Topic: Abolition of Statism
Ron Paul Authoritarianism and the Rule of Law The abolition of statism doesn't necessarily require the abolition of the state.by Beatnik
(Libertarian)
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
In a recent article by Jack Galway ( Read the article here ), the idea was put forth that all candidates for US President, Dr. Paul included, place somewhere on a spectrum of authoritarianism. In follow-up comments the idea is put forth that Dr. Paul would have to be an anarchist to not place on this authoritarian spectrum.
If we judge Paul by everything he's said, written, and voted, it's easy to see that the traces of authoritarianism in Paul are actually a little practiced, antiquated notion called the Rule of Law.
Paul does not use the phrase explicitly. This is a shame, since the Rule of Law is likely the single concept which binds diverse people from all political parties to Dr. Paul. Practically every sentence in his speeches associates some national problem with our nonadherence to the supreme law of the land, so we inductively reason that he is in favor of the Rule of Law.
Authoritarianism is a definite problem in the US. We are definitely slipping more into authoritarianism no matter which candidate ends up winning (excepting a divine intervention which places Paul on top). But consider that authoritarians in the US are not working within the law: they take it upon themselves to make decisions based on factors other than the law.
The abusive cop, the power-tripping bureaucrat, and the general who administers marshall law are not making up new laws. They are all disregarding established law. The predominance of regular law, applicable to both king and commoner, is abandoned in favor of arbitrary power.
The supreme law of the land - the Constitution of the United States - doesn't call for authoritarianism, and likewise does not call for anarchy. The law calls for limited federal government, some basic ground rules, some guaranteed rights, and everything else to be decided by the states or the people.
Paul differs sharply from the other candidates in that the Rule of Law is the authority to which he appeals. He is not styling himself the candidate most fit to rule. He is offering himself as a loyal servant of the Rule of Law, and the candidate who will invariably turn to that authority only. That authority just happens to be manifest in the Constitution.
As many Americans have some exposure to the idea of the Rule of Law, from sources as varied as religion to fraternal organizations to the military to plain old-fashioned good parenting, the idea of having elected officials who appeal to that authority is starting to gain ground.
On a higher level, Paul's relative success could be attributed to his appeal to non-Libertarians. Those who investigate the Libertarian Party with any rigor invariably discover the internal anarchist/minarchist debate. Adherents to the Rule of Law who would be described as minarchists are put off by this. As there is an existing law which if followed would produce a minarchist government, and there also doesn't seem to be an anarchist call for the legal repeal of the US Constitution, Rule of Law adherents therefore become confused and avoid the entire party. You can't both support what the law says and simultaneously work to extralegally abolish that law. Enter Dr. Paul, who sides with the minarchists based on the Rule of Law, and you find those Rule of Law minarchists - and indeed Rule of Law members of all parties - joining the revolution.
Does Paul's Rule of Law perspective place him on an authoritarian spectrum? Perhaps, but only insofar as he submits to the authority of the Rule of Law. However, Rule of Law and authoritarianism are historically at odds with each other. Rule of Law is also intended to bind government actions. Runaway governments have no choice but to ignore or circumvent the Rule of Law, as is painfully obvious in the current administration. Rule of Law is not rule BY law.
Ron Paul does not behave as one wishing to be the law nor as one wishing to want to rule by law. To half-intelligent working stiffs like myself, that alone makes any comparison of Paul to authoritarians questionable. He submits to a higher authority, but he doesn't talk to that authority on his cell phone - he reads it in the Constitution.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 43 thumbs so far
2008 Beatnik, all rights reserved.
Published: Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Last modified: Wednesday, February 27, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of Beatnik only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Beatnik 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.
Your marvelous article hear has my enthusiastic thanks and "Thumbs Up!" I hope you will consider joining the Nolan Chart Columnists Lounge, please see the link in your "Author's Control Panel."
Whether or not you choose to join, I would greatly appreciate it if you would contact me "off-list" - you can find my information in any of my articles, including the most recent, "Jesus and Ron Paul," or contact me through the Lounge.
Excellent article. I agree, our elected and appointed leaders behave as if the Law only applies to the citizens and not to the leaders themselves. And the problem is indeed getting worse, with state and local government leaders taking their cues from the Federal government.
The word "agenda" is the cause of all the problems. Interpretation of the law is all about semantics. When agendas are introduced into the interpretation process, which will always be the case as a matter of the human condition, then the mischief, imbalance and confusion ensue. This, to me, is what is so impressive about our Constitution. Remarkably well written, thorough yet compact, piece of legislation.
Thought-provoking article. Consider also how the term "rule of law" has been corrupted by many to mean blindobedience to the law - no matter how wrong-headed a law might be. I have heard this a thousand times - that just because a law exists, we can not question it or - God forbid! challenge it. In consideration of the many wrong, individual-rights violating and just plain stupid laws that have been revoked, and the ones that are equally offensive that still exist, I cringe every time I hear that term.
You put "the rule of Law" firmly where every public servant makes his oath, to uphold the US Constitution. And that should be one measure as to whether any other law has validity.
Please also take into consideration that the Constitution did not land into the laps of the Founding Fathers like mana from heaven. It was logically derived based on what many call Natural Law.
So ultimately, the highest law is not the Constitution, but the moral principles upon which the Constitution establishes in a written document as a standard of ethics for the behavior of government - a contract between the government and the people.
Consider the golden rule as a basis for the rule of law, as understood by so many diverse cultures - to treat others as you would wish to be treated. This is the cornerstone to civilization.
The root of the law must lie in ethics, because if we fail to understand the principles behind the Constitution, it simply becomes a piece of parchment open to the capricious interpretation of political agendas.
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 Beatnik, all rights reserved.