For the sake of opposition to statism

and, therefore, for the sake of America, I truly hope the media/political onslaught against Ron Paul is answered by public resistance to media's attempt to silence libertarianism. In a libertarian world, present media wouldn't fair too well, because no one would buy what they're peddling.

Make no mistake, media attacks on Paul are attacks on classical liberal ideas. Nothing scares the statist machine like libertarianism. There's a panicked approach to Paul demonization, because this is the first time since the Old Right made a viable stand in the early and mid 20th century that libertarian ideas have caught hold with the public -- maybe during the Reagan years, but that wasn't really libertarian-influenced. Fear of FDR's dictatorial presidency motivated Old Right/classical liberal popularity. Today, classical liberal ideas are catching hold because the Information Age has exposed Americans to an alternative, a true opposition to statism. Between Bush and Obama and the current congress, Americans realize we need systemic changes, and the Republican Party can no longer present itself as an opposition party without proving it will limit government power. Paul is the only candidate for President determined to limit government power, while congress contains a sizeable group of representatives who are working for systemic changes.

This morning on a MSNBC panel discussion regarding Paul, they were merciless in their attacks, and several stated that Paul represents what's wrong with upholding principles consistently. I suppose this means that consistent application of principles upsets a statist system which values ad hoc expediency. This adhocracy, as William Voegeli calls it, has bogged us down in statist failures which threaten to collapse our economy. Statists are concerned with protecting State power, while our country sinks in debt, economic stagnation and slogs of foreign entanglements.

Yes, Americans need to stand against media and the political class and return to economic means and non-intervention overseas. We've been suppressed by political means and State expansion of power. We can no longer afford to vote for weak alternatives who do nothing to change the system.

Redstate Republicans

Redstate Republicans are a faction of the GOP which doesn't possess the knowledge to fully understand what they are against or for. The Republican Party will either transition to classical liberal principles, or it will become irrelevant. The type of "conservativism" represented at Redstate has no philosophical foundation, so its attacks on "liberals" lack historical perspective. The participants know they dislike Democrats, Obama and liberals, but they lack the intellectual capacity and knowledge of political philosophy to make a good case for true opposition to modern liberalism.

Because Ron Paul has ideas which don't conform with their simplistic version of "conservativism" they smear him as a kook, racist (that's rich), and traitor who defends terrorists. The Redstate Republicans are basically tools for the Republican establishment, although they pretend to be independent rebels who possess the true "conservative" spirit. Despite their grumbling, they will be led by the nose in 2012. The special type of ignorance possessd by the Redstate crowd has driven independents to the Democrat Party, although these Democrat leaning independents are just as misguided if they think Democrats will ever renounce their form of statism that's destroying our economy. Obama promised to be a new kind of Democrat, and the independents believed him -- now these independents would like to vote Republican, but they are finding problems with the Redstate type Republican.

The Redstate faction is loud, so they appear to be representative. They'll eventually follow the establishment choice for the Presidential race, and then justify their capitulation by saying winning counts, and anything is better than Obama, but they won't be able to explain why. Anything is not better than Obama. True classical liberal opposition to Obama is better than Obama. The Redstate crowd will follow anyone who promises to cut spending, keep marriage sacred, fight abortion, loves Jesus, is repulsed by certain unapproved behavior,  kick some union ass, fight illegal immigration and keep the war machine alive. These are the issues important to the Redstate Republicans, right or wrong, and it doesn't matter how powerful a rightwing government becomes as long as it represents these concerns. They never have well-reasoned explanations why they support what they support, they just do, by God. Higher principles of individual rights, equal opportunity, non-interventionism in private behavior and foreign, sovereign countries are not important. Obviously, these higher principles are too complex for the Redstate Republican to bother with.

The Redstate Republicans have no idea how their unexamined value-judgements affect the evolution of State power -- they just want their little worlds protected from what they don't understand. Perhaps if they would put a little effort into learning the history of domination and freedom and what the Constitution actually represents, they wouldn't be so bitter when someone like Paul, who does understand, supports things that don't fit their stunted worldview. Then, if they disagee, they'll have the tools to intelligently explain why, rather than call names and dreg up old newsletters from 1990 -- and even if Paul turns out to be morally unfit to be President, they'll realize that the ideas were what was really important all along. The Republican Party needs a philosophical foundation based on classical liberal principles, not delusional, pseudo-conservative, social warriors striking out blindly in fear, unable to indentify the enemy.

Up with Chris Hayes 11/13/2011 -- A Libertarian?

Congratulations to Chris Hayes for having Gary Johnson on his show. Johnson was a fresh contrast to the likes of Martin Bashir, Anne-Marie Slaughter and Kimberle what's-her-name. I only watched the first hour, but it was interesting, and having Johnson on to provide balance and a different perspective was a good touch.

The topics ranged from the Republican debate to OWS to torture to inequality. The most interesting segment was when Johnson, who is a Republican candidate for president, described he was pushed from the debates and hasn't even been listed on the polls when he was doing as well as Bachmann and Huntsman at one point when they did include him in the polls. Johnson is a threat to the Republican establsihment, and I guess the establishment thought one libertarian, Ron Paul, was enough.

Johnson believes in limited government, non-interventionism in foreign affairs and he's against the War on Drugs. Johnson made the claim that he's a classical liberal, and I was glad to see this distinction made. Bashir likely considers himself a liberal, but when you see the contrast between Johnson and Bashir, you realize how perverted the liberal label has become. Bashir is a statist, and there is nothing liberal, in the true sense of the word, about statism.

Jon Huntsman, Jr. -- presidential candidate?

I don't know much about Huntsman, but he appears to be the Republican establishment dream candidate. Some have called him a RINO, but this distinction is not helpful. From what little I've gathered, he doesn't seem to be a McCain-like politician.

What I would like to know is what he sees as government's role, especially in the economy. I would like to know if he favors ending the Afghanistan War, and if he believes America should develop a non-interventionist policy in foreign affairs, and if we should close overseas military bases.

I'd also like to know if believes we should end all corporate welfare, including farm subsidies, and if we should eliminate the Department of Education. 

In other words, I'd like to know he upholds classical liberal positions, because to be honest, whether it's a "Tea Party" candidate or a "RINO", this is all that matters to me, and I suspect we'll need a third party to get this type of candidate.

Murray Rothbard on political labels

In his book, For a New Liberty, Rothbard wrote:

One of the ways that the new statist intellectuals did their work was to change the meaning of old labels, and therefore to manipulate in the minds of the public the emotional connections attached to such labels. For example, the laissez-faire libertarians had long been known as "liberals," and the purest and most militant of them as "radicals";  they had also been known as "progressives" because they were the ones in tune with industrial progress, the spread of liberty, and the rise in the living standards of consumers. The new breed of statist academics and intellectuals appropriated to themselves the words "liberal" and "progressive," and successfully managed to tar their laissez-faire opponents with the charge of being old-fashioned, "Neanderthal," and "reactionary." Even the name "conservative" was pinned on the classical liberals. And, as we have seen, the new statists were able to appropriate the concept of "reason" as well.

How they appropriated reason was through the idea of "experts" and technocratic guidance -- that the State had the best and brightest, and by pushing these ideas through public education using educators as mouthpieces to aggrandize the State.

Rothbard goes on to show how the American, hybrid socialism was a combination of liberalism and conservatism. I will post that excerpt later. All that I'm discussing here at this blog is definitely nothing new, but due to failing public education, many people don't know the history. What's new is the clever ways Statists continue to hide their intentions and masquerade as protectors of liberty.