Jack Hunter gets it very right, when he writes:
Libertarianism mattered less before Ron Paul. He helped popularize it. He made it mainstream.
The reason the Libertarian Party is receiving more attention than it ever has before, however marginal, is because of Ron Paul. The reason there is more interest in libertarian books, figures, philosophers, institutions, and ideas is because of Paul. Most of those books, figures, philosophers, institutions, and ideas were influential and valuable before Paul’s presidential campaigns. But Paul made them all significantly more popular...Current national discussions about economic and monetary policy, foreign policy, education policy, civil and individual liberties, and privacy rights are now different than the conversations that would have been had before Paul’s two presidential campaigns.
Ignore the stuff about Rand allegedly carrying the torch and this is a very important essay that should be read in its entirety,
here.
He is the most courageous man I know. When we one day regain a more decentralized and classically-liberal society, we will have Ron Paul to thank.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to ignoring what he says about Rand, ignore what he says about Reagan. Hunter has prattled on forever about what a great conservative Reagan was. Baloney. Reagan was a Red - a socialist one-worlder masquerading as a conservative. He did what he always did - except he got paid by the Washington instead of Hollywood.
ReplyDelete1, libertarianism is not in the mainstream.
ReplyDelete2. Ever since Ron left public office, there is no debate (national or otherwise) about education, monetary or foreign policy from a libertarian perspective.
Better thank Ron now because libertarianism as we know it is headed down the toilet
ReplyDeletehttp://www.vdare.com/articles/libertarians-morphing-into-leftist-social-justice-warriors-at-international-students-for-liberty-conference
Here is a notable quotable
"Ron Paul learned this the hard way at the conference, where the one-time libertarian idol was heavily criticized. Paul delivered a rambling address about the universal appeal of liberty and the need to renounce aggression, but he didn’t receive the kind of rapturous reception he would have gotten even three years ago.
Mackenzie Holst, a student from Texas Christian University who claimed to be linked to the “Center for a Stateless Society,” read a condemnation of Paul for his refusal to condemn his supposedly racist “Ron Paul Newsletters” and everyone tied to them [Edward Snowden and Ron Paul Kick Off Libertarian Student Conference With a Little Kerfuffle About Russia, by David Weigel, BloombergPolitics, February 13, 2015] This is rich coming from an organization dealing with the revelation that one of its founders was a self-admitted child molester [Freedom of Disassociation: Regarding Brad Spengler, Center for a Stateless Society, January 24, 2015]"
Here is the money quote:
"The truth is that the libertarianism—especially the “millennial libertarianism” or “second wave libertarianism” that Students for Liberty is determined to promote— privileges cultural liberalism above restricting the state. You can’t take concepts like Leftist buzzwords like “privilege” and “normativity” seriously and still defend limited government. Once you accept these kinds of concepts, the inevitable performance gaps between racial groups, nations, and sexes become evidence of “oppression” rather than of objectively existing inequalities."
When the current generation of paleo libertarians like Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, Gary North, Judge Napolitano et al die off libertarianism will not be defined by its contempt for the state but rather for LGTBQ "rights," porn stars and drug addicts.
Oh, quit your complaining. There is enough room for all these different types of libertarians. As long as they subscribe to the non-aggression principle, I don't care what else they promote. If they want to complain about privilege, as long as they are not calling for State intervention, I don't care.
DeleteNo there isn't if some "libertarians" are acting like SJW maggots. That is not even libertarian. Period. Full stop.
DeleteShe was loudly booed. Just a progressive masquerading as a libertarian.
DeleteWhile Ron got the ideology out there in public it's still by no means mainstream. Liberals still try to paint us a conservatives who want to smoke pot while conservatives brand us as liberals who like guns. Also if that doesn't work they prop up some stooge and place the libertarian banner above him (examples; Glenn Beck for cons and Bill Maher for libs). As for the conservative demi-god or in reality demi-fraud Reagan, I guess Hunter forgot that Rothbard exposed the Gipper and what the conservative movement really was. It wasn't about liberty (regardless if it was the neocon or the paleocon) just about controlling the boots of the state.
ReplyDeleteRon Paul is owed nothing. von Mises pointed out that political freedom comes only after economic freedom. I believe economic freedom is only possible when most people understand and accept commerce without coercion. This seems unlikely until most people are mostly rational most of the time. The possibility of this occurring (most people, mostly rational most of the time) has nothing to do with voting for a politician. Ron Paul and his political activity cannot create the mostly rational people necessary for a society based on commerce without coercion. Only time and mother nature can do that. Be patient. Don't waste time on politics and the conflicts inherent. Live as rationally as you can and stay out of harms way.
ReplyDeleteSorry, I call BS.
DeleteWe owe Ron Paul A LOT! He never ran to win. He's no politician and never was one. He was (and is) an EDUCATOR. The presidential "campaigns" were a golden opportunity for him to get some prime time spot light to espouse pure libertarian wisdom. And this he did bravely to a wave of boos in the Charleston debate (for example). Yet he soldiers on. I resent your statement about owing him nothing. He is a truly great man.
"I resent your statement about owing him nothing."
DeleteMaybe he didn't come to libertarianism through Ron Paul...
Personally, I did, and I owe him...but to say we all "owe him" is a collectivist argument. Don't get wrapped up into it...everyone knows inside when/how they got the bug and to whom they owe/blame for it.
:)
" He never ran to win"
DeleteOf course he didn't but he could have told his followers that so that we wouldn't have wasted our money and energies on two doomed campaigns.
"He's no politician and never was one. He was (and is) an EDUCATOR. "
Sorry, but anyone who abandons a worthwhile and valuable career as an obstetrician to spend 25 years in the GOP is a politician. Paul is a career GOP politician. Face that fact.
"The presidential "campaigns" were a golden opportunity for him to get some prime time spot light to espouse pure libertarian wisdom. "
So, his candidacy bids were all about one man getting his teaching moment. Wish I had known that earlier. I donated money that I needed for my family in order to give one man a purse with which to pay a gaggle of campaign managers who had no intention of doing what they were hired to do.
Sorry, but I don't owe Ron anything. I watched him win the LP nomination only to go back and rejoin the GOP. It took me a very long time to wise up about politicians in general, but once I did it just wore the shine off of Ron.
Knowingly or not, he led a lot of people into the trap of "working within the system" which benefits only the system. You can't kill a shark by living in its belly. Electoral politics is a trap for any of us who want to see liberty for our children and grandchildren.
We can accomplish more by withdrawing our consent and teaching by example than by wasting our time and money backing a politician.
'Of course he didn't but he could have told his followers that so that we wouldn't have wasted our money and energies on two doomed campaigns...So, his candidacy bids were all about one man getting his teaching moment'
DeleteI think what Capn Mike meant is Ron Paul never ran expecting to win or desiring to rule over anyone. Ron said as much about his first House campaign. When to his shock he did win the election he accepted the job and voted as pro-freedom as he could on everything per his platform. I'm sure if he got elected President he would have done likewise fully respecting the wishes of his supporters and their time and money investments. He 100% ran his campaign to win, there is no question of that.
But the reason he ran was to advance the cause of freedom from state rule, not to be a state ruler. He ran not to issue new decrees upon the population but to enter the political class so he could thwart other politicians from issuing decrees. Knowing if unsuccessful at getting elected, at least he could get the ideas out at scale.
There is nothing misleading or devious about this approach, even if you disagree that it accomplished a great deal.
As I recall, the first campaign was started almost as a lark. It was only when the grassroots responded with enthusiasm, donations they couldn't really afford and hundreds of spontaneously organized sign waves where supporters got first degree frost bite in the cold, that the campaign began to be taken seriously.
ReplyDeleteI am a huge admirer of Ron Paul but let's not build up a cult of personality. Many tens of thousands of people helped make the Ron Paul Revolution what it was.
That said, and someone has to say it, the momentum has diminished by many magnitudes. What are we going to do to bring it back, is the question that we must address.
See my reply to Brian Erickson. This guy (RP) has been taking vicious abuse on our behalf for decades. Cult, shit. He paid dues that you and I can never pay.
DeleteHe's not a perfect being. He's not the messiah. He rambles. He loses the thread. So what. He's out there plugging away trying to put out there the message of liberty to an audience that's frankly hostile to it.
Just tonight, in a discussion on my dock, a "conservative" woman called me a "liberal". I tried to explain that I was an "anarcho-capitalist" and she just stared at me as if I had said: "Well I'm from Pluto".
I lamely said "Well, I'm a Ron Paul guy".
She wasn't impressed, but it demonstrates that this guy serves as a symbol of our cause.
Ha! instant update: While I was typing this, she stopped by the boat and apologized for calling me a "stinking liberal". I think a lot of her re-appraisal was the connection to RP. She knew who he was, and he isn't scary, and she could relate to what I was saying in that context.
So, there ya go. One for Ron.
Hi Jim,
DeleteWell, I think the RP campaigns were like the leading waves in a rising tide. Sure, we don't have those epic rallies and the thrilling groundswells of '08 and '12. BUT... We have those memories and we know that we have infected many (especially the young) with the liberty virus.
It really doesn't matter. As the guy above said, politics is bunk. We will lose. But do you want to lose as a craven coward, or standing on your feet? I say this knowing that you're no coward.
America is lost. We, the remnant must find some other way to order our lives. I choose to live as a "permanent tourist" sailing from country to country as I please. Trust me, when you're out in the open ocean for a couple of weeks, you start to feel what real freedom could be like.
But I love RP. Not as a cult figure, but as a simple man who took it on the chin for us. I'll always owe him.
"That said, and someone has to say it, the momentum has diminished by many magnitudes."
DeleteOh, definitely. It goes to show that people seem to think that only politics is the way to make changes. Without Paul in office it's all just kind of disappeared. Until people stop sanctifying government as some kind of savior or god we'll suffer this statist horseshit for centuries to come.
Well said Capn Mike.
DeleteI think my two points remained untouched. The Revolution was a movement wherein many thousands of people paid their dues. (Some of us were paying dues and taking abuse dating back to the 70's.) Two, the movement has stalled and needs to be rekindled.
DeleteTo be perfectly blunt, progressivism is stronger than ever and kicking our butts.
"let's not build up a cult of personality"
DeleteExactly, Mr. O. My sentiments exactly.
" Cult, shit. He paid dues that you and I can never pay. "
DeleteOh, well certainly ends the debate, huh, Cap'n? Ron was paid well as a House representative. He spoke his mind on the House floor and was roundly ignored by his fellow congresscritters, but was never really heard until, as James Ostrowski points out, ordinary citizens went out and paid with their limited funds, their valuable and irreplaceable time and their own skin, sweat and blood that he started to be heard.
Deny it if you like, but there are people who are being diverted into the building of a cult of personality. You're giving all the credit to the guy who paid the least. I hope you wake up a little some day.
"To be perfectly blunt, progressivism is stronger than ever and kicking our butts."
DeleteThat's because being a libertarian requires WORK. something most people are just too stupid and lazy to do. they're also FAR too prideful to admit they've been fooled. They're like pathetic little lambs to the slaughter. They've got weak and pathetic little minds.
Fine line here. Libertarianism could use a PR boost from those like Belle Knox dramatically highlighting that libertarianism has no problem with porn stars and drug use and respects property rights of LGTB people the same as any. Why not let the gaping wide social tolerance of libertarianism be a draw for those put off by the regimented social programs of the right and left.
ReplyDeleteSadly, in the world we live in, we need every hook we can get to sell principled non-aggression. Dry philosophical lectures on non-aggression alone don't put butts in seats. They don't speak to people's thirst for a social world that is to their liking and people have been trained to choose their politics according to their social values.
The minute these left libertarians make one move to countenance state power to back any of their social ideals, then and only then do they cease being libertarians and deserve full censure. Not really seeing evidence of that at this point.
So let there be left libertarians. And let there be right libertarians, up libertarians, down libertarians, polka-dotted libertarians. Just reject aggression in all forms and you are welcome to bring to the party whatever social values you like.
"Sadly, in the world we live in, we need every hook we can get to sell principled non-aggression."
DeleteThat's one way of looking at it. Another way is that once you start trying to sell your principles, you'll end up selling those principles out. That's the nature of politics.
Huh? So our principles only remain uncompromised so long as we don't promote their benefits?
DeletePromotion requires dilution in order to please as many people as possible, which amounts to selling out. Any valid personal principle will be spread by natural attraction, but it requires that the people of principle present an example. Being a living example of your principles is more effective than trying to promote those principles.
DeleteIf you see it differently, then promote away.
"The minute these left libertarians make one move to countenance state power to back any of their social ideals, then and only then do they cease being libertarians and deserve full censure. Not really seeing evidence of that at this point."
ReplyDeleteLOL. You will. You can't take the statist out of the Leftist.
UM HELLO Robert Wenzel....RON boosted the profile of libertarianism NOT but running in the Libertarian Party but by running in the REPUBLICAN party!....it worked wonderfully well to promote the ideas of liberty...now who else with Ron's last name is doing that? Oh yea.. Rand.
ReplyDeleteRand isn't libertarian at all as he's said it that he wasn't on several occasions and Wenzel has proven time and time again that Rand is not in tune with NAP
DeleteUm, hello anonymous. Good luck in your efforts to rope people into the GOP. Ron Paul couldn't do it despite two campaigns for presidential nominee. Liberty minded people don't even consider the GOP as separate from the Democrats.
DeleteTo clarify. When I referred to "Ron Paul and his political activity..." I was also referring to his intention to educate. Its a waste of time. Neither political activity or education can create the rational people necessary for a society based on commerce without coercion. If you find comfort in associating with like minded people regarding libertarianism, fine. That's what social clubs are for and they can often lead to enjoyable discussions. But respect for the individual precludes "educating" them. Learning can only take place within the individual who seeks it. In fact its unstoppable. Every human being is born with a desire to learn and you only need to stay out of the way. They may not learn what you think they should but they will learn. James Ostrowski's plead for ideas to "regain the momentum" does not move me. The momentum he refers to is for the "Ron Paul Revolution" and I am not interested in that. Its political nature leads to force and coercion. I am not interested in activities based on force and coercion of other human beings. I am interested in living and enjoying my life.
ReplyDeleteYikes, that's not my view at all. I favor moving from a 100% focus on politics to a 90% focus on direct action on the individual level. See my last three books. I wouldn't preclude the occasional campaign or lobbying effort as a purely defensive tactic. It's kind of silly when you are getting your butt kicked by the progressive state to announce to the enemy that there are some tactics you will just not use. The tactics I favor are pretty user friendly and will not significantly interfere with the pursuit of happiness.
DeleteI read the Hunter's words as name dropping as a means of reaching out to those disaffected by Rand Paul.
ReplyDeleteRon Paul was my introduction to libertarianism, and I'm grateful for that. Those damned newsletters have haunted him since the 90s.
ReplyDelete