The Global Liberty Community
The Rand Paul Campaign: A Retrospective
I’m not ruling out a sudden surge, but, as for this writing, it seems very likely that Rand Paul will not get the Republican nomination, at least not this time. Maybe the future will be different.
Let’s reflect on the meaning of this and its implications for the future of liberty.
Based on my social feeds, many libertarians are drawing the wrong lessons. They say that the reason Rand didn’t pull it off is because he departed too much from the script. He should have been more upfront about his libertarianism. He should have been more aggressive in pushing a peaceful foreign policy and civil liberties. He should have been more radical on domestic politics.
As much as that would have delighted me, and as much as I long for truth in public life, it is very reasonable to assume that doing so would not have helped him politically. On the contrary, all available evidence is that taking this position would have made his loss a sure thing. Whether he would be a bit higher in the polls than he is now is hard to say. But this much is true: a libertarian cannot win the Republican nomination.
In the most recent debate, Rand seemed to shift toward a more openly liberty-minded position. He condemned the drug war. He said that we should not go back to Iraq. He was pointed in saying that he had always opposed the Iraq war. He made mention of the disparate impact of many laws on the poor.
The result of this excellent performance: he slipped further in the polls. Keep this in mind when you are critiquing his campaign. The people who ran it knew something that most libertarians don’t want to think about: liberty is not a popular position among Republican voters. That he fell further in the polls the more open he was is a demonstration of that.
Now let’s presume that his goal at the outset was to get the nomination. He was not running an educational campaign; his father had already done that. He was not running to delight you and me. His sole purpose in committing his personal resources was to become president, to actually get serious about doing politics — with the goal of doing good things for the country.
Keep that mind as you think through this. Can you get the nomination by opposing foreign interventions, calling for dramatic military cuts, or aggressively opposing the social fascism of the religious right, by directly taking on the whole ruling class and their sources of power and money? There’s no way.
How do we know? There was an empirical test that occurred a few years ago, in the 2012 presidential campaign. Here is the most reliable public polling data of the candidates.
As you can see, the Ron Paul campaign stayed in the 6-10% range for the bulk of the campaign. Gingrich and Santorum, in contrast, polled as high as 35%. Ron’s polling pushed up to a height of 15% after Rick Perry (who had 32% at his height) dropped out — which makes sense given that they were both from Texas. In general, however, Ron’s support had a firm and impenetrable glass ceiling, simply because of the views of the typical Republican voter.
If we look back to the 2008 election, we see something very similar. Ron Paul polled at about 6% for most of the time, reaching a height of 7%.
What’s striking about these polls is the complete absence of any evidence of breaking from the pack. Unlike the other candidates such as Herman Cain, who boomed up to 26% at one point, the libertarian occupied a stable but relatively small niche and never got beyond it.
What was the difference between Ron and Rand? Rand beat Ron’s polling at one point, coming in as high as 17%.
He hoped to go beyond that, which accounts for the broadening of his rhetoric. The risk of doing that is losing your base, which did indeed happen.
But think of this from a tactical standpoint. Losing your base is not a risk if the sole goal is to get beyond the base and enter into the mainstream. I’m guessing that the Rand campaign had every confidence that the libertarians would eventually come around — just as they always come around.
After all, it would have been an amazing victory for him to get the nomination and gain the chance to be president. Libertarians would have been overjoyed — and the ones that vote might have helped him.
But again, remember that the purpose of the Rand campaign was to win the nomination. If that is the first goal, the way he went about it makes sense. It didn’t seem likely an entirely crazy goal either, given that the New York Times has been going on about the “libertarian moment,” that libertarian conferences are going on all over the country, that the polls indicate that people are fed up with government in so many ways.
But here’s the problem. It’s one thing to hate the status quo. It’s something else to embrace the only moral and viable alternative to the status quo. There are many other paths to break with the establishment besides cutting government to the bone.
One of them has been exploited by Donald Trump: run as a strong man and tap into nativist fears. This is the tried and true path of fascism. As an ideological structure it has proven far more popular among GOP primary voters than any form of coherent libertarian ideology.
Is this an indication that we should despair? No. Certainly there is no reason to be hopeful about the prospects of electoral politics and top-down reform. If the time ever comes when a true liberty-minded person has a real chance at the nomination, it seems further off than ever.
But do we need to wait to realize liberty until a majority of the population has come around to the case for the full libertarian loaf? If we believe that, we are living an illusion, and there is a good case for despair. It is not going to happen.
Liberty is part of the structure of human life, a longing of the soul of every person. It’s a universal feature of the human person. It’s in the particulars that matters bog down. The particulars could also be our salvation.
This is why I’m much more interested in the micro-strategies of reform, challenging system of compulsion and control through technological innovation and revolutionary entrepreneurship. Here we see real results.
That doesn’t mean that politics is a worthless enterprise. But it does mean that no one should expect politics to lead revolutionary change. As for those who do their best to use the system to beat the system, they deserve every congratulation.
This race hasn’t been easy for Rand. I felt like I could see the pain on his face during the second debate. He spoke the truth. He deserves credit for it. It is also to his credit that he can’t get the nomination.
Beautiful Anarchy
The Economics of Life Itself : Beautiful Anarchy is the writing platform of Jeffrey Tucker, in which he covers economics, art, popular culture, and politics from a pro-liberty, anti-state point of view.
Join The Discussion
36 CommentsThoughts? Comments?
Please login or register to post a comment.
Calin Brabandt September 20, 2015 , 11:23 pm Vote2
>That doesn’t mean that politics is a worthless enterprise.
Yes. It certainly has worth to some people, but find it to be the world’s most immoral and dangerous enterprise!
Nonetheless as always, your piece is full of money quotable gems, Jeffrey. It’s quite sad that people can’t even muster up the fortitude, dignity, and virtue to even usher-in a Rand Paul revolution, which would probably be only about 50%-70% of a Ron Paul revolution!
Martin Brock September 21, 2015 , 9:08 am Vote1
A “50% revolution” is no revolution at all. When a state is as pervasive as the United State, reforming a statute here and there never favors freer individuals at the expense of the state’s constituents. If you think I only favor Republican constituents over Democratic constituents, you have no idea why I supported Ron Paul.
Martin Brock September 21, 2015 , 8:56 am Vote2
I see Ron Paul rising consistently throughout both campaigns, reaching 15% at the end of the 2012 campaign. Common people prefer a chocolate bar to 10 ounces of silver bullion, and the educational campaign is over? I don’t think so. If Rand had been the reincarnation of Ron and were at 20% at this point, rising to 25% before losing the nomination, that would be a huge victory for libertarians, not because it portends ultimate victory at the polls but because it signals growing awareness of the futility of this victory.
Rand Paul didn’t drop after the last debate because he took more libertarian positions. He dropped because he has no momentum, is already out of the running and didn’t galvanize any viewers with some emotional talking point, as Fiorina was able to do this time. He lost his father’s base of support months ago and never found another one. I didn’t bother to watch the debate, so his performance had no effect on me.
I was an enthusiastic supporter of Ron Paul. I contributed financially, attended meetings, handed out flyers at the county fair and drove around for hours in the dark posting signs. Ron’s active supporters were not Reagan Republicans. They were not what became the stereotype of a “tea party” Republican either. They were consistently anti-war, anti-corporatist and pro-local control but not because they imagined “local control” controlling everyone on Earth more to their liking and ever willing to favor more central control otherwise.
A libertarian can’t be nominated in either party and presumably can’t be elected nationally either. So what? So I bother to support the candidate who cynically throws me the juiciest rhetorical bone? I’m just another constituent waiting for my well rehearsed applause line from a “serious” candidate “with the goal of doing good things for the country”? Not me, brother. I may be married to the state with no possibility of divorce, but I’m out of that game ’til death us do part.
Jeffrey Tucker September 21, 2015 , 11:49 am Vote3
Yes, I don’t disagree. But remember that the premise of my article is that Rand’s campaign was designed to win the nomination. There is something of a science to this. Once you decide that winning is the goal, many other things follow from that. If you don’t want to win, you can do whatever you want, but it is not serious politics. Rand was serious about politics.
Ned Netterville September 21, 2015 , 11:39 am Vote3
“That doesn’t mean that politics is a worthless enterprise.”
Oh yes it is! And though I almost agree with Calin’s comment, I question the worth of politics even to those who appear to reap munificently from state violence. For, as Calin correctly points out, it is an immoral and dangerous enterprise. So a question must be asked of those who earn their daily bread–and often much more–through state violence. It is the same question asked by Jesus of Nazareth according to three of the four gospel writers, “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”
Jeffrey Tucker September 21, 2015 , 11:50 am Vote2
point taken for sure
Calin Brabandt September 21, 2015 , 2:22 pm Vote1
I think our beliefs about healthy vs. non-healthy human actions and behaviors are very similar, Ned. I did not intend to justify politics merely because it has worth to some people any more than I would justify a mob enterprise! I was pleased that you mentioned the soul (via a gospel quotation). I nearly wrote the following in my comment, substituting the word “soul” for “virtue:”
It’s quite sad that people can’t muster up the fortitude, dignity, and soul to even usher-in a Rand Paul revolution,…
Danny Chadwick September 21, 2015 , 3:54 pm Vote1
Another big problem for Rand is the fact that none of the big so-called conservative radio talk show hosts will give him as much attention as they do someone like Trump. Don’t underestimate their influence over the minds of Republican voters. They are the primary opinion makers on the right.
Rush Limbaugh essentially ignores Rand, the same way he ignored his father except for when he was calling him and all his supporters nut jobs. And for all the cordial interviews Rand has with Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck, they will never be as enthusiastic about a truly libertarian candidate as they are for Trump. I know Beck isn’t super happy about Trump, but he’s still doesn’t really see the natural alternative to him in Rand.
The gap is just too wide on issues like war, foreign policy, immigration, police, the drug war, etc, etc, etc. Which is a shame because, in my opinion, conservatives are primed for conversion because they hate the GOP, are war weary and ready to latch onto something different. If we ever do see a massive move toward liberty, the primary source of it will be coming from the right.
Unfortunately, the right wing talk show opinion makers do not want that to happen. They want Trump. And they know what they have to do to make sure he gets elected, and they’re doing it. Rand simply can’t compete with a regular audience of 20 million republican voters being indoctrinated to love Trump.
Calin Brabandt September 21, 2015 , 4:35 pm Vote1
And don’t forget about how even the NRA snubbed Rand Paul by not inviting him to speak at the 2015 NRA national convention, like it did for politicians who are in bed (rather, in bank) with the NRA. The influence of the NRA on its voting constituents…err, I mean members is huge! Geesh–the NRA’s action makes no sense at all, if one cares about lawfully keeping one’s guns. The only thing that makes sense about it, apart from bank account balances, is Rand has been vocal in his support of the NRA’s far less compromising competition, the Gun Owners of America (GOA), so the NRA blackballed Rand.
Toni Sopocko September 21, 2015 , 6:24 pm Vote1
The tricky part is that so many of us who might support Paul are not registered Republican. If he’s running on the Republican ticket, in most states, only Republicans will be able to choose the nominee in the primary. By the time the general rolls around, we’ll be stuck with all the usual suspects. A complete waste of oxygen.
Calin Brabandt September 21, 2015 , 6:45 pm Vote0
The work-around is to register as a Republican only for the primary race, then switch back to whatever party you choose (or none at all). If you are registered as a Libertarian, such a declaration of your party affiliation is moot, in terms of choosing one’s (everyone’s) ruler anyway. Registering as a Democrat is just about as moot! 😉
Back when I believed in voting (not that long ago), I did the registration quickstep when Ron Paul first ran for the Republican nomination. I can’t remember how many times I voted for him as a Libertarian. Was it twice? I guess my memory needs to be refreshed with a Wiki search. I was voting Libertarian from nearly the party’s inception, to no avail all those years, of course. Hope in the face of a contradictory truth is a demon!
Martin has a good point. (“A ‘50% revolution’ is no revolution at all.”) Nonetheless, it would sure be nice to see a reversal of recent asymptotic trends! How about even a reversal in the the first derivative of any given tyranny metric? Nope–there is no sign of relief in sight. Government only runs in one direction on all fronts.
Jonathan Gillispie September 21, 2015 , 7:48 pm Vote0
I think the biggest mistake he’s made was attacking Donald Trump so viciously. That only helped cement his front-runner status and every other candidate that has attacked him have gone down in polling. Donald also does so well because of immigration; of which I sadly agree with him on (go watch Stefan Molyneux’s presentation on the subject of immigration on YouTube). That enthused many GOP base voters. Now I don’t trust Trump as he’s constantly swapped policy positions over the years and political parties as well, but many voters find him identifiable. Rand should be playing the Donald in his court. Confront him with what’s the most underrated issue in any national election: The Federal Reserve. Seriously how much has he spoken about it throughout the campaign?! How much has any candidate spoken of this?!?! The Federal Reserve has more influence on the economy than virtually anything else! Rand Paul should be talking about this a LOT more. It’s because of the Federal Reserve that the crash of ’08 happened. It’s because of the Federal Reserve that we have a giant overarching federal government in our lives. It’s because of the Federal Reserve that we have perpetual war and debt. It’s because of the Federal Reserve that the dollar’s value has plummeted by 97% since 1914. And a good chunk of that loss in value occurred after Nixon took us off the gold standard to pay for the Vietnam War in the early 1970s. And it’s been nothing but crap since. Rand should be focusing on CUTTING SPENDING, CUTTING SPENDING, CUTTING SPENDING and the FED, the FED, the FED. Make restoring the gold standard a campaign issue! Rat out the Soviet-esque Federal Reserve! Make issue of free banking and the benefits of currency competition brings! Until that time, there’s almost no way to pull back the growth of this monstrous federal government.
Kevin Victor September 22, 2015 , 12:22 pm Vote0
@rebellibertarian
I think Molyneux is getting caught up in the mindset of civic culture that he is part some collective(like a nation with illegal/legal people under a welfare state) and that Trumps immigration policies is a pragmatic approach.
Jonathan Gillispie September 22, 2015 , 1:13 pm
@bitvictor While the whole “build a wall” approach is a little over the top and impractical, Trump I must concede has striking points on illegal immigration. Immigrants are much more likely to be on welfare than American natives according to recent surveys. They’re much more supportive of a larger government (most commonly 8/10) than are Americans. Illegal immigrants are much more likely to be caught up in major crimes than most other Americans. This doesn’t at all mean I support Trump (in fact I’m very suspicious of his constant back and forth on policy), but if there’s one thing he’s (mostly) right about it’s immigration. Now I love the idea of open borders and would be in full force in favor of the proposition in a vastly different situation. But allowing mass immigration without much checks in a giant welfare state is only begging for financial and societal collapse. That’s what is gonna happen in Europe if they continue taking in “refugees”.
Kevin Victor September 22, 2015 , 1:28 pm
@rebellibertarian
Yeah I get the reasoning for doing something about immigration. It’s a complicated issue that is dealt in “practical” forms instead of through principles. Still I’m not sure how successful the state can be in solving any of it.
Martin Brock September 22, 2015 , 9:28 pm Vote0
I love Scott Horton, but sometimes he needs a bucket of cold water over his head. Today, while raining hate on John McCain, Scott practically praised the Viet Cong for torturing him, and this evening he was incredibly over the top on Rand Paul, to the point of alienating Jeff Tucker. Scott is brilliant 99% of the time, but he undermines himself with this incendiary hyperbole, and I cringe when slips into it. He’s vastly more effective when he sticks to the voluminous facts he has mastered.
William Whorton September 23, 2015 , 10:52 am Vote3
I keep hearing about this “libertarian moment” but I haven’t seen it. What I see is a lot of people interested in things like legalizing marijuana and gay marriage who want to accomplish their goals using the state to pass laws they like rather than questioning the role of the state in their lives. Progressivism–and I mean the real Teddy Roosevelt-style Progressivism–has been ingrained in American society to such a degree that most people seem to believe any and every problem represents a broader society-wide ill that can only be solved by more government.
The most popular candidates in the upcoming presidential election are Donald Trump, a crony Capitalist who believes the Mexican government is sending convicts en masse across the border and wants to build a fence patrolled by armed guards to stop them, and Bernie Sanders, an avowed Socialist who believes that limiting consumer deodorant options will somehow lead to fewer hungry children in the world. If we really were in the midst of a genuine “libertarian moment”, wouldn’t you expect at least one of the most popular candidates to at least give some lip service to reducing the size and scope of government? Instead, you’ve got a Fascist and a Socialist leading the pack.
This will be the first election in which I don’t participate because it’s the first to arrive since I’ve “come out” as an anarcho-capitalist. Everything about the election to date has made that choice so much easier. It has never been more apparent to me that using politics to solve the problem of the state is like using gasoline to put out a house fire.
Martin Brock September 23, 2015 , 12:23 pm Vote0
You’re looking in the wrong place. Gay marriage is not a libertarian issue at all in my way of thinking, and the conventional political process generally is no path to liberty.
The libertarian moment is evident in the explosion of communication and organization among libertarians outside of the political process. It’s visible here, at Liberty.me, and at Antiwar.com and the Scott Horton Show and the Tom Woods Show and The Voluntary Life and dozens of other outlets on LRN.fm and elsewhere. It’s evident in open source software and peer to peer applications, including cryptocurrencies, and the sharing economy. It’s evident in the Free State Project and Fort Galt and elsewhere. It’s even evident in failed venture’s like Galt’s Gulch Chile. Interest in intentional community has never been greater.
The moment was also evident in the Ron Paul campaign and the grass roots movement that grew up around it, but the conventional political campaign was the sideshow, not the pivotal event. If you expect another Ron Paul, or even a party full of Ron Pauls, to take control of the state and deconstruct it from the top down, you’ll wait forever. Scott Horton seems disappointed that Rand Paul’s campaign didn’t lead in this direction, but I never expected this outcome.
Imperial states occasionally collapse, as the Soviet Union did, but no political movement will ever deconstruct the United State or any similar state from the top down. The state can wither away as countless people with similar goals, working cooperatively but without central control, seek freer lives outside of the political process. The state can only wither away this way. If you expect it to wither away after some political party takes control of it to impose justice on it or through it, you’re a Marxist.
Calin Brabandt September 23, 2015 , 1:31 pm Vote0
Martin, Of course gay marriage IS a libertarian issue, but I agree with your assertion that government political process is generally no path to liberty. A free marketplace of voluntary political processes would be much better. Given the existence of the state, it would serve liberty for the state to get out of the marriage business altogether. However, gay marriage is a libertarian issue from the standpoint that gays wish to be free to live with liberty in at least this one respect and others (mostly religious zealots) wish to control gays’ actions. It is sad but most libertarian issues are embraced by otherwise violent and control-freakish persons (statists) who typically seek only the liberty to act in one or two specifics manners that THEY deem to be worthy of their masters’ and rulers’ blessings (marry their same-sex partners, smoke pot, etc.) For example, there are certainly a lot of closet pot-smoking soccer moms out there who would never want to see “hard drugs” legalized, or perhaps they would like to have guns banned, and they use the proxy of the state’s guns to attempt get their way. Throw in the fascist economic interests in “the war on drugs” and it aint’ gonna happen anytime soon! There are an infinite number of other examples. Essentially, all our rulers and masters as well as our fellow subjects are all about “laws for thee but not for me” and I think that is what William was saying, above. (You are probably saying it here too.) It might just come down to the context and extent of the question but if gay marriage is not a libertarian issue, as you say, then there are NO libertarian issues!
Martin Brock September 23, 2015 , 8:47 pm Vote0
The freedom of gay people to associate with other gay people, to choose partners, to celebrate their partnerships and to have terms of their relationship respected, or not impeded, is a libertarian issue, but none of that has anything to do with a marriage license or a joint income tax return. Gay people were doing all of it before gay marriage licenses, and many gay people will go on doing it without any license. The whole idea of licensing these relationships and registering them at a courthouse seems anti-libertarian to me. If another state required, or even encouraged, gay people to register a sexual partner with the state, we might call it “Nuremberg” rather than “progress”.
Gay marriage itself is a statutory program controlling gay actions. Not so long ago, many libertarians thought straight marriage a construct of religious zealots seeking to control others. Now, it’s gay liberation. This evolution seems Orwellian to me.
I’ll take Walter Block’s position here, because it is essentially my position as well. There are very few libertarian issues, essentially only the non-aggression principle. If an Amish community wants to rule out pre-marital, extra-marital and homosexual intercourse and to segregate themselves from others who would violate these rules, they may do so, and their community is as libertarian as any other as long as they don’t impose its rules people outside of the community or somehow impede others from establishing their own communities ruled otherwise.
A gay community or a community celebrating a variety of sexual relationships may also rule out religious zealotry shaming or stigmatizing these relationships, but again, it may not do so by imposing these rules on people choosing otherwise.
Calin Brabandt September 23, 2015 , 9:35 pm Vote0
>Gay people were doing all of it before gay marriage licenses, and many gay people will go >on doing it without any license.
Like I said, if there is to be a state, it should get out of the marriage business (and many other things too, of course). This positon is the foundation of libertarian politics or minarchism or whatever you want to call it.
>There are very few libertarian issues, essentially only the non-aggression principle.
Agreed–the NAP and property rights are about the extent of them! However, the NAP is not a relevant issue in the context of state political processes, because the existence of the state (those people empowered by it) violate the NAP. The state and the NAP are incompatible!
Calin Brabandt September 23, 2015 , 2:17 pm Vote0
William, Your last paragraph brings up the only bright spot. Perhaps many other people will arrive at your and my conclusion more rapidly with a more rapid advancement of the state. A success of someone like Ron Paul, or even Rand Paul to a far lessor extent, would delay peoples’ awakening and delay the day when the cogs of tyranny even begin to slow (or better yet, shatter). Many more people must come to realize that the founders invention or “great experiment” failed as it was promised and advertised. Perhaps it was never intended to deliver liberty to the people in the first place, as Lysander Spooner proposed. Things will simply need to get a lot worse before they can get better!
Krail Hearken September 23, 2015 , 2:35 pm Vote2
I think the main problem is that Libertarian ideology is necessarily focused on Unseen Costs, while the bulk of politicians and the 24×7 News Cycle keeps people focused on the Seen Costs.
For example, thousands of ISIS agents are running around Syria. The Seen Cost is offered by politicians- we’ll bloody their nose with decisive military intervention. The Unseen Cost, of course, is the continuation of ruinous public relations with the Middle East, further entanglement in regions we shouldn’t care about and all the problems (blowback, rise of the Surveillance State, etc) that come along.
Likewise, Drugs concern pearl-clutching constituents worried about their children ruining their lives on heroine. The Seen Cost is outlawing them and making it harder for kids to get those drugs. The unseen cost are the massive social ills that come with any Prohibition-style legislation that forces victimless activities into the Black Market.
This competition of Seen vs Unseen Costs continues down every policy, from Environmentalism to the Minimum Wage.
The first time I ever tipped from “Small Government Conservative” to “Libertarian” was when I took the time to read through all the policy articles Harry Brown had at his campaign site back in the late nineties. It was only when I was patient enough to read through pages of commentary- highlighting the unseen costs of traditional political remedies- that the switch flipped in my brain and I became naturally skeptical of any political remedy.
How can a Libertarian peel away the “Obvious” seen costs of various political remedies and expose complicated, obfuscated unseen costs to the common voter in a 30 second rebuttal at a debate? I am convinced it can be done, but Rand Paul was not a good messenger. For example, when he complains about the War on Drugs, Paul says “We incarcerate too many people, many of them African Americans.” He doesn’t try to convince voters that this is a NECESSARY cost of Prohibition. So the natural voter just thinks, “Well then I’ll vote for a Politician who can do this better.”
It takes a lot of work to craft messages that truly get people to internalize the TANSTAAFL phenomenon. But that message is much more important than taking a position. As noted in the original post, most people do not share the same principles with a libertarian. But Republicans COULD (a perfect example is that National Review has long condemned the WoD). As could many Democrats. They just need to be convinced- something that most politicians are incapable of doing.
Calin Brabandt September 23, 2015 , 3:32 pm Vote0
>I think the main problem is that Libertarian ideology is necessarily focused on Unseen Costs,
Regardless, like arguing statistics, arguing economic costs will never win the battle for liberty. Everyone just embraces the data that supports their arguments and wants, regardless of the quality, completeness, or reliability of the data.
The problem with all political ideologies is they ignore moral costs or apply moral rules inconsistently (which results in moral digressions). It is only on the fronts of moral argument that a high level of long-lasting liberty can be achieved!
Joe Cobb September 23, 2015 , 6:29 pm Vote0
Thank you, Calin, for identifying the moral dimension to the Libertarian message. It is more than just process – the fact that economic liberty produces more, better – but more importantly that a “libertarian” should be someone who RESPECTS others, respects their property rights, etc.
That is a powerful moral message we should communicate, as we reach out.
It also means that I respect you as a moral equal, and a “good libertarian” would reciprocate.
Calin Brabandt September 23, 2015 , 7:34 pm Vote0
Thank you for the kind words, Joe!
Krail Hearken September 24, 2015 , 6:23 am Vote0
While everything you say is true, all of the above statements about costs were not economic costs. In fact, the politicians of both parties are not offering remedies necessarily economic remedies, but moral ones (c.f. banning abortion and drugs, the minimum wage, etc). That is, they weren’t saying the minimum wage is needed because it is good to have more money, but because it is morally unacceptable to have people earning below a ‘living wage’.
The impact of the WoD is hugely moral. The problem is that most people don’t see that the moral costs are directly related to Prohibition. There are plenty of people out there who think you can have prohibition and execute it morally. I grant you that there is significant overlap between the moral cost of locking up victimless ‘offenders’ and the economic cost (direct and opportunity) of their incarceration, but that’s merely because most choices in life have some economic dimension.
Sure, if someone accepts the NAP as a basic premise, they are going to immediately see the problems with any violation of that NAP. But then, no government would exist in the first place. Yet all you need to do today is say “NAP” and the almost lizard-like instinctual rejoinder is “Social Contract!”
At some point, you are going to need people to see that any government remedy is necessarily a poisoned fruit whose unseen costs (moral and economic) will taint the tree. People have lived too long ignoring unseen costs that they believe the government truly can give free lunches. As I noted above, disabusing myself of this notion started not by accepting the basic premise of the NAP, but in realizing that whenever I had accepted a tradeoff (“a little government here has a minor cost, but the gain is worth it!”) the gain was actually illusory when I considered the secondary effects.
Ned Netterville September 26, 2015 , 10:54 pm Vote0
Krail, Good comment. I think the violence endemic to the state and the rule of law should be made manifest whenever possible and at every opportunity. NAP versus violence is the way I like to try to frame the debate.
Ned Netterville September 23, 2015 , 11:01 pm Vote0
The sole cause of the tempest in a teapot boiling over gay marriage is the state. It caused it, it is reveling in it, dragging it out, and like bread and circuses, drawing folks attention away from such matters as picking folks pockets for a little more lucre. Marriage is the most intimate, personal relationship a man and a women can have, and it is obscene for the state to stick its camel’s nose into the couples bridal tent. No one but the couple, any church they invite to bless their union assuming it agrees to do so, and any witnesses the couple invite to their wedding.
Marriage is and always has been and always will be the union of a man and woman exclusively. Gays men and women have always had an equal right to marry a member of the opposite sex, but they cannot marry someone of the same sex because that is not marriage. This isn’t a religious matter, although most religions have sanctioned or sanctified or recognized marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of any other combination.
Of course, and obviously, no state nor religion has legitimate authority to prevent or other wise sanction gay people who would enter a union similar to marriae, and they are free to call it a marriage if they so choose, but of course it isn’t. If the state had never stuck its nose in the tent this tempest would never have occurred. Without state interference, people–men and women, men and men, women and women–could enter into any union or joint arrangement they pleased and call it whatever they wanted to call it. Marriage would remain the union of a man and woman exclusively, but no one would be bothered by what gays did or what they called their relationship.
The one thing I have never understood was why gay people would want to ask the state to allow (license) them to “marry.” Hell’s fire, I’m happy as a kid with rich parents on Christmas morning to profess that I don’t license, and neither does my dog. There is nothing in this world that I need the state’s permission to do. I’m married, but that is none of the state’s business and I have no intention of ever telling ’em. Oh, I know, I know, gays want to “marry” for the income-tax advantages the state bestows on married couples, but again, hell’s fire, who not stay unlicensed and free and stop paying that stupid, enslaving tax?
Calin Brabandt September 24, 2015 , 1:28 am Vote0
>Marriage is and always has been and always will be the union of a man and woman exclusively.
This is your definition of marriage, Ned. Though it may always be such for you or true for some groups of people in the past, commonly held definitions in cultures change over time and, as you say, marriage is a highly personal matter. In the end, opinions (personal preferences) vary between people and people may define marriage however hey please.
I could cite many examples of similar differences of opinion and preference but, sticking with the marriage topic, some people don’t believe that divorce may be used to terminate a marriage and hence, subsequent marriages are not valid ( not a marriage, per their definition). Other people believe marriages may be terminated through divorce.
It is wrong for people empowered by the state to reward or punish people depending on their personal preferences. At least we seem to agree that government should get out of the marriage business.
Joe Cobb September 24, 2015 , 3:22 am Vote0
@nednetterville There are legal reasons, based on a few hundred years of law, that gives “marriage” a special legal status. The Supreme Court has found, in Obergefell v. Hodges, this is a basic right, which could be among the “unenumerated” ones the 9th Amendment refers to.
The direct, simple solution would be for County Clerks just to register marriages the way they register real estate deeds. They don’t issue anyone a “license” to buy real estate. Maybe a $10 “registration fee” (after the marriage in a church or where ever) could be paid and County Clerks could get out of the “license = permission” farce in regard to marriages.
Ned Netterville September 24, 2015 , 9:02 am Vote0
@ Calin, Until the gay-rights movement came along, at least in America so far as I know, everyone, including I suspect you, thought marriage was the union of man and women. It was a customary or tradition to refer to that union as a marriage, a word whose meaning extends back to the earliest recorded history and probably beyond and the state had nothing to do with that fact or that meaning. I am a libertarian-voluntaryist concerned for the freedom of all people, particularly those who are persecuted or oppressed by the state of by any others, in which category I put gays, but as a libertarian-voluntaryist I am also concerned by the deceptive practice common among statist of changing and debauching the meaning of words to sew confusion and extend their control of others in 1984 Orwellian fashion. That is why I point out that the word marriage means the union of a man and women land ought to retain that meaning. “Liberal” is an example of a word that has been changed and debauched by folks who realized the word referred to a person with qualities admired by many, and so those folks adopted the word to themselves without adopting the admired qualities. “Inflation” is another word debauched by progressives-statists. Its original meaning was an increase in the supply of money, which, ceteris paribus, results in higher prices, and as Mises pointed out, it is hard to fight against inflation by opposing higher prices caused by inflation., treating the symptom rather than the cause. I am confident my concern for the rights of gays is as strong as your own, but I don’t believe changing the traditional meaning of the word marriage will do anything of value in respect to gays’ rights, and perhaps do more harm than good. How could that be? Thanks to the gay marriage movement, a lot of gays are getting “married” so they can “enjoy” the income-tax advantage extended by the state to married couples. IMHO, this has the effect of strengthening the abominable tax laws. I am convinced that the primary impetus for the desire among gays to marry is the tax and “legal” advantages therein. So, you see, gays are being manipulated by the state and its laws, hardly a good thing as I see it. Manipulating its subjects, by the way, was the purpose of state rulers in legislating the marital tax advantage. I hate to see anyone successfully manipulated by the state and its violent rule of law.
Joe Cobb September 24, 2015 , 12:51 pm Vote0
Quoting you: “… the union of man and women. It was a customary or tradition to refer to that union as a marriage, a word whose meaning extends back to the earliest recorded history and probably beyond and the state had nothing to do with that fact or that meaning….”
You are making a point about “preferred labels” and not about the substance of any relationship of the unique and intimate form we understand by “marriage.” It has amazed me that some people are totally hypnotized by labels, overlooking the absence of any substantive difference between the emotional and social relationship that two gay partners might have with each other and the same emotional and social relationship that a heterosexual couple would create for themselves.
I do not understand why “the ‘M-word’ ” has such baggage, except for the clear, traditional animus and disgust cisgendered people commonly feel toward gays and transsexuals. I think this is a throw-back to the days of clan and tribal community life, when parents “owned” children and men “owned” [female] wives. In an age celebrating individualism, it is time to put such old, social conservative attitudes on the shelf.
My suggestion above, is merely to have a relationship “registered” with a County Clerk if it is intended by the partners to be recognized as “a marriage” by the State (not by you or your church) for possible legal consequences into the future.
Get the State out of the “license=permission” farce. (And by the way, there are NOT any longer special income tax rates, different from 2 singles, for filing a ‘MFJ’ instead of a ‘S’ tax return. That was changed more than 10 years ago.)
Ned Netterville September 26, 2015 , 10:42 pm Vote0
Joe Cobb, quoting you, and pointing out some of your many erroneous presumptions:
@ “You are making a point about “preferred labels” and not about the substance of any relationship of the unique and intimate form we understand by “marriage.” It has amazed me that some people are totally hypnotized by labels, overlooking the absence of any substantive difference between the emotional and social relationship that two gay partners might have with each other and the same emotional and social relationship that a heterosexual couple would create for themselves. ”
No, Joe, I am not. I am making a point about changing the meaning of a word. Two gay partners may have an even better emotional (I don’t know what you mean by social) relationship than any heterosexual couple, but they wouldn’t, couldn’t be married because marriage is a heterosexual relationship–good or bad. Some people think they can call black white and people will see white, but most folks will yet see black. If gays find it necessary to call their relationship a marriage, that fine with me, but that suggests to me that they lack confidence in the strength of their gay relationship since they feel a need borrow or copy the name heterosexuals traditionally use. They may have the same emotional and “social” relationship as a heterosexual couple, but they wont have the same sexual relationship, which is what makes a marriage a marriage.
@ “I do not understand why “the ‘M-word’ ” has such baggage, except for the clear, traditional animus and disgust cisgendered people commonly feel toward gays and transsexuals. I think this is a throw-back to the days of clan and tribal community life, when parents “owned” children and men “owned” [female] wives. In an age celebrating individualism, it is time to put such old, social conservative attitudes on the shelf.”
Since your comment was in reply to one of mine, I assume your insults in this paragraph are aimed at me. I’ll try not to reply in kind, but simply point out that your groundless presumptions again are wrong. I will say that your attempt to paint me in a negative light by drawing a caricature of a conservative and applying it too me smacks of the politically correct tactic I often see progressives use to smear anyone who fails to agree with them. Your presumption is wrong, and the views you have expressed here in support of the state registering marriage is closer to the views of a statist conservative and/or a statist progressive than those a libertarian would hold.
@ “My suggestion above, is merely to have a relationship “registered” with a County Clerk if it is intended by the partners to be recognized as “a marriage” by the State (not by you or your church) for possible legal consequences into the future. ”
Joe, your suggestion sounds like something someone with an old, socialist or social-conservative attitude and an umbilical attached to the state would suggest. It smacks of what Mises dubbed “Statolatry”–attributing superhuman (divine) qualities to government, without which one could not possibly survive.
@ “(And by the way, there are NOT any longer special income tax rates, different from 2 singles, for filing a ‘MFJ’ instead of a ‘S’ tax return. That was changed more than 10 years ago.)”
I have no idea what you’re talking about because I haven’t bothered filing tax returns since 1971, but I thought there was some tax advantage to being married. If that is no longer true, my bad. I resist all taxes to the best of my ability because I do not want to support the welfare-warfare state, a state in America whose vaunted “rule of law” has been used to enslave blacks, slaughter Indians and discriminate against gays and others who don’t fit the majority’s view of how people should behave. I also resist local taxes so I don’t have to pay part of an $80,000 salary to some Evangelical county clerk whose hubris exceeds that of some gays who want to make everyone believe black is white and are willing to call in the police powers of the state to get their way.
Oh, and your silly presumption that I belong to a church (or profess a religion, for that matter) is also wrong.
You wont persuade many people to endorse the concept of gay marriage by engaging in ad hominem attack ladled with mistaken presumptions.
Ned Netterville September 24, 2015 , 9:10 am Vote0
@ Joe Cobb. Your solution would indeed be an improvement over the current situation, but I disagree that it would be as good of a solution as getting the state completely out of such a personal relationship, even by so little as registering marriages. “Legal” reasons are unpersuasive to me because I think the “rule of law,” or any other arrangement whereby some people rule other people through force and violence is anathema, destructive of the harmony so necessary to peaceful human relations.
Red Wine Please September 25, 2015 , 9:34 am Vote0
Rand fell into the compromise trap. Does he want to win, and maybe “make a difference”, or only make a point, and nothing changes? Libertarians, like every candidate, must make that tough choice. Candidates take middle of the road positions and obfuscation to get elected. They can’t promote the conflicting principles of individual liberty (rational selfishness) and responsibility (altruism) for the common good at the same time without appearing as unprincipled or a liar willing to say anything to get elected. Republicans promote the first and use pragmatism as a defense against the second. While Democrats use morality against the first but for the second. No wonder it’s difficult to tell the difference between the left and right, the Democrats and the Republicans, and the Progressives and the Conservatives. They all accept altruism as virtuous. They merely debate who or what benefits from your sacrifice.