Forums of the Libertarian Left

Oops.
http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mc ... p=EMC-CVNL

In 1981, a lawyer tried to subpoena Ron Paul to testify in the trial of Don Black, a Grand Wizard for the Ku Klux Klan who would later go on to found the white supremacist, neo-Nazi website, Stormfront. Black was charged along with two other Klansmen with planning to violently overthrow the small Caribbean country of Dominica in what they called “Operation Red Dog.” While a judge refused to subpoena Paul, Don Black would come back to haunt him many years later.

And no, this is not The Onion.

The group planned to create an Aryan paradise in Dominica and make money through casinos, cocaine and brothels.

This Aryan paradise sounds a lot like many of those proposed "libertarian" paradises.

But this time, there are wizards.

I don't know why that picture was relevant. It just amused me.

I kinda layed off the idea that right libertarianism opens space for fascism in a disturbing way, and instead just tried to understand but be critical of it, but now I'm right back where I started.

What does Ron Paul's embarrassing associations have to do with Right Libertarianism resulting Fascism? There's several leaps in logic here.

“It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilisation. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live eternally in history.” ~ Ludwig von Mises

ChairmanMeow wrote:What does Ron Paul's embarrassing associations have to do with Right Libertarianism resulting Fascism? There's several leaps in logic here.

If a fascist state, I mean corporation, bought land and imposed their fascist rule, I mean requisites for living on or using their land, then there is no inconsistency with libertarianism (at least not Ron Paul's). And if the build a fence around it to keep the mex'cans out then all the better.

It should be clear, I'm focusing on fascists' liking to libertarianism, and the lack of recourse from libertarians. Mostly, stuff like this:

“We understand that Paul is not a white nationalist, but most of our people support him because of his stand on issues,” Mr. Black said. “We think our race is being threatened through a form of genocide by assimilation, meaning the allowing in of third-world immigrants into the United States.” http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/26/us/po ... ted=3&_r=1

http://www.streetwisepundit.com/ron-pau ... black.html

Ron Paul with the owner of Stormfront, the largest neo-nazi forum, Don Black.

I don't personally ascribe to any particular label for my political ideology, but if I had to choose between the pejorative meanings of libertarian or anarchist, I would definitely choose anarchist. It's better to be considered a terrorist than be associated with Ron Paul.

Hahaha!

Hang on, hang on... are you saying that there might be some connection between a capitalist ideology and a capitalist political position? That's way too far-fetched to believe. What next, are you gonna tell us that there's a connection between the Southern Baptists and Christian theology? Come on.

I know, I know, it's crazy. I'm also starting to think that this Graeber fellow might be an anarchist.

You seem to have caricatured the issues. I imagine that most supremacist movements would be for limited government, because it serves its interests. Is this a guilt by association argument? In Paul's case, I find it incredibly disappointing, but I can't share your sentiment that I'd rather be called a terrorist than be associated with Ron Paul. As electoral politics goes, I think he's the best visible option that the U.S. has:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/12/27/ ... -ron-paul/
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progres ... fallacies/

Moreover as a politician, it's not like he will ever be able to see his particular view through to their logical absurdity, even if they are, in fact, logically absurd. You do raise an important point though, and please understand I am not dismissing that. Many right Libertarians do not understand that the view of land property as a right no different from other rights, results in a glaring theoretically failing with dire consequence. It means that so long land was taken by force an occupied prior to any formal land titles, then it is moral for that ownership to continue. People like Paul, even were they sympathetic to historically oppressed minorities, would have no grounds on which to redress systematic state-sponsored oppression.

But this line of discussion pretty well extends to all modern countries with the constant redrawing of political boundary over the last 2,000 years. The problem int he discussion of the Native Americans in the U.S. is a peculiar one - the ultimate realization is that, to the extent that you see private property as synonymous with civilization, you actually have to concede that it was moral for the European settlers to take all the land from the Native Americans. Most Americans I know are deeply unsettled by the treatment of the Native Americans, but are not mentally prepared to follow it where it leads - doubts about private property and our entire social organization itself.

As of lately I have come to adopt a philosophy of land alike the clichéd stereotype of the native american relationship to nature. That we can not own land and we need to be good custodians and live in harmony and even improve of the soil and life that surrounds us. That we as predators have a duty to make sure that the resource we use will not depleted by our doing.

lordmetroid wrote:As of lately I have come to adopt a philosophy of land alike the clichéd stereotype of the native american relationship to nature. That we can not own land and we need to be good custodians and live in harmony and even improve of the soil and life that surrounds us. That we as predators have a duty to make sure that the resource we use will not depleted by our doing.

Sounds like you need cancer.

Election after election, I'm pretty tired of this "least bad candidate" nonsense. The argument detracts from things we should be doing, as anarchists, and serves as nothing more than a personal justification for why some anarchist somewhere is voting. It should be obvious that voting doesn't result in the revocation of your Anarchist Gold Member(tm) card, so why must we discuss the lesser of two or three or four evils?

The point is, that no candidate, no matter how obscure or radical or 'libertarian,' is really going to get what needs to be done done. I've seen so many people caught up in this Ron Paul debate to the point where some believe voting for Ron Paul would be a radical shift forward towards whatever ends it is Anarchists are trying to accomplish. While I'd agree that Ron Paul's America would be a different beast, I'm not sure it would be a weaker beast. For instance,

He's a nazi sympathizer. The effects of that should be pretty clear to anyone on this board with a critique of ancap. Nazis buy a storefront and make it their little nazi kingdom.

He wants to pull out of the UN, but supports private security. That just makes Blackwater about 500 times scarier, since the US will be completely unaccountable for any actions its companies commit overseas.

He wants a wall between the US and Mexico. Rather than destroy borders, Paul would just like stronger borders.

I'm sure there's more, but I don't want this to turn into an exhaustive list about why RP sucks. Basically, all I want to say, is that if you like Ron Paul, cool. But please, stop telling me he's the best choice for Anarchists.

BP: Your first paragraph doesn't make sense, "least bad candidate" is not an argument (for voting or anything else), but a subjective position, which is fun to discuss (for some of us) for whom who it is (certainly more fun then another discussion of whether to vote or not), though I agree it draws attention from more constructive work.
As far as Ron Paul is concerned, I'd like to see him in office, to see where would things go, I expect his more crazy ideas would be dampened by congress, though it may as well be those most of us would like to pass.

Birthday Pony wrote:Election after election, I'm pretty tired of this "least bad candidate" nonsense. The argument detracts from things we should be doing, as anarchists, and serves as nothing more than a personal justification for why some anarchist somewhere is voting. It should be obvious that voting doesn't result in the revocation of your Anarchist Gold Member(tm) card, so why must we discuss the lesser of two or three or four evils?

The point is, that no candidate, no matter how obscure or radical or 'libertarian,' is really going to get what needs to be done done. I've seen so many people caught up in this Ron Paul debate to the point where some believe voting for Ron Paul would be a radical shift forward towards whatever ends it is Anarchists are trying to accomplish. While I'd agree that Ron Paul's America would be a different beast, I'm not sure it would be a weaker beast. For instance,

He's a nazi sympathizer. The effects of that should be pretty clear to anyone on this board with a critique of ancap. Nazis buy a storefront and make it their little nazi kingdom.

He wants to pull out of the UN, but supports private security. That just makes Blackwater about 500 times scarier, since the US will be completely unaccountable for any actions its companies commit overseas.

He wants a wall between the US and Mexico. Rather than destroy borders, Paul would just like stronger borders.

I'm sure there's more, but I don't want this to turn into an exhaustive list about why RP sucks. Basically, all I want to say, is that if you like Ron Paul, cool. But please, stop telling me he's the best choice for Anarchists.

Well, I'll tell you why I defend Ron Paul. Because its a way of engaging people. In the absence of electoral politics, people will make the same bad decisions, just not at a voting booth. Their sense of priority is so skewed sometimes I'm not even sure how to respond.

I have heard several people decry him for his pro-choice views ALONE. As a friend of mine put it "What's more important, preventing way in Iran, or making sure women don't have to drive to the next state over to have an abortion?"

You also have to remember that, many of the objections they would raise against a mainstream Right-Lib candidate are less violent versions of the reaction they would have to strict anarchist lines of reasoning. If I cannot for example convince someone that Ron Paul is a good candidate, because he'd like to cut back the military, stop fighting wars everywhere, end the war on drugs, eliminate the government monopoly on currency, etc etc, then there is even less hope of me convincing them that property itself needs to be called into question.

There's a more fundamental problem at the root of engaging people on the level of electoral politics: it doesn't engage with any radical action. I find OWS the type of stepping stone that's more useful, because at least it has yet to be co-opted into electoral politics. That's something that engages with an anarchist perspective, that whatever your beliefs are, you are the one with the power to do something.

Engaging people by way of some obscure presidential candidate is just another way of saying, "let's not do away with kings, let's just get a good king." It doesn't begin any steps towards rupturing the systems of hierarchy that exist, and it doesn't start putting things into terms of autonomy or mutual aid. Supporting or defending Ron Paul just displaces your support for some of the issues into support of a person, which is exactly what Anarchism is supposed to do away with: some idea of hierarchical representative leadership.

And to really just drive my point about exactly why Ron Paul is not preferable at all home:
Anonymous Hacks Neo-Nazis, Finds Ron Paul
http://www.care2.com/causes/anonymous-h ... -paul.html
Anonymous Expose Nazi Third Position 'Bridging Tactic' with Ron Paul
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/29181 ... -jamie.htm

The nationalist American Third Position Party (A3P) pursued a "bridging tactic" with the Ron Paul Revolution movement that support the Republican candidate for the White House, according to emails hacked by Anonymous.

Soon we will discover that Ron Paul is actually Keith Preston's godfather.

ChairmanMeow wrote:I have heard several people decry him for his pro-choice views ALONE. As a friend of mine put it "What's more important, preventing way in Iran, or making sure women don't have to drive to the next state over to have an abortion?"

What's new? Women will always be considered worth tossing under whatever bus happens to be driving by, even the "progressive" ones. That isn't to say that I think Ron Paul is worse for women because of his stated position. But I also don't think he's better on war because of his stated position. Why? Because I think stated positions play all that important a role. Ron Paul isn't going to do shit that isn't the interests of the authoritarian-corporatist state. Unfortunately, that already means more war and "kill all women." If we accept that many people will still consider that who is POTUS can tip the scales, just ask yourself which of those two positions of Paul's is closer to the status quo and dominant institutions of our society. People worried about "his pro-choice views ALONE" no longer seem to have quite so skewed a sense of priority.

You also have to remember that, many of the objections they would raise against a mainstream Right-Lib candidate are less violent versions of the reaction they would have to strict anarchist lines of reasoning. If I cannot for example convince someone that Ron Paul is a good candidate, because he'd like to cut back the military, stop fighting wars everywhere, end the war on drugs, eliminate the government monopoly on currency, etc etc, then there is even less hope of me convincing them that property itself needs to be called into question.

So what? So abstract arguments don't work with some people. The difference is that is the former case it will always be a matter of abstract promises because "Any individual who rises to the national political level is, of necessity and by definition, committed to the authoritarian-corporatist state. The current system will not allow anyone to be elected from either of the two major parties who is determined to dismantle even one part of that system." I'll state that a different way: Ron Paul, if elected, will not do any of these things to anywhere close to the level that it appears in your argument. Meanwhile, we can start calling property into question and show people how that works without trying to dominate them.

I'm not so sure Paul would change his views on war were he elected. But he won't be elected. He is a protest candidate. The views he has on war are really good. That he has used his campaign to share anti-war views, in Republican debates, is praiseworthy. In a weak moment in 2007 after he sonned Guiliani i even gave him $20. I am still haunted by Ron Paul newsletters. Sometimes I open them and they are about unions or mexicans.

I'm not really convinced Ron Paul is much different than any politician. People will give him the benefit of the doubt for backing off of 9/11 while he's running, but then defend his allying with nazis. He's got some good soundbites, but so do they all. I think he's just another power hungry ass, just a little wackier.