March 28, 2008
What Makes an Authentic Libertarian? Does Ron Paul Count?
Ron Paul will not, it’s safe to say, be the Republican nominee for president.
But that shouldn’t prevent libertarian scholars from pondering the merits of his candidacy. Roderick Long, a professor of philosophy at Auburn University, and Walter Block, a professor of economics at Auburn, have been conducting a lively back-and-forth about whether Paul’s opposition to abortion rights and immigration make him (a) unlibertarian and/or (b) unworthy of political support.
Long and Block – who are also affiliated with the Ludwig von Mises Institute — both support abortion and immigration rights, but they disagree about what to think about Paul’s stances on those issues. In Block’s eyes, those topics are not deal breakers; he has enthusiastically served as an adviser to Paul’s campaign. Long, meanwhile, holds that Paul’s anti-abortion and anti-immigration stances are so wrong-headed that he can’t endorse his candidacy.
The two scholars also spend a good deal of time pondering the case of Randy Barnett, a prominent libertarian theorist who teaches at Georgetown University Law Center. Unlike Paul, Long, and Block, Barnett has supported the Iraq war. In their debate, Long and Block have wondered whether that position warrants writing Barnett out of the libertarian movement entirely and, if so, why.
(Photo by the Flickr user midnightcomm. Used under a Creative Commons license.)
David Glenn | Posted on Friday March 28, 2008 | PermalinkComments
Previous: Obama's Title at U. of Chicago Becomes Campaign Topic
Next: Political Giving of Yale Employees, Like Those in Academe Over All, Favors Obama
Why should it be ‘safe to say’ he isn’t the nominee. As far as I can tell McCain is in trouble with the FEC for going over budget. I would think that would disqualify McCain.
— Sharon Mar 28, 01:58 PM #
McCain is in trouble with alot more things then just the FEC. I honestly do believe that with McCain in trouble and Ron Paul still gaining momentum, it is not ‘safe to say’ that McCain will take the Republican nomination
— D Mar 28, 02:11 PM #
The term “Anti-Immigration” is a complete perversion of Ron Paul’s position.
He is not against immigration – he is against lending governmental support to those who immigrate illegally. This is a perfectly understandable and benign position. Lending governmental aid to those who do so illegally will only deter people from entering this country through the proper lawful methods.
Those who do so illegally should not be rewarded, while penalizing those who do so lawfully.
— Daren Mar 28, 02:57 PM #
McCain has way over the number of delegates needed for the nomination. How could you say he would not be nominated? And why would anyone think that Ron Paul would be second in line over Romney and Huckabee?!
— what are you smoking? Mar 28, 03:14 PM #
Ron Paul is more of an ideal than a practical contender for the nomination. Contrary to popular belief, most of his supporters are realists and know he won’t win. Duh.
That being said, people are still going to turn out in big numbers at DC in June in his name.
As for fitting into Libertarianism, I think you need to examine if Libertarianism even knows what it wants to be, first. Most people could agree that it’s historically quite ineffectual.
— oilnwater Mar 28, 03:42 PM #
There is a very long way to go in this election. Back in 1992, no one was even paying attention to Bill Clinton at this point in the race. We all saw how that turned out. A lot can happen.
By the way, Post #4, Romney and Huckabee dropped out already.
— George Dewey Mar 28, 04:01 PM #
As of March 28, 1992, Bill Clinton had won primaries in Illinois, Michigan, and six southern states. The conventional wisdom was that he had a lock on the nomination, unless Jerry Brown could manage to win the New York primary in early April.
— David Glenn Mar 28, 04:20 PM #
I think there is room for disagreement on the abortion question without accusing each other of not being libertarians. Libertarians believe in liberty to the extent that it does not harm another individual.
Those who oppose abortion claim abortion does harm, kills actually, another individual. Furthermore, except in cases of rape or incest, pregnancy is the result of a personal choice that was freely exercised.
I can see both sides of this without a problem…. I think Ron Paul is correct to move this to the state level.
— Carol Mar 28, 05:00 PM #
Having been what I would call libertarian for my entire voting history – and a member of the Libertarian Party for almost 30 of those years – I always found the foreign policy stance of some Libertarians a bit difficult to understand.
How can economic intervention and preemptive force by the federal government be abhorrent domestically, but trade sanctions and preemptive “democracy by invasion” on an international basis be noble?
— Akston Mar 28, 05:41 PM #
The disagreement on abortion is really about when life begins. Some say life begins at conception; others say life begins when the first breath is taken and the cord is cut. All libertarians should agree that the taking of a life (other than self defense) is wrong.
— logicprobe Mar 28, 07:41 PM #
Surely life begins at conception, but the concept of taking a life of a two-cell organism as being wrong frightens me. I have killed many more today.
— Mark de Goz Mar 28, 09:23 PM #
What you name as “abortion rights” are National-State granted Abortion Privileges.
Ron Paul opposes the granting of privileges by the National-State.
Ron Paul does not oppose citizens of any of the states to decide for themselves to put into codified law (legalize) abortion in their respective states only.
By his own words, we must know David Glenn to be one of two kinds of men.
[1] As an idiot, David Glenn does not know where Ron Paul stands; what is the difference between the national-state (the U.S.) and the 50 states of the USA; what is the difference between conferred privilege through governance vs someone being right to stand for an inseperable property of man (“natural right”) or someone being right stand for a defined act as defined in the Bill of Rights.
[2] David Glenn lies as a shill would when performing misdeeds for the State and Statist Power
— T.R. Teller Mar 29, 03:18 AM #
I must throw another log on the abortion fire. I believe an important aspect which is often overlooked is the concept of innocence until proven guilty. As long as the jury’s still out, the verdict of whether or not a fetus becomes ‘human’ at some given point after conception has not been made and therefor the ‘defendant’ deserves the benefit of the doubt before we casually take his life.
commenter #12, we should talk. BryanDMorton@bellsouth.net
— Bryan Mar 29, 06:35 AM #
lol ! Teller just laid some serious smackdown. nice.
— oilnwater Mar 29, 02:07 PM #
This should have been perfectly clear from the post, but for anyone who needs it spelled out:
Roderick Long and Walter Block are both anti-statist scholars. On the spectrum from Joseph Stalin to Lysander Spooner, they’re both much, much closer to Spooner. Long even refers to himself as an anarchist, I believe.
Long and Block believe that the right to abort a fetus is a fundamental right, like the right to own property. They believe that any government, at the federal level or the state level, that restricts citizens’ freedom to obtain abortions is a tyrannical government.
So when they object to Ron Paul’s position on abortion, their claim is that Paul concedes too much to government power, because in Paul’s view, state-level governments may legitimately outlaw abortion.
(Whether Long and Block arrive at their position from a natural-rights framework or from a utilitarian framework, I don’t know. Feel free to dig into their work and discover that for yourself.)
Not all libertarians agree with Long and Block on this point, of course. Some agree with Paul, and claim that abortion is a matter properly handled by state governments. Other libertarians believe that all governments have a duty to protect fetal life.
There are lively debates among those anti-statist camps, and that’s what this post was about. No one in any of these intra-libertarian arguments can plausibly be described as an apologist for the State and Statist Power.
— David Glenn Mar 29, 04:03 PM #
Actually I dont want to pay taxes for someone getting an abortion. If someone wants one so bad, they can work it out themselves. No need to throw anyone in jail, or monitor anyone over it, or fine anyone. Just dont make me pay for your abortion. Your “fundamental right” is not my fundamental obligation to finance it.
— Anthony Mar 30, 01:23 PM #
Ron Paul was never a libertarian. He is a Lindbergh Republican, a crypto-Nazi hiding behind a populist message sprinkled with secret-society codewords that insinuate Jewish control of international finance, geopolitics, and cultural mores.
— oh marci! Apr 10, 04:55 PM #