Bye Bye Barry by Joel S. Hirschhorn (Centrist Liberal Libertarian)
Read
Topic: Abolition of Statism
Even Ron Paul is an Authoritarian The current candidates (real and imagined) ranked by degree of authoritarianism, admittedly subjectively, but the point is offered.by Jack Galway
(Libertarian)
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
We are 1 declaration of marshall law away from losing our constitutional rights at any given moment.
We are 1 law enforcement officer's bad decision away from losing our constitutional freedoms in any given encounter.
We are 1 bureacrat's error away from having any given right removed.
The number of self-appointed authoritarians in this country is greater than 50% of its populace. We will live in an authoritarian country by the sheer action of numbers until the saturation point goes below 50%, but we will still have an X% probability of coming under the sway of an authoritarian when X < 50% saturation. For the time being, I will take X < 50%, a non-authoritarian country, then we can start working on what X is.
But as long as we permit government, socialism, interventionism, and militarism to grow, the degree of authoritarianism is going north, not south.
All of our potus candidates are authoritarian, ranked as follows: nader, dobbs, clinton, green party, mccain, huckabee, bloomberg, obama, paul. Ask yourself, how many have a concrete plan for reduction in government? Being in favor of less government, and less taxes without having a clear plan is like being in favor of personal hygiene without toilet paper.*
Islamofascism is not our #1 problem, nor is immigration, it is our downward spiral into authoritarianism. Islamics in America, Mexicans in America, pro-lifers in America, abortionists in America, self-educated people in America, free people in America are all minorities relative to authoritarians. Authoritarians are currently, as a matter of practice, unopposed.
* pardon my crudeness.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 5 thumbs so far
2008 Jack Galway, all rights reserved.
Published: Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Last modified: Tuesday, February 26, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of Jack Galway only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Jack Galway is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2008-02-26 20:48:26
I believe that Ron Paul's overall policies would have resulted in a net-reduction in the size of government, if enacted. What makes you think that they would not have?
Walt, thanks for the good question. I believe taht all humans lie somewhere on a spectrum from just above 0% to just under 100% when it comes to authoritarianism. Ron Paul would have to be a pure anarchist to have no authoritarian traits.
I totally agree with you that he would produce a net reduction in government, maybe even a significant reduction. The bandits generally lay low when they hear a new sheriff is coming to town (notice the authoritarian analogy -- a significant reduction in government would require some authoritarianism, ironically).
But psychologically speaking there is likely no such person as a total anti-authoritarian. Remember back in the 70s, the I'm OK, you're OK theories? These held that every person has 3 personality components, the parent, the child, and the adult. Our parent is the part that believes neo-cons and lectures us sternly on our shortcomings; our child is happy when safe and miserable when frightened; our adult is able to sift data independently. Libertarians typically have very strong adult personas, they use their child for enjoyment because they can minimize unfounded fear, and their parent may be a trusted consultant.
I believe that Ron Paul fits the profile very well, but two things temper my placement of him on the authoritarian scale. Doctors are not typically non-authoritarian as a profession, in my opinion. And the fact that Dr. Paul is elected as a GOP candidate gives me pause.
I always try to define my terms so that people know exactly what I am referring to. You might want to define authoritarian. If you mean it as a control over others, then the authoritarianism of a doctor may be relatively benign. Authoritarianism in government may be benign or harmful. For example: If you believe that the only legitimate role of government is the protection of individual rights, then it must exercise control over criminals, crooks and con-artists. But would that make it an authoritarian government? Then maybe it is not just control, but something else. You made some good points.
Remember, too, how many of our citizens are incarcerated - another good measure of authoritarianism when it comes to the "illegal" drug wars.
I have just had a very unsatisfactory experience looking for a well-trimmed definition of "authoritarian." I have found a very useful connotation, however, in John Dean's book, Conservatives Without Conscience.
Dean explores throughout the book, the idea of the right-wing authoritarian, who can be either a tyrant or a minion of a tyrant, where the tyrant usurps for the purpose of power, not the purpose of empowerment.
Again, I would suggest that all humans will be tyrants to some degree, based on the fervor with which they are enamored of an idea for which they must seek fulfillment outside themselves.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 Jack Galway, all rights reserved.