Congressman Ron Paul is running on the wonderful ideal of “liberty.” And who among us would not like more liberty? – The freedom to choose any personal path, freedom to do whatever it is that sparks our fancy. We’d be free of governmental impediments; who needs all these laws anyway?
The problem is, that when I gain the liberty to do X you necessarily gain the liberty to do Y. And what if X and Y are philosophically or practically in conflict if not incongruous?
When you extend a freedom to a person or people, it’s likely that their freedom might limit the freedoms of other people.
As an extreme example: am I free to smack a stranger upside the head because I don’t like his looks? – of course not. And I sincerely doubt that Dr. Paul would advocate that extension of liberty.
Laws are enacted to limit behavior. They necessarily limit human actions so that a person does not negatively impact on other peoples’ liberty. Thus, laws are anti-libertarian. They restrict our personal freedoms.
This theory was carefully studied and written about by Ronald Coase in The Problem of Social Cost wherein he stated:
II. The Reciprocal Nature of the Problem
The traditional approach has tended to obscure the nature of the choice that has to be
made. The question is commonly thought of as one in which A inflicts harm on B and
what has to be decided is: how should we restrain A? But this is wrong. We are dealing
with a problem of a reciprocal nature. To avoid the harm to B would inflict harm on A.
The real question that has to be decided is: should A be allowed to harm B or should B be
allowed to harm A?
The question becomes: where do we draw that line? Where is it OK to limit peoples’ actions and when should the government stay out?
Dr. Paul has stated that a person is “free” to discriminate on the basis of race. Does that not necessarily limit or reduce the relative liberty of the person or persons discriminated against?
From Meet The Press, Sunday December 23, 2007:
MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask you about race, because I, I read a speech you gave in 2004, the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act. And you said this: "Contrary to the claims of" "supporters of the Civil Rights Act of" '64, "the act did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of" '64 "increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty." That act gave equal rights to African-Americans to vote, to live, to go to lunch counters, and you seem to be criticizing it.
REP. PAUL: Well, we should do, we should do this at a federal level, at a federal lunch counter it'd be OK or for the military. Just think of how the government, you know, caused all the segregation in the military until after World War II. But when it comes, Tim, you're, you're, you're not compelled in your house to invade strangers that you don't like. So it's a property rights issue. And this idea that all private property is under the domain of the federal government I think is wrong. So this--I think even Barry Goldwater opposed that bill on the same property rights position, and that--and now this thing is totally out of control. If you happen to like to smoke a cigar, you know, the federal government's going to come down and say you're not allowed to do this.
Just as Dr. Paul points out (and long before him, Benjamin Franklin) that the seeking of security is at odds with liberty, so too is blanket liberty at odds with equality.
And without equality, by definition, we are not all free.
And Congressman Paul, to actually quote Barry Goldwater:
Equality, rightly understood, as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences.
- Shane-O's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
Paulistas in Paris, Report II
I mentioned a couple-three weeks back about making a run to Paris (the Tennessee one, which happens to be the nearest source of liquor in my dry county) and seeing a group of Ron Paul supporters out on the most heavily-traveled intersection in town holding up signs.
I went again yesterday (holidays and football, if one may distinguish between the two, cause an uptick in liquor consumption) and damn all if they weren't there again. I had figured it to be a one-time thing but who woulda guessed, getting out with others of like mind and taking action in meatspace actually catches on.
Last time I laughed at them and made rude gestures (holding nose in fact, not anything vulgar.) This time I waved--would have honked horn but that hasn't worked in a couple of years--and gave them "thumbs up" and a big smile.
Give me a Paul/Hucklebee ticket in any combination and I will beat them with a ticket consisting of Shiloh and Turk. Who are my dogs. Who happen to be yellow.
(We will have to work out the constitutional issues of both candidates being from the same state, but if two Texans like the current usurpers in the WH can pretend they come from different states I can phony up papers from Kentucky for Turk. Which could even be the truth, seeing as I have no idea where he was actually spending time before he showed up in my yard the day before Thanksgiving.)
Property rights are the solution
The simple answer is that you define property rights for what a person can defend against violations by others. With property, you can further define liberty as all things that do not violate property.
Paul-ee You've Made A Gallant Effort
But in your attempt, Mr. or Ms. Coward, to use the Ron Paul key phrases, you've only succeded in showing that you have no clue what they actually mean.
Your argument (such as it is) is not only circular, it is incomplete.
I will concede that among property rights there is the right to exclude.
My point was that in doing so, the person who exculdes may do so for any reason - which leads to inequality.
And - despite the fact that Dr. Paul likes to refer to Barry Goldwater, there is no liberty unless there is equality.
Just as there are limitations on our actions, there are limitions on our property.
The Bill of Rights is a born rebel. It reeks with sedition. In every clause it shakes its fist in the face of constituted authority. . . . it is the one guaranty of human freedom to the American people. - Frank Irving Cobb
The Bill of Rights is a born rebel. It reeks with sedition. In every clause it shakes its fist in the face of constituted authority. . . . it is the one guaranty of human freedom to the American people. - Frank Irving Cobb
Shane-O
Thanks for shining a spotlight on the weaknesses of libertarianism.
Here are couple of posts about the perils of Paul, which you might find worth a look at:
http://www.correntewire.com/on_libertari...
http://wwjv4.com/republicans/10-reasons-...
It's well worth reminding the Paulists that his libertarianism is dangerously selective. While he's really quite good on most Constitutional issues and in opposing imperialism, he ditches the philosophy when it comes to church-state issues, including his opposition to abortion and even evolution.
But he doesn't ditch it, as an empathetic person should, when it comes to the social safety net and corporatism.
And his environmental positions are, well, interesting.
Shane-O. Stop with the Straw Man Libertarianism
"there is no liberty unless there is equality"
You undertand that "equality" is only in reference to the law. Not resources. And, one can have both liberty and inequality.
"The problem is, that when I gain the liberty to do X you necessarily gain the liberty to do Y. And what if X and Y are philosophically or practically in conflict if not incongruous?"
How does the ability to do Y follow necessarily from the right to do X?
This formulation isn't even a logically valid construction let alone a cogent or coherent representation of libertarianism.
None of this is true.
Stop.
Leave Coase alone, that shit died a while ago. It was bullshit even then. It's based on a naive zero sum model that has the "firm" as its primary agent whose choices are based on a utilitarian rationality. Nobody does this stuff anymore, nobody did it then, it's only good for raping countries and winnig medals.
A Response To Xenophon
Great points. I'll do my best to respond - forgive me if I come up short...
Equality is not simply about laws. Laws, unfortunately, have been necessary to grow towards equality. It doesn't take much of glance back in U.S. history to find examples of extreme inequality among people. From slavery to the vote. But now it is more subtle - however it is ever-present.
Laws have done what they can to reverse these trends. And, at times, those laws became archaine (thankfully) and we wrote them off.
The liberty, in the Ron Paul model, to do Y does necessarily follow from another person's liberty to do X.
Why may I do Y, and another person not be able to do X? If that was the case, then while I have the liberty to do X, the other person would not have the liberty to do Y.
And I'll not stop.
It would be wise to move beyond the bases of Coase's work (the "firm") and move into the philosophical aspect of the article I referred to.
I quoted it only for the narrow concept of nuisance theory. That when I am able (or at liberty) to do something, it just might infringe on another person's (liberty) ability to do something. It certainly is not a zero-sum game. But there are overlaps - and universal liberty is impossible. Ergo, limitation - sometimes in the form of laws; sometimes not.
The Bill of Rights is a born rebel. It reeks with sedition. In every clause it shakes its fist in the face of constituted authority. . . . it is the one guaranty of human freedom to the American people. - Frank Irving Cobb
The Bill of Rights is a born rebel. It reeks with sedition. In every clause it shakes its fist in the face of constituted authority. . . . it is the one guaranty of human freedom to the American people. - Frank Irving Cobb
You realize . . .
"I quoted it only for the narrow concept of nuisance theory. That when I am able (or at liberty) to do something, it just might infringe on another person’s (liberty) ability to do something. It certainly is not a zero-sum game. But there are overlaps - and universal liberty is impossible. Ergo, limitation - sometimes in the form of laws; sometimes not."
nuissance theory is based on the assumption of a "zero sum" condition. That is why you create a system of laws to govern or regulate beahvior. SO as not to overload or exhaust the system. When all the British Philosophers were trying to figure out how to run a country during the enlightenment they were dealing with zero sum systems. Especially the political philosopher, especially the political economists. This is the root of the British Schools of Economics. They are often contrasted to say, the Austrian schools from which we develop the ideals that constitute the libertarian systems.