Liberty and Power

The Young Fogey has done a good job of covering a number of things in the wake of the election.  Spirits do seem to be running high in the libertarian camp this week.  Among the items I found fascinating was this video featuring a discussion from awhile ago between Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and Sarah Palin:

Judge Andrew Napolitano goes to great lengths to find out where these three politicians have common ground, where they can work together to build a practical political coalition.  Someone in the course of the conversation said that if another man agrees with you 80 percent of the time, he’s your ally and not your enemy.  I’d say it depends on how essential the other 20 percent is.  Even Ed Rendell, who was also interviewed, was able to agree with much of what was said in the earlier segment of the show.  Keep an eye on him as a potential challenger to Obama if the situation for the Democrats doesn’t improve.

There have been many fears that the whole Tea Party phenomenon could be co-opted by the mainstream corporatist right.  This is a possibility not to be discounted, and in fact it seems to me that it’s already happened to some undetermined extent.  Another seemingly as-yet unexplored possibility also looms, however:  Assuming a candidate with unassailable libertarian credentials is elected to the White House in 2012, will he or she be able to resist the allure of power?  Will anarchists like me suddenly begin to defend the State because there is someone in place with whom it’s easier to have a measurable degree of sympathy?  If this seems ridiculous, think of where the Reagan movement started, and where it ended.  The only thing holding it all together was a smug optimism about America being the greatest country on earth.

This is not to say that I find faults in the characters of the Pauls or even of Sarah Palin; I’m in no place to judge any of their souls.  But the corruption that comes from power is part of human nature.  Look at where the modern Left has placed itself:  some of the hippies burning draft cards in the 1960′s are now in the Congress, routinely voting to extend hopeless foreign military ventures.  Many of the other “draft-dodging” (good for them!) hippies are voting for these Congressmen, and with little sense of reluctance, to boot.  Will today’s libertarian movement end up the same way?  Ayn Rand’s libertarian credentials are highly questionable; nevertheless she’s certainly on the rightward side of the political spectrum and joined happily in the clamor for small government during her lifetime.  Yet, she ended her life advocating for compulsory military conscription.  Will today’s libertarians, after a possible political victory, go down in a similar moral defeat?

Ron Paul, the prospects for 2012, and an anarchist’s response

I like Ron Paul; I really do.  If I had the chance I’d take him to dinner.  He did a lot of good for me in the formation of my own thinking during his campaign in 2007 and 2008.  Please keep all of this in mind as I indulge in what some might consider to be counter-productive quibbling.

Dr. Paul has, of course, become the de-facto leader of the libertarian right and even an admired figure amongst many anarch0-capitalists.  His efforts have brought the Federal Reserve and its counterfeit money under the microscope of mainstream society.  He predicted the economic collapse which occurred in late 2008, though as yet Rudy Giuliani has not apologized for laughing at him like an immature jock during the presidential debates.

There is some chatter about Paul running for president again in 2012, and anyone who’s even remotely connected to libertarian circles has doubtless received umpteen invitations to join this or that Ron Paul group on Facebook.  This weekend he gave a speech at CPAC, and he even won the straw poll, which elicited boos from the advocates of the warfare State.  I took some time last night to listen to Paul’s speech, and while it contained lots of ear candy for the Old Right, I have to say that talk of constitutionalism, limited government, etc., just doesn’t do it for me anymore.

There is a certain naivete, in my opinion, on the part of libertarians.  Limited government sounds good; in fact, if we had a limited government, there would be no “market,” as it were, for the ideas of anarchism.  But limited government seems to be an historical and practical impossibility.  The same could be said for constitutionalism.  There is no good reason, therefore, to expect the situation in the territory commonly referred to as the United States to be any different, especially when one also considers the fact that the government is responsible for interpreting the very constitution which is supposed to limit its powers.

In addition, how can one expect political stability from a piece of positive legislation?  This is essentially what the constitution is.  It is not a statement of natural rights or of political philosophy; it is a document drawn up in part in response to Shay’s Rebellion, which caused the elites of this country to converge to create a stronger central government.  (So can we put all this nonsense about the founders being for small government to bed?)  It is ironic that the constitution gives the government the explicit right to tax; King George III, on the other hand, never enjoyed such a luxury, a fact which almost certainly contributed to the American revolution.  Are we really supposed to believe in light of things like this—and eminent domain, and…..well, let’s not be too pedantic—that the constitution is a founding document of a government that gives two shakes about individual liberties?

Contrast the constitution with the way monarchies were set up:  ”Divine Right” was not, at first, the right of a King to make up a law on his own whim; rather, it meant that all his laws had to be in accord with Divine, or “natural,” law.  It was a means of circumscription.  It, too, was eventually violated, but it took much longer than the constitution, which was “nothing more than a g*ddamned piece of paper” within a few decades, at the very most.

But I digress, a bit.  The point is that this system would seem to be broken, and that there’s no point in trying to work within it in order to rehabilitate order in our society, since its brokenness is related to intrinsic flaws rather than simple mismanagement.  Therefore I believe that Ron Paul could do much more good by being a thinker and speaker than by being a politician who asks neoconservatives at CPAC to consider his cause.  Do you really think he influenced so many people because he came in fourth place in some presidential primary?  Hardly.  It was the ideas he brought with him that did it, and ideas—not politics—are what move society from a lesser condition to a better one.

Congressman Paul seems to believe that working within the Republican Party is the way to promote his ideas.  He is probably in a better position than I am to make this determination.  I’m left wondering, though, if this doesn’t invite a certain kind of adulteration to take place.  Look at what has happened to the Tea Party Movement.  They went from End the Fed to Sarah Palin in only about a year.  Would Ron Paul be better off making himself out to be more on the fringe?  (I know that must sound ridiculous to some people, but from the anarchist perspective it makes sense.)  A sharper line in the sand just might help to prevent the kind of co-opting that political parties thrive on.  Think of the way the conservative movement was watered down and popularized in the late years of the 20th century.

Finally, is it a contradiction to use the political process as a means to promote liberty?  Politics, as Dr. Paul himself has noted, is the art of the majority voting to take away the rights of the minority.  This is anything but liberty and anything but private property rights, which are the foundation of individualism.

All that said, in a world in which Dr. Paul were president, we would be much better off.  Likely the American troops would be out of at least some of the 140 countries in which they are now stationed.  Taxes would be lower.  The first amendment might mean something again, depending upon who the attorney general would be.  This raises a question for the convinced anarchist, whether to side with gradualism or radicalism.  Both have their strong points.  For me, it would seem that radicalism is the answer.  If taxation under Bush at x percent is theft, and taxation under Obama at y percent is theft, then taxation at z percent under Paul—even if it were only hidden taxes such as tariffs showing up as part of the price of a good—would also be theft.  (But don’t think for a minute that Paul would actually be successful at eliminating the income tax.)

I guess it all boils down to the fact that, for me, government as such is the problem, and that it does no good for a good man to become a part of the problem.  Like I said, I like the man.  I’d take him to dinner.  I’d ask him questions about economics and political philosophy.  But not even a man as good as Ron Paul could get me into the political vortex again.

The Book Bomb To End the Fed — LewRockwell.com

Here’s a shameless plug for a web campaign I helped create for LewRockwell.com:

The BOOK BOMB To END THE FED — Now until Sept. 16

Clicking on the link above will take you to the promo page, where you can read about the effort and from there pre-order your own copy of the book while helping out LewRockwell.com in the process. You may also directly access the pre-order page here.

LewRockwell.com also is offering, through Sept. 13, two complimentary chapters of End the Fed to those who sign up to receive them via e-mail. The sign-up form is also on the End the Fed book bomb page.

Ron Paul on Healthcare

One of the most excellent things about Austrian economics is that its methodologies cut through so much self-righteous posturing.  The current healthcare debate is one area in which people strive to emulate Robin Hood as much as possible as they yell and scream on behalf of the rights of the poor.  It’s all well-intentioned enough, for the most part, but the indignation really gets annoying after awhile.

Below, however, is a video from Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), who is an OB/GYN.  He discusses the healthcare situation from an Austrian economic perspective, and in only a few minutes, he makes far more sense out of the situation than all the other pundits rolled into one.

 

H/T to LRC.

Alan Greenspan’s comedy of hubris

A few years ago I was milling about—I think it was at an airport—with nothing to do while I waited for someone or something.  I hadn’t brought any reading material with me, so I wandered into one of those junk book stores that terminals have, filled with just enough material to keep the mind occupied for an hour or so.  On this particular day I found Bob Woodward’s book Maestro, which is all about Alan Greenspan.  Written in the early parts of this decade, the book does not cover the last few years of Greenspan’s tenure at the central bank.  

When I first tried to read the book, it bored me to tears, so it was consigned to a box in a spare room of my apartment, where it languished for years.  Until recently.  I began using this book, which is, despite its subject matter, light reading, for bed-time reading early this spring, and in a flourish of activity I finished it early this weekend.  

Parts of it are fascinating—Greeenspan’s advice to Bill Clinton to reduce the deficit, for instance.  (Perhaps this brings another irony to Rush Limbaugh’s deficit spending sensitivity ribbon, which was made by folding a dollar bill.  Given inflation, if Limbaugh were to pull this same stunt today, he’d have to use a five dollar bill.)  Other parts of the book are maddening.  Pages of this volume mention one act of central planning hubris after another, with nary a word about how the oligarchs suppose that their magic potions help the economy.  Greenspan is lauded for orchestrating a “soft landing” in the early 90′s, but really this was dumb luck, and given some of the other things that happened in that decade (the .com burst, for instance), one can hardly call him an unmitigated miracle worker.  

Then, near the end of the book, on p. 210, there’s a real laugh, a quote which sums up the foolishness of the Fed, and the irony is that none of the main players, nor the author, seem to perceive the power of this sentence.  The two thuds you hear are the truth about central banking bouncing off of the foreheads of Greenspan and Woodward.  The money quote (slightly abridged for clarity, and yes…pun intended):  ”What the hell did interest rates mean if you couldn’t buy or sell at those rates?”

This dates from the late 90′s, after the troubles in the Asian markets and with a few American companies, as well.  The stock market had come to a standstill because of unfavorable interest rates, and all the “geniuses” at the Fed stood around scratching their heads.  The laugh here is that anyone who understands economics sees how simple this problem really was:  the market was not allowed to set the rates naturally.  Instead, we have a secretive board in an ivory tower who sets the interest rates.  Money is not allowed to have a market price the way fish or milk has a market price.  

In a sense, having a board set interest rates is a lot like price controls in general.  It screws up the rules of supply and demand, and it screws the consumer first, of course.  The oligarchs count on people thinking that they need a degree in economics to understand all this, but it is really simple, and common sensical.  

For good summaries of the malodorous effects of the Federal Reserve, one might wish to consult Ron Paul’s Gold, Peace, and Prosperity, as well as Murray Rothbard’s The Case Against the Fed.

Ron Paul on American myopia

I have had more than one conversation with others who, in the discussion of policy, want to draw a magic line through history and say, “This is what we have to deal with; it doesn’t matter what should have been done.  This is where we are.”  The apparent pragmatism in this approach seems to satisfy a lot of people, but it is really disastrous.  It is impossible, after all, to improve the current state of affairs without understanding the mistakes that got us into our present messes.  

This very simple, very obvious truth seems to be the main theme of one of Congressman Ron Paul’s more recent locutions on the House floor (hat tip to the DailyPaul):

The whole Ron Paul press conference has now been YouTubed

You can see it here.

What Congressman Paul has done here is quite brilliant.  Yes, this project is making for some strange bedfellows–Chuck Baldwin, Ralph Nader, Bob Barr (?), and Cynthia McKinney–but it is designed not as a complete platform but rather as (a) a way to express agreement on four crucial issues and (b) to get people thinking outside the Republicrat box.  Wouldn’t it be nice to see even only 10% of the votes go third party?

Barr spokesman: principled non-voters same as fat, lazy, stupid non-voters

Thanks to Tom Woods at LRC for pointing out this ridiculous statement from the Barr campaign.

There is no difference between the wannabe political philosopher who refuses to cast a vote “out of principle” and the lazy citizen who chooses to remain ignorant of the issues, the candidates and his or her government.

Except that the principled non-voter often does a very good job of explaining to his friends and relatives the absurdities of the two-party system. The apathetic voter, on the other hand, still doesn’t know who Dick Cheney is.

This statement goes on to get personal and drops some rather serious, if unsubstantiated, accusations:

As painful as it is to state the obvious: this campaign by the man is no longer about the message, it is about the money – lots of it. Other than in his pocket and in the pocket of his paid staff, where is all the money going?

No one seems to know for sure.

The Barr campaign is asking us to support “liberty” by supporting Bob Barr. A crucial part of Ron Paul’s message, however, is against wars of foreign aggression, and Barr isn’t so solid on that point. Maybe the Barr campaign is so wild today because they thought they had a stranglehold on the “liberty” demographic. Well, tough sh*t for them. They’re going to have to earn their support. Maybe Bob Barr should “write a book and sell it to his followers.”

Go away, Bob Barr. No one needs you.

Oink, Oink: American electorate is gleefully distracted by b.s.

This little tempest in a teapot is on its second or third day already. Barack Obama, referring to Sarah Palin, said that if you put lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig. An enormously over-sized media- and McCain campaign-induced uproar ensued, and the American electorate is stupid enough to be distracted by it.

Meanwhile, under the leadership of Ron Paul, a number of the third party candidates met this morning at the national press club to express their agreement on four very important issues: the Iraq war, privacy rights, the national debt, and the Federal Reserve. But I wouldn’t exactly look for this to show up on the MSM.  [Correction:  Apparently it was streamed on CNN's website. Was it broadcast on TV??]

Bob Barr, by the way, bailed on Paul, showing himself to be the fraud that many of us suspected he is. He may be running for the LP, but he’s still to the Left of Reagan.

Ron Paul to call for rejection of two party system

Word has begun to leak on just what exactly tomorrow’s press conference is about.  Lew Rockwell has the goods.  Paul will ask voters to reject the two Establishment Party candidates and consider one of the third party candidates.

We’ve also been told to expect “something of an endorsement” from Paul.  It’s likely that he’d back Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party, whom he has said before most closely represents his own views.  Humbug.  I’m still not sold.  I’m very worried about certain little details in the CP platform, particularly those concerning the war on drugs.