-
Stefan Molyneux
  - Joined on 02-17-2006
- Mississauga, Canada
- Posts 15,542
|
A nice mention of 927, Ron Paul and 'against me'
http://againstthestate.blogspot.com/2007/12/soul-searching.html As any passersby of this blog well know, I have been under the
influence of Ron Paul mania since May of this year. The reasons for
this are simple. I have been an admirer of Dr. Paul's since I first saw
him on a John Stossel ABC News special in early 2001. This was near the
beginning of my discovery of the libertarian philosophy, and I was
astounded to see that there was a congressman from Texas who advocated
the same beautiful principles I had come to see as the truth and the
way to a more just society. From that moment on I kept up with
Congressman Paul's career via his articles and videos mainly by way of Lewrockwell.com.
Over
the next few years my philosophy began to evolve into a more
anarcho-capitalist, libertarian mixture, as is evident my choice of
tagline for this blog. The most influential people that I give credit
to for the evolution of my philosophy are the late Harry Browne and
Lewellyn Rockwell Jr. Rockwell is the reason for my anarcho-capitalist
leanings, while Browne is the reason I have still pursued change
through politics.
Fast forward to May of 2007 when Ron Paul
announced his candidacy for the presidency of the United States. I was
as excited and hopeful as the next libertarian that finally one of "our
guys" who had already broken inside the system would be invited to the
nationally televised debates. Ron Paul would be able to exert his
influence from within to "save us" from the fascist, statist barbarians
who have enslaved humanity for the past several hundred years. This
just seemed like the opportunity we had been waiting for. Some on the
web have even likened Paul to Neo in the matrix. This is the idea that
Paul is the manifestation of some sort of prophecy that will finally
wake millions of Americans up to the state of slavery that they have
come to live under largely without even realizing it.
It was
especially interesting when the writers over at Lewrockwell.com seemed
to be trumpeting Ron Paul's campaign as loudly as any other libertarian
news outlet. The reason I thought this interesting was that I can
remember a statement by Lew himself during an interview a few years ago
that contradicts his current support of Paul. During this interview Lew
had stated that he did not think that politics was the way to bring
about change in the direction of liberty. Any follower of Lew's
philosophy knows that he has advocated that you can not bring about
change unless you win the battle in the marketplace of ideas, which is
largely outside the political arena. Lewrockwell.com has even elected
to change the tax exempt status
of its organization in order that it may publish columns endorsing and
opposing political candidates for office. So has Lew abandoned his
philosophy for Ron Paul? Perhaps Lew feels, as many others including
myself up to this point, that Paul is our last best hope for real
political change.
As for the main point of my post today, I
have to recognize that I have compromised some of my own principles in
support of Ron Paul. The first thing that initially bothered me about
his platform was his stand on border security. I understand that he has
always taken the Constitutionalist point of view, which requires that
he advocate enforcing the law in this area. My conflict is that I can
not reconcile this point of view with the non-aggression principle.
Illegal immigrants have not initiated the use of force against anyone
simply by walking across an imaginary line drawn up by the state. They
are guilty only of violating political law, not natural law.
Nevertheless, I let this disagreement of philosophy slide, as I found
it to be a nice selling tool when talking to Republicans about voting
for Ron Paul in the primary. The disappointing affect was that even
with this selling tool, border security, which as been dubbed a wedge
issue by pundits in the media, I have seen less than optimal success
when looking at the disappointing low percentage of Republican support
for Paul.
So where does that leave my current position of
support for the Ron Paul campaign? I would say it is now less
enthusiastic than it was a few weeks ago. The money raised and the
media attention has been great if not for the libertarian philosophy
specifically, but definitely for the idea that it is well past time to
put the brakes on government growth. But is this going to work? In the
end, are we going to look back and see this as the tipping point for
the real moral change of values in the populace? I keep telling myself
that this is that time in our history when it may well happen, but
there is another point of view out there that has given me my new found
less than optomistic hope for the Ron Paul Revolution, at least so far
as a catalyst for putting the brakes on government growth.
This person is Stefan Molyneux of Freedomainradio.
In one of his recent podcasts, Molyneux put forth the argument that
throughout America's political history, libertarians have been
attempting to infiltrate the system and make changes. This has resulted
in ever increasing government growth, no matter how promising it may
have looked through the lens of the current period in history. I will
not recite Molyneux's whole premise on this post, but readers who are
interested are encouraged to visit his website and download his podcast
number 927.
Readers may be thinking that this is not anything
new and profound, and I will be the first one to admit that. The
fundamental question is whether or not expending so much time and
energy campaigning for Ron Paul is the most valuable use our time in
advancing libertarian moral philosophy. Molyneux proposes that there is
an easier way to achieve personal freedom in ones own life, and that it
can be found with the use of two words. These words are "against me."
When conversing with friends and discussing government subsidies,
redistributions of wealth, and so forth, libertarians need to stop
speaking of the use of the initiation of force in the abstracts and
start talking personally. That is, it is a lot easier for people to say
that they support certain government subsidies for certain purposes and
certain groups, but it is much harder for them to look you in the eye
and say that you should be shot if you disagree. The question that you
must ask your friends is, "do you support the use of force against me."
If they can look you in the eye and answer yes to this question, then
you ought to have no problem knowing what to do with them in terms of
your relationship. Once you have figured out who your real friends are
via this fundamental question, you will have real personal freedom in
your life no matter what state is doing. The further implication of
this idea is that if every libertarian lived by this philosophy, that
is to say if every libertarian practiced what he preached, our society
would be free very quickly. As of this point in time not enough
libertarians are willing to practice what they preach according to
Molyneux.
So I am now a cross roads with myself in both my
personal life and my involvement in the Ron Paul campaign. I have
always understood the concept put forth by Molyneux in the preceding
paragraph, but I have never applied to my own life and friendships. I
have never truly practiced what I preach.
All Free! - Audio, PDF. Print starting @ $9.99+
Freedomain Radio Needs Your Support!
![]() Easily send podcasts, videos, books and feeds to your friends with FDR Referrals.
|
|