Somebody help me out. What am I missing here? Read this article in Mother Jones about Libertarianism and Ron Paul’s attraction particularly by the Wired Magazine techie types. Are they as naive as I think, or is it that I just don’t get it?
I understand the philosophical basis and attractiveness of Libertarianism, but I have never heard a committed Libertarian give an effective answer to this question: If there is no democratically accountable government big enough to check the domination of the weak by the powerful in the private sector, who will stop them? What powers does the government have to check private-sector power except the tax code and regulation? The problem, as I have said repeatedly, is not Big Government, but whose interests such government serves. If you reduce the government’s tools to tax and regulate, you create a society ruled by corporate warlords accountable to no one. What answer do Libertarians have for that? I really want to know?
Anarchy would be my ideal if humans were not programmed toward power and wealth aggregation. So I get how government screws things up, but do these Libertarians really want to live in a neo-feudal, crony-capitalist state? Why do they not see that this is the inevitable consequence of implementing their agenda? Libertarianism just seems to be a second- rate philosophy adopted by people who are looking for simple solutions to complex problems. Someone tell me what I’m not understanding, and why so many seemingly intelligent people buy into this.
P.S. All that being said, if someone put a gun to my head and told me to vote Republican, Paul is the only one on the list I would consider.
UPDATE: Interesting brouhaha about Glenn Greenwald’s, I think correct, praise of Paul for being the one candidate who seems to care about reversing Bush’s militarism and his program to erode the rule of law. He is somewhat flummoxed that knee-jerk liberal types like Ezra Klein and shakespearessister are so blinded to Paul’s virtues because of his position that abortion should be handled by the states and not federally legislated. Both their misreadings of Greenwald’s post shows how incapable certain kinds of liberals are to hearing and understanding anything but the politically correct orthodox line about abortion rights. The NARAL line on abortion is is shibboleth for their particular kind of groupthink. I’ve said it before, but it’s worth repeating–NARAL is the liberal answer to the NRA. They mirror one another the way Muslim and Christian fundamentalists do. Both are completely nuts in exactly the same way but about different issues. Both are incapable of seeing any view as legitimate except their own. Both see even the most reasonable restrictions on that "right" as sacrilege in their respective churches.
My problem with Paul comes from, as described above, a rejection of what I believe to be the naivete of their of his laissez-faire economics and desire to shrink big government’s role in the regulation of big business. But Greenwald’s point is well taken. Namely that Paul is the only candidate who strongly opposes on principle what the Bush administration is doing in the Middle East and to civil liberties and the rule of law. Hillary, Obama, and Edwards are significantly nondescript here. Chris Dodd, at least stood up against the establishment’s move to immunize the telecoms, but he’s weaker on the militarism issue. And so I am an ally of all those people who have become enthusiastic Paulistas if there motivation is anti-war and pro rule of law. If in the end it comes down to Paul vs. Clinton, it won’t be an easy choice for me.
Leave a Reply