Topic: Libertarianism
The State of the Movement Libertarianism and anti-statism at another crossroads as Ron Paul readies himself to resume the battle as a congressman.by Random Outlier
(Libertarian)
Sunday, March 9, 2008
When in doubt, consult the great philosophers, John D. MacDonald, for instance, who had one of his characters say, "Everything is easier when you face reality."
Let's give it a shot.
--Someone other than Ron Paul will take the oath of office on the Capitol steps January 20, 2009.
--Ron Paul will quietly (and uniquely sincerely) swear on January 3 to defend the Constitution as a senior member of of the U.S. House. There he continues to stand as a rally point for liberty. We should damned well treasure him.
--A massive march on Washington, or St. Paul, or for that matter Liberal, Kansas, probably will not occur, and even if it does it is more likely to be an object of amused media condescension than an effective summons to Freedom's cause.
--No epiphany will envelop the national media on some dusty road to Damascus, thus you and I will remain kooks at the margin.
All that is offered with a deep underlying love for the libertarians who gave so much to the constitutional cause which, for this moment in history, is known as the Paul movement.
---
I collect stupid platitudes, and one I cherish still recurs, from the mouths of politicians who pause, look meaningfully at the cameras, and intone, "My friends, the future lies before us." If he's a really good demagogue (thinking of Obama here), applause greets the remarkable insight.
The heck if it is, the future does, and if we're the freedom fighters we claim to be we'll look that way with only an occasional glance at the backtrail.
And we will recognize that wars are not won by Alvin Yorks charging a Kaiser's battalion, single-handed, armed only with John Browning's service pistol.
You don't win without a few Sgt. Yorks in the ranks or an occasional flamboyant Patton running one of your armies, but victories are as much attained by the REMFs who design the weapons, schedule the transport, create the LURPs, and master even a single move of revolution's three-dimensional chess.
That is us, and we have one large advantage. We agree on the diamond-hard principle. Our goal is to guide the republic to the principles enunciated during that Philadelphia summer of 1788 when the one of the most moral political documents ever penned was presented to a nation.
We agree that the overriding purpose of that Constitution is to restrict the powers of the regulators, not expand them, and as good as the idea was then, it is even better now.
We agree on the grand strategic goal of persuading the American public to eject the statists from power and install men and women with a profound respect for the ultimate soveriegnty of the individual person.
Bringing us to the more difficult problem of tactics. Do we work within the Republican party. Do we move to the Libertarian Party? Or do we escape and evade to the jungled Mindanoro mountains, there to harass the enemy with machetes and raids in the night?
The answer is yes.
But let's be sure we know who the enemy is lest we thin our ranks with friendly fire.
A libertarian fighting in another theater is not the enemy. Destroy him and you reduce the force. We're not big enough to withstand much attrition.
The enemy is the idea.
For instance, Alan Greenspan. He was once an objectivist and bugler for sound money and free markets. He ended as just another maladroit manipulator in service of those who confuse transfer payments with wealth. He's probably an amiable enough sort, good to his grandchildren, pets puppies, all that.
The real enemy is the virus that infected him, lust for the power to dictate to your neighbors, and if that isn't a good working definition tyranny, I don't know what is.
----
Any of us who haven't done so lately might well review the oath of office sworn by the president. It bids him to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Nothing, absolutely nothing, else.
Members of Congress swear similarly, but their oath includes a pledge to defend the Constitution also against "all enemies, foreign and domestic."
Who would disagree that most of them do that badly? Who would deny that one of our jobs is to hold their fingers to the fire, particularly on that domestic enemy bit?
If so, doesn't it behoove us to create a list of clear domestic enemies? Let's not necessarily think too large all the time. Sure, the subsidized biofuel industry is robbing citizens blind, billions at a crack, to no useful end.
But what about the local zoning law which says you can't add a new bay window without approval of its subcommittee on architectural standards?
It's a target-rich environment.
Charge! But don't shoot your buddy.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 10 thumbs so far
2008 Random Outlier, all rights reserved.
Published: Sunday, March 9, 2008
Last modified: Sunday, March 9, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of Random Outlier only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Random Outlier 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.
What's a Libertarian to do. . . ?I say it comes down to the state you live in.
If the Libertarians are organized in your state, Join them and add to the candidates that they will likely be running, or BE one of those candidates.
If the Libertarians are not organized in your state, and the Democrats and Republicans were more than happy to watch you TRY to get Ron Paul into the lead, then for the love of Pete (Sampras?) grab the Libertarian party by the horns and MAKE an organization.
Convert your Meetups, but carry the same banner for Liberty and sound economic policy.
Donate monthly to whichever state libertarian party has done the work to have a paypal or donor town square donation system in place (that is if they are actually active and using the funds for progress and growth).
(PressMediaWire) March 9, 2008 Congressman Ron Paul states - Congress is poised to pass the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) authorizing up to $50 million in unconstitutional foreign aid. The bill passed out of the Foreign Affairs Committee with a bipartisan agreement to nearly double the President's requested amount. It is always distressing to see officials in our government reach across the aisle to disregard Constitutional limitations.
Much of this aid will run through government-to-government channels and will be vulnerable to corruption. Some of the aid will be sent to faith-based organizations who, along with accepting government largess, will now be subject to governmental controls and will soon become more dependent on taxpayer funding than private funds. If they accept the aid, they must be careful of the vague language regarding what types of programs they can run. For example, the requirement that 33% of any funding received must go toward abstinence-only programs has been dropped and replaced with a 50% requirement toward behavior change. Many humanitarian organizations are incensed by the politicized requirements placed on their work, and feel they are being forced to continue failed programs at the expense of more effective ones.
The obvious question remains: Why are politicians in the United States deciding what is best for people in Africa ? And why are taxpayers in the United States being forced to fund –for example - family planning facilities that perform abortions?
In fact, Afrobarometer, a leading source of data on public attitudes in Africa asked Africans what their main developmental concerns were. They found that Africans are much more concerned about jobs, agriculture and basic infrastructure than they are about health issues like AIDS.
Africans should decide what is best for Africa . American taxpayers should decide what charities deserve their money. Forcibly taking money from the United States and sending it overseas is unconstitutional and immoral.
The energy that lobbying groups and celebrities expend for charitable causes here on the Hill could be better put to use actually addressing problems. It is sadly symptomatic of the trend toward bigger government that instead of private fundraising efforts, people put their hand out to Congress. It is unfortunate that some activists prefer funding taken by force, to donations freely given.
These efforts, though well-meaning, are misguided. The truth is all the foreign aid in the world will not transform Africa into a thriving, healthy continent. The economic growth of Africa depends on African entrepreneurs, liberalized trade policies, and political and economic freedom. The best thing we could possibly do for Africa and for our own country, is to stop sending misguided aid, and stop protectionist trade practices that prevent African farmers and producers from competing in our markets. Perhaps then Africa's leaders would focus less on how to get aid out of the United States , and more on the economic vitality of their own countries.
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 Random Outlier, all rights reserved.