Ron Paul r(EVOL)tionary triumphs

Congratulations to Ron Paul supporter Kane for winning the ECW Championship at Wrestlmania XIV.

Today ECW tomorrow the world!

Happy Birthday Paul Jacob!

Our friend Paul Jacob is celebrating his birthday today. Sadly, Paul is being prosecuted (and threatened with prison time) by the state of Oklahoma for challenging the status quo politics.

Read about Paul's fight at:

http://www.freepauljacob.com

/KDR

Lew Rockwell?

As a regular reader of lewrockwell.com (and occasional reader of mises.org), I find the allegation that Lew was, himself, behind some of the racist, homophobic screeds found in some of Dr. Paul's past newsletters disturbing, to say the least. Thus far, however, all I've seen here at TFL is vague suggestions about murmurings on message boards regarding Lew's authorship. Would anybody here like to put forth the evidence behind this accusation? If it can't be done, perhaps we should hold back on joining the anti-Rockwell train. Slander—if it is slander—does not help the freedom movement, regardless of whom it is aimed at.

Is the Horse Dead?

In response to Radley Balko's post today at reason about being increasingly ashamed of having defended Ron Paul in the past, one commenter suggested the issue of the racist newsletters had passed already:

Sheesh...the horse is dead already.

Should we all just "Move On"?

Well, I get emails all day long from friends (and many people I've never met) trumpeting Ron Paul's successes and exhorting me to do something for Ron Paul. Indeed, in October, Walter Block even suggested that supporting Ron Paul is the litmus test of whether a person is a libertarian:

Ron is a one-man band of publicity for liberty. I am appalled that (your Institute) takes the stance on him that it does. In my view, Ron is a sort of litmus test for libertarianism.

But, if Ron Paul will be associated with hate-mongering, does a lover of liberty want to pass this test?
As Balko writes:

Perhaps it's too much for us to expect Paul to turn over the names of the paleo types who wrote those screeds...But if he can't, it's also too much to ask libertarians who find those views abhorrent to continue to support him.

The way Ron Paul can show that he does not support bigotry is to stop covering for those who wrote the newsletter. Ron Paul supporters who either brush over this matter or aid in the stonewalling are not convincing us to just drop it and jump back on the bandwagon.

/KDR

Despicable Behavior

This video of a mob of Ron Paul supporters chasing Sean Hannity down the street is horrendous. Who are these people? Are they really advocates of peace and liberty?

Per my previous post on hatred in the libertarian movement, and my co-signed letter to the apparent writer of the racist newsletter to which Ron Paul's name was attached, this video constitutes further proof that there is a subset of "libertarians" who don't respect other people and are fueled by a boiling hatred.

To those people who took part in chasing Mr. Hannity down the street, "Shame on you."

Anyone who can name these individuals should post their names online so that other libertarians can shun them from the movement.

The L Word

Carl Milsted, responding to my previous blog, notes that the word "libertarian" is very much at the root of the Libertarian Party's internal battles. He suggest dropping it. I still call myself a "libertarian" as it is the only term close to my own position which others are likely to understand, e.g. facebook doesn't have a "free liberal" option. Alternatively, I like to tell people I'm a "Hayekian liberal."

As F.A. Hayek said:

In the United States, where it has become almost impossible to use "liberal" in the sense in which I have used it, the term "libertarian" has been used instead. It may be the answer; but for my part I find it singularly unattractive. For my taste it carries too much the flavor of a manufactured term and of a substitute. What I should want is a word which describes the party of life, the party that favors free growth and spontaneous evolution. But I have racked my brain unsuccessfully to find a descriptive term which commends itself.

Thoughts?

/KDR

Is the Libertarian Party worth the fight?

Over at Third Party Watch, Steve Gordon anticipates the upcoming battle at the 2008 Libertarian Party convention. He argues it will happen in multiple dimensions with a mishmash of factions:

But the showdown I’m talking about is the ongoing battle between the Reformers and the Radicals, the purists and the pragmatists, extremists and moderates, activists and hierarchists, those more interested in retail politics and those more interested in wholesale politics.

**Full disclosure: I remain a member of the Libertarian Reform Caucus (I was one of the first to join) and I suppose I'm still technically a member of the LP, but I have given up party meetings because they were just too costly time-wise/stress-wise and didn't seem to to provide anywhere near the personal satisfaction that projects such as The Free Liberal delivered.**

This contest is expected to express itself in the presidential nomination, the platform and bylaws debate, as well as the election of party officers. To the party's most hardcore, the control of the party's message and organization is a vital piece of real estate in the War for Liberty. Click your way through the big-L Libertarian blogosphere to witness the intensity which the debate attains. See this selection, "Teaching Pigs to Sing," from L. Neil Smith, who lambasts Libertarian Reform Caucus founder (and Free Liberal senior editor) Carl Milsted as a sell-out Keynesian:

Milsted and his accomplices in destruction may not care about the future. "In the long run, we are all dead," as one of his intellectual ancestors put it. In my experience, short-range thinking of this nature is a consistent characteristic of those who label themselves "pragmatic".

Later in the piece, he suggests that Milsted run into traffic (basically wishing death upon him -- which I think is sick.) Smith issues a threat, which I take as credible, that the attempts at reform would be met with sabotage at every step by those who feel the party should be radical.

Start your own Whimpertarian Party instead of hijacking the one your betters built. See how far it gets you, competing with something real. Try holding onto the LP you've stolen and we'll embarrass you out, using nothing more than genuine libertarian ideas, positions and policies. Try explaining to the round-heeled media our insistence that a nine-year-old girl should be free to buy a machinegun, ammunition, and heroin at the general store without signing anything or presenting identification.

Who wants to be the target of this kind of malice from other libertarians? Further, going to the Denver LP convention also means conducting the nastiness through a poorly designed set of bylaws -- debates devolve into discussions of minor points, while time runs out for the bigger questions. It is frustrating and unlikely to bridge the differences between the factions.

Moreover, there's an ethical question for libertarians: What are you willing to do to people who are basically on the same side, in order to win? When I first joined the caucus, I began penning a piece which laid out an elaborate plan to take down the other side. I envisioned a real brass tacks ground operation: walkie-talkies, infiltration of the opposing side, procedural skullduggery, etc. As I wrote, I became more and more disillusioned with what amounted to fratricide via parliamentary procedure. It just isn't decent. It doesn't advance liberty. Our political values should arise from our personal values. When in conflict, the latter should win.

What is the prize, anyways? The party's base has been dwindling for years and is now totally eclipsed by the success of the Ron Paul campaign. It occurs to me that the history of failure and burned out activists make the LP unlikely to undo its bad branding in the future. However, the combatants may not kill the party, whichever faction wins (or if none of them win). These sorts of climactic fights have happened before. In Justin Raimondo's biography of Murray Rothbard, the tale of the great walk-out at the 1983 convention is told. The cycle reminds me of the second Matrix movie where The Architect tells Neo that it is Neo's role to destroy Zion and take a small band of survivors to rebuild it elsewhere. But, as much as libertarians seem to overlap with sci-fi fans, this endless destruction and rebuilding seems unappealing as a strategy for liberty.

/KDR

A Dear Friend Lost

John Berthoud, president of National Taxpayers Union, was found dead earlier today in his home. The Free Liberal mourns our friend, who was a dogged defender of liberty and truly principled and decent human being.

-- KDR

We broke it, we bought it?

Mike Huckabee, during last night's debate in New Hampshire, used the logic "we broke it, we bought it" to say that it doesn't matter that going into Iraq was a mistake, that now that we're there, we must stay and fix it.

The logic has a certain appeal. Our government did "break" Iraq. They certainly did break a lot of things over there.

The thing is, Iraq is not a fragile consumer good taken off the shelf for examination, and accidentally dropped. Iraq is a country, filled with people. If we must regard Iraq as a singular entity, a better analogy would be to refer to it as a patient, an injured man. By this analogy, Huckabee is basically saying that because a thug kicked some guy's ass, it is his responsibility (or that of someone else who shares his attitude) to "fix" the injured man, preferably using the same techniques used to "break" him in the first place.

Or perhaps Huckabee's "we" could be considered a quack of a surgeon, who incorrectly diagnosed a disease, cut in and predicted where a tumor might be found, couldn't find it, just kept digging until he nearly killed his patient. By Huckabee's logic, it would be wrong to force the quack to stop cutting into the patient, bandage his wounds, and leave him to heal.

It sounds to me like we need a doctor on the job. <.<

Fall reading

The Mises Institute has made the sixties anthology A New History of Leviathan available for free in PDF. This anthology is the fruit of Murray Rothbard's collaboration with anti-state leftists and contains a number of important essays by Rothbard and other leading libertarian and leftists scholars.

The Mises Institute has also republished Ron Paul's classic Freedom Under Siege.

The Nazi Welfare State

Did the German people acquiesce to Nazi rule because of Hitler's extensive welfare state? That is the thesis of Hitler’s Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State, a provocative new book by Götz Aly. Reason's Michael Moynihan provides an insightful and largely favorable review although he disagrees with Aly's conclusions. The willingness of people to put up with tyranny in exchange for the illusion of economic security is something libertarians, free liberals, and all of us in the freedomnista movement should spend more time examining.

Notes from the Parlor Game

Over at Cato Unbound of all places, Peter T. Leeson makes the case, I think, for anarchy. Or, at least, that "self-governance works better than you think."

Free Liberals will generally agree with that one. Of course people should be free to govern their lives. But Leeson seems to want to push the envelope with empirical evidence that a complete absence of government "works better" than is commonly understood.

Fair enough.

His evidence was, to me, wanting. Leeson cites the history of pirates and their "honor among thieves" codes of conduct. Why we would want to apply the example of pirates to modern society escapes me.

He notes that sunny Somalia is, in fact, anarchy in action, right now. Yes, Leeson admits, Somalia is a challenging place to live, but since the shackles of a state were broken, things have gone from something like "terribly horrific" to just "horrific." That is progress, admittedly, but it seems hardly something to crow about.

Mostly, though, I found wanting of Leeson's application of self-governing anarchy in places like the US and most of the developed world. With trillions of dollars of assets on the line every day, why would people who have much to lose wish to give up protection from foreign invaders. Quaint 19th century-style theory can be grand, even intellectually stimulating, but the world now has stockpiles of nuclear weapons and WMD. With that reality in the balance, Leeson needs to develop a plausible theory for how people in places like the US would possibly want complete and total "self government," i.e., anarchy.

Until that's forthcoming, I'll keep this article in the science fiction files.

-Robert Capozzi

Hands held high

Even if hip-hop is not your thing, you will still be inspired by this great Ron Paul video. (Caution, some strong language.)

quote of the month

comes from an Andrew Sullivan blog entry regarding one of the many merits of Ron Paul's candidacy and Ron Paul's followers:

"Whatever the merits and demerits of Ron Paul's candidacy, it has revived interest in many conservative ideas in ways not seen in any other candidacies. We may be about to enter a liberal age. So it's good to see someone keeping the torch alight for the next generation."

Take a few minutes

and complete Steve Gordon's Libertarian Presidential Survey. Also check out Steve's blog.

See Ron Paul Wednesday

at the House Committee on Financial Services' hearing on "The State of the International Financial System," featuring Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. You can watch the live hearing on the Committee's web site.

Quote of the week

Comes from Brian Doherty:

"Ron Paul is the most energetic and consistent advocate on an issue of paramount political importance, especially to left-progressives—ending our involvement in Iraq. He’s willing to leave many controversial issues to states and localities. He wants to leave most of us alone to manage our own affairs, as either individuals or smaller polities. He’s a dedicated enemy of some of the most evil and repressive policies currently afoot in America. If America’s progressives can’t manage to give him at least two cheers, the fault lies not with their candidates, but with themselves."

Ron Paul Revolution

A group of Ron Paul fans in Arizona started putting up Ron Paul Revolution signs. The signs are showing up across the country, popping up in unlikely places such as at John McCain's official announcement of his candidacy. The folks behind the Ron Paul Revolution have no official connection to the campaign, and are not getting paid for their efforts. They are liberty-loving Americans who want to help get the word out about the only true peace-and-freedom Presidential candidate.

One problem the mainstream media has in covering Dr. Paul is they are used to modern campaigns spending millions on pollsters, consultants, and "grassroots organizers" to create the illusion that have an army of passionate supporters. Thus, the media simply cannot comprehend that Dr. Paul's success on the Internet is not driven by DC-based consultants but by people responding to Dr. Paul's principled libertarian message.

Mises Media

Norm Singleton has posted on the Mises Institute's vast selection of print media. I have recently begun listening to "The Ethics of Liberty" by Murray Rothbard in the form of 20-minute sections that you can download free through your favorite RSS reader (I use iTunes).

I was interested to find out that Rothbard comes off as very much a geolibertarian in his section on Land Monopoly. Not all the chapters are equally convincing to this free liberal, but the print version of "The Ethics of Liberty" sat on my bookshelf for nearly two years unread, before I began the podcasts of the book. The podcasts "shuffled" the content so that I downloaded the chapters based on which looked most interesting. I have since begun shuffling through the print chapters. Consuming the ideas in this manner is both less daunting (because it requires less commitment), and more fun (as it allows you to focus on what is most interesting to you).

The Mises folks should be commended for the multiplicity of forms of media that they offer.

- KDR

Read two books

by a presidential candidate this year and make them Ron Paul's new A Foreign Policy of Freedom and Ron Paul's classic The Case for Gold, the minority report of the US Gold Commission.

Left and Right

The Mises Institute's great new student series uses "on-demand" printing technology to make available numerous libertarian, classical liberal, and "old right" classics.

Free Liberals will be particularly interested in the complete set of Left and Right, one of the first libertarian newsletters which was published from 1965-1968. Edited by Murray Rothbard, Leonard Liggio, and H. George Resch, this publication represents an attempt to forge an alliance between libertarians who rejected the official conservative movement's embrace of, in Bill Buckley's famous words, a "totalitarian bureaucracy" for the duration of the cold war, with the pro-freedom, pro-decentralization elements of what was then the New Left. Free Liberals looking for ways to approach the left without compromising their pro-liberty principles will find guidance and ammunition in these pages.

Also see Rodrick Long's Rothbard's Left and Right:Forty Years latter. The early issues of the Libertarian Forum where Rothbard explains his eventual disillusion with the left also provide a warning of some of the dangers faced by Free Liberals who attempt to revive the libertarian-left alliance.

Cowen’s “Package Deal”

Excellent, provocative piece by Professor Tyler Cowen over at Cato Unbound. He writes:

“Those developments have brought us much greater wealth and much greater liberty, at least in the positive sense of greater life opportunities. They’ve also brought much bigger government. The more wealth we have, the more government we can afford. Furthermore, the better government operates, the more government people will demand. That is the fundamental paradox of libertarianism. Many initial victories bring later defeats.”

He calls this tendency for more wealth leading to more government a “package deal.” That’s a most excellent insight. With more wealth, the relative cost of government is reduced. And, with a bottomless pit of human wants and needs, the tendency is for government to grow along with national wealth.

I do believe it is possible, though unlikely, to decouple economic and government growth. It would involve cutting taxes from the bottom up, where the need for tax relief is highest. And, at the same time, cutting spending on domestic, discretionary spending, where the benefits are least concentrated and least numerous. Can you envision a march on Washington over a 5% cut in the Department of Commerce?

Still, Cowen’s point about focusing on liberty and not as much on regulation inserts a dynamic into the calculation that is long overdue.

-Robert Capozzi

The Movement

Brian Doherty has a great article on Cato Unbound about the history of the libertarian movement and where it is going.

I could not agree more with his suggestion that we take a libertarian approach to the movement and not think that "our way" is the only way. I believe that being a "free liberal" means respecting the rights of others to pursue liberty as they see fit, even while I have my own preferred vision. Moreover, there is a tremendous amount we can learn from others' approaches, as well as succesful and failed programs from the past.

Doherty paints a picture of a rich libertarian movement, of which anyone should be proud to be a member. This reminds us that as thinkers and actors in the policy arena, we are not separate from our cause, and the strange and beautiful situations and people we encouter make our lives what they are. Free liberals and libertarians should appreciate the quality of people in our movement, even when we disagree.

When my reading stack gets a little lighter, I will be picking up a copy of his book. Also, I've added a category for this sort of discussion on Free for All, "The Freedomnista Movment."

~KDR