Yes, but it’s not so much about, should Ron Paul do X or do Y, it’s about whether we should distance ourselves from him or not.

Right. My opinion is that if you think he’s a bad symbol, don’t support him. But don’t make that decision b/c he’s a politician.

I don’t consider his shortcomings or his status as a politician any obstacle, because I don’t regard the State or it’s offices as legitimate. I don’t think the game is real, nor the rules binding, so what does it matter if I play or don’t play? To refuse to deal with that part of society that has been coopted by the State to any degree is to grant the State the legitimacy it seeks. They don’t deserve the courtesy, and I won’t give it willingly. Instead I will do as I please and fuck with the State whenever I see it as advantageous.

What Ron Paul lacks in legitimacy as a ruler he more than makes up for in the national conversation he’s starting. I guess whether that’s sufficient to compel one to support him is a matter of preference. But I don’t think that anarchists must abstain from state institutions. Sometimes the State is in the room when the consensus between humans is occurring.

Let’s say that he does succeed in winning. Then what? Molyneux addresses that.

Well, I second Mr. Greenleaf’s excellent comments. But even if it would be as bad as Molyneaux predicts, it’s not indicative of any truth about the State we don’t already know. If we take responsibility for the State’s actions, we are, again, buying into the idea that “we make them hurt us”. Nobody is creating that crisis by backing Paul; the situation already exists right now; we just don’t usually see it. Paul is just the vehicle for “the correction” so to speak. Besides, it’s as good a time for a revolution as any.

The old, “we tried that,” trick everyone will play for the next five centuries, at least!

I’m not so worried about it. Our philosophy was called something different 100 years ago, and 100 years from now it will probably have a different name. The ideas live on.

But I think “we could make everybody mad at us by siezing our own chance at freedom” is a non-starter, at least for me. There’s danger in any chance for advancement. We don’t know the future - not even Molyneaux. Obviously, the risk is something an individual must weigh for himself, but I think it’s well worth it.

And as far as strategy goes, it does us well to discuss strategy on the way, and don’t think for a second that you ever need a majority to incite a revolution!

Sorry, I meant that you need the support of a majority of the people to WIN a revolution. The point being that any hopes placed by anarchists in Ron Paul don’t defy the necessary laws of revolution. We don’t believe in magic; we believe in opportunities for catalyzing moments with exceptional potential.

Postal workers have a vested interest, both morally and economically, to support the current system. The solution to the second part is simple, and there are historical examples counter to Molyneux’s argument that show they can work. You give the workers, literally, stock options in the Post Office. Czechoslovakia did this after the fall of Communism with astounding results, as did many other Eastern European countries.

In countries which did not give incentives, exactly what Molyneux talks about happened. The ministers and others in charge of factories, restaurants, hotels, everything from capital to consumer goods industries, sabotaged and stole as much as they could. They had no incentive not to. But in other countries, they had first dibs on any privatizations. They would become the new managers of the private firms. With incentives, the Post Office workers only have their moral investment to protect, and that can only go so far and convince so many to prevent the privatization. Some may even see the privatization as a way to further their moral convictions.

Whether Ron Paul is clever enough to actually implement such a program is certainly debatable, however.

Aristotle wasn’t wrong in identifying man as a political animal. Where he went wrong was in identifying politics with the state. True, i.e., non-statist, politics presupposes liberty. In my dissertation, which I’m still working on, I define politics as the joint pursuit of eudaimonia (flourishing, well-being). But eudaimonia, specifically the virtue of justice, requires that we deal with other human beings through discourse, persuasion and voluntary cooperation, not through the threat or use of initiatory physical force. Since the state is predicated upon the violation of rights, so-called statist politics cannot truly be considered politics in this sense.

“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.”

Yes, but it’s not so much about, should Ron Paul do X or do Y, it’s about whether we should distance ourselves from him or not. Let’s say that he does succeed in winning. Then what? Molyneux addresses that.

“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!”

The point is that Ron Paul is disastrous for us as a movement, not only in raining on our self-styled Anarchism - something that thrives on state antagonism and perishes on state involvement - but also if he succeeds! We can not change his connection to libertarians, as fake or as soft as it may be, people that do not know describe him as one and if he were to succeed it would be a disaster for libertarianism, as Molyneux describes. The old, “we tried that,” trick everyone will play for the next five centuries, at least!

And as far as strategy goes, it does us well to discuss strategy on the way, and don’t think for a second that you ever need a majority to incite a revolution! I would be hard pressed to find any revolution that obtained a majority willing to fight or carrying which way the ball bounced as long as they had food on the table and comfy couches to sit on at night. Aristotle was wrong when he called man a political animal. For the majority of men politics doesn’t matter, the only political animal is an animal who talks politics!