Libertarian Thoughts on the Government “Shutdown”

First off, it’s not really a shutdown. At best, it’s a slight shutdown. Only a small fraction of government workers are sent home and only a fraction of government activities are reduced or stopped. I am not aware of any regulations or taxes that will cease. Worse, it’s not clear that we will come through this paying less net taxes. Government workers may well be getting a paid vacation, depending on what Congress does.

In other words, this shutdown is hardly libertarian in the end- certainly nothing to get too excited about. We’ll have to see what happens. At the same time, it doesn't seem to be anti-libertarian. And the longer it lasts, the more ridiculous media and government hysteria will look. We frankly don’t miss what is shut down as much as they would like us to. And the only reason Americans will miss it at all is because the state has monopolized some services we want, not allowing them to be provided in the private sector.

Republicans, including Rand Paul, sadly want to fund all of the government except Obamacare. Anyone that wants even a small move towards libertarianism is foolish to put their hope in the GOP. The party is nowhere near ready to deliver anything except more government.

It is, however, not accurate to hold Obama and the Democrats blameless for the shutdown, as many try to do. The fact is, Republicans have offered to fund just about everything and the Democrats have taken up the role of obstructionists and absolutely refused any compromise. Republicans have even offered to reduce their demands but the Democrats won’t budge from my way or the highway. An objective look at this situation leaves the majority of responsibility for the shutdown on the shoulders of Democrats.

Every talking point offered by the Democrats crumbles easily, usually by flipping it around. The GOP is holding us “hostage”, they say. Yeah, just like Democrats are holding us “hostage”, by preferring shut down over giving up even part of Obamacare. But Obamcare is a “law”, they say. It’s also the law the House can fund what it wants. But funding the government is too important and should never be connected to other agendas. Cute opinion, but it can be, so deal with reality. If funding the government is so important you wouldn't prevent it over not getting everything you want on Obamacare.

Now that Republicans have gone this far, they had better go all the way and actually get something in return. If they cave now, they did the shutdown for nothing. The longer Democrats refuse negotiation, the worse they will look. If Republicans have any political smarts they will wait and get something out of this. Hopefully, they manage to get something libertarian, even if just a delay of Obamacare.

As for really shutting down the government, we will accomplish that one mind at a time. Ron Paul’s new curriculum and book is another exciting development in that process.

John Stossel is Right and Wrong on NSA Spying: Can I Convince Him?

It made my day to get a direct response on Twitter from none other than John Stossel of Fox News:

Background: Stossel has stated his view many times, including in these two Reason articles (here, here). I think this summarizes his argument best:

“So it's invasive, probably illegal and maybe useless. I ought to be very angry. But I'm not. Why? 

I need to keep thinking about this issue, but for now, two reasons: 

1. Terrorists do want to murder us. If the NSA is halfway competent, Big Data should help detect plots.
2. My electronic privacy has already been utterly shredded by Google, Amazon, YouTube and so on. 

They know with whom I talk, what interests me and how much time I spend doing this or that. They creep me out with targeted ads. How did they know I want that?! Oh, right ... I spent an hour searching ... 

Then I go outside in New York City, where 16 cameras record me on my way to work.
Greedy lawyers can subpoena my private records. My employer has a right to read my emails. 

My privacy is already blown. 

I'm angrier about other things Big Government does in the name of keeping me safe: forcing me to wear safety gear, limiting where I may go, stripping me at airports, forcing me to pay $2,300 for more military than we need.”

For a libertarian, Stossel’s take on the NSA spying is mind-boggling at first glance, but he does have a point. There’s a hundred other things to be angry about, and more. Some which have been around a long time, unlike the news of NSA spying. Naturally we are focused on that topic while it’s hot, and for good reason, strategically: now is the time to nip it in the bud, before it becomes entrenched policy like the 100 other things in John Stossel’s list.

Stossel is not wrong to prefer certain freedoms over others. We all have our own preferences. For a famous media figure, privacy is largely "blown", in exchange for the other rewards that come with your work. That’s fine… but what about the rest of us? Not all of us make that choice. And it is our right to do so, as much as any other right.

Stossel argues that private companies have a lot of our data. But surely the difference is glaring. We gave these private companies our information. The NSA, on the other hand, takes it by force.

What about the terrorists? I say, what about the 4th amendment? We are not going to give that up, are we, John?

Stossel is a spokesman for the cause of liberty. We’re disappointed because he doesn't seem interested in defending a right he personally doesn't find important. We don't ask that he change his own preferences, but merely that he defend all of our freedoms. Likewise, there are freedoms I would not find personally important- such as the freedom to smoke marijuana- but I will vigorously oppose the drug war because it is right to do so and because it has negative consequences on me (e.g. higher tax and crime rates). There's also negative consequences from NSA spying: higher taxes, people refraining from exercising their rights because the government is watching their data, etc.

I hope you're on the way to being convinced, Mr. Stossel.  If not, what is wrong with our rebuttal? Now is the perfect time to defend privacy, while momentum is on our side. Please join us!

Amid Scandals and Leaks, Obama Escalates Syrian War

With the various scandals and especially the NSA leaks, it's an awfully convenient time to throttle up a new unnecessary, unconstitutional, wasteful, and evil war, by arming the Syrian rebels. Everyone openly admits the rebels are partially composed of Al-Qaeda. It's so transparently absurd, I cannot believe decent, rational people could possibly support this. It remains to be seen how the public will react; we can only hope the government is vastly overreaching and about to shatter the consent of it's victims. Every bit of education for liberty makes that more likely.

As usual, Ron Paul's response to the news is spot on.

A "Progressive's" Anti-Progressive Argument Against Liberty

Michael Lind of Salon.com thinks he has us stumped. " If your approach is so great, why hasn’t any country anywhere in the world ever tried it?"

I really liked Tom Wood's response, as well as Bob Murphy's brief note. Here's what I have to add: this  attack is supposedly from a "progressive" author and website. The irony is palpable, then, to see them use such an anti-progressive line of argumentation: If x hasn't been tried, it must not be that great.

An Alternative to Politics: Agree to Disagree

To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. ~Thomas Jefferson

In my last two posts, I asked 1). how Republicans, given their long record, are better than Democrats, and then 2). briefly explained why I consider Democrats to be completely delusional and destructive. I concluded with a proposal to solve our irreconcilable political differences:

“we should just agree to disagree. Don’t force your ideas on us through the government. Do what you want to yourselves, and leave the rest of us alone”

Opposing agendas cannot be forced on the same region at the same time, much as one cannot move in opposite directions simultaneously. When people compete via democracy to use the government to impose agendas on others, there will be some who are forced to live under an agenda they may largely or entirely oppose.

Our differences are irreconcilable and substantial- we’re talking about completely different rules for society, not a few small quibbles. And that’s why the only solution is agreeing to disagree. You do things your way, and I’ll do things my way. We’ll not try to force our agenda on each other. This is the civilized, moral way to deal with conflicts we cannot resolve.

Of course, this is not a solution in dealing with crime (e.g. theft). Force is required to deal with acts of aggression. But all other issues should be subject to agreeing to disagree when we can’t agree.

How can we begin doing this? Presently, most of us are trying to impose our agenda on others, through the government, on millions of people, rather than a more local area. Whenever a “national” agenda is legislated by the federal government, it’s being imposed on hundreds of millions of people over a vast area of millions of square miles.

Therefore, one way we can begin agreeing to disagree is to restore a federal system of government as the Constitution originally gave us. Issues that have been dealt with at the “national” level can go back to more local regions. Of course, we should not stop with our decentralization there. Further localization is surely desirable, right down to the individual level.

Take the New York “soda ban” for example. I believe this is extremely stupid policy, and a violation of the rights of anyone living there. I would advocate decentralization, allow individuals or restaurants to decide whether to ban sodas for themselves, i.e. repeal the soda ban. But look on the positive side; though it’s not much of one for New Yorkers: the soda ban is not being imposed on the rest of the state, let alone the whole country. So at least we have a partial case of agreeing to disagree.

Our differences are much greater than a soda ban. As I said, we envision completely different rules for society, because of our fundamentally different understandings of economics and individual rights. Ignoring this and attempting to bind everyone under centralized political control is a recipe for friction, irrationality, and mass injustice. Let’s work to take issues out of politics and deal with them between each other, agreeing to disagree when that isn’t possible.

What’s the Point of Being a Republican?

No need to type a thousand words. The picture says it all. It shows government spending, corrected for inflation and population. A chart showing the total number of government regulations over the years would look similar.



Yet Republicans are supposed to be the lesser of the two evils. How so?

The only good thing about the Republican Party is a few real defenders of liberty are able to get elected, like Congressman Justin Amash. The most famous example is of course Ron Paul. Meanwhile, 100% of elected Democrats I’m familiar with are absolutely terrible. Republicans, maybe just 99% are bad.

I still remember the tea party from a few years ago. It gave me hope because it was not just going to oppose Democrats but also some of the bad Republicans. Maybe we were finally going to end the regressive course seen in the chart posted above and start shrinking the state. Unfortunately I was mistaken. Most so-called tea party politicians and voters are just a subset of the GOP.

The reason for Republican failure is simple. Republicans agree with Democrats: maintain and increase government power. Just admit it. If that is not true for you, what are you doing supporting Republicans? Your actions speak louder than your words. At least be honest and stop disguising your agenda as something it is not.

So, Republicans, am I not right? What is the point of being a Republican? It’s an honest question.

STRATEGY: Three Essential Guidelines for the Liberty Movement

Ron Paul attracts support from a diverse group of libertarians, constitutionalists, ‘conservatives’, and some ‘liberals’. Even anarcho-capitalists, the “purest” libertarians out there, respect and support Ron. As many of you know, though, pretty much no other politician has been able to do this.

Working almost alone for the majority of his career, Ron Paul didn’t get his agenda through Congress, and he never gained much power as a politician, only becoming a subcommittee chairman in his last term. Up till recently, most people would have concluded that he labored in vain. They would have argued, perhaps, that he should have compromised to get more power. He could have worked up to a top position in the House, Senate, or even the White House had he gone that route, but his hands and probably his mind would have been tied to a agenda that we would not even recognize. To my surprise, I have noticed some people in the liberty movement don’t quite understand this.

Ron Paul followed three strategic principles throughout his political career. As a result, he changed millions of minds and kept his integrity and credibility. He did far more than one Congressman could have been expected to accomplish. Imagine what would happen if there were more like him? What could two, ten, or fifty “clones” of Ron Paul achieve?

There can be more. We need only find effective ambassadors for liberty that will adopt a strategy based on those three guidelines, which Murray Rothbard talked about in his exceptional article “The Case for Radical Idealism”:

1. Whatever the means to the end are, an ultimate goal should be clearly upheld
2. Strive to achieve the goal as rapidly as possible
3. No steps should ever be taken that contradict the ultimate goal

This is what Ron Paul did for decades, and it is what we should expect of ourselves and especially all “Ron Paul Republicans” that seek public office.

What is the ultimate goal? That’s up to you. You don’t have to be a “purist libertarian” (though I wouldn’t discourage it!). Just figure out what your ultimate goal is- and constantly uphold it- despite the fact that it will probably not be achieved quickly or in one step. Even as you support baby steps towards your goal, continue to uphold your ultimate goal.

It is worth noting, moderating your ultimate goal, merely because it may be extreme, is to pass up two opportunities: First, the enthusiasm that a logically consistent goal inspires (think Ron Paul’s deep support); second, watering down your demands reduces your ability to sway the ideological matrix in your direction.

Dr. Paul upheld the Constitution and a fairly minarchist vision as the ultimate goal, and acted consistent with it. This is the reason he won support from all of us, including anarcho-capitalists who want less government than he did and some tea party types who would have more government than him.

To illustrate that we can all adopt this strategy without even being libertarian, let alone anarcho-capitalist, I point you to several more examples: Glenn Greenwald (proud “civil liberties extremist”, but no libertarian) and Jacob Hornberger, Ludwig von Mises, and Gary North (all three can probably be considered “minarchists”).

The conservative movement has failed because their strategy is primarily one of incrementalism. They lack clear goals, urgency, and consistency. Meanwhile, “progressives” and their socialist ilk have followed a more radical and consistent strategy and have implemented much of their agenda. Let’s learn from this, and not allow ourselves or our “Ron Paul Republicans” go down that slippery slope of obfuscation and hypocrisy. There is no shortcut to liberty. As Ron Paul has noted many times, people’s attitude (ideology) must change first. Politics will follow.

“Purity” – consistent support for liberty - is important, but I dare say smart strategy is more important than absolute purity, if we want to make progress. We can disagree on how libertarian we need to be and yet be strong allies and friends because we are employing Ron Paul’s and Murray Rothbard’s effective strategy for radical change.

Ron Paul vs. RonPaul.com: Both Are in the Wrong

As you have probably heard by now, negotiations between Ron Paul and a fan site that owns the domain name ronpaul.com has took a surprising and unfortunate turn. Naturally, Ron Paul, now retired from Congress and ready to move on to new projects, wants ronpaul.com. But the owners of ronpaul.com have a long established website and demanded a steep price to give up their domain. Negotiations have apparently failed and now Ron Paul is taking legal action, by filing a complaint with the UN’s WIPO.

Several important points need to be made. Both sides are now in the wrong, for different reasons. Let’s walk through this step by step:

Domains Are (or Should be?) Private Property

As I understand it, domains are a scarce resource and thus should be private property. The ronpaul.com domain is legitimately owned by some Ron Paul fans, who have bought up many domain names, ostensibly to keep them out of enemy hands. Unfortunately for Ron Paul, he failed to purchase it years ago when it was worth much less. It’s all a matter of supply and demand. In the past 10 years, Ron Paul has went from obscurity to a household name, and that drives up the value and demand for a domain name such as ronpaul.com.

Domain names are limited to a supply of one, so there is no competition to drive down the price. Unless the owner can be convinced to sell, you’re out of luck. In this case, the owner offered to sell for a quarter of a million dollars. While this sounds outrageous, it’s important to keep in mind many domains are worth millions of dollars. There is nothing unusual about this case, but that doesn't mean the market price is really $250,000, and it doesn't mean that the owners are wise to charge that amount, even though it’s their right to do whatever they want since it’s their property.

RonPaul.com Owners Are Being Unreasonable

Just because they have a right to doesn't mean they should. The owners of ronpaul.com, if they really want to advance the liberty movement and support Mr. Paul, should make sure that the domain is in Ron Paul’s hands as soon as possible.

They made significant investments in their website and probably want to continue their activities, so it’s perfectly reasonable to ask a price that covers the expenses involved with moving to a new domain and business. They could do this by selling to Ron Paul, or by setting up a fundraiser, which would bring in the money so that the domain could be handed over to Ron Paul for free. They could also work in the deal, perhaps, a temporary free banner ad notifying visitors that the old site moved.

Any such deal would have been the classy thing to do, and would have earned them praise instead of the disdain they now are getting. Unfortunately, they stuck to their ridiculous $250,000 demand. While a five or six figure sum is probably the market price for this domain, as supporters of Ron Paul and the liberty movement they ought to prioritize getting the domain to Ron Paul above making the most money they can off him or the movement.

Ron Paul’s Anti-Libertarian Response

It may not be inconsistent with his past record, but Ron Paul’s actions are certainly inconsistent with the libertarian message. His problem is not in using a UN agency, anymore than it being a problem that he drives on government roads and uses Federal Reserve notes.

The real problem with Dr. Paul’s current actions is they are based on a claim to trademark, a.k.a. “intellectual property”, which is state granted monopoly over ideas. This is anti-libertarian; ideas are not scarce and therefore not private property. See Stephan Kinsella’s revolutionary work for further detail- either his book “Against Intellectual Property” or his other media, such as this speech.

Lew Rockwell, who appears to be closely involved in this situation, posted to his blog to deal with some of the disinformation over this issue; his points are all very good though he seems to concede the legitimacy of an IP argument against Ron Paul. Trademark is anti-free market, anti-private property, and anti-liberty, and that’s what’s wrong with Ron Paul’s side of the debate.

Conclusion

Both sides are wrong for different reasons. There is no reason for them to continue being wrong, and the sooner that is corrected the soon the liberty movement can get rid of this distraction and needless division and move forward.

How to Effectively Transition Towards Liberty

I consider "The Case for Radical Idealism" by Murray Rothbard to be one of his more important essays, as it deals with the crucial question of what strategies are needed to achieve genuine victories for liberty. Excerpted below is the portion where he discusses how we should judge the merits of a transitional or compromise proposal:

How, then, can we know whether any halfway measure or transitional demand should be hailed as a step forward or condemned as an opportunistic betrayal? There are two vitally important criteria for answering this crucial question: (1) that, whatever the transitional demands, the ultimate end of liberty be always held aloft as the desired goal; and (2) that no steps or means ever explicitly or implicitly contradict the ultimate goal. A short-run demand may not go as far as we would like, but it should always be consistent with the final end; if not, the short-run goal will work against the long-run purpose, and opportunistic liquidation of libertarian principle will have arrived. 

An example of such counterproductive and opportunistic strategy may be taken from the tax system. The libertarian looks forward to eventual abolition of taxes. It is perfectly legitimate for him, as a strategic measure in that desired direction, to push for a drastic reduction or repeal of the income tax. But the libertarian must never support any new tax or tax increase. For example, he must not, while advocating a large cut in income taxes, also call for its replacement by a sales or other form of tax. The reduction or, better, the abolition of a tax is always a noncontradictory reduction of State power and a significant step toward liberty; but its replacement by a new or increased tax elsewhere does just the opposite, for it signifies a new and additional imposition of the State on some other front. The imposition of a new or higher tax flatly contradicts and undercuts the libertarian goal itself.

It's important to keep these points in mind especially as we assess the new "Ron Paul Republicans" or "Liberty Republicans" that have been elected since 2010. Ron Paul was very good at upholding liberty as the ultimate goal and not taking steps to contradict those goals. In politics we should look for others that will do likewise, and be very careful of those who don't.

Ron Paul’s Controversial Tweet on Chris Kyle

Yesterday Ron Paul’s Twitter account stirred up a ton of controversy with this Tweet about Chris Kyle, the American Sniper author who killed 160 Iraqis and was himself tragically killed this past weekend:

Chris Kyle's death seems to confirm that "he who lives by the sword dies by the sword." Treating PTSD at a firing range doesn't make sense
— Ron Paul (@RonPaul) February 4, 2013

I was at first confused by this Tweet. I noticed it lacked the "REP" initials that most of his Tweets include, so that immediately raised questions about who posted it. Further, as was pointed out by others, it doesn't quite sound like something Ron would say in an interview. Despite this, as we shall see, Ron seems to stand by it, so I will assume he approved it initially.

It was also unclear what the Tweet meant. I didn't get it completely until Ryan McMaken opened my eyes:

Remember that time Ron Paul used the Golden Rule to explain his foreign policy? Conservatives booed him for that. So who can be surprised that conservatives, including Rand Paul, have been falling all over themselves to condemn Ron Paul for quoting Jesus -in correct context, by the way - to note that the violence wrought by over a decade of nonstop war in America leads to tragedy on the home front? 

That does make sense. American foreign policy "lives by the sword", and one of the consequences is that it will come back to bite you. Kyle's tragic death was a indirect result of the aggression in Iraq he strongly supported an participated in.

Was Chris Kyle a hero? Are soldiers that fight in aggressive, non-defensive, and unconstitutional wars heroes? No, regardless of which country they come from. They are just government workers causing destruction. (Rand Paul, with his eye on 2016, unsurprisingly disagrees.)

The only criticism of Paul’s Tweet that holds water is that it was poorly worded- not uncommon for short blurbs on Twitter but still, this is not a good excuse. If I was confused by the Tweet, most anyone would be. Paul later followed up with a Facebook post that helped clarify things:

As a veteran, I certainly recognize that this weekend's violence and killing of Chris Kyle were a tragic and sad event. My condolences and prayers go out to Mr. Kyle’s family. Unconstitutional and unnecessary wars have endless unintended consequences. A policy of non-violence, as Christ preached, would have prevented this and similar tragedies. -REP

In conclusion, Ron Paul was right again, even if he stumbles when getting the message across. It’s only the usual suspects that are really outraged, and they have always been outraged with his principled stand against militarism. They will continue to call Ron Paul many names, but ask who is supporting more death and destruction, and who is calling for an end to needless death and destruction. I'll stand with Ron Paul any day of the week rather than with them.

Jack Hunter, Propagandist for Rand Paul

In a recent piece Jack Hunter tries to defend his support for Rand Paul, and is happy to call himself a “propagandist” for Rand Paul. It’s fine to be a propagandist, everyone is for their own cause. However, his defenses of Rand Paul don’t repel the more serious criticisms of Senator Paul’s choices in the past few years.

"Ask the average grassroots conservative what they think of Ron Paul and you typically get a mixed reaction. Ask them what they think of Rand Paul and you find much more enthusiasm. The philosophy hasn’t substantively changed. The methods and style most certainly have."

The problem with this argument is stuff like Rand’s vote for the NDAA in 2012. It’s one thing to play along with the party and endorse the horrific nominee, it’s one thing to make arguments against federal disaster relief based on budget issues only (while ignoring more important arguments), it’s one thing to say an attack on Israel is an attack on the US (and then claim/clarify it’s just in a nuclear war scenario), but to start voting for extremely bad legislation is crossing the line. That’s no longer style/rhetorical difference. It’s aiding the ideological enemy.

"For every questionable action—support for Mitt Romney, comments about the US’s relationship with Israel, (was trying to think of more here for good measure, but these seem to be the primary two)—these things do not diminish the overall record of the most libertarian Senator since the Founding era."

Indeed, he easily became the most libertarian Senator, but since the bar was so low in the Senate to begin with, that’s not the impressive feat it sounds like. Rand Paul had the opportunity, being Ron Paul’s son and all, to be so much more. Politics is a lagging indicator, but Rand actually knows more about liberty than most politicians, so he could have stepped ahead of the curve and led like his father.

"I have not always agreed with Ron and Rand Paul. When I didn’t, I’ve said nothing. Silence.

[…]

Bad votes or comments should not go uncriticized."

Which is it, should bad votes and comments be criticized, or will you remain silent? Probably the latter, since Hunter likely wants to stay on Rand’s good side. Maybe he is hoping to land a job in a Rand Paul Administration.

The increasing questioning of Rand Paul’s methods is not going away, Mr. Hunter. You’re taking a huge risk, hoping another politician’s trip down the slippery slope of compromise to grab the ring of power defies history and actually works this time.

There is no shortcut to liberty.

Is Rand Paul Also Plagued with Libido Dominandi?

Whoa, what's libido dominandi, you say? It's a Latin phrase meaning "The will to power; the desire to dominate; the lust for government."

This disease plagues practically every politician, bureaucrat, and wanna-be politicians and bureaucrats. It's very dangerous given the fact that central planning always reduces prosperity and is immoral.

Ron Paul stood out as unique among politicians as he seemed to not only lack libido dominandi, but seemed to have the opposite. He was distrustful, reluctant, and resistant to dominate over others through government. This is one of the reasons he was such an effective libertarian, earning the trust of the most hardcore libertarians on earth.

That's why I would have been genuinely excited for Ron Paul to hold whatever office he ran for. He had a track record that would allow us to trust him with powers we ultimately don't want anyone to have.

Unfortunately, his son Rand is showing strong signs of libido dominandi. I especially began to notice this after he became a Senator. He talked about running for President if his father didn't just barley after being sworn in. Looking back on that weak field, he could have been successful, but I digress.

A stronger example is Rand's latest actions. There was his headline grabbing comments "I would have relieved you" to Hillary Clinton ("A preview of 2016?"), and even more notable his comments during this interview:

Interviewer: "...if you become President Paul..."
Rand Paul: "I like the ring of that" (smiles)

Rand is dropping quite a few hints that he is very interested in the Presidency, and they don't get any clearer than this. Compare it to Ron Paul, who was always very reluctant to run in the first place, both times. During the heat of the last race, in December 2011, he honestly admitted he didn't see himself in the White House. ABC reported:

An amazing admission tonight from Ron Paul.
In an exclusive interview, I asked him: “When you lay your head on your pillow at night, do you see yourself in the Oval Office?”
“Not really,” he said.
He went on to say that he’s not blind to the odds, but they are “not as slim as they were 25 years ago.”
Hard to imagine any other candidate saying that.

Indeed. That question was another way of saying "do you suffer from libido dominandi?" Sadly, Rand Paul is turning out to be quite the opposite. He will now go out of his way to indicate he does dream of being  President.

That's a bad sign. It's not bad per se to desire oneself to be President instead of some standard Republican or Democrat. If one uses the office to advance the cause of liberty and roll back statism, I applaud them. But we all know how rare that is. Couple this with the many indications that Rand Paul is moving towards a more mainstream Republican stance, and it's a reason for major concern that Rand isn't just different in his style and strategy.