|
Ron
Paul’s Chances
DIGG THIS
Here are some
reasons, to be refuted, on Ron Paul's chances.
I. Dr. Ron
Paul can’t win
1. There's
more to life than winning. Even if the Congressman from Texas doesn't
win this time, still, he is spreading the libertarian message like
pretty much NO ONE else before him. (Yes, Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard
and Ludwig von Mises popularized libertarianism, but none of them
did so in the political sphere). Our refusal to support him can't
help this campaign. I would think that as a libertarian, we would
want to help this effort, whether Dr. Paul wins or not. We should
all get behind him as strongly as we can. This is perhaps the best
opportunity in a long while to introduce libertarianism to the wider
public.
2. Barry Goldwater
didn't "win," even though he got the Republican nomination. But,
he set the groundwork for Ronald Reagan, who did win, later
on. Even if Ron Paul doesn't win, if he does well he can set
things up for the next libertarian candidate who can potentially
attract masses of people to the libertarian message, and then perhaps
even "win." We can all help with this initiative. (I'm not a fan
of either Goldwater or Reagan, since I don't regard either as libertarians;
I'm only using them as an example to illustrate the point.)
3. Don't be
sure Ron can't win. No one, right before the fall of the Berlin
Wall, or of the USSR, thought that either of these things would
happen, even the "experts." No one now thinks Ron can win....
4. Here's the
case for Dr. Paul winning the Republican nomination. The Iraqi "police
action" deteriorates even further. Ron is the ONLY Republican candidate
who will be no Johnny come lately to the anti-war position. Mitt
Romney changes his mind on this, but is dismissed as the waffler
he is. The others split the pro–Iraqi war Republican vote.
One by one they fall out. (Even at this early date, Ron Paul already
has more money in the bank than John McCain. Strange, it turns out
that the one Congressman who demands fiscal responsibility of this
august body is also the only candidate who is responsible with his
own money.) Ron sticks it out until the bitter end. He doesn't need
as much money as the others, since his supporters are very committed
to him. Let's say, finally, it is Ron vs. Jailiani
(aka: Gulag Giuliani, Il Duce, Benito Giuliani, Ghouliani, Gestapo
Giuliani.) Then, a new scandal erupts (Rudy did drugs, was divorced
even more than we think he was, harassed even more innocent businessmen,
whatever). Dr. Paul wins the Republican nomination.
In their defense,
it cannot be denied, the other Republican candidates will say that
the war was not a bad idea but it was badly executed, "and here's
how things will be different when I am President." But the
American people are not infinitely stupid (even Caplan
does not go that far). They have already heard this sort of thing
hundreds of times. By the time the primaries are over and the convention
begins, they will have heard it even more. Eventually, enough of
them will tire of it, particularly as the body bags mount up.
5. Here's the
case for Dr. Ron Paul winning the overall election, against whoever
the Democrats nominate. Now Ron faces, say, a Hillary–Obama
ticket. He kicks their butt, again, over the deteriorating Iraqi
war situation. There is no way these war-mongering chameleons will
be able to attain the mantle of isolationist foreign policy. With
a country heartily sick of U.S. Imperialism, the Republicans hold
their noses and vote for Ron against the Hated Hillary. The Democrats
desert in droves over the war. It is a super "keep clean for Gene"
(McCarthy) scenario. Likely? No. Impossible? Not at all. Ron Paul
will actually have a better chance
in the general election than in the primaries, much like Rudy.
6. Can't happen?
Give me some odds on a bet. (According to some polls, the odds against
Ron winning are 200-1). I'm willing to put up $1 against the $200
of all suckers, sorry, I meant takers, that my favorite Texas Congressman
will win.
II. Libertarians
should be relatively happy with either Thompson or Giuliani, in
comparison to any Democrat
Well, maybe
this applies to some "libertarians" who believe in pre-emptive
war as "defense" and who are weak, to boot, on economic
and personal liberties issues. But for real libertarians, the non-aggression
principle is and must ever be foremost. That means a strong defense,
but not maintaining our stance as policemen of the world.
The Thompsons and Giulianis of the world support our present system
in which U.S. soldiers are posted in hundreds of other countries
as trip wires. Whenever there is a local conflagration, we are involved.
This is defense?
We might as
well bomb all of New York, since the monster responsible for the
Oklahoma City bombing, Timothy McVeigh, came from that state, as
attack Afghanistan since there was support for the 9/11 monstrosity
in that country. A majority of the slaughterers of the innocent
on that day (fifteen out of the nineteen) were born in Saudi Arabia;
should we unleash weapons of mass destruction on the entire citizenry
of that country?
George Washington’s
"Farewell
Address" was very libertarian in terms of how we should
relate to other nations. He said: "The great rule of conduct for
us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations,
to have with them as little political connection as possible." Thomas
Jefferson called for: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship
with all nations, entangling alliances with none." Said John
Quincy Adams: "America . . . goes not abroad seeking monsters
to destroy… We favor the freedom of all nations, but will fight,
only, to protect our own."
As to domestic
policy, Dr. Ron Paul wants to wipe all victimless crimes off the
books; can the same be said of Messrs. Thompson and Giuliani? To
ask this is to answer it. And, as far as economic liberty is concerned,
none of the other Republican candidates even deserve to be mentioned
in the same breath as Ron.
III. Libertarians
shouldn’t be voting for ANYONE, Ron Paul included, since this goes
against their principles
Stuff and nonsense.
If a slave
master allows his property to vote between a harsh and a more humane
overseer, we are to blame to slaves for choosing the latter? This
is a perversion of libertarianism.
Murray N. Rothbard
was interviewed on this matter by the New
Banner in 1972. Yet, apart from the date, and the mention of
the presidential candidates of that day, so fresh is his voice he
could well have been talking about Dr. Ron Paul, his good friend
and confidant.
NEW BANNER:
"Some libertarians have recommended anti-voting activities
during the 1972 election. Do you agree with this tactic?"
ROTHBARD:
"I'm interested to talk about that. This is the classical
anarchist position, there is no doubt about that. The classical
anarchist position is that nobody should vote, because if you
vote you are participating in a state apparatus. Or if you do
vote you should write in your own name, I don't think that there
is anything wrong with this tactic in the sense that if there
really were a nationwide movement – if five million people, let's
say, pledged not to vote. I think it would be very useful. On
the other hand, I don't think voting is a real problem. I don't
think it's immoral to vote, in contrast to the anti-voting people.
"Lysander
Spooner, the patron saint of individualist anarchism, had a very
effective attack on this idea. The thing is, if you really believe
that by voting you are giving your sanction to the state, then
you see you are really adopting the democratic theorist's position.
You would be adopting the position of the democratic enemy, so
to speak, who says that the state is really voluntary because
the masses are supporting it by participating in elections. In
other words, you're really the other side of the coin of supporting
the policy of democracy – that the public is really behind it
and that it is all voluntary. And so the anti-voting people are
really saying the same thing.
"I don't
think this is true, because as Spooner said, people are being
placed in a coercive position. They are surrounded by a coercive
system; they are surrounded by the state. The state, however,
allows you a limited choice – there's no question about the fact
that the choice is limited. Since you are in this coercive situation,
there is no reason why you shouldn't try to make use of it if
you think it will make a difference to your liberty or possessions.
So by voting you can't say that this is a moral choice, a fully
voluntary choice, on the part of the public. It's not a fully
voluntary situation. It's a situation where you are surrounded
by the whole state which you can't vote out of existence. For
example, we can't vote the Presidency out of existence – unfortunately,
it would be great if we could, but since we can't why not make
use of the vote if there is a difference at all between the two
people. And it is almost inevitable that there will be a difference,
incidentally, because just praxeologically or in a natural law
sense, every two persons or every two groups of people will be
slightly different, at least. So in that case why not make use
of it. I don't see that it's immoral to participate in the election
provided that you go into it with your eyes open – provided that
you don't think that either Nixon or Muskie is the greatest libertarian
since Richard Cobden! – which many people, of course, talk themselves
into before they go out and vote.
"The
second part of my answer is that I don't think that voting is
really the question. I really don't care about whether people
vote or not. To me the important thing is, who do you support.
Who do you hope will win the election? You can be a non-voter
and say "I don't want to sanction the state" and not vote, but
on election night who do you hope the rest of the voters, the
rest of the suckers out there who are voting, who do you hope
they'll elect. And it's important, because I think that there
is a difference. The Presidency, unfortunately, is of extreme
importance. It will be running or directing our lives greatly
for four years. So, I see no reason why we shouldn't endorse,
or support, or attack one candidate more than the other candidate.
I really don't agree at all with the non-voting position in that
sense, because the non-voter is not only saying we shouldn't vote:
he is also saying that we shouldn't endorse anybody. Will Robert
LeFevre, one of the spokesmen of the non-voting approach, will
he deep in his heart on election night have any kind of preference
at all as the votes come in. Will he cheer slightly or groan more
as whoever wins? I don't see how anybody could fail to have a
preference, because it will affect all of us."
IV. If Ron
Paul, somehow, wins, he should immediately abdicate, since it is
inconsistent with libertarianism to act as President of the U.S.
First of all,
there is such a thing as limited government libertarianism, or minarchism.
Although I myself am a staunch anarcho-capitalist, I know and respect
the other position. Indeed, it is my opinion that the overwhelming
majority of people (properly) calling themselves libertarians (I
am otherwise a big-tent libertarian, but I personally find no room
in our movement for the so called pro-war "libertarians"
in the present context) fall into the former, not the latter, category.
In this view, there are legitimate functions of government,
namely protection of person and property, and to this end there
are three but only three legitimate institutions: armies, to keep
foreign enemies at bay, not to initiate attacks on them on
the grounds that one day they might attack us; police, to
quell domestic rights violators, not to arrest people for
engaging in victimless "crimes"; and courts, to distinguish
between those who perpetrate aggression and those who are their
targets. As long as Dr. Paul pared down the swollen U.S. bureaucracy
to match these ends, he would be acting in a manner compatible with
our libertarian philosophy.
But, second,
I go further. I maintain that it would be licit even for an anarcho-capitalist
to take on the role of President of a country, any country. I know
full well that power corrupts, and that absolute power corrupts
absolutely, and that this office in the U.S. veers toward the latter.
Nevertheless, it is not a logical necessity for this to occur. As
long as the president limits himself to tearing down illegitimate
power, he can be acting in accord not only with minarchism, but
also with free market anarchism.
 Yes,
there are very few people I would trust with such awesome responsibilities.
Ron Paul is one of them.
I wish to
thank the following for help with this article: Max Chiz, Ross Kaminsky,
Max Raskin.
July
9, 2007
Dr.
Block [send him mail] is a
professor of economics at Loyola University New Orleans, and a senior
fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He is the author of Defending
the Undefendable.
Copyright
© 2007 LewRockwell.com
Walter
Block Archives
|
