For his "Statism Review: Libertarians" by Van Bryant, II
(libertarian)
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
This article will be in response to a piece written by user "Logical Premise" discussing both the libertarian viewpoint and Ron Paul's campaign. To say I disagree with a number of LP's stances is an understatement. Before the gloves come off, however, I would like to start with the points made by the contributor that I agree with. Yes, it is possible for anarchists and statists to agree. Let's start with:
"The main problem in the election, is that you have only a few real choices."
I concur with this statement, as well as the author's amusingly astute observation on the American conservative base. The Iran comparison is especially noteworthy. However, LP refrains from offering a resolution to this problem, and instead focuses on attacking the Ron Paul campaign and the libertarian movement (I will get to that shortly). In my opinion, Logical Premise doesn't present a solution because the democratic state creates this problem in the first place.
Democracy in all of it's forms marginalizes the impact an individual has on his or her government. In America, your voice and your vote is one among hundreds of millions. The masses, pressure groups, and movements are what change political directions of a democratic state. Because "quantity" constitutes the only method of valuing an ideology, the result is a system that can only present a compromised distillation of the citizenry's beliefs and values.
Now on to another point I agree with Logical Premise on, though I risk drawing the ire of my fellow travellers:
"My prediction is that Ron Paul will get more media attention and more votes this year than in previous years, and will still lose.
Why do I agree with the mean ole' statist's prediction of a Paul loss? It's a simple numbers game: too many citizens reap the rewards of state plunder. Baby Boomers constitute one of the largest voting blocs in the country. They receive medicare, medicaid, social security, government pensions. The Boomers grew up in an era when it seemed like government intervention could do no wrong. Many still think that way. Over thirty million Americans today are on welfare, some families having recieved this undeserved wealth for three, four generations. Tens of millions are receiving unemployment benefits, with government keen on removing time limitations. Let's not forget those still working, who receieve handsome government subsidies and contracts. Millions of government employees earn salaries and benefits that are unheard-of in the real world (private sector).
This enormous percentage of the citizenry doesn't consider their existence parasitical or destructive. These citizens will not vote to remove their safety nets, even though it comes at the expense of harming others (and themselves, indirectly). These citizens will never support a candidate that threatens the status quo. Things will have to come to violence first. The violence is an inevitability: I intend to write about this in the near future.
That said, I still support the Paul campaign. I do so because his efforts represent the greatest opportunity to spread a message and counter-ideology that is intriguing, inspiring, and intellectually-engaging. My conversion from statism started in 2008, after reading "The Revolution: A Manifesto." I am certainly not the only convert, and I am optimistic this election cycle will bring thousands more out of the doldrums. Discussions on austrian economics, free banking, gold vs. fiat currency, revisionist historical accounts, and countless other subjects await those open to thinking outside of the box issued to us in our state indoctrination camps schools.
Now I focus on my disagreements with the author; as mentioned above, they are legion. The remainder of LP's article is an attempt to explain the faults of Libertarianism. Emphasis on "attempt."
"Freedom and liberty, while certainly good and important, are not the only good and important things in a society, or as values or markers in life... Security is as important as freedom, as without it one is conquered or plundered."
I do not argue that "security" is important to humanity, but the author neglects a very important point: security cannot exist without freedom. Freedom is a double-edged sword, and not simply mindless self-indulgence. Freedom rewards or punishes depending on one's behavior. Security can only be achieved by one who takes responsibility for his or her actions; to sacrifice this responsibility is to exist as a prisoner.
That said, perhaps the statist finds that environment copacetic. If that is indeed the case, my next question is: What happens when the evil monsters become your jailor? Evil people have been known to acquire badges and guns; some have even lead governments. LP never explains how his ideology can best answer the problem of "who watches the watchmen." For the author, it's easier to bash on libertarians for trying to come up with an answer.
"What happens when society needs to restrict the freedom of the press to prevent spies from learning how to attack us? What if a free society had to resort to the draft in order to remain free from invasion? What if it needed to outlaw the import cheap foreign labor in order to keep out foreigners who would vote for socialistic wealth redistribution?"
A restricted press has never prevented spies or wars, and only succeeds in keeping citizens from knowing what it's payingbeing extorted for. It is laughable to use "free society" and "draft" in the same sentence. The wealth redistribution is what makes foreign labor cheap in the first place.
"There is more to any society than mere "freedom" but that is all they can preach. Oh, they sometimes try to avoid this logical fallacy by reducing all reality to it through the concept of choice, claiming that everything that is good is so because we choose it.
Libertarians actually do more than preach "freedom." No rational person would think free choice is good simply on the merit of it being freely-made. This is blatant strawmaning.
"Fair and equal justice is good because it does not allow the innocent to be punished, not because of some moral choice... "
"Fair and equal justice" doesn't exist. Not all judges and juries are created equal.
"You think long enough this way and what's to say the life of a murdering gangbanger is not just as valid, and as worthy a life as that of , say, Ron Paul? Mm?"
One may think "up" as "down" if they so choose. I do applaud Logical Premise for at least being consistent in his statism: the only way one could rationally justify the statist ideology is by seeing a human being as a simple slab of meat and bone.
The next paragraph is petty mis-information. I do find the slavery statement amusing, coming from an author who believes citizens exist as chattel to their governments. The comparisons of Japan, China with the western world belie a complete lack of knowledge regarding economic reality. It explains this next statement:
You uphold an economic model that has been predicting economic collapse since the 1880's and has never ONCE been proven correct.
The views expressed
in this article are those of Van Bryant, II only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Van Bryant, II 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.
