Ron Paul and the Self-Hating ‘Libertarians’

[bobbyw24]

Ron Paul and the Self-Hating ‘Libertarians’

Karen Kwiatkowski wrote a magnificent blog exposing Reason magazine as critics, not supporters, of libertarianism. I would now like to add to her so far list of one "libertarian" who trashes Ron Paul. My nomination to be second on this list is Steven Molyneux. Full disclosure: his speech attacking Dr. Paul goes on for almost an hour, and I didn’t have the zitzfleisch (patience) to listen to all of it. But, in the first 10 minutes or so he criticizes Congressman Paul for, yes, wait for it, favoring the Constitution! Molyneux also correctly allows that if President Paul takes office, we "slaves" will have far fewer beatings, but claims that this is an insufficient reason for supporting him. I did indeed, until recently listening to this rant, have some respect for Molyneux (unlike for Reason magazine, which has long ago turned against libertarianism). He has authored some very persuasive material on anarcho-capitalism. But, evidently, Molyneux is one of those free market anarchists who does not really "hate the state" (see Murray Rothbard on this) certainly not enough to support one of the greatest enemies of statism the world has ever known.

http://lewrockwell.com/block/block180.html

 

[bwlibertyman]

Steven is an anarchist. He doesn't support voting. I don't put him in the same category has Reason magazine. Reason is full of beltway libertarians. I'm not surprised that Steven doesn't support Ron Paul. If you're against the state why would you vote for someone to lead the state? even if they want to shrink its' size? Steven believes the way you achieve anarchy is through family means not voting means. I'm not surprised by this at all.

 

[FrankRep]

Karen Kwiatkowski wrote a magnificent blog exposing Reason magazine as critics, not supporters, of libertarianism. I would now like to add to her so far list of one "libertarian" who trashes Ron Paul.

Just a note: Karen Kwiatkowski is running as a Republican for Congress.


Karen Kwiatkowski for Congress | Virginia, 6th District

Website:
http://www.karenkforcongress.com/

Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Karen-Kwiatkowski-for-Congress/208060942547640?sk=info

 

[undergroundrr]

I totally understand why Molyneux doesn't advocate participating in the electoral system. He's rather uncompromising with his anarchist principles. I'll have to see if he literally bad-mouthed Paul, but I doubt it.

Molyneux's debate with Badnarik a few years ago should clarify. He basically said that you don't want a minarchy, because there will be a huge amount of prosperity and material progress, and that minimal state will inevitably grow back into an oppressive large imperial state, apprehending the fruits of the minarchy's prosperity and the accompanying technological advances to better enslave its citizens and pillage foreigners. Minarchy is like a battery charger for a future superstate.

If he's right, then Rove, Kristol, Cheney, et al should be ferociously campaigning for a Paul presidency. On the other hand, they probably want short-term payoff, and the process Molyneux's talking about could take another 150-200 years, like it did the first time in America.

Ron Paul is not running as an anarchist, but he and Lew Rockwell have praised "principled liberals" in the past. Why not continue to praise the principled anarchist?

Block's article seems knee-jerk, hurriedly written and exasperated, as if he didn't know where Molyneux was coming from in the first place. Molyneux pretty much said the same thing in 2008. And Block probably never got to Molyneux's main point if he bailed half-way through the podcast. Molyneux typically takes a long, rambling time to make a point.

 

[treyfu]

Generally, Block has great books and editorials, and I really respect him, but this is just ridiculous. Molyneux has provided ample and solid explanation of his lack of support for Dr. Paul, all of which is virtually perfectly principled in nature, and almost none of which has to do with the man himself - he simply opposes any approach that pretends there's even a shred of legitimacy to the state's existence. How can you make an argument that the very existence of the state is immoral, as Block does, and then bash someone for consistently applying the implications of that into his way of effecting positive change and opposing the state? And to equate Reason and Molyneux is nothing short of willful ignorance.

I admire both Ron Paul and Molyneux, albeit for slightly different reasons. But the main reason I want Ron Paul to do well is not to take over the state, but to enjoy the platform for education associated with having the spotlight. If you consistently oppose the state, you can't argue that using state violence to right the wrongs committed by the state in times past is valid. I'm very disappointed in Block for this 'analysis'. Hopefully he will remember that, first and foremost, this is an intellectual revolution, not a political one.

 

[tremendoustie]

Steven is an anarchist. He doesn't support voting. I don't put him in the same category has Reason magazine. Reason is full of beltway libertarians. I'm not surprised that Steven doesn't support Ron Paul. If you're against the state why would you vote for someone to lead the state? even if they want to shrink its' size? Steven believes the way you achieve anarchy is through family means not voting means. I'm not surprised by this at all.

I'm against the state, and I support Ron Paul, because he wants to stop the state from abusing me.

But I somewhat understand where molneux is coming from. He doesn't deserve to be put in the same caragory with reason.

 

[Danke]

Non-voters can support Ron Paul.

 

[suoulfrepus]

I think it's acceptable to support Ron Paul as anarchist because, as he said in the Motorhome Diaries interview, he would allow anarchists to secede.

Also, it's not fair to generalize about the Reason staff. Brian Doherty has always been enthusiastic about Ron Paul. I've never seen Jesse Walker bash Ron Paul either.

 

[kylejack]

Some of these Reason and Cato guys want to remain relevant to the libertarian side of the conservative movement, so they don't want to invest too much in Ron Paul because if he loses they feel they'll be somewhat discredited. They're cowards.

That's really quite different from an anarchist who has taken an ideological stand against all manifestations of the State.

 

[Acala]

I think it's acceptable to support Ron Paul as anarchist because, as he said in the Motorhome Diaries interview, he would allow anarchists to secede.

That's the key right there, my friend. The complete right to secede at every level. This is the inevitable result of truly supporting the ideal that the only legitimate government is by the consent of the governed. Consent of the governed does not mean consent of the representatives of 51% of the fraction of the governed eligible to vote, who actually registered, and who actually voted in a particular election. It means each and every individual consenting to the jursidiction of each government that seeks it and having the right to seceed when they don't consent. To the extent Ron Paul supports this right of secession, that IS anarchy in the best sense and no anarchist has grounds to complain, unless they want to FORCE others to live without government. Hahahaha!

 

[fisharmor]

I think it's acceptable to support Ron Paul as anarchist because, as he said in the Motorhome Diaries interview, he would allow anarchists to secede.

As an anarchist, I think it's not only acceptable - but IMPORTANT - to support Ron Paul,
because he was the guy who took the rock hammer and put that first crack in my wall.
No, he does not support anarchocapitalism. But he IS the gateway drug.
If it worked for me, it will work for others.

 

[kylejack]

Well, some anarchists may feel accelerationism is a faster path to anarchy. People might find themselves satisfied with a minarchist government.

 

[rawful]

What the hell is Block doing? This article is based on a podcast from 4 years ago? We DO NOT need infighting right now.

 

[Sentient Void]

As an anarchist, I think it's not only acceptable - but IMPORTANT - to support Ron Paul,
because he was the guy who took the rock hammer and put that first crack in my wall.
No, he does not support anarchocapitalism. But he IS the gateway drug.
If it worked for me, it will work for others.

Glad to see a voice of reason here on this.

IMO, many anarchists, including Stefan molyneux and others, are absolutely irrational and crankish on the issue of voting and Ron Paul - and IMO are even destructive to the cause of liberty by discouraging people to vote for and/or support Ron Paul. I've actually written on this recently, to expose this ridiculous line of reasoning.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.php?356-Why-Even-Anarchists-Should-Vote.

 

[Vessol]

Wow that was a poor attack on Molyneux. He could at least try to put some effort into it.

 

[ClayTrainor]

Wow that was a poor attack on Molyneux. He could at least try to put some effort into it.

Stefan's response...

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Glad to see a voice of reason here on this.

IMO, many anarchists, including Stefan molyneux and others, are absolutely irrational and crankish on the issue of voting and Ron Paul - and IMO are even destructive to the cause of liberty by discouraging people to vote for and/or support Ron Paul. I actually blogged on this recently, to expose this ridiculous line of reasoning.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.php?356-Why-Even-Anarchists-Should-Vote.

Voting itself is not the problem. It's the consequences of voting. If the consequences of voters' actions were limited to themselves, it would be no big deal. However, voters, by their nature, shift the burden/cost of their decisions onto everyone. That said, I would vote for RP if he were on my ballot.

 

[Vessol]

I can't believe he actually said that he only watched the video for 10 minutes and then goes on to attack him.

Then his points as to why Stefan is opposed to Ron Paul has nothing to do with the reason: The Non-Aggression Principle.

 

[matt0611]

Ron Paul is basically an anarchist that wants to shrink the government to give us as much liberty as possible eventually bringing us to maximum (100%) liberty.

Just watch this video:



Ron Paul is so ***** awesome!

I'm an anarchist and I'll vote for Ron Paul any day of the week.

I totally disagree with Stefan on this.

 

[Sentient Void]

Voting itself is not the problem. It's the consequences of voting. If the consequences of voters' actions were limited to themselves, it would be no big deal. However, voters, by their nature, shift the burden/cost of their decisions onto everyone. That said, I would vote for RP if he were on my ballot.

If I'm rich and I buy tons of stock in a company - the price for everyone naturally goes up. My actions have 'affected everybody' - does this mean it's illegitimate, or aggression, etc?

Glad you would vote for him at least, though. I just don't buy the argument that because it affects everyone it's some form of aggression or illegitimate or a violation of the NAP or something. I think we can all see it's relevance to the analogy above.

Voting in a poll or 'the polls' is a suggestion, it's speech, nothing more. It may be a suggestion box for slaves, but hey - Now we're back to the whole 'nice slavemaster' (who wants to free the slaves) vs the 'brutally oppressive serial rapist slavemaster'.