Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Liberal-Scientist Blogger Detests Libertarianism... and Ron Paul

I have talked (and argue, sometimes) with many Randian Libertarians. They always claim that the libertarian views must be spread amongst the internet to make people aware of what libertarianism is really about. My point was that strictly libertarian-rational à la Ayn Rand views would not help anyone to let leftism aside. The usual libertarian speech sounds incredible selfish and greedy to people. A discourse like this would only make people more wary against libertarian views than to adopt it. Moral values, even used as a bogus by the socialist always, sound better to the non-initiated.
That´s why I am conservative.
Libertarianism with no moral values is just like to have a incredible sportscar and allow it to be driven by a drunk driver.

This article makes me wonder about it..
The explanation why PZ Myers, owner of a Science Blog, detests libertarianism is the same that all leftists have spread during many years throughout the media, as "a reactionay political movement that seeks to elevate greed and selfishness as a ruling principle".
Regarding to Ron Paul (the very subject of the article), I think his libertarianism is so naive that could be used as trojan horse even by Nazis (American National Socialist Workers Party , that apparently endorsed his candidacy), a thing that nobody that share a glimpse of conservatism could ever agree upon.
I have to confess that I was impressed by RP proposals, initially (taxes, his sctrictly constitutionalism) but after some scrutiny I´ve left his wagon.

I think is these kind of lies that all conservative-libertarian must fight against. 
Read the article to see why.

Why is Ron Paul so popular?

Category: Politics
Posted on: December 29, 2007 8:20 PM, by PZ Myers

OK, 'fess up — some of you know that I thoroughly detest libertarianism, that reactionary political movement that seeks to elevate greed and selfishness as a ruling principle, and I suspect one of you got me a subscription to Reason magazine a few months ago, just to taunt me. If your goal was to persuade me to come over to the side of unbridled anti-social self-centeredness, you failed. The issue comes, I glance through it, find a few little bits and pieces I can agree with, but because they're all imbedded in this thick tarry fecal sludge of libertarianism, I end up throwing the whole thing away in disgust.

The issue I got today was no exception. The cover story: Ron Paul. Bleh.

I disliked Ron Paul before I learned he was a quack, before I heard him deny evolution, before I learned he was an enabler for neo-nazis. I rejected him when I first read about his proposed policies, the ones he isn't embarrassed to make public, and saw that he was promoting the same garbage my relatives in the John Birch Society were peddling when I was a young man: isolationism, anti-government, anti-immigrant, generalized hatred of the other and a blind refusal to recognize that culture matters.

The mostly laudatory article in Reason confirms my opinion.

…it's all classic Ron Paul: Get rid of the income tax and replace it with nothing; find the money to support those dependent on Social Security and Medicare by shutting down the worldwide empire, while giving the young a path out of those programs; don't pass a draft; have a foreign policy of friendship and trade, not wars and subsidies. He attacks the drug war … one of his biggest applause lines, to my astonishment, involves getting rid of the Federal Reserve.

I actually approve of some of that, like ending the drive to empire and the drug war. The John Birchers of my youth pushed the same agenda, but then you dig a little deeper, and you find the rotting core of their reasoning.

He wants tougher border enforcement, including a border wall; he wants to eliminate birthright citizenship; and he wants to end the public subsidies that might attract illegal immigrants.

Ron Paul isn't just a small-government obsessive: he's a no-government radical. And at the same time he wants every positive function of government to vanish, he wants what amounts to a police state in place to keep the rest of the world out, all out of fear of those strangers with different customs and ideas.

So, please, whoever you are: don't renew my subscription to that awful magazine, and please, please don't make me live in a Ron Paul America.


Anonymous said...

I think you have missed the point. Libertarianism is not about ending government, just transfering some of the power the federal government has to the states, if your state wants open immigration or legal drugs, so be it.(Wyoming or Alaska has far different needs than New York or Maryland)it should be up to the local populous how they live in a free society. rEVOLution

Luís afonso said...

The article cited in the post was not written by me. Of course I know what is libertarianism is.
I consider myself libertarian-conservative.
What I pulled my attention was the lies - that are spread around - about what libertarianism really is.
My point is that RP could be a good candidate. But his naivité , that allows even nazis to endorse him, is a big mistake.
"Revolution" is a leftist term that cannot be used to define a something that resemble more to a conservation of old values than a transformation of the society. That´s why RP is not conservative, is a post-modern relativist disguised as conservative philosophy. Just like New Wave rockers resembled/pose like the naive 50´s rockers, with a transgressive content.

takeyourcross said...

Once Upon a Time in the West lists Ron Paul and Justin Raimondo of the Republican Liberty Caucus as faux-rightists, and Aaron Russo as a Western faux-rightist propagandist who supports Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is probably a Communist agent: