors as I am about killing revolutionary fervor before it even has a chance to play itself out.
Nearly everybody who supports Paul sees him as the *START* of something new and exciting. Molyneaux sees him as the end of our designs on change. There’s a disconnect here that boils down to neither of us knowing exactly how things will play out, and therefore we have to respect the personal decisions and positions each of us take in light of this mutual lack of knowledge.
Jeremy, I like the way you view the Ron Paul situation (and I happen to be a strong supporter of his). That said, I have read much of Stefan’s writings and have found them to be very persuasive. They have helped further my own views of the State as a destructive beast that, at best, can only be restrained. Unfortunately, I am currently without audio so will have to wait to watch Stefan’s video and comment further.
I would probably summarize my admittedly idealistic view of the current situation as follows: Since the State doesn’t appear to be going away any time soon, I would rather it be restrained (as much as possible) through the help of Ron Paul while we continue the ENORMOUS task of enlightening the masses to the inherent evils of the State. I also agree with Francois’ remarks that Ron Paul, whether he is elected or not, has provided us with the unprecedented service of causing hundreds of thousands of people to reconsider their views of government and what it is presumably needed to do. He has, in effect, set the stage for anarchists to bring many new converts to their side. I see it as a win-win.