The old progressive model is creaky and on the verge of collapse. Even some liberals will admit it is financially untenable. The orthodox statists scream for more taxpayer money, but everybody else realizes we can’t tax our way out of this.

Libertarianism is gaining a hearing from a populace that had previously viewed it as the milieu of nudist dope smokers, anarchists, and bow tied theorists. People are looking for solutions, but raw libertarianism is still too scary even for many small government types. It will take time, and the right people, for libertarianism to gain mainstream currency. Paul Ryan is not a libertarian, but he’s the kind of guy that will be needed: Smart, articulate, and able to deliver it all with a smile.

What’s Wrong with Gary Johnson?

Gary Johnson is an affable guy with a solid small-government record as governor of New Mexico, but his talk of legalizing heroin scares people. And libertarians shouldn’t accuse those folks of fearing liberty. Reasonable people are afraid that mainstreaming drug use will unleash deleterious effects, just like blasphemy, pornography and hundreds of other societal poisons did once we stopped combating them. So the fears, while debatable, are well founded.

Retreat will not bring Safety

Ron Paul’s foreign policy is naive and dangerous. His rEVOLution rhetoric warmly unites leftwing Kucinichites, Neo-nazis, 9-11 Troofers, and Isolationists, but it is folly to believe that “If we leave them alone, they’ll leave us alone.”

Just because the gunslinger hangs up his spurs and spends evenings by the fireside doesn’t mean old rivals won’t still be gunning for him. And “them” is generally understood to refer to practitioners of a religion that split into two rival teams after the founder died and then set themselves to the grim task of slaughtering one another. 1500 years later they are still at it. Is Ron Paul really so naive as to believe that people who nurse thousand-year-old grudges will let The Great Satan go gently into that good isolationist night with fresh sins yet staining his unrepentant soul?

Sunni Terrorists are not fighting for deposed Iranian secularists

Then there is the ridiculous contention that our meddling in Iran in the 50’s has spawned Sunni Islamists.

Our CIA deposing secular Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh has been proffered by hoarse-throated lefties as the reason “they hate us.” I am dismayed to see many of my fellow conservatives hoist that banner, because there are several problems with such simple-minded thinking. First, “they” are Islamists, and they have always been set in opposition to the leftwing intellectual professoriate class that Mossadegh represented. Had we not removed him, his fate would have been that of the secular intelligentsia who teamed with the Mullahs to topple the Shah in 1979: The Islamists slit the throats of their revolutionary partners of convenience, and the rest is history.

Blowback!

I am also dismayed to see some of my fellow conservatives pick up the blowback banner. Iranians didn’t carry out the string of terrorist attacks bookended by the WTC bombings. The people we defended from Saddam Hussein carried out those attacks; and they are Sunni extremists who hate the Shia Persians!

We stopped aggression when we chased Saddam out of Kuwait, as we did when we went into The Balkans. Was the Kosovar Muslim who murdered US Air Force personnel at Frankfurt Airport blowback for our defense of his kith and kin against the bloody predations of Orthodox Christians?

The problem with the blowback argument is that world history is full of chain reactions. Blowback is nothing but the physics of human and societal interaction: humanity’s equal and opposite reaction. We’d be wise to remember that good men doing nothing will also cause the dreaded blowback.

A Tower of Babble: False Dilemmas upon Logical Fallacies

In addition to Paul’s historical mis-readings and the logical fallacies they have spawned, we also must suffer breathless false dilemmas:

* Ron Paul is a constitutionalist — If you don’t vote for him you hate the constitution.

* If you aren’t with Ron Paul on Israel you are a neocon. 

* If you disagree with his foreign policy you are in favor of endless wars.

* If you agree that the CIA has done bad things then you must support dismantling it.

I don’t believe we should intervene everywhere; but we should never tie our hands and forswear intervening anywhere. I can concede that yes, the CIA has done some bad things, but it does not follow that the entire intelligence apparatus must be dismantled. Do Paulistas really want to gouge out America’s eyes and plug our ears? I don’t want us pulling dirty tricks on countries that do us no harm, but I do want us spying on enemies.

More “Constitutional” than the Founders?

Ron Paul supporters call him a constitutionalist, but nothing in our constitution prevents us from forming alliances with likeminded people around the world or taking action when authorized by congress. George Washington invaded Canada, and as president he donned his military uniform to lead a militia army in putting down the Whiskey Rebellion. His protégé, Alexander Hamilton set up our nation’s first central bank, and when a later congress voted against renewing it’s charter, President Madison established the Second Bank of America, another central bank. Jefferson sent US Marines to the shores of Tripoli, and James Madison’s famous doctrine declared that any act by any European power to colonize any part of North or South America would be considered by the US government as an act of aggression to be met with military force. Would Ron Paul call these actions by our founders wrong?

Ron Paul rejects the isolationist tag while throwing up smoke screens about no more endless wars (a lefty trope), but he also thought we should have stayed out of WW II and his stated philosophies would have prevented us from winning the cold war. Western Civilization would look much different today if Dr. Paul’s views had held sway. Forming military alliances, providing military assistance, and securing landing rights in other countries is a far cry from war-mongering. On the contrary, those actions, carried out prudently, save lives and money by deterring war.

The world is a messy place, with unprincipled actors brandishing horrible weapons capable of murder on a mass scale. Those who stubbornly stand upon principle will end up standing upon rubble. Between Ron Paul and the trigger-happy statists, there exists a sensible middle, and it is on firm constitutional footing.

I understand the Paulist urge of impatient libertarians and those disgusted with our statist federal monster, but Ron Paul ain’t the guy and America ain’t ready for the libertarian full monty just yet.

Nick Gillespie – Ron Paul (a defense)

Yes Virginia, Ron Paul is a 9/11 Truther

Statement from former Paul aid Eric Dondero

Tim Daniel – Ron Paul

Proof Positive – Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy

Jeffrey Kuhner – Ron Paul’s Moment

Dorothy Rabinowitz – What Ron Paul Thinks of America

Ron Paul’s Mischief Voters

PJ Media – Ron Paul, Troofer

Note:  This entry has been cross-posted at Edge Induced Cohesion [1].

I do not consider myself a libertarian. This is not to say that there are not some definitions of libertarian that would not apply to me (there are), but rather when I look at what passes for “mainstream” libertarian I want nothing to do with whatsoever unless I am wearing a hazmat suit. As someone who is deeply interested in political philosophy, I have noted, and found it highly intriguing that in most of the world (apart from the United States), libertarian is considered one of the many types of socialist worldviews, on the anarchic socialistic side. This is not endearing whatsoever to me, though its American equivalent is often scarcely less appealing.

Only a moral people deserves (and receives) freedom. Where libertarian arguments fail is in assuming that morality is merely optional when it comes to freedom. This is not so. Self-government is a prerequisite for liberty. If someone cannot restrain themselves then others will restrain them, and that is something that our world is witnessing in all of its concern over civility and dignity and respect. Liberty without morality is anarchy, and most people have a very low tolerance for anarchy. The moment social order is lost, a lot of people clamor for the first law and order candidate who is willing to use the power of the state to enforce the rule of law. And that usually means a lot of brown shirts or #occupy types complaining about police brutality and occupying a jail cell without a lot of sympathy from the general public.

Even someone like myself who dislikes authoritarian crackdowns on principle (being someone who is deeply concerned about rotting in jail cells for being a bit to free to mouth very strong opinions) has very little sympathy for those who ruin and threaten the loss of liberty for the rest of us. The problem is that it is very difficult to avoid the extremes of anarchy and tyranny when society at large has lost the ability or inclination of self-government. No free society is possible where people do not discipline their own conduct and show respect for others, and clearly that respect and moral conduct is breaking down, and has been for decades now.

It is not an accident that times of crisis threaten the social order. A loss of respect for authority, especially among the young (who don’t remember how this turned out the last few dozen times and are not inclined to examine the bloody history), often leads to revolts and uprisings that alienate defenders of moderate social order. In the face of unwashed philistine anarchists, most people (myself included) prefer a crackdown, as ominous a precedent as that is. Such actions as disrupting the social order are usually counter-productive, therefore, in defending liberty or in trying to reverse a societal trend away from liberty. It also would tend to harden divisions within a society by making some people appear beyond the pale of political acceptability, therefore removing peaceful ways of dealing with real and serious societal problems.

At its core, libertarianism (at least as it is defined in the United States) desires freedom from government restrictions. And in a burdensome regulatory climate as we have, that is not unacceptable on its face. The devil is always in the details, though. If one desires freedom for the wrong reasons, it discredits freedom for others by making you a threat that has to be protected against. If a thief desires there to be less government regulations so they can embezzle or steal with impunity, such a person is a threat to the preservation of a free market order. For a free market to work, there are conditions that must be met, including a society that is morally upright enough not to steal or cheat its customers and local communities and families that are willing to take care of and support the interests of the population at large, especially when creative destruction destroys companies and eliminates jobs for people.

All too often, libertarian arguments appear to belong to support one of a small set of illegitimate social goals. One goal is the supposed elimination of the imaginary problem of legislating morality. Every law and every legal order legislates morality, because every law exists on a moral and ethical worldview. A law that says “thou shalt not steal” is a law that defends the right of people to their personal property. A law that says “thou shalt not commit adultery” recognizes the gross immorality of those who betray their covenantal vows as traitors. Likewise, a law that permits any sort of activity recognizes that as “permissible” and “allowable,” and therefore morally acceptable. If that is not the case according to the whole biblical standard, such a legal order is corrupt and ungodly by definition. And likewise, it would follow that anyone who supports an ungodly and overly permissive legal order therefore is not a genuine Christian by definition because one would be a political antinomian.

And that is why I do not consider myself a libertarian, because I am opposed to antinomian heresies wherever they might pop up, whether that is in politics where someone says that the sins of someone else are no concern to me, especially when there are societal blessings for obedience to (God’s) law and societal punishments for disobedience. In such circumstances the morality of other people is very much a matter of deep concern for any godly individual. After all, let us not forget that in Romans 1:28-32, a lengthy list of sins (which are very prevalent in Western society) is condemned with eternal destruction, not only for those who commit such sins but for those who are tolerant and indulgent about them.

And that is a serious matter. After all, to desire liberty from government taxation so that one can avoid one’s responsibility for Christian charity is itself ungodly. Desiring liberty from laws that prevent the exploitation of children so that one can exploit them is similarly ungodly. The reason for a great deal of government restrictions is the inability of people (especially businesses) to govern themselves. I too would like to be free of burdensome regulations, if I could trust people to be self-disciplined and not in need of (more inefficient and costly) external discipline. I do not have such trust in others, though.

A major reason for the screwed up and overly large leviathan state we struggle with in the Western world (including the United States) is the fact that other institutions have fallen down on the job. The responsibility for education is first and foremost a responsibility of parents. But if parents take no interest and responsibility in the education and upbringing of their children, their lack of responsibility will create a gap that allows others (first local communities and then higher levels of government) increased power to fill what is lacking, at increased costs and decreased effectiveness.

The same is true for charity–it is first the responsibility of families to help their own, and for local communities and congregations to help their own people, whose circumstances they should be aware of, and who may provide encouragement on how to avoid remaining a “burden,” and opportunities to do so, if possible. The more such responsibilities are left to others, the less knowledge and help and greater corruption and inefficiency are part of the necessary provision for those who are without. If you want government out of such business, it means taking responsibility for such business yourself on a lower level.

And very rarely, if ever, do I see libertarians making such arguments about the need to bolster families and local communities. I do see federalists making those arguments, and I support them, but I do not see libertarians doing so. Instead, I see libertarians foaming at the mouth for the opportunity to get rid of laws that protect the poor or the common folk or children from exploitation for others. Child labor laws–struck down. Laws that restrict immorality–done away with. The end goal of such behavior is not a virtuous republic, but rather an anarchial state of bellum omnium contra omnes. That’s not a state many of us, myself included, want any part of.

And that is the conundrum that libertarians find themselves in–being seen as anarchists and moral antinomians who desire to exploit and take advantage of others by force or fraud without any recourse to courts of law or the protection of government. If such people truly desired the well being of our republic, or any other, they would seek to rebuild institutions at the lower level that have atrophied and failed to fulfill their God-given responsibilities. Then they would have the credibility to speak out against the tyrannies of government, knowing that necessary tasks would not be left undone by attacking our leviathan state. Such libertarians appear to be entirely absent, however. All we have are pro-pot smoking isolationist libertines who are unworthy of the slightest support or legitimacy, fiddling and diddling while our republic burns. Such people, rather than being praiseworthy defenders of liberty, are a national disgrace, and an invitation to divine judgment if we do not judge our own house first.

[1] http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2011/12/22/a-thin-line-between-libertarian-and-libertine/

Note: the following article was originally written in late June for another venue, but I’ve reprinted it here because I think its point is still relevant.

Hardcore libertarian Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) and rabid leftist Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) have united for a cause near and dear to many a crank’s heart: drug legalization. The two have introduced a bill to all but end the federal War on Drugs. While their proposal would still let the feds prohibit the transfer of marijuana across state lines and keep it from entering the country, it would recognize the states’ authority to legalize pot within their borders if they so choose.

Constitutionally, it’s not the federal government’s job to handle the states’ internal affairs, and as we struggle to trim the fat from our debt-ridden, bureaucratic federal government, every little bit helps. Also, comparing the results of varying drug policies in newly empowered states would help us clearly see whether or not legalizers’ rosy predictions of safer narcotics and collapsing cartels actually come true.

So, is Paul-Frank a win-win? Not quite.

Read More →

From my perspective the essence of the bailout bill can be summarized as follows: We want government to “help” us, where “us” is defined as hardworking average Joe American, and of course not greedy Wall Street bankers. And hence the final death knell of fiscal conservative/libertarian thinking of the role of government. The fiscal conservative/libertarians among us don’t want government “help” because we know that government help (a) comes with many, many strings attached that deprive us of our liberty; (b) force us to serve the state, thereby depriving us of our dignity; and (c) in the end, cause more problems than they solve. The Republicans who defeated the original bill on Monday weren’t characterized as bold defenders of libertarian thought, they were instead characterized as rigid ideologues or, worse, nihilists. And they “came around” anyway; so much for their vaunted principles, right? But really this isn’t surprising. We really haven’t learned the lesson of 1995, with the government shutdown. There the choice to the public was crystal clear: do you reall want less government, or more? The public chose “more”. The winter of 1995-6 was the tipping point, the Gettysburg if you will, of the campaign to reduce government. From that point on it’s been a lost cause.

The only reason George Bush won as narrow a victory as he did in 2000 was because he was a “compassionate conservative”, not that evil Gingrich-type conservative who ruthlessly wanted government to wither on the vine. No, Bush was supposed to be this new kind of conservative, one who didn’t want to slash and burn government, but instead mould government to serve conservative principles. Hence his signature achievemnt, No Child Left Behind, didn’t reduce government at all; it grew government far more than Clinton’s wildest dreams. Medicare Part D was another example: don’t reduce government, instead create a new government program that was supposed to work according to free-market principles in dispensing drugs to Grandma.

And the bailout bill is the final blow. Limited-government conservatism is in a serious coma, and may not survive much longer. Everywhere we look, both from Democrats and Republicans, we see the insatiable desire to grow government. We don’t have a champion anymore who believes that the most helpful government is the one that gets out of people’s ways to let them pursue their own dreams unfettered from bureaucratic red tape and mindless regulation. No, instead, the business that is unregulated is regarded with suspicion and mistrust; it can’t be trusted to do the right thing, only Washington bureaucrats can do that.

But this is reality. It is good that we recognize it now, because when Obama gets elected (which I think is almost a certainty now), we will have to work hard to find our new standard-bearer of limited-government conservatism, someone who can resuscitate it from its coma and reaffirm its principles to a public that now believes government is the path to prosperity.