By James Ostrowski
While I admire Rand Paul’s fight against illegal NSA spying and his occasional proposal for spending cuts, I do not support Rand Paul for president. However, I don’t support anyone else either. I am not a philosophical non-voter or philosophical abstainer from electoral politics. I am a pragmatist on strategy and tactics.
My problem with electoral politics is that it has rarely, if ever, advanced liberty in modern times. One of the few clear examples of an election advancing liberty was Jefferson’s election in 1800, which led to a reduction in the size of the federal government in his first term. There are hardly any clear examples after that time.
I did actively support Ron Paul’s campaigns. His runs for president served an important educational purpose, and helped grow the movement and increase the number of activists. I can’t support Rand on educational grounds, because his support for libertarian ideas is mixed, and he has described himself as a “constitutional conservative.” In my new book, I make a detailed argument against both conservatism and constitutionalism, so you can imagine how thrilled I would be about backing a constitutional conservative.
Rand has denied being a libertarian. Worse yet, he has described the term as an “albatross” around his neck. Yikes! As I argue in my book, I prefer the term “liberal” to “libertarian,” but Rand wasn’t playing a word game.
He was distancing himself from the concept of liberty as the highest political value, a good working definition of libertarian. That being the case, my concern is that Rand will become an albatross around the neck of the Liberty Movement.
The biggest reason not to get involved, or tangibly support his campaign, is that such efforts crowd out better ideas and approaches to increasing liberty. I have now written three books that propose detailed and workable direct-action strategies to achieve liberty. Every dollar, every hour, every calorie of energy we spend on electoral politics — which all evidence shows is almost certainly a waste of resources — is time, money, and energy that by the law of opportunity cost cannot be spent on direct-action approaches.
If the Liberty Movement is to prevail, our immediate focus must be a massive “jail break” from the K-12 government schools that manufacture good little progressives much faster than we can convert them to the cause of liberty. If you are serious about liberty in your lifetime, do something about this huge problem.
Start with your own kids or grandchildren, or nieces and nephews. If you do not have children, find a good private school or homeschool group and make a small donation, so they can draw more students away from the government’s daytime juvenile detention and propaganda centers.
There are numerous other examples of effective direct citizen action in my books. Or, if you just want to have fun and accomplish nothing, go to the next Rand Paul rally.
James Ostrowski is a trial and appellate lawyer from Buffalo, New York. He has written a number of scholarly articles on the law and subjects ranging from drug policy to the commerce clause of the US Constitution. He is author of Progressivism: A Primer on the Idea Destroying America.
Jefferson and liberty? Less bad, maybe. Sadly, he saw a bargain and bought the Louisiana Territory from France.
ReplyDeleteJefferson did, with the blessing of Madison. But, Jefferson also said later that he regretted this decision as he realized that he had made a mistake. Yeah, they weren't perfect, but pretty darn good for what they had/knew.
DeleteFrom https://mises.org/library/was-thomas-jefferson-great-president
Delete"In the State Department, Jefferson reduced the number of foreign missions to three — London, Paris, and Spain — one for each of the three great world powers. In the Treasury Department, he dismissed all of the collectors and inspectors of the internal revenue. This change alone reduced the number of federal employees by more than one-third.....By early 1802, Jefferson had reduced the size of the regular army by almost half, from 6,000 men when he took office to 3,312. …Through such measures of economy, Jefferson managed to reduce government expenditures, minus interest and debt reduction, from $7.5 million for fiscal year 1800 to less than $5 million for 1801 and to an average of $4 million for the years 1802–1804......Jefferson and his Republican allies were determined to repeal altogether, not just reduce, the internal taxes and to abolish the inspectors and collectors of the revenue. They were successful. Jefferson signed the reform bill into law in March 1802. Jefferson next set his sights on repealing the duty on imported salt, which brought in over $500,000 in revenue annually. Jefferson began to push for its repeal in 1806. His party abolished the salt duty early the next year......Jefferson and Gallatin managed to redeem $37.2 million of the principal of the federal debt and bring the total amount outstanding down from $83 million in 1800 to $57 million at the end of 1808."
Of course Mises.org would disrespect Jefferson, just like they have no respect for the Constitution...
DeleteLudwig Von Mises, who never held a paid job at any University, was maintained first by David Rockefeller and then for decades received money from the Volker Fund and related business men, like Lawrence Fertig.
Von Mises' biographer, Richard M. Ebeling:
"Many readers may be surprised to learn the extent to which the Graduate Institute and then Mises himself in the years immediately after he came to United States were kept afloat financially through generous grants from the Rockefeller Foundation. In fact, for the first years of Mises's life in the United States, before his appointment as a visiting professor in the Graduate School of Business Administration at New York University (NYU) in 1945, he was almost totally dependent on annual research grants from the Rockefeller Foundation." - See more at: http://www.henrymakow.com/libertarianism_as_an_illuminat.html#sthash.HCTtiVcy.dpuf
Internet meme/straw man much, Jana?
DeleteWell-argued for abstaining from electoral politics when no liberty-principled candidate.
ReplyDeleteBut the K-12 focus is a poor candidate for direct action. It's a no duh that any considered libertarian wouldn't send his own kids to state school. But this just keeps our fraction of the population at even keel. Getting others not to send their kids to state school would work, but to accomplish that we'd have to first convert the parents to libertarianism so we're right back where we started.
Perhaps going to town hall meetings and speaking about separation of school and state would help, especially with common core being the snake that it is. We have to conquer the common answer we as a movement hear from parents that private schools are too expensive.
Delete"We have to conquer the common answer we as a movement hear from parents that private schools are too expensive. "
DeleteThis is a great comment & accurate IMO.
I think there's huge potential to convert GOPers in this regard. There are many GOPers that don't like their kids being programmed by the Progressive educational system but think they can't afford private school.
If you pitch the free Ron Paul curriculum(though sometimes I wonder if the RP name is a barrier at times for hardcore GOPers to swallow- I've often thought from a marketing perspective that if the RP curriculum wants to appeal to a larger audience than libertarians and a small subset of GOPers, they should change the curriculum name) to them as a means to get their kids out of the Progressive mind distortion machine, they might be open.
As you point out, "expensive" is a big concern...the other is sheer intimidation towards the prospect of educating their own kids, which on the surface is a reasonable concern. They just need support/reassurance.(and the curriculum is one aspect of that)
Thanks Nick, I've advocated the complete separation between school and state. I've presented that if schooling is completely privatized, costs would go down as more players would come into the market. With complete privatization then parents can chose who will educate their kids if they cant/dont want to do it themselves.
DeleteUnfortunately it seems that conservatives are more interesting in getting control over the state education machine (meaning having their minions over the left's) than getting rid of it.
I disagree on a couple points. First NY Cynic.
DeleteThe first thing we need to do is to get so called Libertarians to home school their kids. That would be a great start, as many blab about the States school and send their kids there anyways.
Come on, live what you preach.
Second, libertarians need to have kids. It's a hard thing to sell someone the benefits of home schooling and how easy it is when you have never even raised one of your own.
I for one am sick and tired of all the articles I get from friends who don't have any kids, written by people who don't have any kids, on how to raise kids.
Second to Nick, home education being to expensive is a cop out by parents who know better. Most are just scared to death that they won't be able to "educate" their kids. The battle is to show them they do NOT have to home school the way the public schools educate. You don't have to start at 830 am, have 3 periods, lunch, PE, another 3 periods, whatever. The parent is the boss. Make it work for you. Kids will make it work for them. Heck, I have always thought 9am - 12 pm is almost too much sit down school anyway. Curriculum? Why? For what reason? Because the public school does it that way?
There is very very little monetary expense in home schooling. Unless you make it that way. I was home schooled from the 3rd grade on in the early 80's. My parents were very poor. So was my wife. We have home schooled our 8 kids. The older 5 can run a business, and I don't mean selling lemonade. I say can, cause they can run my business. And do. The oldest is 21.
I dont want to see the public school system privatized, I want to see it abolished. I do agree a lot of conservatives want to run public school so they can indoctrinate them. Also, I know way too many conservative home schoolers that are pro-war, wrap around the flag neo-cons.
The Ron Paul curriculum is fantastic, my older kids loved it, and actually looked forward to it. I let them run the whole pace. Now they love to read and listen to anything Tom Woods and Gary North. It's fun when your 13 year old can listen to someone talking about inflation and tell you the person doesn't have a clue, and inflation is the State stealing in secret.
Khan Academy is free, and great too, although not infused with the free market, Liberty ideals of the Ron Paul curriculum. I see no need to change the name, if folks are afraid of Ron Paul, they aren't going to use the curriculum no matter what you call it. The parents have to be persuaded before the children are.
I have little to no patience for parents who don't home school. I realize there are the few exceptions, like the wonderful Will Grigg, right now, but for the most part, it's pretty simple, the parents love their petty wealth more than Liberty, certainly more than their Posterities Liberty.
"With complete privatization then parents can chose who will educate their kids if they cant/dont want to do it themselves. "
DeleteAgreed, but you're talking a generational change that is very difficult...if you appeal to their sense of concern for their kids now(self interest), while their kids are in the system, by offering an immediate solution(home schooling) that is easier than generational/systemic change, I think it might be more effective.
Home schooling deals with the educational concerns a proper thinking parent has, as far as the government education system goes, in a way that overcomes your well noted point that "expensive" is an objection many have.
It may help to point out to GOPers that the notion they will get control over a Progressive dominated government institution("education") is a virtual impossibility.
I attended Kent State for some time, it was a huge teacher mill....a vast, vast majority of them were Leftists. When I look back at my schooling when I started becoming aware of partisan differences(say around 7th or 8th grade), my experience from Middle School to several different colleges all seemed to reflect a huge % disparity.
According to this article, it ranges from 70-80% Liberal(in the Leftist sense), which seems to match my anecdotal experience:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html
@ Joshua
Delete"Second to Nick, home education being to expensive is a cop out by parents who know better. Most are just scared to death that they won't be able to "educate" their kids. "
Maybe it is. I'm not really sure. I'm not sure if you've read my earlier comments on the subject matter, but my wife home schools our four kids and there was a point in time early in our endeavor where my business was really struggling and finances were definitely a concern for us(but we managed it and the home schooling continued).
Telling potential converts that their concern economically is a "cop out" might not be as effective appealing to their concern/well being for their kids....even if true. But I understand your point.
I disagree that only libertarian parents can be persuaded to exit the government schools. Right now, most of the parents who have done so are Catholics, Evangelicals or wealthy secular types. On the other hand, many libertarians still use the government schools. The purpose of my book, Government Schools Are Bad for Your Kids was precisely to make mainly non-ideological arguments for pulling your kids out. The first three chapters talk about the massive amount of crime, drugs and sexual promiscuity in and around the schools. The suburban schools are no exception as is shown in the book.
DeleteNone of this matters. The only concern is Ron Paul's warning that we're at the top of an 86-year Credit Cycle, with a Second Great Depression imminent. There is no way to pay the debt. A systemic reset is coming.
ReplyDeleteSure it matters. What's to be on the other side if we don't raise principled children who know how civilization should/could be?
DeleteBack to square one if we don't. In other words, Statism.
We need a Minimal State.
DeleteRothbard's Fallacy - calling for Law without authorities to make and enforce them. Mises FTW!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI have not voted in over ten years, and at this point I am readying my "Duck and Cover" pose because the fuse has been lit.
ReplyDeleteJames, There's no one silver bullet and even if you were right, you're wasting your time attempting to convince all libertarians to make the "jail break" your way. Some, like Ron Paul and Harry Browne, will do it with electoral politics. Some, like the Mises Institute, will do it through blogs, courses and conferences. Some, like the Independent Institute, will do it through think tanks. Some, like Ayn Rand and Robert Heinlein, will do it with novels. Some, as you suggest, will do it via homeschooling. Instead, encourage libertarians to do it using their strengths, not yours.
ReplyDelete