To Get Ron Paul's Insanity, You Have To Understand Libertarianism

American Thinker ^ | 12/30/2011 | Don Feder

[Fester Chugabrew]

Thanks for the reply.

We’ve been delinquent in identifying and eliminating those threats. It does not take a trillion dollar stick to kill maleficent hornets. It does not take a genius to know they will not be converted. We can dial back the footprint and still be strong.

I am going to assume something about Ron Paul: He does not attribute innate goodness to human nature. With that assumption comes a boatload of common sense.

[iopscusa]

NB, I’m disappointed that you would make any comparison between libertarian and Marxism or Sharia both are diametrically opposed to libertarianism. The real problem is that most people don’t appear to know much about libertarian principles except for faulty descriptions generally provided by what I call collectivism. Read L.V. Mises book, “Omnipotent Government: The Rise of the Total State and Total War” for some factual basis of libertarian thinking about nation states. The Amazon excerpt will get you a synopsis.

[Jukeman]

Confession time. There is some of the libertarian ideology in me to the extent that I want as little government in my life as possible. The federal government should only do what the constitution calls for and nothing more. Providing for the general welfare does not mean redistribution of wealth or controlling every aspect of our lives. Our military should not be involved in humanitarian efforts around the world but only to protect and defend. The federal reserve system has grown into a monstrous organization which is sucking the economic life from our republic. Most of all we should have protection for our electoral process, the pillar of freedom.

[itsahoot]

The question is, does the corruption and social dislocation costs caused by making drugs illegal exceed the cost of treating uninsured addicts?

Perhaps you could point out the countries that have done this successfully. I am sure there are many.

[itsahoot]

keeping government small and limited in it’s reach is paramount if you want to keep the citizen free of tyranny.

That is the delusion reality sets in when society defaults to barbarianism.

[nathanbedford]

Done what?

[nathanbedford]

Amazon.com Review Omnipotent Government is not only a history of the fall of Germany, but also a powerful critique of the political, social, and economic ideologies that have shaped Western history in the last two hundred years. The ordeal of two World Wars, according to Mises, was the inevitable result of ideologies that call upon government for the management of human affairs. People today hail every step toward more government as "progress," and call for more laws, regulations, and their enforcement by courts and police. They are yearning for Caesar. They forget the consequences of total government. Omnipotent Government is a potent reminder. ( http://www.amazon.com/Omnipotent-Government-Rise-Total-State/dp/0910884153 )

I think the emphasized portion of the quotation above substantially confirms what I said.

[incindiary]

"Libertarianism is to authentic conservatism what Barack Obama is to 19th century liberalism."

Hmmmm. Let's look at what Ronald Reagan had to say about libertarianism.

"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals — if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to ensure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are traveling the same path."

- Ronald Reagan, Interview published in Reason (1 July 1975)

I never really considered myself a libertarian...small or big L...but I think I'll give more weight to Reagan's words than the opinions of some random guys on the internet. No offense. :-]

[mpstewart]

I never knew Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson were anarchists. Both fought against national banks and won! There is nothing in the constitution that gives the federal government the power to restrict private actors (only state governments) from issuing coinage—if you have a problem with that, pass an amendment!

[Jukeman]

Maybe I was not clear but how about Article I, Section 8? And strictly forbids states to do the same? (Article I Section 10). Also, the Federalist Papers have, #42 and #44, quite a bit to say about the authority of congress, coinage and such. Ron Paul has a good point about the federal reserve system but I have known Ron Paul for over forty years and I know what is behind his ideology. He is not a man this country needs in the presidency. Might be more dangerous than Obama. Yes - Ron Paul has followers who are anarchists, neo-nazis, and many people that just don’t know him well enough.

[aldabra]

You can read about and download L.V. Mises book, “Omnipotent Government: The Rise of the Total State and Total War” at:

Mises