Ron Paul Bad for Libertarianism?
November 22, 2007 by Jason Steck
Eminent uber-blogger Eugene Volokh is one of the most prominent libertarians in the blogosphere, and he’s not buying into the Ron Paul cult of personality. He points out that putting Ron Paul at the forefront of the libertarian makes it easier to dismiss libertarians as marginal cranks. The mob-like behavior of many of Paul’s online supporters often serves to alienate those who might otherwise have been attracted to libertarian political philosophy.
More seriously, Volokh highlights some of Ron Paul’s self-destructive misapplications and deviations from libertarian principles:
As the Club for Growth describes here, Ron Paul has opposed virtually all free trade agreements. Few ideas are more fundamental to libertarianism than free trade. As the Club has documented, Paul also has opposed school voucher programs. In both of these cases, in fairness, Paul claims that his position is based on the idea that some other approach - unilateral free trade or home schooling - is even more libertarian than what he opposes. Even if he is correct on these points, I see no libertarian virtue in supporting the far less libertarian status quo against free trade agreements and school vouchers respectively. Even if trade agreements and vouchers are not the optimal libertarian policies, they are surely superior to the status quo of tariffs and government monopoly schooling.
Perhaps worst of all, Paul has bought into the conservative nativist line on immigration. He not only favors a massive crackdown on illegal immigration but even seems to endorse the view that immigration should be “reduced, not expanded” whether legal or not. To my mind, the freedom to choose where you live and the right to move to a freer and more prosperous society are among the most important of all libertarian principles. From a libertarian perspective, our relative openness to immigration is one of the most admirable aspects of America.
Unlike in the case of free trade and school choice, Paul doesn’t even pretend to argue that his position is based on the idea that there is some other policy that will be even more libertarian than the one he opposes. Instead, he clearly endorses the big goverment option of a “allocat[ing] far more resources, both in terms of money and manpower” to cracking down on illegal immigration and perhaps reducing legal immigration as well.
Libertarian thinking on economics and social issues has the potential to resonate quite well with far broader segments of the electorate than the passionate margins that have rushed to march under Ron Paul’s banner. But a better figurehead than Paul is necessary to really bring it out of the margins.
Don’t buy it, we all know that Ron is about peace and freedom. Don’t let this sites confuse you. They don’t want Ron to win. The mainstream GOP is the war and control party, not RON.
Smearbots out in full force, let them waste their time. First they say that he’s kooky, then they say that all his supporters are extremists and spammers, then he’s running for the wrong party, and now he’s not, and never was a Libertarian, even though Libertarian literally means you’re for liberty. What’s next, he’s pro-taxes and pro-government? Oh wait they already tried that with the earmark smear. It would be easy to just say that the author of this juvenile smear-piece is misinformed, but we know better.
This blog is way off. Libertarian ideas have always been on the fringe and viewed as “out there” until Dr. Paul stepped on the scene. He may not align exactly with libertarian thought, but that’s not his goal. He’s a conservative Republican first with some libertarian strains second. Anybody that claims they are libertarian should consider this their time to shine and be thankful. Ron Paul has done in 3 months what libertarians couldn’t do in 3 decades. Volokh should quit parcing the differences and embrace this new, unstoppable and fast growing movement for social, civil and economic liberty.
I think everyone seems to be forgetting… Ron Paul is a Republican not a Libertarian. Besides it is not the policies of Ron Paul or libertarianism that is the problem, it is the entire system that prevents third parties from becoming viable. See Duverger’s law for more information.
I really think it is bad form to say Ron Paul is against free trade. This is not true. He is against 2000 page trade agreements that do much more harm than good by attacking the sovereignty of the country. A true free trade agreement should be one page or even one sentance. Such as.
“We the United States of America declare that there shall be no tarriffs on any goods inported from any nation.”
There you go that is all you need for free trade.
On the subject of Imigration every bit of info I have seen from the campaign says the opposite. From speeches to releases. He is for securing the borders and removing the free health care and schooling for illegal aliens but he is also for making the immigration process more functional and less time consuming and costly.
With Ron Paul giving the economy a boost with sound money we will definitely need more immigrants as the job market will boom and there will be many places under-employed.
This is what I have seen from speeches. I don’t know where Volokh gets his info.
The CATO institute has been complete assimilated by Neocons - why is anybody surprised by this?
Lots of sheep in wolves clothing promoting the status quo.
1. The original post was Ilya Somin’s, not Eugene Volokh’s. Just a slight correction, though it doesn’t change the substance of your point.
2. The CATO Institute still has plenty of people who are opposed to the aggressive use of force. Apparently, the war is the only issue that should matter to them, so I guess the fact that they only criticize the war every month or two makes them neo-cons.
3. The Paul campaign will either be the best thing for libertarianism since Atlas Shrugged or the worst thing for libertarianism since Herbert Hoover. It all depends on how much he wants his campaign to focus on pseudo-libertarians and conspiracy theorists. As we found out last night, the status quo is less than promising: http://publiusendures.blogspot.com/2007/11/why-ron-why.html
Who cares if he is bad for libertarianism? He is good for America, and that comes before trivial distinctions in abstract philosophical dogma. I would argue that he is a pragmatic libertarian, since, for instance - allowing unlimited immigration in a welfare state increases theft through taxation, and allowing state funded abortion taxes me to fund the destruction of a human life which in other cases of aggression has legal rights.
But if you motivation is to protect the purity of a semantic distiction, then maybe some might argue that Paul crosses the line. But, again I would argue that no politician that follows the Constitution can be a pure libertarian.
Bottom line, don’t miss the forest for the trees. This is libertarians chance to support a candidate that takes liberty as serious as they do.
Judean People’s Front? We’re the People’s Front of Judea!
Ron Paul is the only candidate that can beat Hillary!
So if you want Hillary Clinton and at least another 4 years of the same lies of the Clinton/Bush dynasty, don’t vote for Ron Paul.
Who’s next after Hillary? Jeb Bush?
NAFTA isn’t Free Trade. Free Trade doesn’t require thousands of pages of bureaucratic rules.
School vouchers will lead to government control over private schools. Once private schools start taking the money, the state will require they follow their rules.
Mass immigration with a welfare state makes no sense—Milton Friedman.
The word has gone out, time for the establishment to stop Ron Paul
xin chào
“Volokh is one of the most prominent libertarians” - you need more time reading his writings and you will discover the tyrrant living within which pops its head out when he’s unaware.
There is very little libertarianism with this Volokh - I have been visiting his site since 2005 and I still don’t see much libertarianism much less a “prominent libertarian.”
Volokh is totally out to lunch with the suicidal advocacy of open borders. Come on Volokh, how dumb do you think we are? Or how dumb are you? Where’s the logic (or intelligence) in advocating that an attacking army that happens to carry guns and has no intention of occupying your land may be fought off with armed resistance….but a 1,000-times LARGER attacking army that doesn’t carry any guns and DOES intend to occupy and control your land FOREVER should NOT be fought off with armed resistance?
Ding dong! That’s not a libertarian idea; that’s a crazy idea. Thank goodness Ron Paul isn’t drinking that Kool-Aid.
admin: personal attacks are not welcome
Ron Paul has gotten probably a million or two million people interested in Libertarianism and you are bashing him?
The Libertarian Party has never seen this amount of publicity before, and you have the nerve to run a hit piece with no substance?
I wonder who leaked and made up this article, Rudy or Romney Campaign??
They are scared shitless , they just don’t want to admit it, they only have their ego’s left, and once that is gone, there is no substance to back anything up.
This is a rather disappointing column. I only brought it up because it appeared in my Google search of news about Ron Paul.
Google ought to consider creating a separate category for “propoganda”.
How to Whip This Ron Paul Character and All His Wacky Followers.
Ron Paul can be defeated by ignorance. Ignore him if you can.
By lies. Misrepresent his positions whenever possible.
By word gaming. As Lenin advised, “First, confuse the vocabulary.”
By contempt. Dismiss him as amusing and pathetic.
By smearing his supporters. Find the worst and spotlight them. Call them a cult.
By consensus. Dismiss him with peer-pressure ridicule.
By false accusations. Spread them quickly and far.
By never discussing his policies. Change the subject to his person.
By the polls. Ask the right people the right questions and get the answer you want.
By reporting his most unpopular votes. But don’t report his reasoning.
By rudeness. Wreck any debate where his ideas are winning.
With all these tools, he can be easily defeated. Use them generously.
But Ron Paul cannot be defeated by refuting him in an honest and courteous technical debate. Avoid that.
- Moderno Machiavelli
Gary - If what Ron Paul was peddling was libertarianism, you’d probably be right. But that half a billion bucks in earmarks he brought home recently is decidedly not libertarian of him. Just hypocritical.
That makes 3 seemingly liberty minded folks with agenda’s different from Ron - Jason, Volokh, and that other guy from the Liberty Papers. Ron doesn’t need them - he needs us as we need him. The only question I have for these new (old?) anti-Ronians is, “If not Ron, then who?”… they seem only to be content with focusing on the differences and dividing, but not putting forth any sort of positive, alternative candidate. Who is the ‘lesser of your two evils’? I suspect they will opt out of the voting this time around, content in their cave like most libertarians have been for 30 years. It’s a hell, but its the hell they know and they are comfortable there.
Instead, I look to all the libertarians which have joined together for the first time, all the NEW folks exposed to the ideas of liberty and all the tenants held at Mises University and expressed over at Lewrockwell. We have the arguments now after 30 years of arguing between ourselves, we have the proof now in the economy and the effects of the Federal Reserve finally catching up to the dollar, and we have an ‘across the board’ unifying position which shines a light on us: the war. This is the ONLY ‘perfect storm that libertarianism will get and we need to jump on it, get the word out, get people to look and listen, and campaign HARD for Ron. No other person could pull this off besides Ron - he has the credibility and the principles and he has the charm and persuasiveness.
Don’t let these nay-sayers pop your bubble guys - this is our time and it will benefit us and America to the extent that we put effort into it. Don’t let them sap your energy, your optimism. Don’t turn angry or resentful - we need the happy, peaceful, respectful face of liberty to make the inroads we need so disparately.
The train has already left the station but will need our help to keep it going and no other train is coming for a very long time - let’s push!
“Google ought to consider creating a separate category for “propoganda”.”
How about propaganda?
[...] van der Galiën Very early in the morning today (Dutch time), co-blogger Jason Steck published a good post about how some Libertarians believe that Ron Paul is bad for the Libertarian movement (because of [...]
Actually, all criticism of Ron Paul has been funded by a consortium of Stewie Griffin and The Brain (as part of their longstanding campaign to TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!!!), with additional production support offered by Lion #3 from Voltron.
One of My Libertarian heros is Harry Browne and I can assure you that Harry Brown would vote for Ron Paul.
I’ve been a libertarian for over a decade, and I share your concerns. However, I don’t think abandoning Ron Paul is the answer. Yes, we are in a bit of an ideological struggle between true libertarians and the conspiracy theorists. If you drop out, that means that there’s more of them and less of us. We’re better off standing our ground.
RON PAUL DOES NOT OPPOSE FREE TRADE..
This article is TOTALLY BOGUS.
RON PAUL OPPOSES ALL MANAGED TRADE LIKE NAFTA CAFTA WTO THAT ONLY BENEFITS SPECIAL INTERESTS.
RON PAUL DOES NOT OPPOSE FREE TRADE..
This article is TOTALLY BOGUS.
RON PAUL DOES NOT OPPOSE FREE TRADE..
This article is TOTALLY BOGUS.
Yes, we are in a bit of an ideological struggle between true libertarians and the conspiracy theorists.
And that began in the Libertarian Party when, exactly?
Have you tried contacting the campaign headquarters to voice your concerns?
Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign
3461 Washington Blvd., Suite 200
Arlington, VA 22201
703-248-9115
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/contact/form
Just as a “free trade” note…
Saying “we won’t have any tariffs” isn’t “free trade” simply because there is no obligation for other nationsto do the same. Doing that simply allows other nations to flood your country with their goods while restricting yours, killing jobs here and bolstering jobs elsewhere. The reason you have 2000-page agreements with other countries is so that you both agree on a general set of rules for how you’ll handle each others’ goods and how you’ll resolve disputes.
It’s just common sense to establish the ground rules with your neighbors before you start trading in earnest with them. Above all, libertarians are supposed to be about common sense, or so I thought.
Wow, such an obvious mistake for the uberblogger.
Paul supports free trade.
Paul supports free trade
Paul supports free trade
Free trade is simply the abolition of tariffs and export subsidies. There is no, I repeat, no reason why you need a treaty to do this.
For reasons I cannot fathom this “uberblogger” chose the most obvious and easily refuted Ron Paul smears.
If he cannot do basic research, why is he an “uberblogger”?
Do you or do you not support Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
Ron Paul has already brought libertarianism farther into the mainstream than it has been for quite a while. The progress he has created and the influence he’s had on our political discourse has been salutary already.
Free trade is having few tariffs, export subsidies, or regulations on imports/exports. It doesn’t rely on other nations to make use of. I believe Frederich Bastiat pointed this out some 200 years ago. The use of treaties to manage trade is mercantilism rather than free trade. You cannot support free trade with treaties.
I have been a Libertarian since 1980 when I voted for Ed Clark. I voted for Ron Paul for president in the general election of 1988 and I hope to vote for him again in 2008. Sure, his stances on some issues don’t match up with mine (immigration for example), but he is right on the money for the vast majority of issues that do face this nation. Volokh is plain wrong in his commentary that Paul’s candidacy will not advance Libertarian ideals. I personally think that most people have a Libertarian streak, but many just don’t realize it; if nothing else, Paul’s campaign will increase the awareness of the general public about the fundamental tenants of Libertarianism.
“Saying “we won’t have any tariffs” isn’t “free trade” simply because there is no obligation for other nationsto do the same. Doing that simply allows other nations to flood your country with their goods while restricting yours, killing jobs here and bolstering jobs elsewhere.”
Let me dispell this myth with an analogy. Two companies, AAA and BBB, decide to trade. Both companies have products to sell and purchase from each other. But AAA must pay a tax on imports which effectively raises the cost of BBB’s goods to a non-competitive level. Should BBB be required to pay a tax on AAA’s products that raise the cost of AAA’s goods to a non-competitive level in return?
No. The tax that is forced upon the consumers of AAA by the government of AAA should not be forced upon the customers of BBB. Yet this is precisely the effect of tarrif wars. You are advocating to allow a foreign nation to pass their tax rates along to US suppliers and consequently allowing foreign nations to pass their taxes on to US consumers.
Even easier, if someone refuses to purchase from you, should you refuse to purchase from them? Of course not. If they are offering goods at the cheapest rate, then you should purchase from them regardless of their willingness to purchase from you. If individuals only bought goods from companies that were willing to purchase their labor, we would all be poor. When countries enact trade restrictions raising the cost of goods for their citizens, we should not enact trade restrictions raising the cost of goods for our citizens in return. To argue for anything else is to argue that American business’ are not able to compete without government subsidies. American businesses are the most productive and competitive in the world. Foreign governments enact trade restrictions because they cannot compete with us, we should not be confused into thinking that they are harming us - they are harming themselves, and we should not harm ourselves to get even.
As for jobs, there will always be as many jobs as there are people. The only limits to the number of jobs is government efforts to tax or regulate jobs out of existence. The minimum wage eliminates all jobs below a minimum threshold of productivity, tariffs eliminate all jobs that result from an increased supply of goods and services, and government jobs eliminate private jobs that allow for the accrual of capital through profit - decreasing future increases in productivity and employment.
If the United States had no tariffs, we would be flooded with cheap goods, and companies would require millions of workers, shippers, salesmen, engineers, and marketers to transform, sell, and distribute their products. Raising the cost of goods, means less can afford them, which means not as many people are required to transform, sell, and distribute them. This means less jobs. This is the road to poverty.
I don’t know Volokh though I read his site. I do know Ron Paul. Volokh is right. Paul is a conservative not a libertarian. He may have fewer flaws than most conservatives but he then has his own unique flaws which are disturbing. His hanging out with lunatics like Lew Rockwell, his conspiracy mongering, etc., are disturbing. He switched posoition on immigration joining the bigots and that is no good. And now he pretends the past never happened. He’s bad on church/state issues. bad on abortion, bad on earmarks (he uses them himself to give pork to his own district).
Paul is an expert at playing both sides of the fence — a masterful politician at that. He can vote against every free trade agreement because they aren’t pure enough for him. Thus he can tell everyone he is pro-free trade while actually voting against the only measures that are opening up trade. He’s actually a protectionist in practice.
And the way his mindless cult followers argue is bizarree. Look at the claim that Cato is neo-con as an example of a clearly moronic statement. I notice the cult followers label any critic of Paul a “neo-con”. Cato has been strongly anti-war from the beginning and still is. Calling someone a “neo-con” is not a rebutall its an evasion.
Longtime libertarian activist Wendy McElroy is anti-Paul so the Classically Liberal blog.
JimBob misquotes Friedman as do the anti-immigration Paulists. Friedman said “legal immigration” doesn’t make sense with welfare but that illegal immigration, which disqualifies one for welfare (contrary to what the naboobs on the Right think) is beneficial. I was there and heard him state his position at a lecture at Stanford.
Pauls nativistic impulses, his conspiracy paranoia and the like simply are NOT libertarian. Tell him to go f… off and leave the libertarians alone.
[...] some may question whether Ron Paul might be bad for libertarianism, his growing popularity and name recognition suggests that there is growing movement in this [...]
Look at “rhys” response. That’s a very similar argument as used by Bastiat, and quite reasoned.
Amen! Free Trade Agreements are nothing more than “entangling alliances” that subject the people of the United States to foreign legislative bodies.
In a word, ILLEGAL. Paul supports the law is the bottom line.
Neither treaties nor alliances (entangling or otherwise) are illegal. The Constitution specifically empowers the President to negotiate and the Congress to ratify treaties that, once ratified, are not only legal but carry the same force as the Constitution itself.
For people who claim to be motivated by a pure reading of the Constitution, many of the Paulistas are sure ignorant of what the Constitution actually does and does not say.
Indeed Jason. Washington, for instance, warned against permanent alliances, not because it’s illegal but because it wouldn’t be wise for the US.
In other words: nothing illegal about it.
Having said that, Washington for one did believe that the US shouldn’t become part of any permanent alliance.
Having said that we’ve got to keep in mind that he was a live at a time that the US was weak (compared to the Great Powers, such as France and Britain).
Yes, one HUGE problem in the rhetorical scripts used by the Paulistas is the fact that the Founders may have had very different things to say if they were to observe the world of the 21st Century than they said in relation to the world of the 18th and 19th Centuries. Those who regurgitate quotations from Jefferson, Hamilton, Washington, et al, often do so with zero attention paid to the specific historical and institutional contexts of those quotations.
Yes Jason you’re right. Note that the US changed its behavior when it became increasingly powerful.
In recent polls 6 out of 10 REPUBLICANS have serious reservations about free-trade. Good. The lowering of trade barriers between the US and Corrupt/Communist nations does nothing but allow US companies to exploit quasi-slave labor at the cost of American jobs.
Eventually the free-traitors will be defeated, the Republican Party for most of its history was protectionist.
Duncan Hunter 2008.